RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/29/2005 10:56:42 PM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Well, this is the problem with "what if" history. There is a ton of literature about whether it was an unwinnable war; at any rate, few historians believe it was wise of Hitler to invade the Soviet Union with a raging front on the west and south--and that was, as far as I'm concerned, the turning of the tide. I don't believe the war was winnable as the Nazis were prosecuting it, but there's no way to prove what might or might not have been. That's really the point. All that's left of Hitler is his record, and his record is that he utterly destroyed Germany. I'd call that a crappy leader.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: testlimit

He accomplished several major feats. He pulled the country out of a major depression, he lead the Nazi party as it insiuated itself throughout the nation, he lead them into a nearly successful bid for controling the majority of Europe and parts of Africa. It was far from an unwinnable war just because they didn't win it. There were several close calls...If Japan hadn't assaulted Pearl Harbor, American sentiment would have likely remained balanced enough to keep us from entering the war when we did, if Germany had developed the atomic bomb first (and they nearly did), if any number of things hadn't gone the way they did, you and I might be saluting the swastika now instead of the stars and stripes.

(in reply to testlimit)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/30/2005 3:46:00 AM

Posts: 124
Status: offline

quote:

The children, the classic excuse. Let's put adult models at danger and pretend that this is the way to ensure our children's safety.

why is this issue so easily dismissed? law enforcement has insufficient legislation and rules to pursue the pornographers of child sexual abuse...it outrages me and i want money and legislative and administrative action taken so the people involved in this activity can be prosecuted sucessfully and sent away to prision for very, very long terms.

if Person A produces the material and Person B allows it to be shown on his website, i want both people prosecuted, so the "secondary producer" portion of the rule is fine by me. as for "obscenity"; that is not a matter of codiifed law; to the contrary, it is a matter for each community to determine. so what woukd DOJ do? try to find a collarme member from the Bible Belt and then prosecute all of U/us for violating that community's obsecenity standards? Do you really think anyhthing like this could happen, when collarme is not advertised in any meaningful way off the net?

the adults who are depicted in porn are already in danger..their chances of contracting deadly diseases is high; they have lost a veneer of respectibility they cannot regain; i'm sure some people -- esp women -- feel a sense of coercion to act in these porn materials. the scenario of a evil-minded person creating a web site for the sole purpose of obtaining a woman's information is a bit unlikely...but i concede it could happen. i just balance it against the ability of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts against all the child pornographers on the net..each one who broadcasts this evil s**t.

roger, if you are so frantically concerned with the possibility of an adult being harmed because a rule or law was expanded in an effort to protect children, use your noodle and propose a means by which your concern can be addressed while the chidren can be protected as well. in short, contribute something positive...stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater. fillepink

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by fillepink -- 6/30/2005 3:51:50 AM >

(in reply to Faramir)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/30/2005 8:28:41 AM

Posts: 1043
Joined: 2/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I'm not sure which response I allegedly didn't read.

If you're now saying that democracies pick from the available choices, you're obviously conceding that they can make bad choices. (I still don't exactly understand how you can assume that democracies will always pick the best of the available choices, but, forget it, we've been over that one.) Anyway, I stand by my statement that Bush was one of the worst choices in American history.

I think that means this dispute is over.

Lam

This one, that I linked to: http://www.collarchat.com/My_Political_Model/m_118146/tm.htm

And since I'm not intersted in "disputes," but rather discourse, I will no longer waste time replying to you.

I'm not here to "win" or "be right" - I'm here to discuss. Million miles apart.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/30/2005 1:05:09 PM

Posts: 2021
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: SoCal aka Hell
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fillepink

quote:

The children, the classic excuse. Let's put adult models at danger and pretend that this is the way to ensure our children's safety.

why is this issue so easily dismissed? law enforcement has insufficient legislation and rules to pursue the pornographers of child sexual abuse...it outrages me and i want money and legislative and administrative action taken so the people involved in this activity can be prosecuted sucessfully and sent away to prision for very, very long terms.
(snip)

As Akasha mentioned:

Even the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection say that 2257 won't do a thing:

"The government has the same data as ASACP. They must know that 99.9% of CP has nothing to do with the professional adult industry", said Joan Irvine, executive director of ASACP. "The new 2257 rules will not stop the production or distribution of child pornography. Adult companies already comply with the current laws; the criminals involved in CP don`t and never will." Irvine continues, "As I have said before, I wish the government would focus their time and financial resources on apprehending the real criminals and truly saving children."

http://asacp.org/press/pr062405.html

And on top of that:

Comment sent to site: You do realize that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 was passed in the 1980s, right? To prevent child pornography after Traci Lords started making videos as an underage teen lying about her age.

