Vivid says no to porn

[gonzo]

Los Angeles, CA (CNS) - Although Vivid Entertainment makes pornographic films, they still have the children's interests first. This has been revealed by the head of the leading pornographic movie studio when he revealed he has called on Yahoo and Google to help them prevent kids from accessing their films.

Steven Hirsch, co-chairman and founder of the porn studio, spoke to the MBA candidates of the Yale School of Management about how his company takes steps to ensure a minor wouldn't be exposed to their works.
"None of the search engines and portals, but particularly Yahoo and Google, has taken any significant steps in this direction. Vivid will work with any company that is ready to make it much more difficult for children to be exposed, even inadvertently, to material intended only for adults."

"This is not about First Amendment rights, it is about protecting children."
Hirsch adds that he spends time to ascertain his actresses are willing. "I spend more time trying to talk a new girl out of becoming a porn star as I do discussing the deal points of her contract once she's convinced me that she really does want to go down that path."

[TheEnforcer]

Good to see a major player be proactive in this area. Free speech and keeping content out of the hands of minors is not incompatible.

[pornlaw]

"I spend more time trying to talk a new girl out of becoming a porn star as I do discussing the deal points of her contract once she's convinced me that she really does want to go down that path."

Thats interesting. He tried talking one of my clients into a multi year contract that would have paid her a paltry $42,000 for 18 sex scenes (3 anal) with numerous personal appearances.

I dont buy his "for the children" approach. Free porn on the internet -- found through Google and Yahoo is killing DVD sales, Vivid's life and blood.

Filtering can be considered censorship. Something that does not sit well with those that protect free speech.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Thats interesting. He tried talking one of my clients into a multi year contract that would have paid her a paltry $42,000 for 18 sex scenes (3 anal) with numerous personal appearances.

I dont buy his "for the children" approach. Free porn on the internet -- found through Google and Yahoo is killing DVD sales, Vivid's life and blood.

Filtering can be considered censorship. Something that does not sit well with those that protect free speech.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

I agree 100% and I find this quote the most ironic of all.
"This is not about First Amendment rights, it is about protecting children."

Is Steve about to run for public office or something?

[TheEnforcer]

Filtering doesn't have to be a bad word as long as it can be controlled by the end user and not an automatic thing that gets used no matter what. I am VERY pro 1st amendment but there should also be common sense tools that help parents that doen't cut off sites at the knees but are actually effective. Any smart businessperson doesn't want minors on their site and should welcome a way for an effective way to help parents to do that.

Reality is that we have zero sympathy from the people who make the laws and a lot of the people that elect them. Some of that is the indutry's own fault. Dismissing things like filtering all together cause you assume it's gonna be draconian does the industry no favors.

[TheEnforcer]

BTW- filtering is NOT censorship if it's not soemthing that is forced upon all with the government being the only one that chooses what adults can read or see and TAKING AWAY their right to access or see it. As long as the END USER has the choice to implemet the filter or not, and the filter NOT being teh defualt setting is critical, that is not censorship as you DO have access to the material but you just CHOOSE not to access it.

[RawAlex]

All filtering is in the end is the assumption of child rearing responsilities by the state and corporations because parents seem unable to care for or pay attention to their own children.

The internet has become many parent's new electronic babysitter, replace TV and nintendo machines as a way of making sure the little shits don't bug their parents. If parents were active participants in their children's lives and didn't let them surf the internet from behind a closed bedroom door, the idea of filtering would be unneeded.

The parents wouldn't drop their kids into the middle of an adult bookstore or a bar. Why do they think that dumping them on the internet is any different?

[CosmicTang]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

All filtering is in the end is the assumption of child rearing responsilities by the state and corporations because parents seem unable to care for or pay attention to their own children.

The internet has become many parent's new electronic babysitter, replace TV and nintendo machines as a way of making sure the little shits don't bug their parents. If parents were active participants in their children's lives and didn't let them surf the internet from behind a closed bedroom door, the idea of filtering would be unneeded.

The parents wouldn't drop their kids into the middle of an adult bookstore or a bar. Why do they think that dumping them on the internet is any different?

Agreed.

