Rotten.com censored by new law

Post by **Tormentius** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:11 pm

R00k wrote:
Tormentius wrote:
Dave wrote: I think rotten would say otherwise
Only the largest and wealthiest sites even have the resources to ensure compliance. Censorship didn't work the last couple of times these bunch of frothing retards tried so they just tried a different tactic.
I have to admit that making it retroactive back to 1990 is a little prohibitive and impractical.

You're missing the point. This isn't going to do a thing to combat child porn, but it is a very effective way of forcing a huge number of adult sites hosting legitimate material off the web.

Post by **rep** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:19 pm

This is great news.

I've always been for free speech, but the kids who run these sites are just in it for the sick thrills and banner clicks.

Just look at Stile, he's got millions of banners. Millions.

I don't know who are worse, the people who run the sites or the people like coroners who think it's hilarious to send in pictures from work.

Post by **7zark7** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:35 pm

The internet just found out it had cancer today.....Its only a matter of time before its dead as we knew it.

CENSORED BY US GOVERNMENT
18 USC 2257

Yes, that is correct. The wonderful things that used to be here, the very funny things that you want to read, have been made retroactively illegal by the US government, in a side-handed attack on the pornography industry.

We might mention that the material here isn't even pornography as you normally think of it -- this site is just adult humor, in essay format, with some illustrations. The government is mandating that we meet certain bookkeeping requirements, ones impossible to meet for this site. Never mind that those requirements do not actually gain the public anything. This is the strongest attack on free speech since the passage of the CDA, and oddly, the media seems to have hardly noticed. The penalty for not abiding by these bookkeeping requirements is five years prison.

The regulations were promulgated by Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney General appointed by George Bush. If you voted for Bush, this is your fault. If you think this country is free, you are sadly mistaken. No nation has freedom when it is run by religious zealots.

Regulations effective 24 June 2005.

R.I.P. pre-06-24-05 internetn

Post by **l0g1c** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:37 pm

Tormentius wrote:
Dave wrote:2257 really is a good thing. It forces potential child pornographers to think about what they're doing and keeps others legitimate. I'm sure it sends the 'bad guys' further underground, but it keeps it off the open net. Yahoo just killed all their sex related chat rooms in the last day or so, which also helps protect children from the same kinds of people
...Sites which feature anyone nude have to have a signed release from the model in those photo(s) with proof of age, contact info, etc. And to top that off those records have to be available for public viewing at the webmasters (also published) location...

Time to find out if Nikki really is just next door!

Post by **Pauly** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:53 pm

If I ever get involved in a car crash or anything like that and I lay there dieing I won't be contemplating my life or how devastated my poor old Mum is going to be, no I will be thinking "Shit, my mangled body is gonna end up on the internet"

God bless the internet

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:03 am

R00k wrote:
Dave wrote:
Tormentius wrote:
The regulations are completely unmanageable.
I think rotten would say otherwise
Er, you sure you got that right? I think it's pretty apparent that they found them unmanageable. lol

I think Tormentius meant the law was unmanagable in terms of enforcement, but rotten found out the law is lurking in the shadows... like highway patrol airplanes you never see that catch you speeding

Post by **Tormentius** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:16 am

Dave wrote: I think Tormentius meant the law was unmanagable in terms of enforcement, but rotten found out the law is lurking in the shadows... like highway patrol airplanes you never see that catch you speeding

Do you honestly think its going to stop at a couple of gore sites? That law is far-reaching and, IMO, its only a first step.

Post by **Uaintseenme** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:19 am

I only goto rotten.com to see the exploded heads and other dead bodies.

Post by **rep** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:45 am

Tormentius wrote:it is a very effective way of forcing a huge number of adult sites hosting legitimate material off the web.[/color]

Por•nog•ra•phy

Pronunciation: (pôr-nog'ru-fē), —n.
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

*First usage meant only a girl sold as a sex slave, though.

Post by **reefsurfer** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:47 am

what is the world coming to...

Keep It Real · Post by **Keep It Real** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:51 am

good law, i don't need to see that shit

Post by **Dr.Gibbs** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:59 am

I really don't see anything wrong with this. Porn sites are businesses just like any other. Every business is bound by laws that govern how information needs to be managed, and porn sites should be no exception. They should keep records of models. This not only avoids issues with children being used for pornography, but it also ensures that people will not end up on these sites without knowing about it. It is not difficult to maintain records of consent forms and identification. Everyone has a driver's license or similar ID, which can be copied, and it's not hard to fax or mail a consent form. Scan them and put them online. It's easy. If you can take pornographic photos of people and post them on the Internet, you can scan a document and do the same. It's not a big expense in time or money.