Editor's Reply: The laws have done absolutely nothing to stop what Traci Lords did. They require a virtually impossible paper trail to be created. Tracy Lords had a real drivers license, obtained through illegal methods. The drivers license had the wrong name, the wrong birthdate, but her photograph. Even with all the new laws, what does this do to stop the 15 year old Traci Lords from performing? Absolutely nothing.

http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3868

_____________________________

Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
--R. D. Laing

"Oh, but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

(in reply to fillepink)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/30/2005 1:17:59 PM

Posts: 2021
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: SoCal aka Hell
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fillepink

the adults who are depicted in porn are already in danger..their chances of contracting deadly diseases is high; they have lost a veneer of respectibility they cannot regain; i'm sure some people -- esp women -- feel a sense of coercion to act in these porn materials. the scenario of a evil-minded person creating a web site for the sole purpose of obtaining a woman's information is a bit unlikely...but i concede it could happen. i just balance it against the ability of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts against all the child pornographers on the net..each one who broadcasts this evil s**t.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this sounds like you don't really approve of the adult industry. Respectability? How have they lost that? What they do is just as valid as any other profession, whether religious morality allows a person that notion or not.

Anyway, the issue is about privacy. When a model signs a photo release that says his/her photo may be used, reproduced, reprinted, etc. she's given her information to the photographer. Should the photographer then sell the photograph to someone new who plans to publish the photograph s/he (the photographer) has to give the model's information to the person (the buyer) s/he's sold it to. Each time this happens a transfer of information is necessary so that each new owner/distributor has a hard copy of this model's information.

The model's information should not be public information. With as many nuts, stalkers and freaks in this world it's just getting easier and easier to find them... in their homes... in their beds. Suppose someone online fixates on a model's photo. Now suppose he writes to the owner of the website and talks about the look of a few models on the owner's site. Suppose this person purchases the bulk adult material CD that the owner of the site purchased. The original owner is required to pass on all information to Joe Blow the psycho. Now s/he has what s/he needs to find this model.

I would suggest you read all of this: http://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3868

Edit: and just for clarification... I couldn't give a rat's behind whether someone considered me "respectable" or not. I've quite proudly announced to my folks, sibling and close friends what I am in all regards. I've come out to them about being bisexual... about being into D/s... about being poly... and about going into the adult entertainment industry in a number of ways. None of them are horrified. None of them have told me that they can only be seen with me under cover of darkness. I'm proud of who I am. I'm proud of who I intend to be. I'm proud of the way I live my life. And if someone finds fault with it then it's their loss. I will not and have no reason to feel ashamed of living my life the way I do.

< Message edited by MadameDahlia -- 6/30/2005 1:22:24 PM >

_____________________________

Insanity -- a perfectly rational adjustment to an insane world.
--R. D. Laing

"Oh, but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

(in reply to fillepink)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/30/2005 1:24:54 PM

Posts: 6775
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

The model's information should not be public information. With as many nuts, stalkers and freaks in this world it's just getting easier and easier to find them... in their homes... in their beds. Suppose someone online fixates on a model's photo.

No doubt, just realize we all have stalkers at one time or another. We're just faceless internet people. I cannot imagine the amount of stalkers a famous face has.

If they pass the law, they definately need to pass another law to keep the models safe somehow.

(in reply to MadameDahlia)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/30/2005 3:28:57 PM

Posts: 10
Joined: 2/21/2005
Status: offline

quote:

why is this issue so easily dismissed? law enforcement has insufficient legislation and rules to pursue the pornographers of child sexual abuse...it outrages me and i want money and legislative and administrative action taken so the people involved in this activity can be prosecuted sucessfully and sent away to prision for very, very long terms.

How will this new 2257 protect children from sexual abuse? It's not like child pornographers have 2257 statements and are respecting that law.

quote:

if Person A produces the material and Person B allows it to be shown on his website, i want both people prosecuted, so the "secondary producer" portion of the rule is fine by me. as for "obscenity"; that is not a matter of codiifed law; to the contrary, it is a matter for each community to determine. so what woukd DOJ do? try to find a collarme member from the Bible Belt and then prosecute all of U/us for violating that community's obsecenity standards? Do you really think anyhthing like this could happen, when collarme is not advertised in any meaningful way off the net?

That's exactly what this new 2257 is trying to do. It's very hard to get an obscenity prosecution, however it's very easy to find any website in violation of the new 2257 law. This is why they felt they had to expand the 2257 law. Over the last couple of years and after dozens of unsuccessful obscenity lawsuits, they realised that it's extremely hard to prosecute obscenity, so they came up with that new 2257.

