Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257

Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Understudy -> Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 6:01:15 AM)
The law went into effect last night. Basically if you want to keep you explicit pictures up forget it. You have to have full documentation on it readily avaliable There is a lot more to it than this , but the just of it is the internet isn't go to as much fun anymore. Here is the law. The free speech coalition Boing Boing showing just some of the sites and their response to it. Basically if you are hosting BDSM pics on your site and server is located in the US and you don't have paperwork on every picture, your screwed. This includes photos that you took or had taken in a non professional setting. Sincerely, Brendhan

Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:28:58 AM)
But if I put up pictures of myself, I'm the one producing it, right? So the record keeping requirement would be for me - if I put up a picture of me naked or something, any compliance responsibility would be mine, right? A "gotcha" law, like, "All US citizens will have an adult tuna of at least 4' in length mounted and stuffed on a wall, prominently, in their place of principal residence," so that the government can selectively pick someone and say, "Oh, Mr. Franks, we see you don't have your tunafish mounted as per US Code 123,456 - you're going to jail" has to be unconstitutional. 1) If I can't constructively express myself, the state is violating the 1st amendment, and 2) If it is selectively enforced (and there is no way the state can go after all of us at personal sites) there is an equal protection issue. I can see how this would affect pornography producers, but I can't see how this would apply to personal pictures - to pics you have as part of a personal ad.

sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:32:38 AM)
quote: But if I put up pictures of myself, I'm the one producing it, right? So the record keeping requirement would be for me - if I put up a picture of me naked or something, any compliance responsibility would be mine, right? We,ve been talking about this for the past two week's in other posts. It doesn't matter if you took the photo yourself or not unless you own the website it is going on. Say you put your photo on collarme. Then you have to provide them with a release. Name...address..e-mail address's. Same as a model has to. If you own the site you have your photo on it will be easy enough to produce documentation when the time arises.

Faramir -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:37:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire It doesn't matter if you took the photo yourself or not unless you own the website it is going on. Say you put your photo on collarme. Then you have to provide them with a release. Name...address..e-mail address's. Same as a model has to. If you own the site you have your photo on it will be easy enough to produce documentation when the time arises. Right, my point though was the US has a robust constitution and rule of law. If the state tries to act in an arbitrary manner, or in a manner that violates the US Contistution, the judiciary strikes down or clarifies that law. So whenever someone says "The sky is falling" because of a law, they are wrong, because of the robust nature of our democracy. America has 200 years of increasing freedom and rights enforcement, not decreasing.

sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 7:41:57 AM)
quote: America has 200 years of increasing freedom and rights enforcement, not decreasing. Exactly. Anyone who really cares about this site should volunteer now. All of those profile pics that are there need reviewing. Many need to be pulled down...or the government will pull the site down. I know they have been backlogged in the past....it just got like 70,000 times worse overnight.

stormsfate -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 9:24:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sub4hire Exactly. Anyone who really cares about this site should volunteer now. I think a good number of us did volunteer but didn't receive so much as an acknowledgement that our offer was received. That's okay, because I'm sure they are very busy and didn't get around to setting up an auto-responder, but my point is that there are plenty who would be glad to volunteer and have volunteered some of their time to the site. best regards, fate

sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 10:15:53 AM)
I know, I volunteered some time ago too. I did get a response and was told to IM a mod. Did so, numerous times with never a response back to my IM. Finally after about a month I gave up. They definately are going to need some serious help. I have no idea how many mods or helpers there are but it clearly isn't enough. I'm only thinking of profile mods...and people to answer all the questions why.

Understudy -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 11:04:18 AM)
As silly as this sounds one way to deal with this may be to have your servers located outside of the US. I know mine are in England. I have talked to the admins of my hosting company. They basically expect a lot of companies to move there accounts to offshore servers. I know that isn't a complkete solution. However it may be a way to start. Sincerely, Brendhan

LadyAngelika -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 12:34:21 PM)
quote: Basically if you are hosting BDSM pics on your site and server is located in the US and you don't have paperwork on every picture, your screwed. Well we Canadians are more then happy to host all of your smut! - LA

Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 12:47:17 PM)
What if the model is dead? Does that mean you can't post classic photography if it's nude? Or what about paintings? Is Titian now verboten? Lam

ProScatman -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 12:49:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Understudy As silly as this sounds one way to deal with this may be to have your servers located outside of the US. I know mine are in England. I have talked to the admins of my hosting company. They basically expect a lot of companies to move there accounts to offshore servers. I know that isn't a complkete solution. However it may be a way to start. Sincerely, Brendhan Just because the rich are allowed to form off shore corperations doesn't mean the feds will make it that easy for common folk to move servers once they get wind of the plan! Yes, I'm cynicle, and no I don't trust them!

