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.
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!
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
U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 is about the age of actors, not viewers.
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
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.
*whoooooosh* That's the sound of THAT joke going RIGHT over your head.
Ah, there's one of them now. Hello.
If what you said were so, then why would the requirements in U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 have been such a headache for them? And now that it's been struck down, will that make no difference?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Dog is my co-pilot.
The links go to "studies" from 2001. How are these relevant in 2007, when 6 months ago is ancient history on the web? And for the "studies", the writers admit that they can't verify their estimates. Stephen Glass had more facts...
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
In their summary, How Appealing notes that the requirement was struck down as "facially unconstitutional."
I too have been involved with adult content since before 2257 became effective in summer, 2005. No matter what court rulings come down as to the constitutionality of the law, until the law is actually repealed or amended, adult content providers won't change a thing. They will not break the law because it's not worth the prison sentence just to save some lazy schmuck three extra clicks to enter their (fake) birth date.
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.
How Appealing indeed.
"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
Indeed, compromising the performers' privacy by requiring that identifying information be distributed to any site hosting the content they star in seems to have much less to do with its stated purpose of preventing underage individuals from acting in porn and much more to do with making a hostile and dangerous business environment for those in an industry the religious right would like to shut down.
Heh. Always fun on slashdot to see the idiots that know nothing try to BS their way around. 2257 has NOTHING AT ALL to do with "lazy schmucks" viewing the pornography; you can see the entire content of the law here.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
If you had been working in the porn industry, surely you would know this.
lolcats
Whether 2257 is in place or not shouldn't make any difference for sites that don't host porn, correct. Of course, in a world where user-submitted contact is every idiot's idea of how they're going to start a business that'll be The Next Big Thing On The Internet but artificial intelligence isn't good enough to conclusively determine whether a given piece appeals to prurient interests or is outside of established community standards, being a site that doesn't host porn is considerably harder than just putting a line in your TOS and filtering things out after-the-fact.
Hmm...
"Perversion", I would have to assume, would imply a minority from the norm...
http://marriage.about.com/cs/masturbation/f/masturbatfaq3.htm
Oddly, this may be many Slashdot readers' first data point as to what a "Protestant" is...
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
How is masturbating and looking at pornography of consenting adults considered "perverted"? That is a very limited view given that your body is wired in such a way as to encourage you to reproduce as frequently and as often as possible. It stands to reason that people need to satisfy their natural urges somehow. It's hard getting laid; people are picky about their partners and there's this stigma attached to sex still even in our modern liberated society.
It's pretty easy to watch porn and whack off... A few people take it out on poor unsuspecting passers-by (i don't condone that kind of thing). You gotta satisfy the urges that your body has somehow. I find it somewhat offensive that you would classify the satisfying of the body's natural urges "perverted".
I never really supported the age verification because I think a person who is old enough to know to seek out the content on their own is probably old enough to make their own decisions regarding sex. A person who wants to seek out the porn will be able to find it regardless of any age verification laws in one or two countries. Not everywhere is the USA or Australia. Lots of places don't enforce similar laws.
Younger kids should be supervised by their parents. Someone else said "if you don't want your kids looking at it then try something called parenting". I couldn't agree more.
I do agree that porn isn't for everyone, and a simple banner page warning is what a great-many of the porn sites have currently anyway.
I drink to make other people interesting!
Sing it with me, normal people!
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
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.
Ah, so you're a slave to your own desires then? Honestly, man, get some self-control.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
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
We are everywhere.
We are legion.
We are embarassed.
For one of us was more lame than all of us.
Saddest part is that if he'd posted that missed reference on Caturday, his fail would have been so epic it would have wrapped right around the integer into win.
The greatest pornography distribution mechanism in the history of mankind, and what do we use it for?
> lolcats
We were embarassed.
We know Avenue Q was a documentary.
We fixed it for him.
Theres plenty of porn on photobucket. Photobucket also doesn't keep records on the people submitting the pictures. Certainly not copies of valid photo id and all the other things USC 18 2257 requires.
