Blue Law Makes Webmasters See Red - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Nomad · 06-22-2005, 01:49 AM

Blue Law Makes Webmasters See Red

An adult industry trade association plans to head to court this week to fight new federal enforcement efforts that could catch thousands of online porn sites with their pants down.

Under penalty of federal prison terms, new interpretations of existing regulations would require sites that feature photographs or videos of sexual activity to keep records confirming that performers are of legal age.

In an industry that's faced little oversight, the change in policy will spawn mountains of paperwork. But that's not all: Sites may be forced to remove some or all of their racy content because the original records belong to someone else or never existed. Those who can't comply -- including many free sites that rely on stolen content -- will have to shut down or risk a visit from federal investigators.

"People are pretty freaked out," said porn webmaster Jim McAnally, who estimates that more than half of hard-core websites, including some of his, will have to dump significant numbers of photos and videos. "This will affect people from top to bottom."

The new regulations are scheduled to go into effect June 23. The Free Speech Coalition, which represents the adult industry, announced Tuesday that it will file a request for an injunction later this week to prevent the regulation's enforcement. But the details are hush-hush.

"Exactly what day it is we're not at liberty to say, nor what district we will file in or who the plaintiffs are," said spokesman Tom Hymes on Tuesday at the Cybernet Expo, an annual meeting of porn webmasters in San Diego.

Age records in the porn industry are nothing new: Since federal law 18 U.S.C. 2257 went into effect 15 years ago, everyone who produces porn has been required to prove that performers are over 18. (According to adult industry attorney J.D. Obenberger, the regulations were inspired by congressional outrage at a hard-core video performance by 15-year-old Traci Lords.)

Now, the law is getting stricter. The new enforcement regulations would require webmasters that don't produce material to keep age records for every image that shows or implies sexual activity on their sites. (Sites that simply feature straightforward nudity are exempt.)

"If the original content producer can't be found or went out of business or is unwilling to release information, that causes this content to become criminal overnight," said adult industry attorney Lawrence Walters. "These webmasters are facing felony charges if they continue distributing images they've been distributing for the last five to 10 years."

The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison per violation.

Daniel_ · 06-22-2005, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nomad

***** SNIP ****

"This will affect people from top to bottom."

***** SNIP ****

sorry - but that made me laugh....

cait987 · 06-22-2005, 02:49 AM

Also, just to add I went to the original link and it seems theres a second page you missed on there, not sure if didn't see or just didn't feel it was important.

Interesting turn of events though but the porn industry is so big I imagine they may find some way around it that would cost them/affect them very little.

ShaniFaye · 06-22-2005, 02:56 AM

can somebody explain to me why I should feel sorry for "free sites with stolen content" for having to prove the ages (which if Im not mistaken, its already a law that you have to be a certain age to do that kind of stuff) of the people in the pictures that they stole?

maybe Im missing something here

Jesus Pimp · 06-22-2005, 03:48 AM

Welcome to last month?

Redlemon · 06-22-2005, 05:02 AM

I hate to even bring it up, but is this rule going to affect Tilted Exhibition?

maleficent · 06-22-2005, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

I hate to even bring it up, but is this rule going to affect Tilted Exhibition?

The TB even more so...

shalafi · 06-22-2005, 05:12 AM

Just a guess but they will probably have to remove all the images portraying sex and not just nudity and add that to the list of things you can't submit. Assuming its decided its worth the risk of leaving it up at all.

I wonder how "per violation" is defined. If its each picture a single set could get you a several hundred year prison sentance.

ShaniFaye · 06-22-2005, 05:12 AM

*most* of tilted exhibition is nudity only so as far as that goes, no it wouldnt affect it. I dont know about the people that post "sex act pics" though

Phatmonkyz · 06-22-2005, 05:13 AM

can't we just stop posting XXX and lesbians on the TB and "simply feature straightforward nudity?"

pocon1 · 06-22-2005, 05:29 AM

nothing to say

Daniel_ · 06-22-2005, 05:44 AM

Seeing as most of the stuff on the TB is not strictly hosted on TFP it's a null question.

when you call up a post, your browser is actually linking to the porn company's server va the magic of hotlinking and bandwidth theft.

