Vivid says no to porn

[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 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]

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!

[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

[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 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.