BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

New US anti-porn law

  
 
Warewullf
11:18 / 19.06.05
Title 18, Section 2257 has just had a FINAL RULE described by the Attorney General Gonzales which goes into effect on June 23rd, 2005.

This FINAL RULE now makes all webmasters who operate sites with adult content SECONDARY PRODUCERS. What that means is that all images that are on the site that depict sexual activity require the webmaster of that site to have on file proof of age of all models in the image. And that is for each and EVERY image. There is a certification that must be posted on the site advising the name and physical street address (no po boxes or services permitted) of the CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS.


Have y'all heard about this? What do you make of it? There is a lengthy discussion here.

What does this mean, in practise? How will it effect things like Yahoo groups, where large amounts of porn are exchanged via email lists? Could US-based porn sites simply switch to to non-US-based servers or would they have to move their whole operation over-seas?


Obviously, I think this whole notion is bollocks.
"Won't somebody please think of the children!?" indeed.
 
 
Warewullf
11:26 / 19.06.05
Could US-based porn sites simply switch to to non-US-based servers?

To answer my own question- no. If it's an American company, the law still applies.


This posted by someone who obtained legal advice on the matter:
the new regulations, as well as the statute behind them, have never applied to the non commercial publishing of porn. Making your own home videos, posting photos of your friends, etc. are not commercial endeavors and are therefore not subject to regulation under the 2257 statute. There is some risk for Internet presence providers, or those who give you the web space to post your photos, but the law does provide certain defenses that can be raised by such providers.

I will say that our attorneys, as well as the association that represents the adult industry have a relatively high confidence that these regulations will eventually be overturned. In a nutshell, the regulations go far beyond the authority given to the Justice Department in the statute that was actually passed by Congress. One court has already declared the *old* regulations unenforceable and the new regs push the same issues even further. That said, there is no guarantee that a court will issue an injunction to stop the DOJ from enforcing the rules while this is tied up in court
 
 
Jack Denfeld
14:38 / 19.06.05
So can I narc on porn popups if there's no model and age thingie?
 
 
w1rebaby
14:43 / 19.06.05
Isn't this the case for non-internet porn producers already, that they have to have proof of age for all their models? In which case, it's nothing special, it's just broadening the regs.
 
 
Warewullf
17:47 / 19.06.05
Yeah, apparently this legislation has existed since 1995, the lastest thing just broadens it or something.

Oh and I was wrong -it's not a law, it's just a regulation.
 
 
Foust is SO authentic
18:44 / 19.06.05
This doesn't seem to be a violation of anybody's rights. At worst, it is an inconvenience; at best, it provides another tool to deal with child porn. What's the problem?
 
 
TeN
18:52 / 19.06.05
I think you guys are missing the point. Yes, producers have had to provide proof of age for a long time. Yes, this is a good thing which helps prevent child porn. The thing that's changed is that now distributors are required to have proof of age as well. This has never been the case, and may be difficult to do in such a short period of time as has been demanded. I'm sure this probably means nothing to alot of you, but anyone who watches porn may be out of luck soon as all of the distributors start closing, and anyone working in the porn industry may face loosing their job.
 
 
Ganesh
19:10 / 19.06.05
It's also affecting those who run contact sites on which individuals can post their own photos. Anything involving nudity or "SM abuse" (and the definitions are, naturally, vague enough to include self-pics of individuals dressed up in their fetish finery with nary a gonad on display) has to be verified - meaning the person who runs the site must ensure he has written ID details on file for everyone in every photo.

Now, even if non-US identification were considered valid for these purposes (and it's not; apparently non-American pervs are devoid of meaningful identity), many of those who register on contact sites do so anonymously, under aliases, for not unreasonable reasons.

Frankly, I'd be incredibly reluctant to fax my ID details to a website-owner in the States. Given the tend toward censorious theocracy, I'm suspicious of these apparent attempts to have same-sex pervs identify themselves. Where's that information going to go, ultimately?
 
 
w1rebaby
19:12 / 19.06.05
Well, I'm confused - I don't know precisely how the net porn industry works, and I'm not sure what this law entails.

