Slashdot Mirror
Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites
How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.
So does this mean there's no mandatory retirement age for porn stars? Granny will want to hear about this.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I LOVE PR0N
this is a victory for all slashdorks
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Of course not. People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
I was getting worried that they might get suspicious that I still wank to porn despite the fact that I was born in 1901. Viagra works magic, amirite?
Life is rarely fair. Cherish the moments when there is a right answer.
Well: I was always stymied by those "age verification" questions ... could never get in to look at that pr0n. Now I can!
Hi! I'm
I can now post links to goatse and tubgirl without having to use a disclaimer! Imagine the changes here at Slashdot!
Hello, double entendre.
Bah, that was easy. There was a limited number of questions, and I think four possible answers given for each one, so you just kept guessing away until you could map out all the answers to all the questions.
There's a nerdy solution to every problem.
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
I've been a smut peddler for almost seven years. Even if the AVS isn't required by legislation, you can still expect them to stay around. In addition to the AVS being a good way in general to sell site access, it is also required by a lot of content licenses. For example, if I license a porno video to put on my site, it will say right in the license that I must put that video in a protected area behind some sort of AVS (read: credit card) barrier.
No credit card requirements for porn sites to verify my age anymore then?
Great! More porn easier. Not AC because I am not afraid to let people know I like watching sex.
Yes I am over 18.
If you don't want your kids looking at it try a little thing called parenting.
...
finish it.
headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket t ... so does this mean we're going to get an influx of pornographic images on smut-free sites like the above? Great, another useful resource that's going to be blocked by schools now.
Honestly, if the masturbating perverts out there want to get their jollies off of dirty pictures, fine, just make it bloody clear that's what a site contains before the rest of us get bombarded with god-knows-what.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
For you lawyer-types: Does this make it illegal for the Federal government to do this ? Or does it make it illegal for any government to enforce these requirements? Basically: Can the state of oregon say that they want to regulate this, or does this ruling make this illegal?
BA
The law that was struck down was about age verification and ID requirements for PERFORMERS in the porn. It had nothing to do with the age of the people VIEWING the porn.
Note that this ruling is not about the questions you get asked when visiting a website. (e.g. Are you at least 18/21/whatever?) This ruling is on the rules for storing proof of age of the people recorded in sexually explicit photos or videos.
It makes sense that the overly broad ruling made earlier would be overturned due to its potential to conflict with the 1st amendment. It would have become exceptionally difficult to post sexually explicit content without fear of violating the law. Expect a less sweeping law to be put forth shortly. (IANAL)
Insert self-referential sig here.
Someone was bound to find their lost neurons and actually use them. Kudos to the judges.
NO SIG
This is good news for freedom of expression, and for the internet in general, because most of it consists of porn.
In other porn news, bestiality-porn is about to be made illegal in my country, which saddens me because I like goats.
Azural - instrumentals
Adult natured games in 16 color EGA for the kids of yester year, gonzo orgy divx on demand for the kids of today.
The future is fucked. You think you had it rough? Try for not even being an American. At least you cannucks can just shout over the border and get answers.
Dog is my co-pilot.
In their summary, How Appealing notes that the requirement was struck down as "facially unconstitutional."
A lot of people are posting with obvious confusion about what was actually struck down.
... problem is the law is completely undiscriminating and many amateurs who run their sites from their homes are forced to publish their full names and address etc. for legal purposes. Not to mention that many feel that such documents regarding their performers identity should be kept confidential and only be obtainable via court order).
Title 18 USC 2257 has absolutely nothing to do with verifying the age of a web site's surfers. It imposes record keeping requirements on the web sites. Requiring them to keep and make available records of every performer's age and identity etc.
The law has always been controversial in the adult industry due to privacy concerns it raises for the performers and for the web site operators (you may notice on many porn sites at the very bottom they'll have a link called "legal" or "18 USC 2257" which links to a name and address where the records can be obtained
The full text of the law can be found at here
In other words it's not about verifying surfers age. It's about verifying performers.
