Vivid says no to porn

[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

[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]

Just so we are clear here from what I wrote in the previous post.

This is me saying parents only:

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.

This is you agreeing that is ok:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

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

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

This is you now contradicting yourself just a few short posts later:

Originally Posted by pornlaw

This is were your analogy fails. The bouncer is employed by the establishment not by someone else. He listens to the person that signs his check.

In your analogy, that TAG is not an employee of the establishment, but rather could easily be a police officer or FBI agent standing at the door, telling everyone that they cannot enter.

Would you allow a law enforcement officer to guard your establish and determine freely who could and could not enter ? Thats what you MAY get if you require tags on websites.

Mandatory filtering is never going to fly.

That's the whole argument behind why .XXX died. It could easily be filtered.

So I suppose you were/are an ardent supporter of .XXX. Well at least I now know that I met one. Unlike the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot and UFOs, I guess they do exist.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[pornlaw]

I clearly only want the END USER, specifically parents, to be able to use the tag. Not the government, not local law enfocement, not the local ISP, but parents on their home computers only. All of a sudden you contradict yourself from what you stated and agreed with earlier? You agreed that would be fine and now all of a sudden you want to change your mind? Either you have a reading comprehension problem or you shift your arguements based on which way you think the wind blows.

My statement was made to placate you since it did not appear that you were ever going to see the mistake in your reasoning. As I am still sure you will not.

However, theoretically, I am not against tags that only the end user can implement. The problem is, thats not reality. I know that, Gonzo knows that, Emporer knows that, Alex knows it, but you really live this the theoretical dream and think that it can be accomplished or at least should be attempted.

Thats why I brought up .XXX. Thats a perfect example of theory vs. reality. Theory is with every adult site having a .XXX TLD then parents can easily filter those sites. Cool - right - no problem. The kiddies are safe.

Well no, any tag that can be used by the end user can and WILL be used by governments and other sites to filter and thus censor adult sites. So while yes, the kiddies are safe, the First Amendment is not.

If legislation could be passed preventing anyone, other than the end user from using mandatory tags then in theory its a great idea -- right ? But wait -- unfortunately, the internet is a world wide venture and every country has the ability to filter and block irrespective of our laws or beliefs. How could you "force" foreign webmasters to use tags ? You couldnt, just as no one can "force" 2257 on foreign sites. So we would place our US webmasters at a distinct competitive disadvantage if such legislation were passed, even if it did not trample First Amendment rights.

So while in theory I think its a noble and wonderful idea to protect little Johnny and Suzie from seeing their first blow job until they are 18, despite the fact that little Johnny and Suzie have probably already performed their first act of oral copulation by the time they turned 14, its not practical. Its not practical on a commercial or legal sense.

But go ahead and live the dream. I support your First Amendment rights to speak your mind and fight for what you think is a good idea.

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Just what I thought. You advocate no reponsibility at all for webmasters. You want a special class of people who have to take no responsibility for their actions at all. It's no wonder many politicians and parents can't stand this business when they see an attitude that kids should be able to see blowjobs, fisting, piss scenes, anal, double penetration, bukakke and more because some teens have already had sex and what their parents think doesn't matter. And you wonder why politicians and parents hate this business?

So tell me, when are you gonna start fighting for allowing the selling and showing of porn to kids at brick and mortar shops? If webmasters can show and sell porn to minors without any responsibility to keep them off their sites on the web, well hell, why shouldn't they be able to do so at brick and mortar stores too? It's the same 1st amendment. It's not like there is one 1st amendment for webmasters and one for offline shop owners, or is there according to you? So, please tell me when your firm is going to fight for offline sex shops to be able to let kids look at and sell to minors in their stores with no responsibilities at all?

Oh and while you are correct that governments cannot force countires into using tags they can try and coerce and incentivise them to do so in a variety of ways.

[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 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.