Are We Outraged Yet?

[Plain Old Jane]

Pornography is now banned, at least, bush is going to make it so horrible to maintain that it wont be worth the effort. Or even worse, he's going to cause a great rise in the amount of virtual pornography. (hentai, ecchi, drawn kiddy porn, erotic stories, that sort of thing.)

Thats right, anyone whose used Gay.com has probably noticed that a few images were like this.

http://www.gay.com/images/personals/catch22/pic295x295en.gif

Thats due in part to a new content regulations, previously ruled unconstitutional in 10th court of appeals. That requires an AMAZING amount of information to be recorded about any porn in general. First and last names, alias's and other names, copy of depiction printed on paper, copy of EVERY associated url it is depicted under, they must also "maintain indexes which find the record alphabetically, numerically, by the performer's last name (followed by first), aliases, stage names, title, and identifying marks." If someone steals the image or direct links it to our site, we must update our records. YOU must maintain these records, no third parties, the organization must maintain these records for 7 years, or should it go belly up, _I_ am required to maintain them for 5 years. They also must be available for inspection for at least 20 hours a week. We also must have a disclosure statement, "Several paragraphs in 11 point type, on the front page of the site, saying the title of the work, date of production, publication, duplication, reproduction, or reissuance. the street address where the records are kept, and the name, title, and business address of the custodian of records."

I have to wonder along with the author of the original article, why have the public responses to acts like these, the weapons litigations, patriot act, bans on gay equal rights, property siezure, and other constitutionally nixxed laws always been apathy.

Please people, get mad, its only going to get worse...

~your sister in legislative consolidation
Nat

[edit] forgot the link: http://www.livejournal.com/users/robkaiote/403043.html?mode=reply

[raublekick]

i thought they dodged the bullet on that? i mean, my porn viewing hasn't been hindered...

[Plain Old Jane]

yes and no,

no it has already passed, yes in that an injunction was filed and the implementation has been postponed til september.

nontheless, its a BS law that if it actually is found to be feasible will be a further slight to freedom.

[johnny]

i'm sure it's an outrage, but i can't help but think, "it's just porno..."

[Plain Old Jane]

well porn is not the only thing that may be under this law, its pretty vague, it might be stretched into full mainstream media.

[heX]

i have two opinions

1.) this is bad because who the fuck wants to go through everything on their (porn) site and tag it with this info.

2.) this is good because this underage kiddie porn can finally be identified as being ilegal without having to track the girl down and finding out her age. if shes ilegal the site cant give her real info wich means it can be taken down. (not just kiddie porn but any pornography wich is ilegal under US law.)

thats how i understand it atleast, didnt read much of it i have a short attention span.


edit: i cant seem to find any links that validate this other than this kids live journal and links to adult sites and then some people put links to msn and usatoday articles about yahoo closing chat rooms named "13 year old girls for older men" located under the "educatoin" category wich didnt really seem to even begin to touch the subject of what this kid wrote in his lj.

Yahoo requires users to agree not to "harm minors in any way" or make available any content that is "unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, ... or otherwise objectionable."


doesnt seem like a new law to me seems like yahoo is enforcing there terms of service and if they only stop horny old men from exposing themselves on camera because they were forced to by the government doesn't seem like ive lost any "right" that i wanted in the first place.

this almost seems like anti-bush propaganda spawned in some porn community and made its way into a couple of crappy free speech sites news. i am admitting right now i have nothing to base this on and i am not saying it to be true. its just odd i cant find any main stream news outlet that mentions this. if you search the net you just find adult porn sites and less than mediocre free speech sites.

i cant stress enough that im not denying what he said to be true, im just asking if you could suply a more reliable source. all i can gather is that they were trying to pass a law but couldnt find alot of detail on exactly what it consisted of and couldnt find anyone complaining a unjust law was passed. i would like to read what the main stream media's take on this is.

