Congress targets deceptive 'sex' sites

[Mike AI]

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6097072.html

[Mike AI]

Vote for democrats - they save our porn right!

"I appreciate the willingness of all members to put aside unrelated controversial issues so that we could focus on the core purpose of this bill--protecting children," Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said during the floor discussion. The Senate approved the bill by a voice vote.

:whistling :whistling

[Greg B]

Thanks Mike AI for the link.

It clearly straightens out this new Bill and I'm glad it's out there. There are some sinister people out there and this Bill will help cops nail em'.

[TheEnforcer]

Vote for democrats - they save our porn right!



:whistling :whistling


What about that bill bothers you? The only thing there that is about the industry is the deceptive sites part. As long as the bill is used only to mail people who are using tags they know will brings minors where is the problem? The wording still leaves the burden of proof on the government to prove you intentionally were trying to lure minors to your site.

From the article:

Whoever knowingly embeds words or digital images into the source code of a Web site with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years...

A word or digital image that clearly indicates the sexual content of the site, such as 'sex' or 'porn,' is not misleading...

The term 'source code' means the combination of text and other characters comprising the content, both viewable and nonviewable, of a Web page, including any Web site publishing language, programming language, protocol or functional content, as well as any successor languages or protocols.

[TheEnforcer]

Oh, forgot to mention that the dems can't do SQUAT in congress without the pubs as the pubs control ALL legislation coming down the pike.

[Mike AI]

Who determines what is deceptive for children?

Adult toons sites deceptive?

Where is line drawn, and who determines it?

We are reaping the seeds we have sown in this industry.

[Greg B]

Who determines what is deceptive for children?

Adult toons sites deceptive?

Where is line drawn, and who determines it?

We are reaping the seeds we have sown in this industry.

Listen to The Enforcer. He's laid it out pretty simply. No they're not going after adult toon sites or any sites other than those that CLEARLY are using the deceptive tactics outlined IN the Bill itself. It's no witch hunt so everyone needs to chill out.

[softball]

Who determines what is deceptive for children?

Adult toons sites deceptive?

Where is line drawn, and who determines it?

We are reaping the seeds we have sown in this industry.

I was never a great believer in the domino theory. It just keeps getting trotted out as a theory du jour with uncommon regularity. I believe it was originally a republican theory that proved totally wrong.

[Hammer]

If these bills were actually intended for what they are penned I'd be far more likely to be supportive, but the truth is that the government is simply using the hot buttons that get the public's attentionand support, for a far broader purpose which is to shut down porn period.

[Greg B]

If these bills were actually intended for what they are penned I'd be far more likely to be supportive, but the truth is that the government is simply using the hot buttons that get the public's attentionand support, for a far broader purpose which is to shut down porn period.

No they don't want to shut down porn period. They just wanna shut down porn that's not a front for government interests. Basically if the CIA's porn site front is falling apart because Joe and Bob computer geek are making a mint using an original idea, then Joe and Bob Geek can get hammered with some nebulous series of laws. Run up high legal bills and go into a deal or bankruptcy and their shit scooped up on the downlow during the sherrif's auction or some such.

How's THAT for a conspiracy theory. Oh wait...reading history books...hmmm

[Hammer]

No they don't want to shut down porn period.
Since you aren't actually involved in the porn business and are a newbie, I'll overlook that one a bit, but you do realize that you're the only person I've seen post on any adult webmaster board that believes that?

George Bush and the right wing Christians want to eliminate porn completely. They do not belive that there is such a thing as 'good' porn or 'bad' porn, there is just 'porn' and it's all bad. If you don't have sex under the covers with the lights off, you're a bad person.

So, any bill or law you see being touted that on the surface seems to be intended to stop illegal things like CP, is simply a cleverly disguised attack on porn in general.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever read 2257? I'm thinking not, but if you had, you'd know that it will do nothing to stop CP. Child pornographers do not sell their dirty little pictures on the Internet on legitimate adult websites using credit cards. They trade it in an underground system. They hang out in AOL chat rooms. They do all kinds of devious things and nothing in 2257 will do anything to alleviate the problem.

All of us in this business are against CP and will promote any EFFECTIVE plan to eliminate it, but supporting the new 'secondary producers' addons to 2257 or any other bill that purports to be intended to stop CP is simply supporting an effort to eliminate your livelihood.

[gonzo]

Since you aren't actually involved in the porn business and are a newbie, I'll overlook that one a bit, but you do realize that you're the only person I've seen post on any adult webmaster board that believes that?


As an aside Ive known Greg for years. Hes not new to this biz.

[Hammer]

As an aside Ive known Greg for years. Hes not new to this biz.
He sure talks like he is.

[Greg B]

Since you aren't actually involved in the porn business and are a newbie, I'll overlook that one a bit, but you do realize that you're the only person I've seen post on any adult webmaster board that believes that?

George Bush and the right wing Christians want to eliminate porn completely. They do not belive that there is such a thing as 'good' porn or 'bad' porn, there is just 'porn' and it's all bad. If you don't have sex under the covers with the lights off, you're a bad person.

So, any bill or law you see being touted that on the surface seems to be intended to stop illegal things like CP, is simply a cleverly disguised attack on porn in general.

Let me ask you this. Have you ever read 2257? I'm thinking not, but if you had, you'd know that it will do nothing to stop CP. Child pornographers do not sell their dirty little pictures on the Internet on legitimate adult websites using credit cards. They trade it in an underground system. They hang out in AOL chat rooms. They do all kinds of devious things and nothing in 2257 will do anything to alleviate the problem.

All of us in this business are against CP and will promote any EFFECTIVE plan to eliminate it, but supporting the new 'secondary producers' addons to 2257 or any other bill that purports to be intended to stop CP is simply supporting an effort to eliminate your livelihood.

You should LOOK before you LIP.

I ain't no newbie Mr. Know-it-all. Been doing this for 10 years now.

When it comes to the law I work with the best constitutional lawyers in the world. Have been for over 25 years now as well as experts in all areas of the law. I could break your heart with who I work with and consult for. So know before you blow.

[Greg B]

He sure talks like he is.


Hammer, I was waiting for one of you to show up. There's always that one guy on a message board that is Mr. Know-it-the-fuck-all and who acts like everyone should kiss his ass and bow the fuck down to.

When you can't get your way you whine and make insults. It's typical of an unstable psyche brought about by the fear others will discover your foibles and dumb shit you've done you're trying to hide.

You wanna trade insults? I will bury you. You wanna have a decent conversation about relative events? Cool I'm with you.