[TheEnforcer]

Because bars and adult bookstores don't let minors in in the first place and if they do they can lose their license and freedom depending on the circumstances. They have requireemnts of THE OWNERS to ave measures in place to keep the minors out and if they don't give a shit about enforcing those requirements, well, you just open an adult book store and invite minors into your establishment adns ell to them and see how long you still have your business and your freedom. Same goes with a bar.

You gave about the most piss poor examples you could because THE OWNERS have the FULL burden on them to keep minors out of their place of busines and what i am talking about is a tool that busines owners are a part of but the END USER i responsible for putting in place on their end to do the filtering.

[gonzo]

no disrespect but I'm sitting in my accountants office showing him various parts of my business and he wanted to read this thread.

david asked me how long you've been doing this.

I had to tell him you might have lost touch with the challenges that face adult site owners these days.

with traffic now being the magic bulletin for success everyone including microsoft is in hot persuit.

imho steve hirsch is suffering from tunnel vision and looking to find a scapegoat for the decrease in dvd sales.

vivid aint at the center of the porn universe no mo.

[pornlaw]

Dismissing things like filtering all together cause you assume it's gonna be draconian does the industry no favors.

Assuming that exposure to sexual explicit images turns kids into sex maniacs and dysfunctional members of society is also somewhat draconian.

As an undergrad, I was a psyche and criminal justice double major, I researched and wrote a 185 page thesis page on the developmental occurrences in the childhood of 5 serial killers.

The mere exposure to sex was not a factor in developmental problems. What was -- watching their mothers - get sexually abused and used was.

Children have through-out time been exposed to sex and society has survived. For the most part many early homes/tee-pees/cave dwellings were 1 room dwellings. And being one room dwellings kids were exposed to their parents and other adults having sex. And we survived.

Granted Im not sure what exposure to violent pornography will do to a child and there are no studies on such, but seeing naked bodies and naked bodies in passionate embraces doesnt result in a breakdown in societal norms, customs and laws.

I say that with filtering will come censorship. Filters are not perfect. They catch all kinds of info - like teaching kids to wear condoms to avoid STDs if they are going to have sex. Perhaps a topic they might feel a little funny discussing with their moms and prefer to search Google for.

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by gonzo

no disrespect but I'm sitting in my accountants office showing him various parts of my business and he wanted to read this thread.

david asked me how long you've been doing this.

I had to tell him you might have lost touch with the challenges that face adult site owners these days.

with traffic now being the magic bulletin for success everyone including microsoft is in hot persuit.

imho steve hirsch is suffering from tunnel vision and looking to find a scapegoat for the decrease in dvd sales.

vivid aint at the center of the porn universe no mo.

Never said it was. The attitude that garnering as much traffic as you can and who cares if you keep minors out, which is exactly what I see here in this thread, is exactly the type of mentality that gives politicians even more ammo to use against the indutry.

Traffic that consists of minors is not profitable nor desireable. You lose NOTHING by keeping minors out and an END USER filter ONLY keeps away the minors and people that weren't going to come to the site anywyas o you lose NOTHING!

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Assuming that exposure to sexual explicit images turns kids into sex maniacs and dysfunctional members of society is also somewhat draconian.

As an undergrad, I was a psyche and criminal justice double major, I researched and wrote a 185 page thesis page on the developmental occurrences in the childhood of 5 serial killers.

The mere exposure to sex was not a factor in developmental problems. What was -- watching their mothers - get sexually abused and used was.

Children have through-out time been exposed to sex and society has survived. For the most part many early homes/tee-pees/cave dwellings were 1 room dwellings. And being one room dwellings kids were exposed to their parents and other adults having sex. And we survived.

Granted Im not sure what exposure to violent pornography will do to a child and there are no studies on such, but seeing naked bodies and naked bodies in passionate embraces doesnt result in a breakdown in societal norms, customs and laws.

I say that with filtering will come censorship. Filters are not perfect. They catch all kinds of info - like teaching kids to wear condoms to avoid STDs if they are going to have sex. Perhaps a topic they might feel a little funny discussing with their moms and prefer to search Google for.