This ruling wasn't about putting AVS on sites so as to prevent people from seeing the pics. This was a controversial change to the 2257 laws that were going to basically make it illegal to have any sort of adult oriented image online anywhere unless there was a verified with US ID and current contact information for the model. the law was semi insane, as not only would the original site need to have the name, address, phone numbers and so on of the models. but so would everyone else down the chain. the advertisers, the affiliates. this was also supposed to affect personal sites, and private web pages. basically the laws weren't in any way meant to protect children, or even stop online pornography. They were being used as a bludgeon to make online hookup sites impossible to run. thank god it got struck down.
"Thou shalt not filter on the date of birth,
for that censors the rights of the children."
And the heathens cheered, as their ranks would swell,
while the righteous cursed, as the children would be corrupted.
-- Book of the Internet, Chapter 72 verse 17.
Of course, this ruling doesn't have a ton of effect. After all, it's not like a fourteen year old can't select "I was born in 1972" in a drop down. Those pages were basically worthless. I'm not surprised the court ruled as they did. Probably the right decision. I'm not sure that a click-though page is really censoring free speech, but I understand why they did it (conspiracy theories aside).
I'm surprised that it this lasted this long, but if I were running a site I would keep the page up for plausible deniability and because we all know someone will try to find a way to re-enact this (local level, perhaps).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
I was getting worried that they might get suspicious that I still wank to porn despite the fact that I was born in 1901.
Well now you're safe to publish a picture of your activities, without worrying about whether their software has a hangover Y2K bug and might decide you're only 6 years old.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The majority proceeds to hold the statute facially over-broad...
Do judges really refer to their *ahem* as a 'statute'?
Ah! So that's what they do behind closed doors.
I think it would be a more suitable idea to keep records and not have to have them viewable to the public and only viewable by court subpoena. This would cause the "stories" of the high school sites and whatever to not have to force the 18 over line at the bottom. That is the nature of this law.
yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit.
So you'll be first in line to criticise any regulation of firearms then? Oh wait, this is Slashdot ... :-)
There was widespread protest at the latest ammendments to 2257 (which just came out of review in Sept. and were going into law in Dec - written in 2006 by Gonzolas and the Bush whitehouse) as they were going to document-requirement-out-of-existence many adult themed but obviously non-porographic websites, the national lesbian bisexual gay transgenered taskforce was doing political organizing against it, among many other groups.
... quo... was going to be applied much, much more widely come December.
Effectively it said you are a porn producer if you run a website that has any graphic nudity (or "portrayals" of sexual activity) on it and you must therefore comply with section 2257 recordkeeping guidelines which are a huge, gigantic pain in the ass and go far, far beyond ensuring you're not using child actors in your smut.
Additionally if you are a producer (and w/ the new definition so very many people will be) you can be 'audited' at any time which is in effect a warrantless search and seizure.
I work with some people in the adult industry and I have this information from the source (i.e. not 2nd hand) that agents came into their production company on a 2257 record keeping inspection and seized EVERYTHING in the room the records were kept in. Computers. Other records. Everything.
Subsequently other production studios started actually building special rooms to contain just their 2257 paperwork and nothing else (it appears the understanding is the warrantless search only applies to the room where the records are kept). I was in meetings where they were trying to figure out if the room had to have a door or just an opening, a ceiling, and what cross-linked records (did I mention the requirements are a pain) might possibly be somewhere else... they even needed a new server just for the electronic records b/c elsewhere servers (with all their graphics and video) were seized b/c they had part of the 2257 records stored on them.
I know this sounds ridiculous but I'm certain this is was status quo - now this
Bravo 6th circuit for putting breaks on this insanity.
Sorry I don't have time to include links but I'll follow up later w/ documentation if I can.
closed minded is as closed minded does
wtih a tribute to dyslexics everywhere: how many of you, semi-consciously scanning the page, read the headline as "H.M.S. Pinafore"?
:)
Scareduck, you have a sterling future as a writer of 19th-century British satire. That should come in useful in the 19th century.
Keep it cumming!
my buddy and i knew the answers to all of the questions when we were 8... and does anyone remember the prophetic
O.J. Simpson is:
a. no one to mess with
b. something
c. something about juice
d. under indictment
so depending on when you played the game, there were two answers to that one...
now is the winter of our discotheque
It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.
First actual ruling? I would have thought that would be the successful challenges to the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) and the Child Online Protection Act (COPA).