This ruling just means photobucket is no longer illegal. It won't really impact anything, as its not like they'd actually go after photobucket before, but it's nice when there aren't crazy laws being held over your head 24/7 that can be used against you at any time if you pose a threat or decide to not comply with some powerful persons request.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
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
You rock, funniest thing I have seen all day :-) (but even if I had mod points, well you shouldn't be posting as AC)
Barbara Felden claims prior art on the flip phone, sues Motorola, Nokia.
What's going to stop those sites from prohibiting sexually explicit photos in their TOS, as most of them already do?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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
Sarg reports off my squid proxy verify those statistics! Now all I have to do is get them to look at decent porn rather than this yahoo images crap. Driftnet can be such a wonderful tool, and yes I have blocked goatse in the squid lists... just in case...
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
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.
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").
As written in the summary above it is about the performers/models or whatever title they go by.
...get some self-control.
I will just as soon as you explain why this kind of self control is important or helpful in any way.
Firearms are the most heavily-regulated product (and industry) in the United States. There is very good evidence that NONE of the laws passed in the last 30 years that restricted firearms ownership and use have helped to deter crime. In fact, there is a negative statistical correlation: crime, and especially violent crime, has been and has remained significantly higher in areas where firearms are more restricted.
Yes, that is correct. I doubt you will believe me, but you can look at the Department of Justice's own statistics for verification. They are freely available on the DOJ website.
(Note: Since the DOJ is the top law enforcement arm of the government, it would be in its best interest to overstate crime statistics, not underreport them. It is probably reasonable to presume that if the statistics err, they will err on the high side.)
That is a completely different issue. Please read TFA and the relevant links.
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.
Sorry, I obviously wasn't clear in my last post.
I was criticising the position held by many here on Slashdot - that first amendment rights should be inviolate, but not second amendment rights. People should be free to own firearms, and the Government doesn't have the right to regulate firearm ownership in any way.
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.
I'll bite.
Correlation is not causation. I would expect the areas with high gun violence to have more restrictive laws, just like I would expect areas with stringent restrictions on curfew for teens or areas with higher police populations/patrols.
The question is: Which rose first?
I would suspect the crime.
On topic: lol, facially.
--
"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.
Yes, that is true: correlation does not imply causation. But as you mention, genuine post hoc can imply causation.
Significant firearms regulation has been around since at least the 30s, well before any meaningful statistics were being kept. So it is not really possible to say with authority which came first, the chicken or the egg.
However, statistics clearly indicate (I am aware that statistics do not prove anything) that when restrictive firearms legislation is passed, violent crime is not reduced, and in fact has generally tended to increase. To avoid misunderstanding, I will point out that I am referring to per capita figures.
When England and Australia passed very restrictive firearms regulations a few years ago, property crime and especially violent crime in both countries took a significant jump upward right afterward, and have stayed up.
There is more, but I would be beating a dead horse. The real statistics are out there, freely available, even though they often get distorted by the media and politicians.
But since you asked question "which came first?", I will also state that even though the rate of serious crimes has been trending downward for the last 20 years or so, nobody has been able to show any causation between the general drop in crime rate gun legislation. The trend started well before any significant new legislation was passed, and has continued to trend downward. At the same time, nobody has been able to show any connection to firearms legislation. The correlation between restrictive firearms laws and high crime rates has remained.
If you had been working in the porn industry, surely you would know this.
I do know this. If you were closer to the industry you would know that the most serious and responsible adult content providers are concerned about the legality of their operation and thus engage in what they consider to be "hyper compliance"; Most of the bigger players prefer to be one step ahead of legal requirements to ensure the legal footing of their business.
2257 records for talent and age verification for visitors are related only in that both are mechanisms designed, at least on the surface, to protect minors from the harmful radiation released by nudity. Providers who are most serious about their business engage in both and won't be convinced to budge until it is practical.
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
Everybody is a slave to their desires, no matter what those desires may be. Your body is wired in a certain way; that way is to stay alive and to make lots of babies. That's natures way of making sure we stay around.