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

Here's your problem. NO ONE CARES about those studies. You can cite them until you are blue in the face from talking so much the vast majority of parents and politicians will ignore it. Hell there are people in thi industry that think the more extreme stuff like gagging, puking, etc. does this busines more harm than good so how do you think that politicians and parents are gonna feel about that? A site that is nothing but solo girls or girl girl action is viewed no different by most politicians and parents than a site with cumshots, double penetrations, etc. etc. It's porn and while some may be more extreme than others to them it's all still porn.

So, why not actually work with politicans and parents and come up with something that, unlike adult stores and bars, places the burden on the parents to keep their kids out but is also effective and that every parent can use? NO ONE is telling you that you can't publish the material at all. Just that you would be cooperating with keeping porn out of kids hands.

[pornlaw]

So, why not actually work with politicans and parents and come up with something that, unlike adult stores and bars, places the burden on the parents to keep their kids out but is also effective and that every parent can use? NO ONE is telling you that you can't publish the material at all. Just that you would be cooperating with keeping porn out of kids hands.

I just dont think you get it. Those politicians and parents DONT want to work with us. I have lobbied on the behalf of the industry for the past several years. Some politicians think what we do needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. But they cant get that accomplished because of a little document called the Constitution and a little clause in it called the First Amendment.

So what they cant do through legislation and criminal prosecution, they will try though filtering and regulation. Right now the government is trying to enforce the use of condoms, goggles and dental dams on set. Seems reasonable, lets keep the performers "safe" right ???

Those that want you to give up your rights will always use a safety first approach -- please see The Patriot Act.

Michael

www.AdultBizLaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Of course there are politicians that want to wipe the indutry out completely but I have little doubt that there are some that, if they saw a solution that could work for parents, say soemthign similar to the movie and game rating system that allows parents to block porn on their kids computers some politician out there would listen and try and push it if it actually worked. Politicians like "wins' on issues they can tout to their constuituents and somethign that actually allowed parents to be able to block porn from their kids computers and required the industry to go along and cooperate.. well that's publicity that some politician out there would scoop right up. Am I saying it would be easy? Hell no, butjust dismising the effort out of hand and having an attitude that is confrontational all the time certainly doesn't help the cause.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Because bars and adult bookstores don't let minors in in the first place and if they do they can lose their license and freedom depending on the circumstances. They have requireemnts of THE OWNERS to ave measures in place to keep the minors out and if they don't give a shit about enforcing those requirements, well, you just open an adult book store and invite minors into your establishment adns ell to them and see how long you still have your business and your freedom. Same goes with a bar.

You gave about the most piss poor examples you could because THE OWNERS have the FULL burden on them to keep minors out of their place of busines and what i am talking about is a tool that busines owners are a part of but the END USER i responsible for putting in place on their end to do the filtering.

well said and the internet bunch forget this.

[pushpills]

that's great, nice to read that quote about him talking people out of porn as opposed to the types who try to convince youngsters to do bukkake vids.

[Hell Puppy]

Originally Posted by pushpills

that's great, nice to read that quote about him talking people out of porn as opposed to the types who try to convince youngsters to do bukkake vids.

nah...couldn't be grogan....

he was last seen receiving tranvestite bukkake in back of a camaro...

who r u? and how did u get grogan's pw?

[pornlaw]

Am I saying it would be easy? Hell no, butjust dismising the effort out of hand and having an attitude that is confrontational all the time certainly doesn't help the cause.

What cause are you talking about ? Censorship ? Filtering ? Abridging the Bill of Rights ? Keeping porn away from kids ?

In law we have a saying I am sure you have heard of its called "the slippery slope." What you are advocating is a slippery slope. Most lawyers/judges understand this because they have spent years researching case law and watched how one case builds on another case and so forth. This is why the ACLU is so hated. They understand that certain speech may not be popular but if you allow some speech to be regulated then you take the first step on that slope and there's no going back.

Sorry, protecting a determined 15 year old from seeing his first BJ scene is not worth the risk. Numerous judges have enjoined and now struck down COPA on that very premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_O...Protection_Act

Politicians have no clue about the law. Many are car salesman, doctors, small business owners. They pass laws that are unconstitutional and we have to spend years reversing the damage. It has taken 9 years to deal with COPA and its still going on.

