Vivid says no to porn

[pornlaw]

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.

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

[EmporerEJ]

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

Yea! What HE said!

Let the battle of the Lawyers begin!
(Is somebody being billed for this? I vote you bill enforcer for the billable hours, since he thinks we should go to extra trouble and expense to "save the neighbor's chill'ins....")

[TheEnforcer]

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

No, I was not an ardent supporter of .XXX.... Sheesh, way to make assumptions dude.. I CLEARLY stated that what I would like to see is all adult webmasters have to have tags on their sites but that only the end user, parents, could use the tags to filter. Also, your anaolgy is severely flawed as 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.

[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]

While we're talking realities...

...any tagging system, be it voluntary or mandatory, is only going to keep those out that accidentally click links to porn sites. Any sexually curious teenager who is deliberately trying to find porn online is going to be more than capable of circumventing any software system implemented.

[pornlaw]

So tell me, when are you gonna start fighting for allowing the selling and showing of porn to kids at brick and mortar shops?

As soon as I find a client that wants to take that position and has enough money to fund the litigation. I can certainly use the arguments you have raised that brick and mortar owners are unfairly and unconstitutionally segregated under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

I think you are on to something here.

Do you know of an owner that has been prosecuted for unknowingly allowing an underage child into their adult brick and mortar store or gentlemen's club that needs a lawyer ?



Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

As soon as I find a client that wants to take that position and has enough money to fund the litigation. I can certainly use the arguments you have raised that brick and mortar owners are unfairly and unconstitutionally segregated under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

I think you are on to something here.

Do you know of an owner that has been prosecuted for unknowingly allowing an underage child into their adult brick and mortar store or gentlemen's club that needs a lawyer ?



Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Ok, now we might get somewhere. You had to qualify your statement by making sure that the owners of the brick and mortar unknowingly let minors in and buy stuff. There isn't an adult webmaster out there that doesn't know there are plenty of minors that visit their sites. So, what do they have in place that is the equivalent of an employee that cards patrons? Answer: nothing.

[ali25extreme]

Parents Should Pay More Attention To What Their Kids Are Doing In The First Place..they Use Entertainment As A Baby Sitter And Later Ask Why Their Kids Are Looking At This Stuff!!

[tony404]

Originally Posted by 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.

You are so right,then when they start policing us people will have the balls to say why are they picking on us? lol

[ali25extreme]

I have problems with parents now days...can you tell?
..teach your kids, tell them how to be responsible and not click on the giant cock!