Attached Link: The best ID cards I've seen around here

Well yhe simplest solution to make sure that the law is complied with is to give Vicky, Jesse, Stephanie, Mike, James, Freak ect.. an Indentification Card to prove they're old enough to be in nude images that would take care of all the record keeping it sounds like they require.

As has been suggested before it would also help with eliminating the ambiguity in deteriming TOS violations. If the models had ID cards if would avoid all the trouble with interpretation since it was stated "the age of GG models is hard to tell"

That way it would kill 2 birds with 1 stone and solve both problems more efficiently. MeredithWilson has got some very good ones, I bet she can do some for the rest of the models around here and then no one would have to worry about it so much Message edited on: 06/28/2005 00:53

Who do we blame for it all getting so out of hand but just one too many big boobs.

Snort

That one just about sums it up! ;-)

Linda

Ah, but how old is Vickie? I was under the impression that she was about five.

"I was under the impression that she was about five. " My God!...., this is paedophilia!......

These romans are crazy ...

i started out doing landscapes in Bryce. I think that's pretty safe ... but then again, I might see bulldozers in my Dystopia any day now .... What !! A Home Depot ????

Quote - The U.S. Department of Justice and the adult entertainment industry reached an agreement

The KEY words there are "adult entertainment industry".....AKA Pornography industry.

Message edited on: 06/28/2005 06:12

grins I'll throw another thought in..regardless as to whether or not this applies to real people...just when does this law come into effect ? Does that mean only that material produced AFTER such and such a date requires the proof of age ? What about material produced before..is it legal, or not..I bet a lot of that has no paperwork ?

Good question...

It took affect on the 23rd of June, and is retroactive. Meaning, it covers pictures taken from 1995 (the first implimentation of 2257) until now. Pornographers had been required to have all the proper paperwork since the first introduction of 2257, the only difference now is that this also applies to any 2nd or 3rd party showing images on the net; they too must have the appropriate documentation and identification on record, and not just the original producers of the images. Simply put, this means that if a person wants to submit sexually explicit images to a website like this one, then the website they are submitting to must also have the proper records on file at their location in order to be officially compliant. However, there is a hearing scheduled in August with the FSC in regards to this new law, which may change things, or may not.

It just occured to me that search engines that have image databases, like Google, are NOT compliant with this new law. Google simply spiders out images from millions of websites, so there's no way they have all the proper paperwork! Think of how many infractions they are guilty of! Same with newsgroups and BBS boards where people often post lewd or explicit images. I can see how this could be a huge problem to enforce. It seems like a stupid thing to introduce NOW, so many years after the fact, when it's almost impossible to efficiently enforce the thing.

"Sorry, History Nut, you have to give some proof of that for I've recently learned that that is a myth started in the early '90's by none other than Ward Churchill. People wanted to believe it so they did and managed to 'discover' many cases through conjecture."

The "myth" is Churchill's claim that the U.S. Army distributed poxed blankets to the Mandans in 1837. That is total BS and even Churchill knows it. No reputable scholar repeats it. The British use of poxed blankets in 1760 is well documented... by the British. Using Churchill's lying to discredit legitimate history is foolish, but understandable. And it confirms my own theory that he's a shill for the theocons... a step up from his days as an FBI informant. > "It was the liberal judges on the Supreme Court."

The "liberal" judges? Do you mean "liberal" in the sense of "black," "female," "Jewish," or "Italian"? Or is this just that new definition of "liberal" that simply means "ones we don't like"? There hasn't been a "liberal" SC justice in more than a decade. Harry Blackmon, when he was selected, was regarded generally as a conservative, and the judicial Taliban is so far to his right that they are in danger of slipping into the ocean if they face the bench north.

There is no one on the Supreme Court that any progressive or liberal American would call their own. No one on the SC, absolutely no one, represents the progressive, liberal interpretation of the Constitution and its parent document, the Declaration of Independence.

"Not conservative enough" is not the same thing as "liberal," and blaming liberals for every unpleasantness in America is stupidity of the most basic sort, however convenient it may be to one's prejudices. Like blaming bad weather on "uppity ni... uh... coloreds" and Bronco defeats on illegal immigration. Not just stupidity, but un-American, lynch mob stupidity.

Rehnquist and his imams (and imammas) are no more liberal than they are HIV-positive.