So it's only pictures placed here AS ATTACHMENTS that are a rick of being covered by the rules.

Obviously the moral questions surrounding bandwidth theft are different.

In the end I suspect that the Porn Barons will just take their sites offshore.

I expect the value of "cock-craving-teens.tv" as a domain, just went up...

streak_56 · 06-22-2005, 06:31 AM

This really doesn't affect me. Though I am concerned about the exhibition pictures because I posted there ONCE. But meh.... doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.

Phant84 · 06-22-2005, 12:36 PM

i wouldnt think that tilted exhibition would be that big of a deal because of the fact being that since its all members i dont think it would be that hard to have people that want to post to submit a scanned copy a DL and store it on the server.

thats my 2 cents but like i said, i dont think it would be that big of a deal.

Bamrak · 06-22-2005, 01:36 PM

Hmm.. I must be getting old. All these changes to the Porn industry, and my only question is why is this thread in the Tilted News section.

clavus · 06-22-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nomad

... said porn webmaster Jim McAnally...

mcANALLY.

pppppppppfft! HA HA HA!

brknkybrd · 06-22-2005, 09:29 PM

I have nothing against this law, as long as it applies <i>from now on</i>, but trying to implement it retroactively? Uhhh... How? Why? Sounds like a huge waste of resources to try to enforce such a law to already existing content, and they'd never be able to catch everybody.

Redlemon · 06-23-2005, 06:04 AM

There's an excellent analysis and discussion of this rule over on Boing Boing today, and that post links to the actual regulation, if anyone is interested. The article is SFW, but it is well-formatted and linkfull, so I didn't try to copy it in here. Many websites are preemptively shutting down, rather than deal with the rule.

From an AVN article linked within the BoingBoing article:

Quote:

But the main charge in the suit is to the entire concept of 2257: that protected sexual speech has been burdened with a regulation that, in essence, requires it to prove itself innocent of using minors in its creation, rather than requiring the government to meet its constitutional burden of proving the speech guilty.

"18 U.S.C. §2257 has created a presumption that otherwise lawful expressive works containing visual depictions of adult performers engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct cannot be lawfully produced or disseminated to adult consumers unless the dossier and label required by 18 U.S.C. §2257 are created and maintained," the lawsuit states, "... thereby burdening constitutionally protected speech with a presumption of unlawfulness that may be overcome only by the producer’s production of the dossiers and label mandated by law."

"Indeed, requiring twenty-, thirty-, forty-, fifty-, and sixty-year-old performers to divulge personal information and identification documents to producers of regulated expressive works is not a narrowly tailored means of promoting a legitimate and compelling government interest in child protection," the suit continues, noting also that the requirement "is not a narrowly tailored means of promoting a legitimate and compelling government interest in child protection."

Redlemon · 06-23-2005, 05:14 PM

Here's an opinion article by Annalee Newitz (http://www.alternet.org/story/22289/) that does an excellent job of explaining the problems with this rule. The more I read, the worse it gets.

Quote:

The DOJ has wisely made the world safer by forcing anyone even remotely connected with publishing erotic images online to keep elaborate files on the true identities of everyone in said images for seven years.

When the US government wants to police what citizens are saying online, it pulls out the most potent weapon in its arsenal: bureaucratic regulations. The Department of Justice is currently pushing two new regs that will generate long-lasting records of what people are posting and reading. What's particularly dirty about all this is that it puts the onus of tracking people on private businesses, rather than in the hands of law enforcement.

How will this tracking regime begin? With a group of unpopular and often marginal people, of course. You know - pornographers. The DOJ recently issued a regulation, which goes into effect next week, updating the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act for the Internet age. This law, also simply known as 2257, after its number in the criminal code, requires adult businesses to keep detailed records proving that all the models they use are over the age of 18. Incidentally, these records will also contain the real names of performers, and often their addresses too.

