Rotten.com censored by new law

Post by **R00k** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:53 pm

Check it out:
http://www.gapingmaw.com/

Post by **Dave** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:56 pm

Well, if they really did violate 2257 then they had it coming. That's the child porn/under 18 thing

Post by **bitWISE** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:57 pm

I've never been to that site before.

Post by **Massive Quasars** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:58 pm

Dave wrote:Well, if they really did violate 2257 then they had it coming. That's the child porn/under 18 thing

Are you sure it's limited to that? Someone throw up a link.

Post by **Pext** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:58 pm

fuck of the month

Post by **bitWISE** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:59 pm

Massive Quasars wrote:
Dave wrote:Well, if they really did violate 2257 then they had it coming. That's the child porn/under 18 thing
Are you sure it's limited to that? Someone throw up a link.

http://service.adultprovide.com/docs/records.htm

Post by **Dave** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:00 pm

Massive Quasars wrote:
Dave wrote:Well, if they really did violate 2257 then they had it coming. That's the child porn/under 18 thing
Are you sure it's limited to that? Someone throw up a link.

It's all about record keeping of "models." Rotten claims it isnt a pr0n site if you read the text of r00k's link, but if they show nude chicks, then I guess they qualify

here's a sample page
http://service.adultprovide.com/docs/records.htm

Post by **Dave** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:01 pm

bitWISE wrote:
Massive Quasars wrote:
Dave wrote:Well, if they really did violate 2257 then they had it coming. That's the child porn/under 18 thing
Are you sure it's limited to that? Someone throw up a link.
http://service.adultprovide.com/docs/records.htm

that's not the text of the law, that's just an implementation of it

Post by **Massive Quasars** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:02 pm

From site:

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.

Right-o.

I'll have to look into this more before being too judgemental. Generally, I'm not fond of government censorship.

Post by **bitWISE** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:03 pm

Dave wrote:
bitWISE wrote:
Massive Quasars wrote: Are you sure it's limited to that? Someone throw up a link.
http://service.adultprovide.com/docs/records.htm
that's not the text of the law, that's just an implementation of it

Yeah I noticed that. Thanks to the millions of porn sites thats about all google can find.

Post by **R00k** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:05 pm

bitWISE wrote:http://service.adultprovide.com/docs/records.htm

Dave wrote:here's a sample page
http://service.adultprovide.com/docs/records.htm

So does this mean that the only reason that particular site was closed down, was because the owners/operators of the website were not the primary producer of the content?

The owners and operators of this Website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content contained in the Website. The Custodian of Records for this Website is:

Edit: n/m, I see that's just a disclaimer of compliance for the site.

Post by **bitWISE** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:10 pm

R00k wrote:
bitWISE wrote:http://service.adultprovide.com/docs/records.htm

Dave wrote:here's a sample page
http://service.adultprovide.com/docs/records.htm

So does this mean that the only reason that particular site was closed down, was because the owners/operators of the website were not the primary producer of the content?

The owners and operators of this Website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content contained in the Website. The Custodian of Records for this Website is:
Edit: n/m, I see that's just a disclaimer of compliance for the site.

What it means is that the site could not verify the ages of the "models" it used. Let me see if I can find an actual legal document.

Post by **bitWISE** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:12 pm

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscod ... -000-.html

Post by **Dave** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:13 pm

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

Post by **feedback** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:20 pm

good, who the fuck looks at that shit

Post by **R00k** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:38 pm

After reading it, that law makes a lot of sense. GG for once. :icon14:

Post by **R00k** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:38 pm

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

That ain't the point, grapefruit!

Post by **Tormentius** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:39 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

Its not going to have a significant effect IMO. The regulations are completely unmanageable. 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. Its nothing more than an attack on the legitimate adult industry by Bush and his band of fellow fanatical retards. They just put a nice "intent" on it in order to get the masses to buy into the bullshit.

Post by **feedback** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:41 pm

R00k wrote:
feedback wrote:good, who the fuck looks at that shit
That ain't the point, grapefruit!

mei si

Post by **Dave** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:42 pm

Tormentius wrote:
The regulations are completely unmanageable.

I think rotten would say otherwise

Post by **R00k** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:48 pm

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

Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:54 pm

I'd have to compair rotten.com with scrapping the crust from off the bottom of my garbage can. It's a great place to find some fucked up repugnant shit.

Post by **Tormentius** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:56 pm

Dave wrote:
Tormentius wrote:
The regulations are completely unmanageable.
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.

Post by **plained** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:56 pm

doen seem an unreeasonable law

Post by **R00k** » Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:00 pm

Tormentius wrote:
Dave wrote:
Tormentius wrote:
The regulations are completely unmanageable.
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.