Acadia, it seems that this would not only apply to adult websites, but sites like Google too, where adult images are spidered out and placed in a database. If you use the image search feature on google, you can easily come across hundreds or thousands of explicit images. I'm certain Google doesn't have copies of all the identification cards for every person on every image they show. According to this new law, they MUST, even though they don't own the sites from which those images are taken from. Strange stuff.

Why do web sites have to have proof of age but not the convenience store down on the corner?

Good question Bobasaur. Maybe one we should all email to them to see if we get an answer. Marque

"The problem is not the law, and most legitimate porn sites are not concerned about this law"

Well, from a marketing standpoint the law is a disaster - and many of them are very concerned. Much of the adult site marketing is passed on the distribution of free images as a tease for the site content. In fact many adult sites made all their money via affiliate programs with the big sites... you posted some content they allowed you to post and sent traffic their way.

The thing is, now if that marketing content was explicit they would have to supply you with full 2257 compliance info - including copies (cross referenced) of all the performers data and ID. This is a huge privacy issue for performers, just to start with.

"regardless as to whether or not this applies to real people...just when does this law come into effect ?"

This law has been in effect for years. What has changed is the Attorney Generals enforcement guidelines.

"Does that mean only that material produced AFTER such and such a date requires the proof of age ?"

The law as it stands now was adopted in 1990. In theory the record keeping has been in effect since then. The new enforcement guidelines went into effect on 6/23/2005 - but the law absolutely did not only start applying then. In general, the date of July 3, 1995 is the accepted date for the beginning of record keeping. the new regulations are absolutely considered retroactive.

"It just occured to me that search engines that have image databases, like Google, are NOT compliant with this new law. Google simply spiders out images from millions of websites, so there's no way they have all the proper paperwork!"

Google images and similar services are exempt.

"Why do web sites have to have proof of age but not the convenience store down on the corner?"

In some cases they might. Usually they are considered as "simple distributors" and not "secondary producers" but that remains to be tested in some cases. the issue is editorial control, and it may be ruled that if the shop owner chooses which magazines to carry they are thus in editorial control.

One of the reasons simulated acts and lewd display were exempted was so that movie theatres did not need to carry records of the ID of famous stars.

What about adult MSN and Yahoo sites?

"Google images and similar services are exempt." You're kidding, right? Why would they be exempt? I mean, I can understand why the store down the street that sells Playboy would be, but why Google and other similar services? What they are doing is even worse than what an adult website does, because they have no idea what kind of sick smut they're spidering into their database for public viewing. Could be illegal, obscene, whatever. It's no different than a BBS that allows you to post whatever images you want. Where does it actually say that?

Another stupid amd useless law if applied to the internet just because it only has effect on sites located in the U.S. If you browse the internet in most cases you don't know from where the site is. Anyway the Netherlands will be very happy with this law.

hmm..Ward Churchill is the Jello Biafra of the Academic world..;) Glad someone spotted the blanket reference, I was gonna correct it meself..;) If they really want to go after the 'short eyes' crowd, maybe they should look at the Japanese (and imitators) hentai and anime stuff..sheeshh..;) of course, there'd be a jurisdictional problem..;)

Sorry, History Nut, you have to give some proof of that for I've recently learned that that is a myth started in the early '90's by none other than Ward Churchill. People wanted to believe it so they did and managed to 'discover' many cases through conjecture. Google it. Why don't you Google it? "Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer." -- Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985] Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Jeffery Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians: Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)] "... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." -- Journal of William Trent And there appear to be plenty of other historic references supporting the contention that smallpox was considered to be a weapon against Native Americans. Further, Russell Means (an Oglala Lakota, and the first national director of the American Indian Movement (AIM)) was writing about this "myth started in the early '90's by none other than Ward Churchill" in his biography back in 1991, apparently before Ward Churchill ever suggested the same.

By the way, I have not so far found any historic evidence that the US Army or our government participated in the "smallpox eradication program," but as our own nation's laws, traditions, culture, personalities and attitudes were descended directly and primarily from the British, the French, etc., it is barely more than common sense to think that they probably did.

Why do web sites have to have proof of age but not the convenience store down on the corner?

Do you mean the people that work at the convenience store, or the people that come in to buy alcohol and tobacco?