Basically, you cannot prove who is sitting at the keyboard.
slashdot will now allow images in the comments section?
that's a joke
no really, it's a joke
PLEASE NO
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Does this ruling cover sites selling alcohol, like www.manlaws.com etc?
That is statute not statue. Check a dictionary for difference.
Don't you mean a brute force solution?
Ah the days gone by ---sigh
Those questions were meant to keep out casual adolescent users. Geekkids were almost unknown back then.
I remember getting the biggest chuckle when the CENSORED text flashed over the bedroom scene. Plus the way he threw them up on the disco floor, hee hee.
In the UK there was a bit of an uproar when a tabloid printed topless pics of a model called Linsey Dawn McKenzie the day after she turned 16. They had been doing a countdown to her birthday with less risque shoots. The paper insisted that the pics had been taken the minute she turned 16 and printed in the very next edition, though some people claimed at the time that they had been taken earlier, and that all the papers readers (viewers?) were paedos. What a difference a day makes....
I know someone who went through a 2257 inspection. It's scary, because record-keeping mistakes are felonies. The law was intended to intimidate, which is part of why the court struck it down as overreaching. She came through it OK; she and her staff can quote the record-keeping requirements from memory (yes, the separate room requirement is real), and she knows all her models.
Compliance is easier if you're a real, live producer, with offices, staff, a business address, production space, and a payroll system. It's amateurs and the people who use third-party photographers who have problems.
I wonder if the judges would've ruled differently if they had seen this compelling video. This law could have protected many people of questionable age from exploitation in the prono industry.
While the average reader here has never been to such a site,
Yeah about that, this is slashdot we're pretty much mostly nerds here, um yeah you get the picture!
If you eat the pills of Spanish Fly when the dog is in sight... You end up in jail.
"Why do they even bother putting an age restriction on these things when all you have to do is click 'yes- I am 18!' Even a seventeen year-old could figure that out."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I'm not sure how much will change soon. I'm doing a shoot tomorrow and will once again be giving out way too much info once again. Unless this is it for government appeals, no producer of content will want to risk not having the records - so tomorrow I'll be spending the hour or so before each shoot doing unpaid paperwork for the government, and wondering if the creeps working in the office can be trusted with a big file of information that can be used to steal my identity...
If you read the law itself, or even the court ruling linked to in TFA, you will see otherwise.
In fact, the law required ANYONE who took sexually explicit photographs (for example, you taking pictures of you and your wife) to keep records, and make their place of business (or, in this example residence) available to inspection by the government with no advance notice.
Yes, you read that correctly. If you have taken explicit photographs of ANYBODY, for ANY reason, in the U.S. in recent years, and did not keep such records, or attach record information to such photographs, regardless of whether they were taken for commercial purposes, then the law considered YOU to be a felon, publishable by up to 5 years in federal prison.
If you don't believe me, read the court decision, or the 2257 laws themselves.
You may be right about his meaning, but his statement is probably more correct. There might be brute force solutions to every static problem. On the other hand, some problems change over time, and brute force might not always work. (e.g. a password system that destroys all data upon receiving 10 incorrect entries in a row)
Insert self-referential sig here.
First, Oregon is in the 9th Circuit, so this decision isn't binding, but Oregon has one of the nation's most powerful free speech clauses in their constitution. Practically any state or local attempt to restrict obscenity gets struck down in the state courts.
Because of this:
1) Localities can't prevent the creation of strip clubs with zoning laws.
2) Can't bar live sex shows.
3) Can't bar someone from being nude on their own lawn.
The first is why Portland has the highest number of strip clubs per capita in the nation. It's a statistic that the local chamber of commerce doesn't brag about.
(Strange that I've seen more in GA than in OR, but maybe I just live in the wrong/right place...)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I accidentally saw that the other day when I clicked on a link with a false description.
That isn't pornography anyway. It is absolutely disgusting, but it isn't pornography.
You were not actually mistaken, but the extent of the law was much greater than most people realize.
Contrary to the original post, this ruling was in fact about the performers, but the record-keeping requirements were for the "producers" of the product. But "producer" was very broadly defined. While ISPs and the like were generally not affected, the fact is that if your website had ANY "adult" images on it, then YOU (or your company) were required to verify the ages of anybody depicted in such images... even if they were originally made by someone else half a world away. Those records included a copy of legal ID for every person depicted in "adult" images.