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Hate to break this to you but a lot of speech IS regulated. You cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. You cannot sell porn to minors. Threats against another can be a criminal act. All speech and all regulated. That's just for starters. Also, you and I both know it's not just a blowjob scene that kids can be exposed to. And while I certainly think people have every right to sling porn I also think that parents should be able to protect their kid while also allowing them to use the internet. Hey, I have no problem at all with bukakke but I can damn sure undertand a parent who doesn't and doesn't want their kid to see it and when told by someone in porn that's it's no big deal if their kid sees it they get mighty pissed. And it is a parents choice on what they want to protect their kids from. Remember the ICRA? I believe it is still around and something like that is NOT unreasonable. I also have no doubt that eventually they will find something that gets passed and is help up in court that the indutry won't like one bit. Me, I'd rather see something that the industry helped create to help parents and give politicians a win rather than what they will come up with on their own.

[gonzo]

Parent is the keyword in this debate.

And Im not the surrogate one for those the choose to let their children surf unsupervised.

Matt I bet your parents monitored what you watched on TV when you were a kid. I know mine did.

My sister has 2 college aged children now and those kids grew up under the same rules I was raised under. Inclusive of the internet.

My brother now has a young hell raiser and youd best beleive that Jake the Snake ONLY surfs when one of them is in the room.

Jack would have torn my ass off for accessing porn when I was a kid. But PARENTING seems to be a hands off attitude for most these days.

I cant tell you how many resturants Ive been in where the parnets let the child finish and run around the place while they IGNORE him. Diners or a fine steak house it dont matter - they dont give a fuck

Parenting is not a shared resposibility.

You make em - you raise em. And if you dont trust them on the net then dont give them access.

[TheEnforcer]

All valid points Gonzo. Now, that said, what makes the internet any different than a bar or sex shop? All of those magazines and videos in the sex shops are covered under the 1st amendment, correct? Yes, 100%. But the owners have the burden to keep minors out? Correct? Yes, I am, 100% correct again. So, what makes the internet so unique that people can just throw anything they want on it and not have to worry about who sees it? What gives the net more rights than a sex shop? What gives soemone the right to allow anyone to waltz onto their site no matter what their age?

What I am proposing is actually LESS restictive and less of a burden on owners than what is in place in the brick and mortar world AND doesn't give parents an out as they would be responsible for using soemthing that would allow the ICRA or similar type tags to be read on their end.

While some people like to think politicians are dumb, they aren't. And they WILL find a way to make life miserable for the indutry eventually with soemthing that will stand the court challenges and I guarantee you it will be far less likeable that what I am talking about here. It will place a much higher burden on owners and let parents off the hook.

[pornlaw]

I also think that parents should be able to protect their kid while also allowing them to use the internet.

Yes, I agree and that's why there is software that PARENTS can install on their OWN computers at home.

Why do I need the government, Google or Yahoo filtering MY internet when it can be done by parents at home ? 'Cause they are lazy ? Not good enough for me.

Please address the COPA issue. Have you read the case ?

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Software that is piss poor and doesn't have uniform standards and also lets webmasters totally of the hook with no responsibility at all. What makes webmasters a more special class of business operator than brick and mortar sex shops? Tell me why sex shops have to have a MUCH higher burden than a webmaster? Because with the line of thinking I've seen espoused in this thread it should also be a-ok for any minor in amercia to walk right in and look at everything in a sex shop with no burden on the owner at all. It's all the parents responsibility to make sure they don't go to that sex shop. I mean who cares if you see a kid who looks like they are underage walk into your shop it's not your responsibility at all to keep them out right? Hyperbole? A bit perhaps, but that is EXACTLY what parents and politicians hear when these lines of thought are told to them. They think all you care about is prepping future clients to buy your stuff or just wantign their money outright not caring what they think about it.

Also, COPA and what I am talking about are NOT analogous. COPA required paid access and other unreasonable things of that nature. All I'm talking about is a system similar to ICRA that webmaters have to put on their domain and requires action on the parents side to be used and made active.