Of course we don't live in a "free" country. If we did, everyone would be able to do whatever they wanted. People can't control themselves, so someone needs to control them.

The government has absolutely nothing to gain by doing this. It's society as a whole that's going to benefit. Seriously.

Post by **Dr.Gibbs** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:02 am

You know what? This is not censorship to begin with. The government is not saying you can't put pornography on the Internet -- it's saying you can't post obscene photos of people without proving you have their consent.

Post by **bitWISE** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:53 am

Dr.Gibbs wrote:You know what? This is not censorship to begin with. The government is not saying you can't put pornography on the Internet -- it's saying you can't post obscene photos of people without proving you have their consent.

That's not what it is saying but I can see where it could be used during a lawsuit. 2257 says that a company who creates pornographic material must also create a detailed record of each person involved.

Post by **Dave** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:56 am

Makes sense to me

Post by **Dr.Gibbs** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:36 am

bitWISE wrote:2257 says that a company who creates pornographic material must also create a detailed record of each person involved.

If I'm not mistaken, the record consists of consent forms and proof of age?

Post by **YourGrandpa** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 3:42 am

This is a back door (pardon the pun) attempt to remove an enormous amount of "naked pictures" off of the internet. It is what you would call "feel good legislator". It really does nothing to prevent crimes, but it puts an extra burden on legitimate people. If you think for one minute that the government cares if pictures of a nude minor or an unsuspecting person is put on the iternet, you're one stupid mother fucker. What has been done here is just another ploy to appease the groups of religious right wing lobbyists throwing millions of dollars at our government.

I'm surprised that a lot of you sceptics are so naive to what's going on here. Our civil liberties are slowly being stripped by laws with underlying intent. Underage porn will alwasy be accesable and so will pictues of unsuspecting people...

All this bullshit makes me want to

.

Later,

Post by **Tormentius** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:27 am

Well said Gramps.

Post by **Tormentius** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:32 am

Dr.Gibbs wrote:
bitWISE wrote:2257 says that a company who creates pornographic material must also create a detailed record of each person involved.
If I'm not mistaken, the record consists of consent forms and proof of age?

Contact and address information as well. Do you have to show everyone your contact info at the job you do everyday? How about when you post online? Why is that any different? Maybe it could prevent something bad happening to someone out there and all

Why should those models have to give out their information simply because they do a job which you don't seem to agree with?

Post by **Geebs** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:32 am

THB, I don't give a fuck if a couple of porn sites get closed down, if this law protects underaged or coerced people from being involved in pornography. I don't buy the exploitation argument if the actors involved are above the age of consent; but if there's any chance that the person was coerced, I'd rather there was some protection for them.

I'm pretty much certain that all of you will have seen some pornography which made you uneasy in terms of "Did this person consent to be involved in this", seeing as it takes about 0.01 seconds on the internet to find a slightly dodgy clip.

The gore sites have banners, and therefore they've transcended from mere schardenfreude to exploitation. So fuck 'em.

Post by **Geebs** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:33 am

Tormentius wrote:Contact and address information as well. Do you have to show everyone your contact info at the job you do everyday?

For part time workers, private consultants or locums..... actually, yes, you do.

Post by **Geebs** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 10:35 am

rep wrote:Por•nog•ra•phy

Pronunciation: (pôr-nog'ru-fē), —n.
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

*First usage meant only a girl sold as a sex slave, though.

Heh, I'd forgotten that shitty definition. They should at least provide contact details of a few fully qualified art critics to arbitrate on this one....

Post by **diego** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:14 pm

feedback wrote:good, who the fuck looks at that shit

That's a sad day for CaseDogg

Post by **phantasmagoria** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 1:25 pm

Good.

Post by **Foo** » Sat Jun 25, 2005 2:34 pm

Dave wrote:2257 really is a good thing. It forces potential child pornographers to think about what they're doing and keeps others legitimate. I'm sure it sends the 'bad guys' further underground, but it keeps it off the open net. Yahoo just killed all their sex related chat rooms in the last day or so, which also helps protect children from the same kinds of people

Bollocks. You won't find any underage content hosted in the US before or after this law is passed because the US is already sufficiently regulated for that. Any complaint made regarding underage content on a website in the US results in a takedown and the owner being arrested (if it's an accurate accusation).

The rest of the problem centers around sites hosted outside of the US, and files available on the darknet (neither of which is affected at all by this new law).

The tangible effect of this new law is all forms of pornographic content provision on the web become much more expensive to run, and linking to or pseudo-hosting (think, keeping one or two very softcore images on your webspace for bootay threads) is now illegal.

Anyone here who's ever participated in a booty thread would be a lawbreaker under this legislation.

But sure... it's a good thing, because it's 'for the kids'. Lol, so gullible.