To keep "proper records" under the new version of 2257 (and avoid steep fines or jail time), you must maintain files that contain every single erotic image or film you've published, cross-indexed with age-verification papers for every single performer in them. These records must be kept for seven years. That's a hell of a lot of hard drive space if you run a porn site that posts streaming videos. It's also a logistical nightmare for any site that does reviews of adult movies or erotic material. Republishing an erotic image - even if you're doing it simply for the purposes of criticism - requires you to keep the same age-verification records as the people who created that image. The law also applies to any Web site that posts "lascivious" images of naked people or people engaging in "sexual activity."

But wait - there's more. Any site affected by 2257 must also publish a physical address that serves as its "place of business." Someone must be available at that address 20 hours a week just in case a law enforcement officer wants to gain access to those 2257 records. This doesn't seem too onerous if you imagine a Penthouse.com or Vivid Video type of operation. But consider all the mom-and-pop adult Web sites run out of private residences, or Webcam girls who don't turn the cam off when they take someone to bed. These rules mean that your local Webcam girl and our friends over at sex blog Fleshbot.com must publish their physical addresses online, thus leaving performers and writers vulnerable to stalking and harassment. But hey, it's a great full-access wank pass for cops who can't afford to pay for really primo porn sites every month.

My favorite part of the DOJ's discussion of the new regulation in the Federal Register is where it denies that "a hypothetically possible crime, such as the stalking of a performer," could be "in any way tied to the dissemination of the information about a performer." In other words, the most powerful law enforcement organization in the land doesn't get the connection between stalking crimes and keeping the real names and addresses of porn actors on file at an address made available to the general public. Kind of makes it obvious why the DOJ is having a hard time dealing with terrorism, doesn't it? I mean, what exactly is the connection between a bad guy knowing the name and address of his target and his committing a crime against that target? Sounds pretty hypothetical to me.

So now the DOJ has wisely made the world safer by forcing anyone even remotely connected with publishing erotic images to keep elaborate files on the true identities of everyone in said images for seven years. And we're even more secure because law enforcement officers can wander into adult businesses any time they want, without a court order, and go through every single file for hours or days at a time. But few people - save for the heroic Free Speech Coalition, which is working on crushing this new regulation with injunctions and lawsuits - are going to argue with placing porn under surveillance. After all, porn is naughty, and the people in it don't deserve privacy.

That's why 2257 is a great testing ground for a much broader scheme by the DOJ. This scheme, sometimes called "mandatory data retention," would force all Internet service providers to keep files on everything that people using their services are doing online. Every time you use AOL, the company would have to keep a record of your chat sessions, what Web sites you visited, your e-mail, etc. Sound like another paranoid fantasy brought to you by the tinfoil-hat brigade? Think again: It's a real proposal that was floated by the DOJ at an April 27 meeting with various Internet service providers. News.com quotes US Internet Industry Association president Dave McClure saying that DOJ reps want to mandate, perhaps "by law," a set time period during which ISPs would retain data about the personal online habits of all their users.

That's how it goes. First they come for the pornographers, and then they come for you.

mr sticky · 06-23-2005, 08:15 PM

Well... I guess it was about time for the feds to start fucking up the internet. The last bastion of true free thinking, discount publishing, and the free transmission of info and ideas- damn, we can't have that can we?
Am I the only conservative to believe that the Bill of Rights is more important to us as a country than the titties on the internet?
I've never seen a picture of a boobie kill anyone, nor have I seen it blow up a building. Yet, these fucks are using the power of the homeland security bandwagon to key up the "big brother" machine.
I know! Maybe, if I don't look at titties on the internet, maybe the Islamic Jihadists won't want to blow us up! Then it will all be worth it!

I hope our boys who are over in the Middle East come back to something worth fighting for, and not run into the Taliban 2.0 right here in the states.