[pornlaw]

Because with the line of thinking I've seen espoused in this thread it should also be a-ok for any minor in amercia to walk right in and look at everything in a sex shop with no burden on the owner at all.

Are you serious ??? How is the internet and brick and mortar any different ? Show me any criminal case where a minor sneaked into a sex shop without the owner knowing and subsequently the owner was tried and convicted of any crime ?

I am not saying it's OK to expose children to porn. What I AM saying is that in attempting to filter/censor you will lose speech that all adults have a right to view. That's the legal reasoning behind the decision in COPA, its better to let a determined 15 year old see a BJ then it is to restrict free speech.

By the way -- do you have kids ?

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Are you serious ??? How is the internet and brick and mortar any different ? Show me any criminal case where a minor sneaked into a sex shop without the owner knowing and subsequently the owner was tried and convicted of any crime ?

LOL

You've got to be kidding, right? Where did I give that analogy? I asked what would happen if sex shops took the same approach adult webmasters do. The VAST majority of webmatsers are doing practically nothing to keep minors out of their sites. How many do you think rate with places like ICRA and others like it?

I am not saying it's OK to expose children to porn. What I AM saying is that in attempting to filter/censor you will lose speech that all adults have a right to view. That's the legal reasoning behind the decision in COPA, its better to let a determined 15 year old see a BJ then it is to restrict free speech.

By the way -- do you have kids ?

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

You may think you aren't saying it but that ALL that the politicians hear with that approach. Now, COPA actually DID restrict free speech because it placed absolute barriers to entry and viewership of the material by total government fiat by both minors and adults. It basically required an undue burden and restriction to acces of the material by placing restrictions that imposed on both minors and, and unduly, adults regardless of whether they wanted to view the material or not thus placing an UP FRONT restriction that a person had NO CHOICE but to have imposed on their access to the material. That most certainly IS censorship. That is COMPLETELY different than what I am proposing as an idea. As a matter of fact I have come out very strongly against COPA in the past and remain so because of what I have stated in this post.

Ok. And for the record, no I do not have kids, but I persoanlly think that is a red herring that is brought out by people when they know they are losing the debate.

also, though it is NOT relevant to the

[tony404]

I wish it went to cc only to view porn online. Imagine the money that would be made if it could be international. Man oh Man.

[pornlaw]

I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I abhor any attempt to abridge fundamental rights. Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree.

I find any attempt, as a lawyer, to chill speech either by government or big business (another term for government today) non-negotiable.

Many do not like the Max Hardcores of the world, but I think he has a right to produce the content he sees fit, as long as it involves consenting adults.

As for access to that content, that is a parental duty, not a commercial or governmental one.

Steve Hirsch stands on the shoulders of giants. Giants that paid the price with their personal freedom, such as Reuben Sturman and Milton Luros. I hate to see someone give up even an inch of that.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[tony404]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I abhor any attempt to abridge fundamental rights. Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree.

I find any attempt, as a lawyer, to chill speech either by government or big business (another term for government today) non-negotiable.

Many do not like the Max Hardcores of the world, but I think he has a right to produce the content he sees fit, as long as it involves consenting adults.

As for access to that content, that is a parental duty, not a commercial or governmental one.

Steve Hirsch stands on the shoulders of giants. Giants that paid the price with their personal freedom, such as Reuben Sturman and Milton Luros. I hate to see someone give up even an inch of that.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

That sounds great but since as a industry we have a not my problem I can do whatever I want attitude and practice very little responsibility as a whole. Especially with everyone going tube crazy. Im thinking us getting policed is coming and people will have the balls to cry why are they picking on us.
The giants fought for our right to sell and produce, not to stick it in people's faces. Bricks and mortar has survived because it wasnt in peoples faces and kids were kept out.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I abhor any attempt to abridge fundamental rights. Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree.

I find any attempt, as a lawyer, to chill speech either by government or big business (another term for government today) non-negotiable.

Many do not like the Max Hardcores of the world, but I think he has a right to produce the content he sees fit, as long as it involves consenting adults.

I couldn't agree more. I 100% agree with you about Max. He's a very nice guy from my experience meeting and talkign with him the last two years at the florida show.

As for access to that content, that is a parental duty, not a commercial or governmental one.