The biochemical mechanisms that make us want to make babies actually really only make us want to have sex. Making babies is a (fortunately controllable) side effect of having sex. It's only natural to go through phases where you wish to copulate and phases where you don't.
Most religious people would argue against pornography because the very argument is driven by their desire to please $DEITY. The desire to please a "god" is larger than the desire to make babies in some people and they resist the natural urge to go forth and multiply until they are married. That's a choice some people make. I, personally, don't think it's healthy.
I ask you, do you eat? Eating is driven by desire to stay alive. I certainly eat. I don't eat constantly and I don't usually just get up and walk out of work or meetings at bad times to eat (unless I feel my blood sugar dropping too rapidly). I am controlling my desire to eat when I am hungry.
This is OT enough!
I drink to make other people interesting!
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
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)
At least 90% of men and 2/3 of women masturbate, and a definite majority use porn of some sort, so apparently the minority perverts are the ones who don't.
Pervert.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Yes. Me. Now do my bidding - I'll have a coffee to start with, white and two sugars. Chop chop.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
He's jacking off in the privacy of his own porn viewing habitat. If he was jacking off in public, you might have a point that he lacks self control. As it stands, he has perfect control over his sexual desires, he just chooses to indulge them rather than repress them. So far from lacking it, I gather he has quite a bit of skill in 'self-control'.
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
Regardless whether you are right about this or not, England has one of the lowest rates of guncrime in the world, and certainly compared to the US the overall rate of violent crimes is miniscule too. Don't know about Australia.
You'll also easily find plenty of countries with restrictive firearms laws that have very low crime rates, so at the very least the correlation is not so straightforward. It might very well be right that restrictive firearms laws cause crime rates to increase in places where large number of weapons are in circulation, for example, or where police are routinely armed, or where poverty is high.
However, statistics clearly indicate (I am aware that statistics do not prove anything) that when restrictive firearms legislation is passed, violent crime is not reduced, and in fact has generally tended to increase. To avoid misunderstanding, I will point out that I am referring to per capita figures.
There's a world of difference between saying that violent crime rates continue to rise in the wake of tougher gun control laws and your earlier claim that tougher gun laws cause violent crime rates to rise. There are at least seven states where the statistics don't even show a correlation, let alone an implied causation.
'nuff said.
Even given your biologically-based premise, that we are wired for the purpose of reproduction, the idea of masturbating instead of reproducing because "it's hard getting laid" is pretty much a perversion by definition. To those who believe that sexuality is inherently intimate, or even inherently sacred, pornography is a perversion on many additional levels. The fact of bodily urges is irrelevant to question of which expressions of those urges are perversions.
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
Britain's gun crime rate has been shooting up very quickly for the past couple decades. While the US's murder and rape rates are worse, the robbery/burglary/auto theft statistics are significantly worse in the UK and Australia than in America. Last time I heard a quote it was something along the lines of you're 10X more likely to be mugged in London than in New York...
Police states tend to have very low crime rates, as people are rarely admitted to be criminals, they simply cease existing when they start breaking the law...
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Doesn't matter for the Daily Sport, as long as she has big [no carrier]
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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...
As written in the summary above it is about the performers/models or whatever title they go by.
I can believe this, but then where did all the adults go?'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
No, the post I responded to defined a biological purpose for sexuality. Using something for a purpose other than its intended purpose is the definition of "perversion."
It means that human sexuality has an inherent nature, and that that inherent nature involves intimacy, and that expressions of human sexuality inconsistent with intimacy are inconsistent with the essential nature of sexuality, and therefore harmful to it, and therefore a perversion of it.
No, I cannot quantify it. No, I do not lack counterexamples.
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.
When I was in high school, there was a massively over-active filter in place on the web.
Didn't stop some joker from filling the school fileserver's 70GB hard disk with porn. (And getting caught.)
Isn't it nice how our anecdotes are completely contradictory? :S
-:sigma.SB
WARN
THERE IS ANOTHER SYSTEM
That is statute not statue.
Kramer: No, no. I think you're wrong.