Some sites redistribute porn from other publishers rather than making it themselves and putting it on a website, I know that much. Are they now required to do more than have a page linking to the original producer, saying "here are the people who made this video, talk to them if you want proof the participants aren't underage"? If so, that's ridiculous, sure - you can't expect everyone to have copies of this stuff and it's not necessary. If not, well, it's just another web page, doesn't take long to do.

The other point is, does this require people to have *online* proof, when before they could just have documents in a folder somewhere and provide them on request? Again, if so, that's ridiculous, what's the point of scanning this stuff in for the web to see? TV shows don't have online documentation for proof of age of their participants, even if it's required. If not, it's no big deal, all you need is a contact address saying "if law enforcement wants to see proof of age, please send us a letter".
 
 
Warewullf
19:23 / 19.06.05
Are they now required to do more than have a page linking to the original producer, saying "here are the people who made this video, talk to them if you want proof the participants aren't underage"?

Yes. Every site that hosts the photo has to have the proper deocumentation proving they're of legal age. Saying that "we're just providing a link" or saying that the site they orignally got the image from have all the documentation isn't good enough. That's why this regulation has so many people worried.

The other point is, does this require people to have *online* proof, when before they could just have documents in a folder somewhere and provide them on request?

As far as I know, you have to have proper, hard-copy, US-valid documentation so I doubt scans would be valid.

It's also affecting those who run contact sites on which individuals can post their own photos

Apparently, it only affects commercial sites so if you're not paying to have your profile on a site, it's ok.
 
 
Ganesh
19:42 / 19.06.05
Apparently, it only affects commercial sites so if you're paying to have your profile on a site, it's ok.

You mean it's not okay?

Many contact sites (US versions of Gaydar) charge a small fee, or have a 'premier rate' for those who want to post/view over a certain number of photos. This makes them "commercial", and forces them to ask for full (US) ID from everyone who appears in any photo onsite. The impracticality of this (especially for those with many non-US contributors) is such that they're tending to fold rather than attempt to comply.
 
 
Warewullf
20:01 / 19.06.05
Yeah, I mis-typed it. Waiting for mods to approve changes. It should have read:
Apparently, it only affects commercial sites so if you're NOT paying to have your profile on a site, it's ok.


The impracticality of this (especially for those with many non-US contributors) is such that they're tending to fold rather than attempt to comply.

I know of one site that was basically a message board where people posted pics of nude celebrities. They've shut down for the time being because there is simply no way that they can comply with this regulation. The general feeling seems to be that it's unconstitutional and unworkable but they're taking no chances. It comes into effect on 23rd June so they're waiting to see what happens. Appeals are being readied.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
09:09 / 20.06.05
I find it hard to come to an agreement with myself on this topic. Looking at the bigger picture, I assume this law is based on a morality of one kind or another which states that porn is "evil" and "harms people". Well, there's a left wing Feminist argument that agrees with that, and a right-wing Christian one as well.

I have to say, and I don't think I'm alone in this, that the multi-million dollar porn industry makes me, personally, feel uncomfortable. The thing is, this law looks set to damage amateur internet sex activities rather than major business efforts. It hinders the big corporations to an extent- because they have to go and certify all these details- but it hinders individual amateur expression more, simply because the big corporation has the time, money and resources to go through these new required processes.

Though I don't see the appeal, I respect the free actions of a group of people who have chosen to post naked pictures of themselves on a messageboard. I do not respect some company selling images of "XXX Lesbo Teen Action". I can only see the first group suffering the most from this. Am I making sense? These laws are essentially saying it's okay to be a pornographer if you have enough money. One rule for the rich, one for the poor.

I think that age should be verified, of course it should. That's not fascism, that's neccesary protection of vulnerable youngsters in what is an incredibly dangerous industry. In fact, with no offence meant to Warewulf, I object to the use of the phrase "Porn-party", because it implies that the porn industry is just good ol' folk having fun, with no danger of sexual assault. Does your definition of "party" involve very young immigrant girls having to perform in sex videos for a living? No, I don't think it does.
 