Here's how it worked before. Producer takes the photo/video shoots and has all the documentation, webmaster buys those sets and usually gets a censored copy of the model's ID. If there's doubt about the age of the performer, the producers are listed in the 2257 statement of the buyer so that the authorities can check and make sure that those models are over 18.

quote:

the adults who are depicted in porn are already in danger..their chances of contracting deadly diseases is high; they have lost a veneer of respectibility they cannot regain; i'm sure some people -- esp women -- feel a sense of coercion to act in these porn materials. the scenario of a evil-minded person creating a web site for the sole purpose of obtaining a woman's information is a bit unlikely...but i concede it could happen. i just balance it against the ability of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts against all the child pornographers on the net..each one who broadcasts this evil s**t.

I don't see why I should disrespect adult entertainers. They're people who have a job to do and do it to the best of their ability and most of us enjoy watching it.
The prosecutors can already get a guilty verdict using the old 2257 law. Unless someone can find me an example of a child pornographer who was found to be abiding by the old 2257 rules :)

quote:

roger, if you are so frantically concerned with the possibility of an adult being harmed because a rule or law was expanded in an effort to protect children, use your noodle and propose a means by which your concern can be addressed while the chidren can be protected as well. in short, contribute something positive...stop throwing the baby out with the bathwater. fillepink

Instead of wasting resources on this new 2257 and creating a task force against obscenity, the time and resources of the government would've been better spent going against cp.

(in reply to fillepink)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/30/2005 3:46:22 PM

Posts: 4145
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

the adults who are depicted in porn are already in danger..their chances of contracting deadly diseases is high; they have lost a veneer of respectibility they cannot regain; i'm sure some people -- esp women -- feel a sense of coercion to act in these porn materials. the scenario of a evil-minded person creating a web site for the sole purpose of obtaining a woman's information is a bit unlikely...but i concede it could happen. i just balance it against the ability of prosecutors to get guilty verdicts against all the child pornographers on the net..each one who broadcasts this evil s**t.

fillepink -

Adults in the porn industry are of course open to diseases - but the bonifide porn industry side already regulates its people - regular testing - etc... and You will find that the general community is pretty safe - as for respectability - I really do not think its right for people to turn their nose up at anyone, and I doubt tat many truely care what others think because they are happy - those that work in the porn industry who I either know or have met, are very comfortable with themselves and thats all that matters. As for the misconception of coercion - again if it happens but it is very rare - those in porn are usually happy to be where they are and havent been forced nor coerced.

In a two-bit porn backstreet theatre, sure, maybe this abuse you refere to happens, but this law isn't going to help them, because the people abusing them will not give a rats fuck about this law - they evade many already.

And as admirable as your reasons and fight might be to protect minors with this law - again - its not going to. Those people who abuse, will avoid the law, just like they have always done.

You ask for a suggestion on how to protect minors and people in danger of abuse - I have one word for you - EDUCATION.

If the governments of the world put more money into educating people and minors on their rights and that they wont be in trouble for telling on a person abusing them - that the police will actually prosecute rapists and not look down their noses at the victims - if schools and PARENTS accepted sex education as a bonifide section of the curiculum and all children were taught self respect and that they are WORTH something and not treated as naive and unknowing - and lacking in comprehension of whats going on in the world - then these people, these abusers would have one hell of a problem commiting offenses when they know that these minors know the power they do and can have - and will USE IT.

Peace and Love

_____________________________

.dark.

...i surrender to gravity and the unknown...

(in reply to roger28)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 6/30/2005 4:10:10 PM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

You might want to look up the etymology of the word "dispute."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Faramir

And since I'm not intersted in "disputes," but rather discourse, I will no longer waste time replying to you.

I'm not here to "win" or "be right" - I'm here to discuss. Million miles apart.

(in reply to Faramir)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 7/2/2005 6:16:49 AM

Posts: 356
Joined: 2/1/2005
Status: offline

Thank You MadameDahlia for making the point that the new law only affects people who comply with the law anyhow. You beat Me to it. 2257 will do nothing to stop people who are already breaking the law deliberately and knowingly.

Gentle Lady

_____________________________

All things are possible to those who have patience, try, and are willing to learn.

(in reply to MadameDahlia)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 7/8/2005 6:55:58 AM

Posts: 18
Joined: 6/5/2005
From: West Palm Beach, FL
Status: offline

Okay in order to help keep things on track. 2257 has had an impact on several companies and several large websites. I am going to post one of them and some of the information here.

http://www.bmezine.com/ is one of the preimere websites on body modification.
Recently they moved their entire oppuration back to Canada where they started. This became a diccusion on the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BDSM-LegalIssues/. The orginal article on BMEzine was taken down. The author of the article Shannon Larratt has granted permission for reposting of the article so long as the copyright is included. I have posted that article on my website. http://www.understudy.net/2257.txt
I am going to keep this up for 30 days and then take it down, so if I can ask others to mirror it I would apprecite it.

Please note I have added an editor note to the orginal article in reguards to some items Shannon posted about Adobe and Dmitry Sklyarov. I have sent her a copy of my edit notes.