So, in fact, just about every site that contained content made by someone else was in violation.
No, that's a Denial Of Service system. A prankster just has to type ten words and the whole database is wiped.
Microsoft says legacy (serial/parallel) ports are bad. They don't obfuscate the hardware enough.
Yeah, you said it. Why, in the old days one had to go 4 miles uphill through the snow - both ways, I might add - to take a peek at a chalk drawing of a naked lady on a stone tablet. And it was a stick figure too!
"The future is fucked."
Yeah. LSL actually had replay value.
Hmmm... do underage kids now get a chance to watch someone their own age for a change when they sneak down some pr0n?
Ok, where do I pick up my ticket, and which handbasket is mine? ;-)
Program Intellivision!
Texas has some of the loosest gun control laws in the country, according to the Brady Campaign. It also has the 10th highest violent crime rate, according to the DOJ.
Personally, I'm not a fan of gun control laws. As is says on the ABC News site, "The government wants to say regulations and laws like the Brady Gun Control Law are making a difference, but they aren't." Gun control opponents need to acknowledge that that statement works in both directions. Just because gun control laws don't help deter crime doesn't mean they encourage it. Statistics imply the laws have no effect in either direction.
Please, stick to the facts.
Ah nice... can everyone now PLEASE remove those anoying "age-check" drop-downs again? It's stupidly obvious that everyone just selects something between 1901 and 1980 with one swoop from the mouse-wheel.
my god she is ugly.
I live in the Netherlands and was four years old when I played Leisure Suit Larry. Thankfully, my dad was able to guide me through the age verification questions each and every time until I had the answers memorized. In fact, that game is the primary reason why learning English was relatively easy for me, all thanks to the likes of "open door", "sit down" and "order whiskey". (In case you're worried about a four-year-old playing an adult game: my dad correctly assumed I wouldn't get any of that stuff anyway, and I didn't. Which didn't matter a lot.)
oh yes i remember! I was 11ish and i bruteforced the correct answer to the questions. Didnt know much english either. It was like a mini game to enter the game itself.
:P
Get ring sink? Rings a bell... dont remember why...a taxi ride...you had to have a condom or your would die from all the stuff you contracted from the hooker...oh and the remote so the pimp(?) let you go to her
Good times, indeed.
I am sticking to the facts. First, if you are getting your information from the Brady Campaign, OR from ABC news, your sources are hopelessly biased. The Brady Campaign especially is notorious for spreading misinformation and distorted statistics, some of which have been repeated in the news media.
For example, the Brady Campaign is responsible for the myth that people who own guns are "more likely to kill a friend or family member" than prevent a crime with said gun(s). That is simply false. This is how that myth came to be.
In a "study" they sanctioned (I use the term "study" very loosely... they examined some historical data), they looked at overall gun deaths. They found, in their data, that people who are killed with firearms are often related or known to the shooter. This is true. But the data was misused, very irresponsibly in at least two ways: They include in "friend or family member" someone they knew only slightly, for example someone they had seen before in the neighborhood. And they completely neglected to mention that in the vast majority of these shootings, the shooter was protecting himself/herself against a serious property crime or violent crime.
You see, the fact is that the victims of most crimes know the perpetrator. To turn that statistic around and make it sound as though the firearm were responsible for killing "friends and family" disporportionately, is just plain fraud. It is a deliberate distortion of the highest order.
And that is just one example of how people involved with the Brady Campaign have demonstrably lied to the public. But you have probably heard that "statistic" yourself, many times. The one that states that guns kill family more than criminals. It is a classic example of how distorted and misused statistics get "stuck" in peoples' minds.
As for the Texas thing: one state over a few years does not compare statistically to an entire nation over decades. If you want a real scary statistic, try calculating the percentage of people on death row in Texas, who were set free in recent years due to conclusive DNA evidence that only came along recently. Now THERE is a number to be scared about. I hardly think Texas' justice system can be called typical. I know that I would not want to be an innocent party anywhere near a murder there. I enjoy my freedom, thank you very much.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Incorrect, unless you are donating your entire performance or have otherwise specifically negotiated a "discount" fee.