Steve Hirsch stands on the shoulders of giants. Giants that paid the price with their personal freedom, such as Reuben Sturman and Milton Luros. I hate to see someone give up even an inch of that.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

No, actually what you are asking for are less responsibility than brick and mortar stores have. You want a special class of people who have more rights than another. When you go to court and try and argue that a sex shop owner in the brick and mortar worls has no responsibility to keep minors out THEN you will be fighting for what you are talking about there. Because as it stands right now webmasters have no responsibility to keep minors out and you want to keep it that way. Sorry, but that's not how the world has worked before the internet and the mere existance of the internet doesn't change that. You also ignored the differences I pointed out in what I am proposing and what COPA is.

Tell me EXACTLY what the problem is with what I propose. Where is the DENIAL BY THE GOVERNMENT to access porn for adults. It's an END USER (aka private citizen) aying hey, I don't want my kid looking at that and you doing your part, just like rbick and mortars do, in helping to keep minors out. Hell what I am proposing STILL has even LESS of a burden on webamsters than brick and mortar stores. But yet you still complain.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by tony404

That sounds great but since as a industry we have a not my problem I can do whatever I want attitude and practice very little responsibility as a whole. Especially with everyone going tube crazy. Im thinking us getting policed is coming and people will have the balls to cry why are they picking on us.
The giants fought for our right to sell and produce, not to stick it in people's faces. Bricks and mortar has survived because it wasnt in peoples faces and kids were kept out.

There it is. That pretty much nails it.

[pornlaw]

Tell me EXACTLY what the problem is with what I propose. Where is the DENIAL BY THE GOVERNMENT to access porn for adults. It's an END USER (aka private citizen)

Well now I'm confused. I was addressing the Hirsch statement that Google and Yahoo need to do something. Thats not the end user. I never said parents shouldn't filter. I said that Hirsch wants search engines to filter cause he knows it will block a whole lotta free porn which is killing his DVD sales.

I have no problems with the end user filtering.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Ok, fair enough. I think you didn't realize I was really talking about what I think should be done about it. Would you still be fine with it if it made it mandatory for all adult sites to label their sites with tags that can be used by parents to block their sites? So basically porn sites have to "tag" their sites with an tag like the ICRA or soemthing similar.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Ok, fair enough. I think you didn't realize I was really talking about what I think should be done about it. Would you still be fine with it if it made it mandatory for all adult sites to label their sites with tags that can be used by parents to block their sites? So basically porn sites have to "tag" their sites with an tag like the ICRA or soemthing similar.

Absolutely. As long as it was only used by the end user.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[Toby]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

...So basically porn sites have to "tag" their sites with an tag like the ICRA or soemthing similar.

I currently employ three such tags on my sites.

1. Old School Meta rating that has been in place for years
< META NAME="rating" CONTENT="restricted" > (some use "adult" instead of "restricted", although "restricted" is more correct per W3C)
2. ICRA
3. RTA (Restricted To Adults)

I also place a very visible link on my warning pages telling parents where to go to get free software to block adult sites. http://parentalcontrolbar.org/

I have no problem with such tags becoming mandatory, although I'm sure the Internet Illiterate in Congress would attempt to come up with some completely new convoluted and uneffective tag system.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Absolutely. As long as it was only used by the end user.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Ok. We agree then. :>))

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Toby

I currently employ three such tags on my sites.

1. Old School Meta rating that has been in place for years
< META NAME="rating" CONTENT="restricted" > (some use "adult" instead of "restricted", although "restricted" is more correct per W3C)
2. ICRA
3. RTA (Restricted To Adults)

I also place a very visible link on my warning pages telling parents where to go to get free software to block adult sites. http://parentalcontrolbar.org/

I have no problem with such tags becoming mandatory, although I'm sure the Internet Illiterate in Congress would attempt to come up with some completely new convoluted and uneffective tag system.

Good to hear. Industry input witht he help of other top computer/net experts would be crucial in getting it crafted correctly.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Toby

I currently employ three such tags on my sites.