This guy's the limit!
Why would it? I don't recall you having to take nude images of a person to sell beer online, so obviously the answer is no. Unless, like so many others, you got the whole thing completely wrong. Go RTFA.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
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'
In response to:
Ah, so you're a slave to your own desires then? Honestly, man, get some self-control.
the following materialized out of the ether:
Oh dear. We have ourselves a religious nut here.
I do belive you missed the tag.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
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?
sudo make me a sandwich
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!)
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
???
Ok, I know you'll be able to understand this one.
It should be illegal to drink whiskey that's less than 18 years old anyway.
password:
Yeah, I didn't think so. Access denied. Make it yourself bitch.
Star Pirates
Younger kids should be supervised by their parents. Someone else said "if you don't want your kids looking at it then try something called parenting". I couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately, the amount of porn available today on the internet makes it extremely difficult for parents to keep them from looking at objectionable content (accidentally or otherwise). When I was a kid, it was necessary to go to an adult bookstore, or a convenience store, where this type of material was kept behind a counter. It was practically impossible for young kids to get it (unless they had a friend who got it for them). Today, a kid can get access to porn just by using a computer, or a laptop, or a cell phone, or a PSP, or an XBox, or any number of other devices. It's sent by spammers to my e-mail box. Today, it's like getting a bunch of porn magazines shoved through the mailslot into your house. It's like going to the public library and finding porn hidden in the card catalog, and throughout the books on the shelves. How can we avoid it? How can our kids avoid it? A neighbors wireless router without encryption would provide unwanted access. Software filters do not work. Do I have to be a luddite to keep this trash out of my house?
I don't want my young kids to have to make decisions at age 9 or 10 about whether or not they should be looking at a certain image that pops up on their screen. They aren't mature enough to make such decisions. An adult, yes. But not children. I teach them what I think is right and wrong, and hope they make correct decisions, but I want to wait until they are mature enough before they are confronted with a lot of these types of decisions. So what is a parent to do? The only thing we can do: try to cut down on the amount and availability of porn. You say we should parent; so we are in the only way we can, by trying to get rid of the amount of porn available to our kids.
I'll be very upfront about this. I think porn is wrong, and I don't want my kids to be exposed to it before they are mature enough to deal with it. The only way I can do that as a parent is to fight for legislation limiting its access into my home. I don't have any other way to do it. That _IS_ parenting.
Bullshit. "Deferred gratification" just makes you more likely to kill the family cat with unfortunately dead-eyed aim when you finally stop deferring...
As an alcoholic, I can assure the slashdotters everywhere, that I will continue to drink and continue view pr0n.
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
"AVS is there for revenue generation."
You're confusing two issues: the purpose of AVS versus license restrictions for wholesale content.
AVS is a stop-gap to ensure that, for the web master's part, they have done everything required of them to ensure that viewers are of legal age. By making the user responsible for that assertion, the webmaster is off the hook for ensuring that they are not serving content to minors; this is much the same as posting in public forums where the forum indemnifies itself through EULA disclaiming legal responsibility for users' activities on their site. Some AVS methods are more or less effective than others at this task, but the general premise is not connected to revenue. There are plenty of tour/FHG/TGP sites that have AVS in front of them that offer free or sample content and there is no revenue involved with access. This is because AVS is unrelated to payment.
Webmasters who license wholesale content are at the mercy of the terms of the content provider. If the content provider says they must provide AVS in front of their content then they must do so. If the provider says they must charge for access to some major percentage of the content then they must do so. The license requirement to charge for content is intended that the complete set of wholesale content assets don't show up in the wild free of charge in their entirety and thus eliminating the provider's revenue stream.
Not all content sites have to purchase content from a wholesale provider however. Many shoot and publish their own material, yet they still have AVS systems in front of their content. This is not because of revenue generation or license restrictions; it's because of hyper compliance with the law and, in some cases, marketing appeal for being a "responsible" provider who has the best interests of minors in mind.
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.
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.