Rather, that hour of paperwork is factored into the cost of doing business, thus raising the performing rate somewhat for the hours you are paid for. As such, it's indirectly paid, in the same way the mail and web accounts bundled with a normal consumer ISP account are indirectly paid, altho some may call them "free". In the same way that the ISP isn't there as a charity, and must recover costs, thus raising monthly fees to cover the cost of providing all the "bundled" services, so unless you are operating as a charity with your performances, as a cost of doing business, your performance fees also figure in the time necessary for filling out that paperwork.
As another, actually more direct comparison, consider the "unpaid" time many workers spend commuting. Under normal circumstances it's self-evident that they are doing it for the money, and as such, that "unpaid" time is really "indirectly paid" time, as they have obviously figured it into the cost of doing business or they'd not be employed at that location at that wage, but rather either somewhere closer or at a higher wage, in ordered to cover the cost.
So as I said, unless you are doing it as a charity (which the whole gripe about being unpaid for the paperwork time would imply is not the case), it's really indirectly paid time, because it's figured into the compensation as a part of doing business. Were it not so, you'd either be demanding higher pay, or working elsewhere, as otherwise, taken a whole, the pay would not be "worth it" to you, and you'd be doing something else with that time instead.
I do agree with the point, however, and am glad you took the time to post it. It'd be nice not to have this cost of doing business, or to reduce that "hour" to "10 minutes". Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen immediately, or from this single case alone, altho it is likely to help keep that "hour" from becoming "two hours".
Duncan
Duncan
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master,
and if you use the program, he is your master."
R Stallman
- Am. Library Ass'n v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78, 87 (D.C. Cir. 1994)
- Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494, 499 (6th Cir. 1998)
- Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 397 (1988) (and that's quoted as containing:
- Bender v. Hecht's Dept. Stores, 455 F.3d 612, 619 (6th Cir. 2006)
And for extra hoots, part of the logic revolves around the Jehovah's Witnesses:Same here, also a dutchy and also learned a lot of english from Sierra games. :)
Took me so damn long to finish the game, take of clothes is not what they wanted to hear, it was take off clothes.
This is the sig that says NI (again)
This thread is so typical of what /. has become -- perhaps setting a new record for irrelevant or plain ignorant comments. At the time I'm viewing it, there are about 200 posts. It looks like perhaps a couple dozen at most actually discuss the article in question. Of the rest, they seem to be roughly evenly divided between (a) people who totally misconstrued the subject matter (even if you failed to RTFA, the summary makes it very clear as to what "age verification" legislation is being referenced), and (b) those who go off on tangents totally unrelated to the subject matter (including the ubiquitous and almost mandatory posts from the "right to bear arms" crowd, who somehow manage to interject comments on gun ownership into almost any thread).
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
'nuff said.
The nefarious legislation known as U.S.C. Title 18 Section 2257 has never been about protecting the children or battling kiddie pr0n. After all, true child pr0nographers certainly don't have their subjects sign releases anyway, nor do they advertise their wares openly on easily accessible public commercial sites. It is one of many tools of intimidation, to harass and potentially shut down perfectly legal adult sites. They were hoping some sites would simply shut down rather than put up with the burdensome recordkeeping requirements, or that sites with user-generated content would be more vigilant about self-censoring even remotely questionable content out of fear. You can keep the most detailed, pristine, organized records (as any smart adult site would do anyway), and yet fear that if even one model's paperwork is in any way hinky, a felony charge may ensue.
In general, you can safely assume that any legislation regarding adult material has this sort of ulterior motive. The powers that be have never accepted the notion that it is legal (for now, until the Roberts Court rules on the next big case) for adults to choose to view adult material depicting consenting adults engaged in adult activities. To them, all pr0n is bad, and if they could, they would outlaw all of it. Whenever "think of the children" is bandied about in these things, you can bet that they are thinking of far more than "the children" -- they are also thinking about you and me and every other potential legal peruser of naughty pics.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
That is exactly what I did as a kid! Took me an afternoon or so, and I didn't read English well back in those days. Without a dictionary, and patience I wouldn't entered that game ever.
Of course, later I found out about Alt-X...
"because "it's hard getting laid" is pretty much a perversion by definition."
Don't be ridiculous. The purpose of masturbation for males is manifold; even for males who are in a relationship, there is a biological basis for masturbation. If you would do some research instead of just listening to the pastor on Sunday you might learn something.
