18 USC 2257

[Mistress Mercy]

What do you guys think of this new censorship code? If you haven't heard about it you can read the pdf files off here --> http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257info.htm

[Guest Game of Chance]

What do you guys think of this new censorship code?  If you haven't heard about it you can read the pdf files off here --> http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257info.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't have Adobe Acrobat...guess I should download it. But, no, not so much a fan of censorship. Ever listen to Jello Biafra spoken word sessions?? Man does he go off on Tipper Gore and the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center., I think) the lobby group that introduced the idea labeling on all new music. Its these damn special interests (the ones with money) that are taken over/have already taken over this country.

Unfortunately, democracy is dying.

[Scary Guy]

PDF blows. Proprietary formats blow in general though.

[Mistress Mercy]

Heres somemore links to tel you about it since some people cant get the pdf forms lol. http://www.2257.tv/ .They've also forced BME to move to canada because of this new censorship thing. Also a number of websights have been closed down not just porn sights ether , Aesthetic Meat Foundation,s sight has been shut down for a while to.

[cthulhu63]

I hate censorship as well. I also hate stupid legislators who don't understand what they are trying to legislate. Most of them don't realize that if the server is in Madagascar, there's not a damn thing they can do to restrict it in America. It is a very sad day when websites move to Canada to AVOID censorship (for those who don't know, Canada does not have the (supposedly) strong freedom of speech rights).

[The_Dark]

Doesn't all this really do is require porn sites to prove that the people depicted are of age?

[Mistress Mercy]

Doesn't all this really do is require porn sites to prove that the people depicted are of age?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[/q No it doesn't its alot more that that its affected more than just porn sights and its not just about the internet.

[The_Dark]

It's mostly aimed at porn sites but thats all it really does. It would require anyone that depicts people in sexual acts to be able to prove those people are of legal age.

I dont see how this limits free speech. If your unwilling to prove that the images your supplying are legal, thats your choice. Your the one setting the limits.

[Vater Araignee]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On June 25, 2004, the Department of Justice published a proposed rule in the Federal Register at 69 FR 35547, to update the regulations implementing the record-keeping requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. The proposed rule updated those regulations to account for changes in technology, particularly the Internet, and to implement the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108–21, 117 Stat. 650 (April 30, 2003) (‘‘2003 Amendments’’). The statute requires producers of sexually explicit matter to maintain certain records concerning the performers to assist in monitoring the industry. See 18 U.S.C. 2257. The statute requires the producers of such matter to ‘‘ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth,’’ to ‘‘ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,’’ and to record this information. 18 U.S.C. 2257(b). Violations of these record-keeping requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years for a first offense and not more than ten years for subsequent offenses. See 18 U.S.C. 2257(i). These provisions supplement the federal statutory provisions criminalizing the production and distribution of materials visually depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. See 18 U.S.C. 2251, 2252. The record-keeping requirements apply to ‘‘whoever produces’’ the material in question. 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The statute defines ‘‘produces’’ as ‘‘to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.’’ 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3). The Attorney General, under 18 U.S.C. 2257(g), issued regulations implementing the record-keeping requirements on April 24, 1992. See 57 FR 15017 (1992); 28 CFR 75. In addition to the record-keeping requirements specifically discussed in section 2257, the regulations require producers to retain copies of the performers’ identification documents, to cross-index the records by ‘‘[a]ll names(s) of each performer, including any alias, maiden name, nickname, stage name or professional name of the performer; and according to the title, number, or other similar identifier of each book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter,’’ and to maintain the records for a specified period of time. 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1), 75.3, 75.4. Most recently, in 2003, Congress made extensive amendments to the child exploitation statutory scheme based on detailed legislative findings, which the Department adopts as grounds for proposing this rule. See 2003 Amendments. The Department agrees with each of these findings, and hereby amends the regulations in 28 CFR part 75 to comport with these specific findings. As explained more fully below, the rules implement a more detailed inspection system to ensure that children are not used as performers in sexually explicit depictions. Need for the Rule Recent federal statutory enactments and judicial interpretations have highlighted the urgency of protecting children against sexual exploitation and, consequently, the need for more specific and clear regulations detailing the records and inspection process for sexually explicit materials to assure the accurate identity and age of performers. The identity of every performer is critical to determining and assuring that no performer is a minor. The key Congressional concern, evidenced by the child exploitation statutory scheme, was that all such performers be verifiably not minors, i.e. not younger than 18. 28 U.S.C. 2256(1), 2257(b)(1). Minors—children—warrant a special concern by Congress for several reasons as discussed more specifically in relation to the inspection process. Children themselves are incapable of giving voluntary and knowing consent to perform or to enter into contracts to perform. In addition, children often are involuntarily forced to engage in sexually explicit conduct. For these reasons, visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons under the age of 18 constitute unlawful child pornography. This rule provides greater details for the record-keeping and inspection process in order to ensure that minors are not used as performers in sexually explicit depictions. The rule does not restrict in any way the content of the underlying depictions other than by clarifying the labeling on and recordkeeping requirements pertaining to, that underlying depiction. Cf. 27 CFR 16.21 (alcoholic beverage health warning statement; mandatory label information). However, compliance with the record-keeping requirements of this part has no bearing on the legality or illegality of the underlying sexually explicit material. Moreover, the growth of Internet facilities in the past five years, and the proliferation of pornography on Internet computer sites or services, requires that the regulations be updated. In the rule, a number of definitions are revised to facilitate the application of the rule to the modern modes of communication. Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Rule The Department of Justice published the proposed rule on June 25, 2004, and comments were due to the Department on or before August 24, 2004. The following discussion responds to comments received from the public and explains why the Department either adopted changes or declined to adopt changes to the proposed rule in response to the comments. Many commenters commented on identical issues, and as a result, the number of comments exceeds the number of issues addressed below. Commenters addressed issues that can be separated into five general categories: General Legal Issues; Vagueness/Overbreadth Issues; Burdensomeness; Privacy Concerns; and Miscellaneous Issues. General Legal Issues Four commenters commented that the proposed rule encroached on adult citizens’ constitutional right to view pornography under the guise of protecting children from exploitation. The Department disagrees with this comment. The final rule does not impinge upon the constitutionally protected right to free speech. This claim was fully litigated following enactment of the statute and the publication of the first version of the section 2257 regulations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody that has issues with this should pray that that a child sexual abuse victim does not catch you in a dark place because we will most likely torture you before we kill you.