Then perhaps they shouldn't be using the internet without your supervision? Forget about porn. Hate speech, predators trolling MySpace, etc, etc are all reasons why I wouldn't want my kids using the internet without supervision. Are your kids old enough to stay home alone? If the answer is no, then they probably aren't old enough to use the internet without supervision.
A neighbors wireless router without encryption would provide unwanted accessEver hear of using a non privileged account for your kids so they can't do stuff like switch networks or remove your filtering software?
Software filters do not workSays who? We use them at my agency and they seem to work very well. The only complaint is that they are overly aggressive.
I'll be very upfront about this. I think porn is wrongWhy?
The only way I can do that as a parent is to fight for legislation limiting its access into my home. I don't have any other way to do it.Sure you do. It's called supervising your kids while they use the internet. Or are you one of those people that thinks the TV and/or PC should be a babysitter for you?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Oh, please. I hardly let the TV and/or PC babysit them. My wife and I are very conscious about that. What does "supervised" internet use mean, anyway? Am I constantly looking over their shoulder while they play their games or do their homework? With the amount of porn available on the internet today, I pretty much have to do any google searches for them, and cannot allow them to even type in the internet address lest they make a common mispelling and come across a porn site.
Ever hear of using a non privileged account for your kids so they can't do stuff like switch networks or remove your filtering software? Says who? We use them at my agency and they seem to work very well. The only complaint is that they are overly aggressive.Right. And online proxies so they can get around network/filter restrictions don't exist, huh?
So, I'm forced to be either a luddite, or I'm forced to be a control freak just so I can keep trash out of my own house because porn is so accessible.
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.
password: password
Did I win?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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)
If that's the case, then why do you feel the need to push for laws that make porn harder to access? If you are sitting with them, or nearby, who cares if you need a credit card to get into that site?
What does "supervised" internet use mean, anyway?*shrug*, that's for each parent to decide for themselves. My kids aren't really old enough yet to surf on their own. I typically find the site for them (or have it bookmarked) and let them have at it. I'm not standing on top of them approving every click, but I'm roaming between the living room (where the PC is) and other rooms, so I'm keeping an eye on them.
I pretty much have to do any google searches for themUhh, I don't even have SafeSearch enabled on my Google profile, and I've never managed to find porn with a non-porn search. Granted, some non-porn searches are filled with crap, but I doubt your ten year old is looking for a keygen, serial, viagra, etc, etc.
and cannot allow them to even type in the internet address lest they make a common mispelling and come across a porn site.Then INSTALL SOME FILTERING SOFTWARE. And you are being completely paranoid here. I can think of a lot more damaging things then a ten second exposure to a typosquatting porn site.
Right. And online proxies so they can get around network/filter restrictions don't exist, huh?I guess I'm not as socially conservative as you are, but I'd make the argument that if your kid is old enough to figure out how to get past a well designed filtering setup then he's probably old enough to look at porn without being scarred for life. And seeing as how this is /. I'd make the assumption that you have enough computer experience to lock down a workstation so they couldn't bypass it anyway. Give me an hour and I'll have Windows locked down so tight that they CAN'T bypass my filtering software. If you really don't trust your kids, feel free to remove your CD-ROM and glue your USB ports shut so they can't boot Knoppix either.
or I'm forced to be a control freak just so I can keep trash out of my own house because porn is so accessible.Regardless of your political or moral views I'd make the argument that common sense says that any "solution" here is going to do more damage then the "problem". What do you purpose doing about all the amateur/shared porn out there? I can get free porn off bittorrent, USENET, IRC, etc, etc a hellva lot easier then I can off any one website. Should somebody who wants to post a movie of fucking his SO really have to force you to prove your 18 before you download it? Should we invade other nations to impose our anti-porn laws on them? Or maybe adopt a Great Firewall of China scheme to keep those porn packets from entering the US?
The solution here isn't regulation or laws that restrict the rights of adults. It's parenting. If you are supervising your kids on the internet then I really don't see what the problem is, unless you are so uptight that the mere thought of them catching a five second glimpse of porn distresses you to the point that you feel the need to involve your legislators.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Do we really have to explicitly spell out the harm principle to people like yourself?