[Mike]

I don't like any restrictions on private lives... but, any other sources on this besides somebody's livejournal? Fark hasn't had a single article about this and Google news turns up nothing... unless I just missed it or I'm searching the wrong thing.

though, the last line of your post ("the weapons litigations, patriot act, bans on gay equal rights, property siezure, and other constitutionally nixxed laws always been apathy") I think that they are anything but apathy. The movement of conservatives against judicial activism, most recently with the travesty surround the New London, CT case, has been strong ... and continues to get stronger... likewise with Weapons activists. Homosexual rights groups from the liberal side have also been very strong. The Patriot Act has yet to do anything, so most conservatives and liberals haven't taken action with it. Maybe I read the line wrong though... Are you saying that there hasn't been any action by conservatives for eliminating weapons restrictions, protecting property, and lessening the power of the Patriot act; and on the other side, there hasn't been action from liberals on gay rights and the Patriot Act?

Expect property rights and immigration policy to be the vote-deciders in 2008... The Liberals are losing in property rights, but interestingly, few well known Republican Conservatives have taken strong stances on immigration ... it's something that I'm horribly disapointed in with the well known members of my side of the fence.

[heX]

I don't like any restrictions on private lives... but, any other sources on this besides somebody's livejournal? Fark hasn't had a single article about this and Google news turns up nothing... unless I just missed it or I'm searching the wrong thing.

my point all summed up in a sensible mike kinda way

[thecreeper]

yeah, LJ isnt exactly the best news source, so i'm not sure i can take it too seriously right now.

[heX]

jep must be a big liar. what a liar. stupid lying jep.

[Mike]

I just haven't heard it anywhere, and when I checked the other day, Google news and Fark had nothing. Though it's customary to blame everything on the person or persons you don't like, I haven't heard any speeches or anything from Bush about this, and I think that it'd be pretty important news ... Also, congress has the power to legislate ... not Bush's administration ... so I don't really see the connection to Bush's cabinet.

I just did another quick Google News search for:
Bush porn ban
Bush porn restriction
Bush porn limit
Bush porn limitation

Nothing related to this came up.

For "Porn Content Regulations," two articles came up, one from RedHerring and the other from P2Pnet, neither attached this to the Bush administration, though, P2PNet thought that it gained popularity because former Attorney General John Ashcroft was against internet pornography. It's an update to the 1988 Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, passed before the internet, and internet pornography, was in wide-spread use. The websites can still display what they want, but they have to keep records of those who they have ... which they should be doing anyway. State gov't can ask specific websites for proof of specific actors and actresses, and if they don't turn that over, then they have to remove that content. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me ... and it's probably more likely that Gay.com was trying to make a political statement, rather than actually having federal or state heat to remove their pictures... because it takes longer than 5 days for a new regulations to go into effect (the date the regulations were passed, compared to the date of this thread).

[heX]

phhst jeps so full of shit.

[Mike]

nah, Jep's alright ... it's websites and sources that try to actively create falsehoods to get a message accross. Gay.com probably wasn't being forced to remove any material, the webmasters or people who run it probably read that article, put blame in the Bush administration, and then made those pictures to garner support.

Jep's just looking to wank and is pissed that he can't wank it to that pic. I would be too ... if I wanked it to ... Gay.com

[heX]

i wank it to guyswholikegirlswhothinktheguyisagirlontheinside.c om or was it .net

[Plain Old Jane]

edited for content

I recall saying no porn.

forum topic/discussion:

try actually reading the article, the number of the beast is 2257, suits filed in the tenth circuit court of appeals. Yea, its a lil hard to find, but its out there, this one is a good laugh, its a program to file all the records for porn: http://www.2257tool.com

Stop being a little bitch, hex.

[heX]

"fleshbot.com" "justblowme.com"


*cough notareliablesourceofnews *cough

[raublekick]

jep's not bullshitting this. i definitely saw an article about this on a news sight about a week before he posted this.

[heX]

i was just giving him shit about bullshitting everything. but come on "justblowme.com" tell me you can keep a straight face and say thats a good place to get your news