Spanky Johnson · 06-27-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

Many websites are preemptively shutting down, rather than deal with the rule.

Which of course is exactly what the DOJ is hoping for.

Spanky Johnson · 06-27-2005, 05:39 PM

Oh yeah - and I wonder where the DOJ intends to put all these renegade webmasters it will prosecute for code 2257 violations. Will there early parole for victims of the War on Drugs to make room for the victims of the War on Porn?

Nah, what am I thinking. We just need to build more prisons. We currently incarcerate only 5 to 8 times the percentage of our population than the rest of the world. We don't want to lose our lead. USA #1 !!!

06-22-2005, 01:49 AM	#1 (permalink)
Nomad Heathen Location: California	Blue Law Makes Webmasters See Red Blue Law Makes Webmasters See Red An adult industry trade association plans to head to court this week to fight new federal enforcement efforts that could catch thousands of online porn sites with their pants down. Under penalty of federal prison terms, new interpretations of existing regulations would require sites that feature photographs or videos of sexual activity to keep records confirming that performers are of legal age. In an industry that's faced little oversight, the change in policy will spawn mountains of paperwork. But that's not all: Sites may be forced to remove some or all of their racy content because the original records belong to someone else or never existed. Those who can't comply -- including many free sites that rely on stolen content -- will have to shut down or risk a visit from federal investigators. "People are pretty freaked out," said porn webmaster Jim McAnally, who estimates that more than half of hard-core websites, including some of his, will have to dump significant numbers of photos and videos. "This will affect people from top to bottom." The new regulations are scheduled to go into effect June 23. The Free Speech Coalition, which represents the adult industry, announced Tuesday that it will file a request for an injunction later this week to prevent the regulation's enforcement. But the details are hush-hush. "Exactly what day it is we're not at liberty to say, nor what district we will file in or who the plaintiffs are," said spokesman Tom Hymes on Tuesday at the Cybernet Expo, an annual meeting of porn webmasters in San Diego. Age records in the porn industry are nothing new: Since federal law 18 U.S.C. 2257 went into effect 15 years ago, everyone who produces porn has been required to prove that performers are over 18. (According to adult industry attorney J.D. Obenberger, the regulations were inspired by congressional outrage at a hard-core video performance by 15-year-old Traci Lords.) Now, the law is getting stricter. The new enforcement regulations would require webmasters that don't produce material to keep age records for every image that shows or implies sexual activity on their sites. (Sites that simply feature straightforward nudity are exempt.) "If the original content producer can't be found or went out of business or is unwilling to release information, that causes this content to become criminal overnight," said adult industry attorney Lawrence Walters. "These webmasters are facing felony charges if they continue distributing images they've been distributing for the last five to 10 years." The maximum penalty is 10 years in prison per violation.

06-22-2005, 02:56 AM	#4 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	can somebody explain to me why I should feel sorry for "free sites with stolen content" for having to prove the ages (which if Im not mistaken, its already a law that you have to be a certain age to do that kind of stuff) of the people in the pictures that they stole? maybe Im missing something here __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

06-22-2005, 03:48 AM	#5 (permalink)
Jesus Pimp The Original JizzSmacka	Welcome to last month? __________________ Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.

06-22-2005, 05:02 AM	#6 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	I hate to even bring it up, but is this rule going to affect Tilted Exhibition? __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

06-22-2005, 05:12 AM	#9 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	most of tilted exhibition is nudity only so as far as that goes, no it wouldnt affect it. I dont know about the people that post "sex act pics" though __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

06-22-2005, 02:49 AM	#3 (permalink)
cait987 Insane	Also, just to add I went to the original link and it seems theres a second page you missed on there, not sure if didn't see or just didn't feel it was important. Interesting turn of events though but the porn industry is so big I imagine they may find some way around it that would cost them/affect them very little.