[Msterbeau]

It's mostly aimed at porn sites but thats all it really does. It would require anyone that depicts people in sexual acts to be able to prove those people are of legal age.

I dont see how this limits free speech. If your unwilling to prove that the images your supplying are legal, thats your choice. Your the one setting the limits.

I saw a little of what was probably a very large discussion about this on SuicideGirls. A lot of the members post pictures in their journals that have nudity and other potentially

"sexual" content in it. This law affects these people as well as almost any other sort of blog/journal site, which is proposterous. If me and my friends want to show naked pictures to our friends on a site that's restricted from children already.... why do we need further proof or the governments permission to do so? Once again, legislators are writing laws for a medium that very few of them seem to have any real understanding of... or worse, they are purposely restricting "unsavory" behavior under the guise of fighting child pornography.

[Mistress Mercy]

This is what i was tring to get at I have no problem with them trying to abolish child pornography anyone promiting it should be put in jail there sick bastards, but they used it and targeted other people that should have nothing to do with this.

I saw a little of what was probably a very large discussion about this on SuicideGirls.  A lot of the members post pictures in their journals that have nudity and other potentially

"sexual" content in it.  This law affects these people as well as almost any other sort of blog/journal site, which is proposterous. If me and my friends want to show naked pictures to our friends on a site that's restricted from children already....  why do we need further proof or the governments permission to do so?  Once again, legislators are writing laws for a medium that very few of them seem to have any real understanding of... or worse, they are purposely restricting "unsavory" behavior under the guise of fighting child pornography.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Scary Guy]

And since when is that new though. People have been riding the coat tails of other legitimate agendas to further their own for as far as human history extends.

Plenty of good examples are acts submitted to congrass which are really long and wordy and boring and hopefully they'll skip through them and not see the attached clauses on them which have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MAIN DOCCUMENT! So they just get written off into law without a second thought.

It's gotten to where I abhor the phrase "for the children".

You know what, fuck the children if they're going to just get used as an excuse for restricting my rights.

[Vater Araignee]

All this law is saying is have proof of age for the person/persons in the photo. You post a picture of yourself , you do have proof of your own age. Correct? You took a sexually explicit picture of you girlfriend and now she is not. So you revenge post it online. Now you are paying fines because you don't have photocopies of her ID. Good, you deserve it. All this law is saying is you have to keep records of age verification. Excuse me, but before We take these pictures and I give you your fee I need your photo ID your social security card and the birth certificate you had to have to get one of the aforementioned forms of ID. Then you photocopy them and have the person put their signature on the photocopies. Then you file it away. Simple.

[cthulhu63]

It is not that simple. They want those papers posted to the internet page. I think we have a certain right to privacy. That includes a porn model not having to post his/her legal name and other pertinent info on the web for people to see. If they feds really want to see such info, they can subpoena the records. They have that right now. I think this law, as written, is a gross abuse of power, and could actually lead to MORE people in danger. What is going to happen when a model gets killed by a stalker who got their initial info from the legal postings that would be required under this law?

[The_Dark]

Good point, But thats why we have security. The records do not have to be where anyone can see them, just the authoritys.

[pomba gira]

Does anyone else have a problem with this current legal wisdom: that a person of 16 or 17 years of age is not intellectually capable of consenting to sex with someone 2 years older than themself (or being photographed doing so), BUT they ARE intellectually capable of committing premeditated murder and can be tried & sentenced as an adult if they kill someone?