1. Old School Meta rating that has been in place for years
< META NAME="rating" CONTENT="restricted" > (some use "adult" instead of "restricted", although "restricted" is more correct per W3C)
2. ICRA
3. RTA (Restricted To Adults)

I also place a very visible link on my warning pages telling parents where to go to get free software to block adult sites. http://parentalcontrolbar.org/

I have no problem with such tags becoming mandatory, although I'm sure the Internet Illiterate in Congress would attempt to come up with some completely new convoluted and uneffective tag system.

I used to use the tags years ago.
WHen it became apparent that Joan and Helmys little non profit wasnt about helping the indsury but more about raising money I guess I quit doing it.

All these years millions of dollars and how many kiddie porn sites have they got taken off line?

Personal I think the whole thing has been nothing more than a scam.
She preys on guilting companies into a large donation so they can say they are doing something about it.

All the while she goes to shows...gets drunk off her ass and will show her tits to anyone that wants to look.

Funniestthing is 2 years ago we got off of a boat cruise [you remember the one that I was a guest of Shellees and not Marks] and MAx Hardcore and his gal were taking pictures in he fountain.

And like Micheal Im no fan of Max. So His girl is shooting pretty tame topless shots and over rushes this european family. Junior who looks about 12 years old is snapping away the pictures.

Joan runs over and makes this HUGE scene.

The family pretty muh flips her off and ges the model to pose with the entire family nude right beside them.

Kinda an illustration of how effective Joan has been doing ANYTHING over the past several years.

I guess it looked good to potential contributors.

[Toby]

Yeah, most not for profit org's are more about providing an income for the organizers than actually getting anything accomplished.

I do have to agree with Joan on one point though. If/when Congress does try to enact manditory tags, no amount of lobbying will make a difference unless this industry is able to demonstrate that it can effectively tag pages voluntarily.

My main motivation for using the tags is more CYA than anything else. Should shit hit the fan I can at least demonstrate that I have mechanisms in place that would allow the pages to be filtered by the end user with readily available software.

[TheEnforcer]

That lady Max brought with him to the last two Hollywood FL shows has some of the most amazing legs I have ever seen.

[RawAlex]

RTA isn't a tagging system as much as an attempt for the ASACP to interject itself into a political issue that just wasn't part of it's initial mandate. ASACP isn't suppose to be about keeping children from seeing porn, but rather keeping them from being IN porn. However, getting into the filter business is a slick way to try to get yourself into the political process, and Joan has never been shy about that, right or wrong.

Tagging is also pointless without support. All the tags in the world won't stop a single child from visiting an adult site if their parents don't take their responsibilities and set up their home PCs to use obey the tags.

It comes back to the basics of the problem, it isn't us, it's them.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

RTA isn't a tagging system as much as an attempt for the ASACP to interject itself into a political issue that just wasn't part of it's initial mandate. ASACP isn't suppose to be about keeping children from seeing porn, but rather keeping them from being IN porn. However, getting into the filter business is a slick way to try to get yourself into the political process, and Joan has never been shy about that, right or wrong.

Tagging is also pointless without support. All the tags in the world won't stop a single child from visiting an adult site if their parents don't take their responsibilities and set up their home PCs to use obey the tags.

It comes back to the basics of the problem, it isn't us, it's them.

if it was made universal not just in the us .You need a cc to look at any porn, that would solve the problem it wouldnt 100 percent but better then what we have now.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by tony404

if it was made universal not just in the us .You need a cc to look at any porn, that would solve the problem it wouldnt 100 percent but better then what we have now.

that one never works out because it is a denial of free speech rights. It just won't happen.

The concept is actually simple: Browsers should be shipped with the blocking activated, and the parent must dis activate the blocking if they so wish. Legally it would make it the computer owners problem at that point, not anyone elses.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

BTW- filtering is NOT censorship if it's not soemthing that is forced upon all with the government being the only one that chooses what adults can read or see and TAKING AWAY their right to access or see it. As long as the END USER has the choice to implemet the filter or not, and the filter NOT being teh defualt setting is critical, that is not censorship as you DO have access to the material but you just CHOOSE not to access it.

Yes, and we've had that since, what, 1995?
Big resounding, "no sale."

They will never be satisfied until they use the government power to crush our free speech.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

that one never works out because it is a denial of free speech rights. It just won't happen.