 
Warewullf
10:42 / 20.06.05
I do not respect some company selling images of "XXX Lesbo Teen Action".
Fine. You don't need to repect them but do you think they should be forced out of business? You may not like girl-on-girl action (god knows I don't!) but others do.

In fact, with no offence meant to Warewulf, I object to the use of the phrase "Porn-party", because it implies that the porn industry is just good ol' folk having fun, with no danger of sexual assault. Does your definition of "party" involve very young immigrant girls having to perform in sex videos for a living? No, I don't think it does.

Well, no, obviously it doesn't but I refuse to accept that my looking at picturess of naked guys leads directly to the kidnapping and abuse of Slovakian teenage girls.

And like it or not, a lot of people like porn and the majority of people in the industry are there because they want to be and because it pays well.

The problem with this regulation is, as you said, the larger companies can well afford to comply but the smaller operations simply can't.

One rule for the rich, one for the poor.

That's pretty much what it boils down to, yeah.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:31 / 20.06.05
You don't need to repect them but do you think they should be forced out of business? You may not like girl-on-girl action (god knows I don't!) but others do.

Fine. Though I find your assertion that I have a problem with pornography because it doesn't turn me on to be a little facetious, let's back away from the Porn = good/bad argument, because that's really for another thread and I can see it rotting this one.

Do I think they should be forced out of busines? I may feel it sometimes but I don't think so, no. I beleive in free expression, and sometimes you just have to allow that others might do things with it that you're not overly happy with.

What I think there should be is a system in place where the (allegedly rare) abuses of power within the business can be brought to light, just as with any business or industry.

What these new laws appear to be is basically a gift to the corporate porn industry disguised as protection for industry workers.
 
 
odd jest on horn
21:02 / 07.07.05
Here's a real world example what these laws are being used for. Right.now.

BMEZine is the highest ranking page on google for "piercing" and third highest for "tattoos". It features thousands of pictures of piercings and tattoos, some of which portray genitals or what might be considered "masochistic" or "sadistic". Play piercings, suspensions etc.

On the 2nd of July, the owner and maintainer was forced to move the servers to Canada from the U.S. so that he would not rot away in prison, and further would not be forced to get the identities of people, most of whom would rather not be on record with the Department of Justice as freaks.

I'm shocked that these laws are being misapplied in this way, I was actually cheering for them a bit as I'm really not comfortable with most aspects of the porn industry, and really couldn´t see anything wrong with a spot of age verification.

However I'm shocked and amazed that owners of websites - even non-commercial sites - are actually responsible for pics that people send in for free, of their own volition.

Here are the relevant last entries from his blog, I'm republishing without permission, as I don't know if he'll be forced to take his blog down in the near future.:



I'm outa here
July 7th, 2005
See y'all in prison^H^H^H^H^H^HFrance.

Fuck the DoJ
July 6th, 2005
According to my logs, the Department of Homeland security and other government agencies spent today browsing BME. Some very unpleasant things are afoot. Unfortunately I can not talk about them at this time. Please consider supporting the Free Speech Coalition and the ACLU.

I have contacted some of you directly in cases where you are directly affected. If I have not contacted you, you are most likely not directly affected.

I'm baa-aack
July 2nd, 2005
Wow. Sorry I was gone so long in terms of BME updates. If you want to blame anyone, you can blame George Bush and the rest of his cabal for chasing BME (and others) out of America. I'll try and get an article published soon explaining to piercers how it affects them as well (many piercers with websites are now facing life in prison thanks to the new 2257 laws).


Here's the Google cache of an article where he outlines his opposition to the laws, and how they will affect him and other piercers with websites. He was forced to take it down for reasons I don't know. I have the article on my hard disk and might post it, when it vanishes from the cache.

Censored article

So, basically, these laws are bad. Mmmmmmmmmmmmkay? I don't even understand how I could expect anything coming from those bastards in high positions in the US to lead to anything good.
 
  
Add Your Reply