06-22-2005, 05:12 AM	#8 (permalink)
shalafi ARRRRRRRRRR Location: Stuart, Florida	Just a guess but they will probably have to remove all the images portraying sex and not just nudity and add that to the list of things you can't submit. Assuming its decided its worth the risk of leaving it up at all. I wonder how "per violation" is defined. If its each picture a single set could get you a several hundred year prison sentance.

06-22-2005, 05:13 AM	#10 (permalink)
Phatmonkyz Insane	can't we just stop posting XXX and lesbians on the TB and "simply feature straightforward nudity?" __________________ The Vagina - the mysterious hole from whence you came, and into which you hope to cum again. Good Times

06-22-2005, 05:29 AM	#11 (permalink)
pocon1 Banned	nothing to say Last edited by pocon1; 07-06-2008 at 10:15 PM..

06-22-2005, 05:44 AM	#12 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	Seeing as most of the stuff on the TB is not strictly hosted on TFP it's a null question. when you call up a post, your browser is actually linking to the porn company's server va the magic of hotlinking and bandwidth theft. So it's only pictures placed here AS ATTACHMENTS that are a rick of being covered by the rules. Obviously the moral questions surrounding bandwidth theft are different. In the end I suspect that the Porn Barons will just take their sites offshore. I expect the value of "cock-craving-teens.tv" as a domain, just went up... __________________ ╔═════════════════════════════════════════╗ Overhead, the Albatross hangs motionless upon the air, And deep beneath the rolling waves, In labyrinths of Coral Caves, The Echo of a distant time Comes willowing across the sand; And everthing is Green and Submarine ╚═════════════════════════════════════════╝

06-22-2005, 06:31 AM	#13 (permalink)
streak_56 who ever said streaking was a bad thing? Location: Calgary	This really doesn't affect me. Though I am concerned about the exhibition pictures because I posted there ONCE. But meh.... doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.

06-22-2005, 12:36 PM	#14 (permalink)
Phant84 Insane Location: aqui	i wouldnt think that tilted exhibition would be that big of a deal because of the fact being that since its all members i dont think it would be that hard to have people that want to post to submit a scanned copy a DL and store it on the server. thats my 2 cents but like i said, i dont think it would be that big of a deal. __________________ Phant Irrationality is the square root of all evil

06-22-2005, 01:36 PM	#15 (permalink)
Bamrak Enter Title Here Location: Tennessee	Hmm.. I must be getting old. All these changes to the Porn industry, and my only question is why is this thread in the Tilted News section.

06-22-2005, 09:29 PM	#17 (permalink)
brknkybrd I think I broke something. Location: Right behind you.	I have nothing against this law, as long as it applies <i>from now on</i>, but trying to implement it retroactively? Uhhh... How? Why? Sounds like a huge waste of resources to try to enforce such a law to already existing content, and they'd never be able to catch everybody. __________________ Normal is overrated.

06-23-2005, 08:15 PM	#20 (permalink)
mr sticky Psycho Location: NC	Well... I guess it was about time for the feds to start fucking up the internet. The last bastion of true free thinking, discount publishing, and the free transmission of info and ideas- damn, we can't have that can we? Am I the only conservative to believe that the Bill of Rights is more important to us as a country than the titties on the internet? I've never seen a picture of a boobie kill anyone, nor have I seen it blow up a building. Yet, these fucks are using the power of the homeland security bandwagon to key up the "big brother" machine. I know! Maybe, if I don't look at titties on the internet, maybe the Islamic Jihadists won't want to blow us up! Then it will all be worth it! I hope our boys who are over in the Middle East come back to something worth fighting for, and not run into the Taliban 2.0 right here in the states. __________________ The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

06-27-2005, 05:39 PM	#22 (permalink)
Spanky Johnson Insane	Oh yeah - and I wonder where the DOJ intends to put all these renegade webmasters it will prosecute for code 2257 violations. Will there early parole for victims of the War on Drugs to make room for the victims of the War on Porn? Nah, what am I thinking. We just need to build more prisons. We currently incarcerate only 5 to 8 times the percentage of our population than the rest of the world. We don't want to lose our lead. USA #1 !!!