[Vater Araignee]

Does anyone else have a problem with this current legal wisdom: that a person of 16 or 17 years of age is not intellectually capable of consenting to sex with someone 2 years older than themself (or being photographed doing so), BUT they ARE intellectually capable of committing premeditated murder and can be tried & sentenced as an adult if they kill someone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It truly depends on what state you live in.

Georgia has 16 as the age of consent

In some states nude models can be 17 but those pictures are not allowed to cross state lines.

Discrepancies like this can be used to argue why we should not have states at all. It kind of wrong that you could be breaking a law just because you tripped and fell across a border.

[Msterbeau]

All this law is saying is have proof of age for the person/persons in the photo. You post a picture of yourself , you do have proof of your own age. Correct? You took a sexually explicit picture of you girlfriend and now she is not. So you revenge post it online. Now you are paying fines because you don't have photocopies of her ID. Good, you deserve it. All this law is saying is you have to keep records of age verification. Excuse me, but before We take these pictures and I give you your fee I need your photo ID your social security card and the birth certificate you had to have to get one of the aforementioned forms of ID. Then you photocopy them and have the person put their signature on the photocopies. Then you file it away. Simple.

Yeah right.

You're having fun at a party... maybe a little drunk... Nakedness happens... no one minds that it gets posted in your journal/blog... As the person with the camera.. are you seriously going to ask for ID's? No offense... but what planet are you from? That's like the idiot HMO's who require you to call your doctor for emergency care from an out of network hospital. "Yes... my leg is dangling... I'm in excruciating pain.... but here I am, calling to make sure it's OK to get treatment at this particular facility.." :doh

Porongraphy for profit, child porn, and pictures of naked friends are three very different situations. They should be treated in distinctly different ways... and I'm thinking the last one should be hands off completely.

If you approve and allow these ever tightening restrictions on our freedoms.... You deserve the day when you have none left.

[Msterbeau]

Good point, But thats why we have security. The records do not have to be where anyone can see them, just the authoritys.

LOL... Security? Explain that kind of "security" to the people who keep having personal info, credit card #'s etc stolen from supposedly "secure" web sites. and institutions. The only way it's "reasonably" secure is if it's in a vault in a bank. Limited physical access and none electronically. The bank president could be a stalker though...

[wheresmypiggy]

Censor this!

::Static::

*buzz*

:blink

Damn. Guess they did.

[Msterbeau]

Censor this!

::Static::

*buzz*

:blink

Damn. Guess they did.

I love a woman with a sense of humor.

What were we talking about again?

[Vater Araignee]

Yeah right. 

You're having fun at a party... maybe a little drunk...  Nakedness happens... no one minds that it gets posted in your journal/blog... As the person with the camera.. are you seriously going to ask for ID's?  No offense... but what planet are you from?    That's like the idiot HMO's who require you to call your doctor for emergency care from an out of network hospital.  "Yes...  my leg is dangling... I'm in excruciating pain....  but here I am, calling to make sure it's OK to get treatment at this particular facility.."  :doh

Porongraphy for profit, child porn, and pictures of naked friends are three very different situations.  They should be treated in distinctly different ways...  and I'm thinking the last one should be hands off completely. 

If you approve and allow these ever tightening restrictions on our freedoms....  You deserve the day when you have none left.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you read the law carefully it states that it does not apply to simple nudes that would mean play boy is exempt but something like dildo babes however.........

If its not depicting a sexual act this law does not apply. Now lets use your example if she or he is simply showing off their body fine this law does not cover it, but if somebody is grabbing or licking or the themselves are licking or grabbing then the law does apply. Its like the cabaret laws of detroit "NO simulated sexual acts"

[Msterbeau]

If you read the law carefully it states that it does not apply to simple nudes that would mean play boy is exempt but something like dildo babes however.........

If its not depicting a sexual act this law does not apply. Now lets use your example if she or he is simply showing off their body fine this law does not cover it, but if somebody is grabbing or licking or the themselves are licking  or grabbing then the law does apply. Its like the cabaret laws of detroit "NO simulated sexual acts"

I can show you some photos that could be construed as "simulated sex acts" and kinda were... but there wasn't nudity involved really... Nor was there any sexual intent... (Other then what drunk friends goofing off will do...) Does that count? The line seems a little fine for my taste... and that means it's up to some judge to decide. I don't like that thought one bit.

[Vater Araignee]

I can show you some photos that could be construed as "simulated sex acts" and kinda were... but there wasn't nudity involved really... Nor was there any sexual intent... (Other then what drunk friends goofing off will do...)  Does that count?  The line seems a little fine for my taste... and that means it's up to some judge to decide.  I don't like that thought one bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No nudity, no issue.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let my give those that think this law is censorship a few B. A. O. quotes.

If you don't like the law CHANGE IT.

Those that let others tell them what a law means are the ones that get bad laws passed and good law stricken.

The fastest way to change a law is to get EVERYBODY to agree and break it.