I worked at a few different convenience stores for a couple years. We had to check ID all the time. And we got narc'd regularly. I'm sure the law is slightly different from county to county and state to state, but here, if you're caught selling alcohol or tobacco to anyone under 18 (or 21 for alcohol but in some counties its 21 for tobacco too) - then the list of penalties are loss of your driver's license, immediate termination, the store is fined $5,000, you are personally fined $1500 and you have to do anywhere from 10 to 40 hours of community service and/or a couple nights in jail. And all of that's just your first offense. And yes, the cops do send in underage kids who work for them to see if you'll sell them something you're not suppose to. So anybody working in a convenience store around here damned well better be checking ID's on everybody... But they don't. Ok, duh, that question was in regards to stores selling adult mags. hehe. stores here aren't allowed to sell them at all in most cases so I wasn't even thinking that. Adult bookstores here have to be no less than 500 yards from any neighborhoods, churches or schools and that's all they're allowed to sell.

E.D. Message edited on: 06/28/2005 14:20

Quote - but sites like Google too, where adult images are spidered out and placed in a database. If you use the image search feature on google, you can easily come across hundreds or thousands of explicit images. I'm certain Google doesn't have copies of all the identification cards for every person on every image they show. According to this new law, they MUST, even though they don't own the sites from which those images are taken from. Strange stuff.

Google isn't a "site" perse, it's a search engine. The images you see aren't linked FROM Google. The data is just assembled there. Clicking on any of those images, will still take you to the pictures site. Browsers will more than likely be exempted from this.

--- Quoted ---
On other topics...

"Late last week. The US government, in it's wisdome, declared that the local town or city governments can take your land away from you. Even if you own it outright. They are required to buy you out(at a significantly reduced price) before booting your *ss out into the street."

This has been true for a long, long time. The recent ruling only >slightly< expanded these powers.

It's true that this ruling just went in the same direction that the caselaw has been heading for thirty or more years now. Though I think now that the Takings Clause has gone from barely alive to officially dead.

It's too bad that citizens waited until last week to notice. I was interning with property rights groups fifteen years ago, and we were telling people that this was going to happen, and they treated us like Chicken Little. If more people would have paid attention then, we might not have this ruling now.

Message edited on: 06/28/2005 15:22

***"Google isn't a "site" perse, it's a search engine. The images you see aren't linked FROM Google. The data is just assembled there. Clicking on any of those images, will still take you to the pictures site.

Browsers will more than likely be exempted from this."***

Anything with a hyper text transfer protocol (http) domain name is indeed a website. Google.com is a website running a database repository of links to other websites. It's not a gateway to the internet, for instance.

If sites like google are exempt from a law like this, then the law itself is idiotic, plain and simple. The whole purpose of this law (supposedly) is to protect against underage sexual exploitation. Google's database is filled with hardcore images it pulls from other websites. True, you get transferred to the website of origin, but the pictures are still there to see in thumbnail form right on Google. Message edited on: 06/28/2005 16:38

@ExistentialDisorder I was refering to the stores having copies of all the documentation proving that the models in their magazines were of legal age. That's been addressed.

I know bob. I mis-interpreted the original post the first time around. As for google. every computer that accesses a website downloads the contents of that site to its temporary files. same for servers. googles spider engines have to access information from those sites in order to display them in search listings, which means that somewhere on google's servers those images and files are stored. even though google itself is not directly or deliberately hosting those sites' content, they still have to access it and then deliver it to those who use google to search for those sites and/or images. so once these laws are set in place permenantly, maybe search engines like google and others will just be required to - or voluntarily - prevent searches of any adult content. E.D.

maybe search engines like google and others will just be required to - or voluntarily - prevent searches of any adult content. Which probably the reason for pushing for enforcement of it. They seem to have been using alternate ways of get of rid of stuff that offends them like through PayPal since freezing accounts with adult products does nothing to stop chargebacks on credit cards, deadbeat customers can do that with any kind of products not just adult stuff.

A note on adult sites outside of the US: Someone mentioned earlier that its hard to tell where a site is being hosted at, but actually its not. Most domain names can be searched under the whoIs look up (which can be accessed by most any domain registrar's main website). Some owners of websites have blocked listings tho, so looking them up in whoIs doesn't yeild much result. However their info can still be traced and is still on record, just not accessable by the general public. Sites registered outside of the US could possibly still be required to abide by these new laws, if they intend to continue being accessed by people in the US. Tho the US can't really go after somebody in England or Italy the same way they can somebody in Utah, they can however block all US access to all adult oriented sites that do not comply with US laws. Not saying they will, or that this has been mentioned anywyere, I'm just saying that it's possible. And don't forget, just because you live in England, if your site is registered with a US-based registrar then those laws still apply. And i'm sure these senarios have been contemplated by those who have structured these laws anyway. If not, then they really don't know what the hell they're doing.

E.D.