The concept is actually simple: Browsers should be shipped with the blocking activated, and the parent must dis activate the blocking if they so wish. Legally it would make it the computer owners problem at that point, not anyone elses.

No, that would not work becasue that would be an active mandatory denial by the government that people wuld have to take down. A better idea in my opinion would be to havethe end user ave to activate it. You could either do that where they have it on their computer and then have to "flip the switch" so to apeak to activate it or have a program that autolaunches the first time they connect to the net that allows to chose what setting they want.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

No, that would not work becasue that would be an active mandatory denial by the government that people wuld have to take down. A better idea in my opinion would be to havethe end user ave to activate it. You could either do that where they have it on their computer and then have to "flip the switch" so to apeak to activate it or have a program that autolaunches the first time they connect to the net that allows to chose what setting they want.

Nope, still nanny state mentality.
subsidize the blocking software, make it available for free, do whatever.
But you don't block free speech.
Anything less is unacceptable.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Nope, still nanny state mentality.
subsidize the blocking software, make it available for free, do whatever.
But you don't block free speech.
Anything less is unacceptable.

Oh boy. What a shock someone comes to the "I can do whatever I want" mentality and say they have zero responibility as a webmaster. Crap like that is why politicians and parents hate us.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Oh boy. What a shock someone comes to the "I can do whatever I want" mentality and say they have zero responibility as a webmaster. Crap like that is why politicians and parents hate us.

That's unfair, irresponsible, and simply not true.
A: I WAS a politician. They don't hate the adult industry, they see it as generating votes.
B: I don't have zero responsibility. I don't hide behind fake names, fake avatars, and layers of corporate identity. I've been on the front lines of the adult industry since may 20, 1985. The day I opened my first video store with an adult section that drew the ire and attack of the local government.
So, get back to me after you've been around a while, and actually defended free speech on the front lines.
Even now, I'm embroiled in a local government fight to build our new factory. It created a new ordinance, in a town that only makes about 6 ordinances a year.

So spare me from your "qualified evaluation."
Fortunately, there are those that would stand up for what you pay lip service to.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Yes, and we've had that since, what, 1995?
Big resounding, "no sale."

They will never be satisfied until they use the government power to crush our free speech.

LOL

We've had VOLUNTARY tags since then. Give me a break. When you want to talk reality and not use demagouge tactics let me know.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

That's unfair, irresponsible, and simply not true.
A: I WAS a politician. They don't hate the adult industry, they see it as generating votes.

Thus as I talked about earlier if you give them a solution that will actually help parents and put some responsibility on webmasters a politician will listen. They like "wins" and getting some sort of agreement that helps parents and puts some obligation on webmasters is a win.

B: I don't have zero responsibility. I don't hide behind fake names, fake avatars, and layers of corporate identity. I've been on the front lines of the adult industry since may 20, 1985. The day I opened my first video store with an adult section that drew the ire and attack of the local government.
So, get back to me after you've been around a while, and actually defended free speech on the front lines.
Even now, I'm embroiled in a local government fight to build our new factory. It created a new ordinance, in a town that only makes about 6 ordinances a year.

So spare me from your "qualified evaluation."
Fortunately, there are those that would stand up for what you pay lip service to.

ROFLMFAO!!

Adult webmasters have ZERO responsibility as it stands now. None. Minors can come and go to their sites as they please and a webmaster doesn't have to do squat. Since you seem to own an offline store you have MORE responsibility than webmasters do with that store or stores than all webmasters do with any of their sites. I'm glad that you stand up for your rights but don't sit there and pretend that webmasters are burdened in any way to keep minors out of their sites. In terms of keeping minors out webmasters don't have to do squat. Making them use a tag that the END USER has to implement is NOT censorship. It's akin to having an empoyee/bouncer who cards people and keeps minor out in the stores you own.

I've always enjoyed you and your posts here but you can take your "You don't care about the 1st amendment" spiel and stick it where the sun don't shine. So I guess that Michael from Adult Biz Law doesn't care about the 1st amendment either when he said he agreed with an end user approach too then?

Quote:

Absolutely. As long as it was only used by the end user.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com