Feds trying to regulate porn.... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Push-Pull · 08-22-2007, 04:02 AM

I wasn't sure whether to put this here or in Tilted Politics, but here it is.....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007...non_fisher.htm

On one hand, I can see WHY the feds would do this, but on the other, I think it's a bit unrealistic to assume that ALL the names and identities can be established. And what about web sites that feature amateurs? How do you keep up with all that?

So here's the question, is this just yet another way for the gubment to keep certain parts of society in check, and what will the end result be for the porn industry and it's end users?

Psycho Dad · 08-22-2007, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Push-Pull

So here's the question, is this just yet another way for the gubment to keep certain parts of society in check, and what will the end result be for the porn industry and it's end users?

This is more of a way for someone to try to legislate their morality upon someone else "for the sake of the children" than an attempt at federal mind control. Stick Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act to it and what politician will speak up and say "what a fucking waste of time and effort".

BTW, what the fuck happened to Jena Jameson in that picture?

Willravel · 08-22-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

FEDS' PORN ULTIMATUM
By JANON FISHER

August 19, 2007 -- Ron Jeremy, Jenna Jameson - get ready to stand and be counted.
The Department of Justice wants to come up with an official list of every porn star in America - and slap stiff penalties on producers who don't cooperate.
The new rules, proposed under the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act, would require blue-movie makers to keep photos, stage names, professional names, maiden names, aliases, nicknames and ages on file for the inspection of the department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section.
"The identity of every performer is critical to determining and ensuring that no performer is a minor," according to the new proposal.
The adult film industry plans to challenge the new rule as a violation of the First Amendment, said Paul Cambria, a lawyer for Hustler and other adult film companies.
He sees it as a way to harass legitimate stag-film producers.
"If they can't get you for obscenity, they'll get you for violating record-keeping," he said. Such a violation would carry a five-year penalty.
The proposed rule would require porn producers to give the title of the video or magazine, or the Web address where the actor appears.
The Department of Justice has shown some sensitivity for the performers' privacy, however. All information not essential to proving their age and identity, like phone numbers and addresses, can be withheld.
Distributors of foreign pornography aren't off the hook - they must still produce a copy of the foreign actor's identification card. The department estimates that there are 500,000 Web sites, 200 DVD producers and 5,000 businesses nationwide that would be subject to the new rule.
The department did not respond to requests for comment, but in its proposal suggested that the benefits outweighed any negative impact on the porn industry.
"The benefit of the rule is that children will be better protected from exploitation in the production of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct by ensuring that only those who are at least 18 years of age perform in such depictions. The costs to the industry include slightly higher record-keeping costs," the agency argued.
janon.fisher@nypost.com

This is one of the most stupid thing I've ever heard of. I'm not a big fan of pornography, but this level of ignorance is astounding. I hope they fight this in order to protect the amateur market (a lot of my friends in college did the webcam thing to pay for school, which I fully support). If they break the law and don't keep their content from minors, then they can go after them. Pornography is not illegal.

Terrell · 08-22-2007, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

This is more of a way for someone to try to legislate their morality upon someone else "for the sake of the children" than an attempt at federal mind control. Stick Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act to it and what politician will speak up and say "what a fucking waste of time and effort".

BTW, what the fuck happened to Jena Jameson in that picture?

I'm thinking the same thing. I strongly suspect that the Feds' intent is to make it more difficult, if not impossible to legally produce porn by making the regulations as burdensome as possible. I also suspect, strongly, that it's motivated in someone else's idea of sexual morality.

Redlemon · 08-22-2007, 10:23 AM

I don't really trust the NY Post to correctly identify anything, so I'm checking elsewhere.

My first choice for this sort of info is Fleshbot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porn Is Like So Mainstream - Fleshbot

The New York Post must not pay much attention to the porn industry since they've apparently never heard of 2257 regulations or any pornstars who have actually performed on camera in the last five years. Maybe a massive government database would actually help them learn some new names.

So, perhaps this is just the same old 2257 stuff?
OK, let's try Violet Blue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiny nibbles

The Adam Walsh Child Safety Act was brought to us courtesy of former Rep. Mark Foley, who resigned after getting caught for (estimated, alleged, one actual, an apparently well-known) ten years' worth of sexual misconduct with Congressional pages. And we all know how well harassing adult porn performers and legitimate, law-abiding porn producers works to curb all those law-abiding child porn makers. Anyone else seriously freaked out by the government making lists of citizens based on their profession, or sexual choices?

Again, no evidence that this is something new.

Searching The Library of Congress (THOMAS), I can't find anything currently proposed aside from something having to do with Indian reservation voting dates.

I therefore consider this to be alarmist bullshit from the Post. Please feel free to cite something different, I'm all ears.

ratbastid · 08-22-2007, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

BTW, what the fuck happened to Jena Jameson in that picture?

That's what a career in porn does to pretty girls: turn them into siliconized blow-up dolls.

kutulu · 08-22-2007, 10:42 AM

I was thinking it was more because of extreme weight loss brought on by a combination of drugs and anorexia. Throughout her prime she always had a hot body.