It has to do with two primary factors, the viability of sperm (which is limited), and the biological imperative to be able to impregnate a female without knowing exactly when she is fertile. I'm sure you'll reject this despite decades of work in the field. Because you think God punishes you for whacking off.
Because the EU release had the answers in the box. They knew a non-american wasn't going to know the answer. Offcourse, you had to actually pay for the game.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
All you had to do was push Alt+Z
That is statute not statue.
Kramer: No, no. I think you're wrong.
This guy's the limit!
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-08-18-judge-sentenced_x.htm
Dude, you TAKE PICTURES OF NAKED PEOPLE FOR FUN
You will be forever spoken of in Slashdot lore as "that porno guy", and constantly receive comments asking what real naked women look like.
Actually, as far as I know this is the first proof of a Slashdotter even seeing a naked person. I mean, I know a ton of users have kids, but I just assumed they all had their eyes closed or blacked out during the whole process...
Both the summary and the headline should say that the court strikes down age verification of performers for adult/porn sites.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Sometimes the brute force solution is the smart (and therefore nerdy) solution.
In this case, recognizing that you can just brute force it was the nerdy part, I guess.
safety of the performers? Did they fall down reaching for their ID? How does asking for proof that they're 18 endanger porn stars?
We need more games like that... Might teach some of the dozy sods out there on the internet to spell properly! (not in any way directed against parent poster!)
I thought from the title that they had struck down requiring that porn sites verify the age of the viewer, not the actor. That sounded like a big deal, and kind of strange.
As a kid I learned a lot of spelling from playing Sierra games. I was always a fan of the Space Quest series, and to a lesser extent the Kinds Quest series. Some of those puzzles though, man were they tough. I can still remember in, I think it was Space Quest 2 or 3, saving just inside the casino and constantly reloading every time I lost at the slot machine just so I could get the, I think it was million, zorkmids or whatever the imaginary currency you used to use was. I should probably see if I still have those games around on a disk somewhere and go download one of the ScummVM projects.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
I'd rather be fucking than killing any day.
Inspection of porn actresses of porn sites??? not a bad job, may I tell you....
...must be refreshed from time to time in a bukkake shower.
"To work for libertarianism -- to oppose the growth of government and aid the liberation of the individual -- used to be
What it boils down to is that our legal system has an almost complete inability to deal with harmful things that also produce large amounts of money. Porn. The RIAA. The tobacco industry. All make money in ways that are not good for people, and all are still 100% available to minors (yes *gasp* kids are still able to get smokes when they want them).
The fact of the matter is that we're soft. We no longer have the ability to say "We, the people do not care if you're making money providing porn to children. You are no longer allowed to do that because it is wrong".
Sure part of the problem is parents who don't supervise their kids, but that does not change the fact that large numbers of harmful products and services are still legal because we allow them to be.
The more you repress it, the more it spreads. Where I live in GA we have this massive number of "massage parlors" that (curiously) advertise heavily on the interstate with large billboards featuring scantily clad women.
Now while you can probably also get a massage at these establishments, it is generally understood that this is not all you can get if you were so inclined. And the public outcry? Nil.
Now, dancing, even "bikini" dancing, which is the only kind not zoned out in the county I live in, is the subject of vigorous public debate. Place just opened up a couple of months ago not far from where I live. "Massage" parlor (with unusually long hours) opened up next door at about the same time. Public outcry over the girls in swimwear? Vast. Public outcry over the suspiciously placed massage parlor? Nil.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
You must have been a very dumb kid, or you were just too young to be playing it anyway. In that case, the adult verification worked. As a kid, I only missed one answer on the first try, then got in right on the very next try.
Many moderators use Interesting, +1 instead of Funny, +1 because the former adds good karma to the poster and the latter does not.
Wow, at first glance I thought it was referring to confirming that the viewers are of age, but no its the performers. Seems strange, I thought is is illegial in most parts of the states to take part in pornography if you are under 18. If so, having to confirm who you are hiring is of age would be analogous to having to check a drivers license of someone applying for a trucker job, or a social to confirm that someone can legally work. I don't see how this is overly burdensome.