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
It does not particularly matter whether or not you can come up with a rationale for it. Society says looking at pornography is perverted, ergo, it is perverted.
Your argument is analogous to saying that "fuck" is not a swearword because you can think of legitimate contextual uses for it in a sentence. It doesn't matter. Society says it's non-kosher, ergo, it is a swearword.
And maybe to you these things are enough a part of your daily habits that it is difficult to view them as anything other than benevolent, but consider your entire argument could just have applicably been said in defense of, say, rape.
Just accept the fact that social stigmas are decided by society, not you. You can reasonably argue against them, but you cannot reasonably argue against their classification.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
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.
I'm a dirty dirty boy...
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
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
Ok, I'll bite.
Social stigmas are dictated by society. Who speaks for society? You? No.
My dad? No.
Your mom? No.
Noone speaks for society. You cannot prove that society thinks looking at porn is perverted. Therefore, you cannot SAY as fact that society thinks looking at porn is perverted.
The reason I can and will successfully argue that looking at porn isn't perverted, is because society doesn't have a voice, and therefore cannot make the declaration of anything being a stigma.
Society is not a reasonable or logical entity. It is an amalgamation. It does not speak, it does not think. It can't make anything unacceptable or taboo. That is done by individuals only. Might serve you well to realize that, I've never met an intelligent socialist.
Of all the Universal Constants, here's one I know: Nice guys finish last
Troll? Demons you moderators are idiots. That's not a troll, and Troll is NOT a synonym for "I disagree, and wish to prevent your opinion from being seen". At LEAST use Off-Topic like you technically should have there if anything.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
You seriously mean to suggest that it is not possible to make any sociological assertions?
The stigma not only exists, it is rather obvious that it does, to the point that there is not any sense bothering to argue with you about it. You yourself doubtless have shaped certain of your choices around it, and as far as stigmas go, if I were dedicated enough to put your life on trial here, I am without any doubt that there would be quite a wealth of hypocrisy to rebuke the statements you have just made.
Contrary to your insinuations, I am not a socialist; I consider myself as individualist as one may philosophically be; but simply because I advocate the individual over the society does not mean I feel any need to try to subterfuge very evident courses of fact in order to favor that.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
"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
Parent advice from Eminem? now THAT'S irony.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh please, indeed! What do you consider is porn then? Women in bikinis? A handful of topless shots? naked women spreading their bits wide? what? If you're only concerned that your 10 year old is going to see a bit of nipple then you need to rethink your views.
It's quite difficult to stumble across real actual pornography without going looking for it. The pornographers want to protect their industry from draconian regulations like you are proposing so they do their best to keep it 'hidden' unless you're looking for it. Google does a good job of filtering porn from legitimite searches.
As another poster warned there's more than just porn to worry about. There's hate speech, gore, etc. If you're concerned about your kids seeing that then you should be watching them - a few short accidental exposures to things won't harm them because they're not old enough to fully grasp the concepts. Just keep an eye on them instead of rallying to have everything banned. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean others feel the same way.
I drink to make other people interesting!
I did not mean to imply that the U.S. rates are, or would be, similar to those of other countries. That was just a little additional information. I am aware that nations cannot be directly compared in that way. For example, the rate of suicide by firearms (which is often included in the "violent death by firearms" statistics cited by some people, regardless of how misleading that may be) in Japan is very low. At the same time, the suicide rate in Japan has remained much higher than that of the United States... it is just that different means are used.
However, the statistics in the Unites States are pretty clear. For whatever reason, private ownership of firearms in the U.S. is correlated with lower crime. Some people may not like that idea, but it is nevertheless a fact.
But that is NOT what I stated. Please read it again. Quote: "There is very good evidence that NONE of the laws passed in the last 30 years that restricted firearms ownership and use have helped to deter crime."
That is quite different from claiming that restrictive gun laws cause crime. I mentioned some statistical correlations, but I was careful not to state that one necessarily caused the other.
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.