Racnad · 08-22-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Push-Pull

I wasn't sure whether to put this here or in Tilted Politics, but here it is.....

http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007...non_fisher.htm

On one hand, I can see WHY the feds would do this, but on the other, I think it's a bit unrealistic to assume that ALL the names and identities can be established. And what about web sites that feature amateurs? How do you keep up with all that?

So here's the question, is this just yet another way for the gubment to keep certain parts of society in check, and what will the end result be for the porn industry and it's end users?

The reason for doing that is because it WOULD be unrealistic. The way governments try to close businesses they just can't outlaw is to create restrictions & requirements that are either impossible to meet or make it impossible for the business to earn a profit. An example would be strip clubs. A city can say, yes you can open a strip club, but it has to be more than 1000 feet from any school, park or church. But when you look at a map, there may be no place in the city that is more than 1000 feet from any school, park or church.

As for the effectiveness, more porn would be on off-shore servers, where the law is unenforceable. Unfortunately, if the server is in a location where laws against child porn are not enforced, there's nothing to stop them from adding links or promoting CP from non-CP sites Americans would be looking at.

mixedmedia · 08-22-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I was thinking it was more because of extreme weight loss brought on by a combination of drugs and anorexia. Throughout her prime she always had a hot body.

No, she had a lot of "work" done. It was a big point of controversy a while back.

ngdawg · 08-22-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kutulu

I was thinking it was more because of extreme weight loss brought on by a combination of drugs and anorexia. Throughout her prime she always had a hot body.

Yea, that was then....this is now. Her mouth looks like it could flap in a breeze...

Anyway...
I recall one of the tv magazines covering how the feds check out porn. One scene actually had me laughing-about 5 or 6 nerdy little agents sitting in front of their computers scanning porn sites. That's all their job was.
They don't have the 'pinkos' to go after, they're still trolling for terrorists somewhat and the 'war on drugs' is a farce...gotta keep the boys working somehow, right? It's McCarthyism-lite. Porn's been around for hundreds of years, it ain't going away. Civilization hasn't gone down the crapper as a result, yet these federale's would swear it is....

RenaissanceII · 08-22-2007, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

Yea, that was then....this is now. Her mouth looks like it could flap in a breeze...

Anyway...
I recall one of the tv magazines covering how the feds check out porn. One scene actually had me laughing-about 5 or 6 nerdy little agents sitting in front of their computers scanning porn sites. That's all their job was.
They don't have the 'pinkos' to go after, they're still trolling for terrorists somewhat and the 'war on drugs' is a farce...gotta keep the boys working somehow, right? It's McCarthyism-lite. Porn's been around for hundreds of years, it ain't going away. Civilization hasn't gone down the crapper as a result, yet these federale's would swear it is....

In part because there are large groups of people who cece taking responsiblilty for their actions, their thoughts, to the nanny state.

we do not seem to do that here.

Psycho Dad · 08-22-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

Again, no evidence that this is something new.

It doesn't make me feel any better that they have been wasting their time and our tax dollars with it instead of just now starting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

One scene actually had me laughing-about 5 or 6 nerdy little agents sitting in front of their computers scanning porn sites.

And not doing anything but drawing a check from Uncle Sam's tit. If shit like this were able to reduce young children from getting into porn, it would be one thing. But it isn't going going to do dick because there is little if anything they can do to enforce this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

No, she had a lot of "work" done. It was a big point of controversy a while back.

She needs a refund.

Plan9 · 08-24-2007, 08:49 AM

When there is no more porn in the US... I will just have to beat off on the federal documentation banning it.

RenaissanceII · 08-24-2007, 09:10 AM

It will never go away....We will not let it.

fooie · 08-26-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

So, perhaps this is just the same old 2257 stuff?

The new language can be found here:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...=f:publ248.109

08-22-2007, 04:02 AM	#1 (permalink)
Push-Pull I'll ask when I'm ready.... Location: Firmly in the middle....	Feds trying to regulate porn.... I wasn't sure whether to put this here or in Tilted Politics, but here it is..... http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007...non_fisher.htm On one hand, I can see WHY the feds would do this, but on the other, I think it's a bit unrealistic to assume that ALL the names and identities can be established. And what about web sites that feature amateurs? How do you keep up with all that? So here's the question, is this just yet another way for the gubment to keep certain parts of society in check, and what will the end result be for the porn industry and it's end users? __________________ "No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me- "Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown- DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer-

08-24-2007, 08:49 AM	#13 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	When there is no more porn in the US... I will just have to beat off on the federal documentation banning it. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

08-24-2007, 09:10 AM	#14 (permalink)
RenaissanceII Psycho Location: Grand Rapids	It will never go away....We will not let it. __________________ *And the day came when the risk to remain tight in a bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom.* Anais Nin I Wish *You* Well.

08-22-2007, 10:42 AM	#7 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I was thinking it was more because of extreme weight loss brought on by a combination of drugs and anorexia. Throughout her prime she always had a hot body.