ProScatman -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 1:12:51 PM)
quote: America has 200 years of increasing freedom and rights enforcement, not decreasing. I beg to differ with you! They can do anything they like! Just look at what the've done in the name of Homeland Security! I reciently refie'd my house, and among the pile of papers was one for the feds stating I am an American, and have lived here and all that dribble! Have you not been listening to CNN or one of the others when they first decided that in the interest of Homeland Security we needed to give up some of our rights to privacy? What will we have to give up next in the name of the state? In recient times they decided you can't own any rifle with a bayonet lug on it? They do as they please, because they know anyone trying to stop them has to get a court order, and that takes money, and months sometimes.

Understudy -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 1:16:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ProScatman Just because the rich are allowed to form off shore corperations doesn't mean the feds will make it that easy for common folk to move servers once they get wind of the plan! Yes, I'm cynicle, and no I don't trust them! The corperations may have money I do not. The reason my hosting company is in England is because of their price. Now they may not be the absolute cheapest but they are very low in price and the service is good. I have been reading up on this in a BDSM legal website on Yahoo groups. They quoted someone as saying that the interpretation was being overblown. However I have 3 websites I visit that have either shutdown or changed their format in some way. Several other groups I belong to have also made modifications. I don't know if this is all over reaction but, I would think that the lawyers would at least be talking to their clients about this. I would love to hear what the lawyers are saying. So any lawyers in the group want tot speak up. I am not looking to hire or retain a lawyer your comments are freely given without obligation or liablity. Strictly for educational purposes. Sincerely, Brendhan

LadyAngelika -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 1:17:05 PM)
quote: Just because the rich are allowed to form off shore corperations doesn't mean the feds will make it that easy for common folk to move servers once they get wind of the plan! Server space in India is dirt cheap. Where do you think so many larger hosting companies house most of their sites? - LA

sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 1:26:18 PM)
quote: America has 200 years of increasing freedom and rights enforcement, not decreasing. I beg to differ with you! I took that to say American has 200 years of increasing rights enforcement all in the name of freedom....hehe.

GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 1:43:42 PM)
I agree that if I post photos of Myself on My own website, I am simply required to keep My own records. What I am wondering now is whether or not I can report anyone who sends Me vulgar, unsolicited photos. Now that would be refreshing! W

sub4hire -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 1:51:01 PM)
NCSF Announcement New Regulations for Title 18, Section 2257 As of June 23rd, 2005, the U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 adult material record-keeping and labeling law is being expanded to include the Internet. These regulations update the record-keeping requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. NCSF believes the new 2257 regulations are unconstitutional because they are unjustly burdensome on protected speech and a serious threat to privacy. There are a number of practical difficulties in complying with the proposed 2257 regulations which will apply to both companies and individual website owners. One of the key issues is the definition of a "producer" of content and the requirement that "secondary producers" must also keep original records for every image. The name and physical address of the custodian of these records must be posted with the images. NCSF is working with the Free Speech Coalition for greater clarity on compliance and will pass along advice as it becomes available. For more information about 2257, go to: http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257info.htm ### A project of NCSF and the NCSF Foundation The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual expression. National Coalition for Sexual Freedom 822 Guilford Avenue, Box 127 Baltimore, MD 21202-3707 410-539-4824 media @ ncsfreedom.org http://www.ncsfreedom.org Please cross-post Please do not post full articles, they violate copyright laws M3

Domin81 -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 4:09:51 PM)
Yawns and stretches in Canada. How many more years of George Bush?

fillepink -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 5:34:35 PM)
fillepink..inactive lawyer...E/everyone should breath deeply..and send money to T/their favorite charities...life will go on. [image]local://upfiles/72910/42D670F224674025B409C25105BCD932.jpg[/image]

Lordandmaster -> RE: Section 18 U.S.C. § 2257 (6/23/2005 6:13:37 PM)
How reassuring. quote: ORIGINAL: fillepink life will go on.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.0546875