" And i'm sure these senarios have been contemplated by those who have structured these laws anyway. If not, then they really don't know what the hell they're doing. " The second one is the correct. Of course that the US can block the access to sites, if is technicaly possible, only need to follow China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea and many others.

True, but do they really want to be seen as playing in that band?

I remember a similar situation that happened years ago. Had to do with extreme right-wing sites. If I remember correctly, it was about a couple of French sites that had fascist/racist content - still within the borders of French law, but definitely unlawful according to Dutch law. It was not possible to block those sites for the Dutch public. I don't remember exactly, but it was a combination of technical and juridical problems. The Dutch government was clever about one thing though. Before they tried to pass a law, they first had legal and Internet experts figure out the possibilities and problems. In the end, no site blocking law was passed, since it wouldn't be enforcable.

If you cant change laws, change politics ...

"Late last week. The US government, in it's wisdome, declared that the local town or city governments can take your land away from you. Even if you own it outright. They are required to buy you out(at a significantly reduced price) before booting your *ss out into the street." Sorry to divert the thread again ... Yes, this situation happened in Connecticut (my home state). Sad, but true. Our news station has been following it closely. But, there may be revenge. You see, one of the judges that was for the ruling lives in Connecticut. A private citizen has raised enough interest and money to hire a developer, seize the judge's property, and build a hotel on it "in the best interest for the town's economy and business." Let's see how the judge likes it. 8-

a private citizen has raised enough interest and money to hire a developer, seize the judge's property, and build a hotel on it "in the best interest for the town's economy and business." There's poetic justice for you. Could use a lot more of that in this ol' world.

Attached Link: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8406056/

Here's an idea: someone start a citizens' action group and everybody send money to support it and then let's do this to all of the injustices that voted for this, again and again and again, no matter where they move!

Today reading the newspaper I was remembering this thread... the impression of a poor viewer outside of America is that Congress is cutting, cutting, cutting... Source: spanish newspapers of today "The Spanish Congress approves the law that allows homosexuals to contract marriage and to adopt. Spain becomes the third country after Belgium and Holland which people of the same sex can marry" :)

Hope this isn't yet another US law effecting us little old brits in the UK....Im having too much trouble with the rest of Europe telling me what to do.

Spanish newspaper got it wrong, Canada's the third country to legalize gay marriage rights. And about bloody time, too.

Oh my ... the religious powers that be in the USA must be thinking that the whole world is crumbling around us. Let us wage war on those sinful countries and show them the true way!!! (EDIT ... said, of course, with tongue planted very firmly in cheek.)

Message edited on: 06/30/2005 11:30

And Alberta (our Texas wanna-be province) is so P.O.d at the notion they plan on getting rid of all civil marriages. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face! Edited to add: There's also been a spate of gay bashing/hate crimes there recently which are believed to be linked to the comments of certain right wing nut politicians & preachers. Most un-Canadian, that.

Message edited on: 06/30/2005 11:52

Sorry, Byrdie. Maybe my info isnt good. I thought that Canada was in process and it still needing receive the ok of the Senate. In Spain it was approbed yesterday; today a gay couple can marry already here (though for the administrative bureaucracies the first marriage gay in Spain will be on August 27 (newspaper)

Oops, I forgot about the Senate, but that's more or less just a formality anyway. Third or fourth doesn't matter, what matters is it passed. Which makes this Canada Day something to celebrate. :-)

America is moving in the opposite direction from most of the civilized world on so many issues, it's not funny. It'll be interesting to see our graduates trying to get employment when their entire education consisted of prayer and Bible verses. Stem cells, evolution, Oscar Wilde--never heard of 'em and who's this Harry Potter dude?

All will end as the Amish, the Amish are for option, but the others will not be able to do a simple bycicle, you know...., with a PI of value 3.00 none gear will work. The end will be tragic with the invasion of America by China, in one side planes, tanks, misiles, machine guns and photographs of Mao, on the other side pikes, David's slings and paintings of Abraham.

Message edited on: 07/02/2005 05:08

The UK government apparently agreed to new extradition procedures last year. Now the US doesn't even have to go through the commonplace control of having to present a case in a court (think Grand Jury as being a similar control). Pretty much all they need to do is turn up with a warrant. And these are our valued allies?

"And these are our valued allies?" No, sadly, you're our useful dupes it appears. Pet the "poodle" for me.

Sorry. I said august 27. But obviously there are people who dont wait all the legal papers. Next day after the beginning of the law we had the first gay marriages