Now if we could just get this court to look at a few of the crazy firearms legislation thats been rammed through in the last 2 decades we might find ourselves in a free country again.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Surely I haven't had enough caffeine. Am I the only want that read the title and thought this had to do with age verification for Counter-Strike?
//Nothing to see here, please move along.
"Where I live in GA we have this massive number of "massage parlors"
I live in Atlanta, but am thinking of moving. Where exactly are these signs/places located?
I think that's SQ 1 and it was buckzoids :-)and you needed to win so you could buy the little skimmer to get out of the desert. Remember if you got the 3 skulls on slot machine and it vaporized you?
It also taught me speed. When i was a wee lad, i played King's Quest 4 (the perils of Rosella) and you needed to 'Clean House' before the dwarves got home from work. I always thought you had to do it so fast, after playing the game about a year back, i realized that my childhood mind had really exaggerated how fast that time went.
The worst one I remember in terms of speed was the stupid burger assembly line in one of the later space quests. You had to make so many before too many of them fell off the conveyor belt. Man did that take a lot of fast clicking. Also, was it the skimmer? I seem to remember buying the space ship and navigation droid... or maybe that's what you were supposed to try to get but you endup with the skimmer instead. I don't really remember anymore, it's been at least 10 years since I played any of those.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
But someone of (whatever your age is) is too fucking stupid to read TFA and realize that the law in question isn't about verifying the age of viewers.
Trust me, I've got broads on my mind all the time.
For a good rant on the section 2257 regulations and whats wrong with them, check out:
http://www.ehowa.com/mythoughts/2257.shtml
(site isn't porn, but may or may not be safe for work)
so...does raping an online form classify as it's own form of "violent porn?"
(oh captcha, oh captcha, Oh Captcha, OHHHH CAPTCHAAAAAAA!)
That not what the law was about, the law was about a pornographic content producer being require to on record the name, address and age of the people who were photographed. The excuse for the requirement was so law enforcement could insure that minors were not being used; the reason was to put a chilling effect on the porn industry when the models and actors realized that they were forever identified and those records could be searched at will by the police.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Stalkers
Threats and harassment from supposedly "moral" and "Christian" neighbors.
Law enforcement or others who assume they get sex or whatever else they want from a woman since she works in porn. (This has related to item 1.)
Trouble with day jobs and employers at other jobs.
Legal problems from law enforcement's assumptions about porn performers.
Some people working in porn, or any business, are stupid or mean and deserve what they get, but many are reasonable enough people who don't need or deserve that much extra shit.
Many, many people get weird about sex and sexuality, and it often comes out in aggressive and unkind ways towards people that are easy targets.
Honestly one or two of the things captured on the A/V recording security I have set up for people on their phones or as part of their house security to deal with harassment and stalkers has made my skin crawl.
Gaah, to be 14 again, with an Internet connection... I'd be such an expert on Tor and proxies.
:)
Yup I do remember Leisure Suit Larry. "Get outta da way" says the fat pimp
Is anybody writing a V2 with 3D raytraced avatars yet?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
"While the average reader here has never been to such a site, ..."
Oh? Are you sure about that?
"porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net."
Wrong wrong wrong. Porn does not drive any technology. None. Nor is it the 'driving force'.
The porn 'industry' goes into any new thing or technology. In hind sight in initially appear to drive technology, but on closer examination one realizes that it makes it's product for ANY technology. Every failed technology also had porn.
Saying porn is the driving force behind technology is like saying milk is the driving force behind crime because all the criminal had drank milk.
This is because the porn industry has new players every day, and new players generally use new technology.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Or you could just press CTR+ALT+X and bypass the questions.
The Sixth Circuit is arguably the most "southern conservative" circuit in the United States. If the Sixth Circuit court so soundly trashed and thrashed the government's arguments, then other courts are likely to do so even more.
Remember that much of the court's decision is based on precedent: the same arguments by the government have been repeatedly invalidated in other cases that bore substantially on the same issues. For the most part, this court merely repeated prior decisions on matters that were similar enough to have bearing on the case. And in my humble opinion, rightly so.
The Ninth Circuit happens to be heavily influenced by the most liberal elements of California, which have viewpoints that are not shared by the circuits around it or even neighboring states within its bounds. It is not surprising at all that its decisions are often contradicted. It has made some decisions that, to thinking people, were prima facie ridiculous.