Included in the article is a link to the EFF's very interesting article on how 2257 will affect non professionals.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003741.php

Please read through these. Please try to keep comments on topic without flaming people. I have told the moderators to pull the thread with my blessing if the only thing to happen here is petty bickering. I feel that this law dramatically affects people who enjoy the BDSM lifestyle and enjoy some of the incredible photography and video that can be a part of the BDSM lifestyle.

Sincerely,
Brendhan

(in reply to GentleLady)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/4/2005 12:44:27 PM

Posts: 2
Joined: 4/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha
Is anyone here advocating child pornography by saying these new regulations are wrong? No one said that or even remotely hinted at that.

Your argument about why this is ok is ridiculous, but I will let someone else point that out to you. I've wasted enough time. There is no logical argument why this is a good thing for children, and if having the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection point it out to you is not enough, I guess you won't budge.

Akasha

I guess that remains to be seen, but some effort is better than no effort. This effort will stamp out a lot of underhanded websites, so that can never be a bad thing. I am sure more will be done as time marches on, but I think this is a positive first effort in protecting the rights of those that would be exploited, child or otherwise.

There has been plenty of real effort to stamp out child porn - and rather more of that has come from individual states. The Texas Rangers, for example, are death on wheels, and they don't need this regulation, or any new laws, to put people in jail - damn near anyone, anywhere in the world. Much of the rest of the effort is made by individuals you would think of as "smut peddlers" and "perverts." (oh, goddess, the irony!) (and the irony of such judgementalism here, of all places...)

The feds, on the other hand - both legislative and regulatory, have been using it as an excuse to restrict the rights of adults. First the CDA, then COPA, then some other damn thing, and now this, which is a new esculation. Note that this is NOT legislation, it's new regulation that has the effect of a new law.

This is both unconstitutional AND more than usually sneaky, with implications that should chill anyone. Pornography is NOT the target here. It's the free exhange of information, period.

(in reply to SirKenin)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/7/2005 11:52:35 PM

Posts: 5
Joined: 3/28/2005
Status: offline

In fact, we have an eroded constitution that has become little more than an interesting historical document.
The states do act, in the name of our wonderful and patriotic police state, in whatever arbitrary way they please.
I you disagree strongly enough, the will break you financially while you try to buy your way through the courts. Disagree somemore and they can and will happily shoot you.

(in reply to Faramir)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/8/2005 8:43:29 AM

Posts: 159
Joined: 12/10/2004
Status: offline

As a Librarian and image archivist I work with image copyright all day long. You simply would not believe the 18th century nonsense that is coming down the pike from congress lately. fucking luddites.

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/8/2005 1:36:07 PM

Posts: 388
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

I think the biggest objection to this proposed law has gotten lost in here somewhere, yet again. If I'm not mistaken, many people who are opposed to the legislation are not protesting for the right to view adult material so much as the right to PRIVACY.

From what I understand, by virtue of having your picture on a site such as this one, you would be required to submit personal, verifiable information to the admins here. While I trust that they have no ill intent toward the use of that information, that fact that it would be collected and stored in a database and available to certain people that I may or may not want to have access to it, makes me leery. And as others have pointed out, this law does not single out any one 'type' of site. You could make custom leather corsets and if you have a site with models wearing them, this might affect them and you.

_____________________________

Never Without Love

(in reply to Alexander)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/8/2005 2:18:18 PM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Yeah, and I'm more and more skeptical of legislation that requires us to "trust" the good intentions of our government.

(in reply to luvdragonx)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/8/2005 2:21:11 PM

Posts: 388
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

I'm right with ya on that one....

_____________________________

Never Without Love

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/8/2005 4:10:44 PM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

Are you happy living in Texas?

(in reply to luvdragonx)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/8/2005 5:01:44 PM

Posts: 388
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline

So far, I've not considered living anywhere else. My biggest concern when it comes to location is how I'm allowed to bring up my kids. Texas, so far as I've experienced is non-intrusive when it comes to parental choices, particularly with education. I've chosen to homeschool mine and I'm beyond thrilled that I don't have to petition, register or otherwise make any account of what my educational tools or methods are. The second biggest consideration is natural disasters. No earthquakes, blizzards, hurricanes, mudslides or forest fires, thank you very much. I love Central TX

_____________________________

Never Without Love

(in reply to Lordandmaster)

RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 - 8/8/2005 11:10:37 PM

Posts: 142
Joined: 1/17/2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domin81

Yawns and stretches in Canada.

How many more years of George Bush?

Try:

The Bush Countdown Clock (Edited to remove this link as it's not accurate)

and

Is It Over Yet?

< Message edited by Ojedieu -- 8/9/2005 2:14:25 AM >

_____________________________

Ojedieu

(in reply to Domin81)

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.338