Originally posted by Franck
-
how can you be so sure enough to call me an idiot, that they won't enforce the law and block the non complying sites
BridesOnBlacks.com and MomsCraveBigCocks.com.
The Best Interracial and MILF sites period!
ICQ # 117379436 -
are you completely retarded? where do you see a law giving the US government the authority to order ISP's to block URL's. i can't understand some people here sometimes. you can't read? think? are you so fucking braindead that you can't think for yourself and figure out even the simplest of problems or answer the simplest of questions for yourself?Originally posted by Kris The KnifeComment
-
Originally posted by Kris The Knife
I'm just a newbie.Comment
-
this kris dude, is the reason why I come to gfy.
Thanks
Comment
-
Are you? Can't you? Can't you?Originally posted by Pleasurepays
From the federal register...
Don't comply -- that's fine... just don't set foot on US soil.In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.
Sell in the US marketplace... follow US law.
Just like I would have to follow Dutch law to bring a product to the marketplace in the Netherlands.Last edited by broke; 06-10-2005, 09:44 AM.Comment
-
yes sir i am completely and hopelessly retarded.Originally posted by Pleasurepays
law says something like this -
'foreign producers has the option not to comply. but if they choose not to comply, access to US market will be denied"
how do you deny access to US market in case of online biz?
block the website
oh maybe i am just retard, nevermind me.....
BridesOnBlacks.com and MomsCraveBigCocks.com.
The Best Interracial and MILF sites period!
ICQ # 117379436Comment
-
Ah finally some intelligent life on GFYOriginally posted by broke
BridesOnBlacks.com and MomsCraveBigCocks.com.
The Best Interracial and MILF sites period!
ICQ # 117379436Comment
-
k, well.. lets say Im just an affiliate. I dont sell shit to the surfer.. I just make him a click a link that sends him to US paysite. Is Bush going to block my site then too????!!!??Originally posted by Kris The Knife
Besides, Bush knows males all over US will riot if he blocks thehun.net
Comment
-
Kris The Knife --
Can you imagine if any US citizen ever had the gall to say, "FUCK DUTCH LAW -- I'm going to sell whatever I want in the Netherlands and don't care it i violates Dutch law. Come get me..."?
They'd get killed here and everywhere...Last edited by broke; 06-10-2005, 09:56 AM.Comment
-
If your site doesn't comply and if bush has the will and resources to impliment the law, yes he will block your site if you are not US citizen and if you are a US citizen you get 5 or whatever yearsOriginally posted by digi
simple isn't it?
BridesOnBlacks.com and MomsCraveBigCocks.com.
The Best Interracial and MILF sites period!
ICQ # 117379436Comment
-
ok, I wish him good luck with that then. Did he block the terror network sites yet?Originally posted by Kris The KnifeComment
-
yeah i can imagine all the fools in this thread doing that heheOriginally posted by brokeKris The Knife --
Can you imagine if any US citizen ever had the gall to say, "FUCK DUTCH LAW -- I'm going to sell whatever I want in the Netherlands and don't care it i violates Dutch law. Come get me..."?
They'd get killed here and everywhere...
well fools you need to follow the law of the country where you are doing business. This 2257 law is kind to you just by blocking you and not prosecuting you for breaking it(or maybe it will? i have not gone thru all of it). Imagine the law saying "every site in US cyberspace should comply or else will be prosecuted"
now don't ask me why will other countries hand over their citizens to US if their citizens break US laws
answer - Extradition(whatever i can't spell it) treaties
have fun
BridesOnBlacks.com and MomsCraveBigCocks.com.
The Best Interracial and MILF sites period!
ICQ # 117379436Comment
-
if i recall correctly, thats not the law. that is one of dozens of comments about the law.Originally posted by Kris The Knife
and you are really missing the point. do you understand what it would take for the federal government to order ISP's to block URL's? it would require specific laws, specific policies etc etc etc. do you know what the public outcry would be? there would have to even be a whole government agency to monitor the compliance, non-compliance of ALL adult sites and EVERY adult image online to block and unblock them as they are found to be in compliance/non-compliance. it would never happen and that is where you are being very shortsighted.
you guys are making these absurd comments about something that you have not even given 3 seconds of thought about. stop for one minute and just think about the logistics of what you are talking about... not to mention the Constitutional issues.
HELLO DIPSHITS... in case you have not been paying attention, the US government can't even stop 10 year olds from watching drunk girls fuck donkeys in their own public school libraries... and they have been trying for years. now you think the federal government is going to monitor every image online?!?! give me a fucking break.Comment
-
i am sure he is giving the best shot. thats what is keeping him in office isn't it? or maybe those network sites are helping FBI and CIA to track the movements of terrorists... who knows... small fry like you and me can't understand everything... leave important matters in hands of compitent people..Originally posted by digi
BridesOnBlacks.com and MomsCraveBigCocks.com.
The Best Interracial and MILF sites period!
ICQ # 117379436Comment
-
i will take a break from this and submit some gals
I WILL BE BACK
LOL
BridesOnBlacks.com and MomsCraveBigCocks.com.
The Best Interracial and MILF sites period!
ICQ # 117379436Comment
-
How dumb is this Kris The Knife troll??
Very amusing to read the things he writes...I'm just a newbie.Comment
-
Originally posted by brokeKris The Knife --
Can you imagine if any US citizen ever had the gall to say, "FUCK DUTCH LAW -- I'm going to sell whatever I want in the Netherlands and don't care it i violates Dutch law. Come get me..."?
They'd get killed here and everywhere...
They do that daily in Germany.
Do the US sites sell the USB dongle to provce the age? No.I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !
But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....Comment
-
Originally posted by Kris The Knife
Comment
-
Originally posted by Pleasurepays
The law from the source says...
Don't want to follow it... fine.In order to sell in the U.S. market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.
That's the LAW.Comment
-
They would be criminals under German law.Originally posted by directfiesta
(That's why I block Germany -- some Americans can and do respect the laws of other nations. Frankly -- now I'm wondering why I bother.)
Just the same... I would advise the people that do try the German market illegally not to set foot on German soil.
Is your whole arguement --
"if enough people violate a countries law -- then there is no law"?Comment
-
Wow ! You are such a law abiding person... lol ... I am amazed.Originally posted by broke
So, do you block JAPAN also ... You know that showing pubic hair / human genitals is illegal ...
I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !
But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....Comment
-
Jesus Christ.Originally posted by broke
they are comments about the law from the DOJ regarding stated objections to different provisions. can't you fucking morons read? the actual law is defined below the comments.
the discussion is about foreign law and privacy issues and they are simply saying that if you do not provide the correct documents, then you will not sell your shit in the USA.One commenter also commented that the proposed rule may force
foreign primary producers to violate foreign laws regarding protection
of information. If primary producers in foreign countries decide to
comply with their home privacy laws and not provide materials to U.S.
entities, the regulation will chill the availability of materials and
speech to U.S. citizens. The Department declines to adopt this comment.
The rule is no different from other forms of labeling requirements
imposed on foreign producers of, e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or food items
that are imported into the United States. In order to sell in the U.S.
market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies
equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign
producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.
NOWHERE is there a discussion about the US Government blocking foreign websites. And there certainly is no law that allows that.Comment
-
the www is a free accessible international market space where people from all countries in the world can buy and sell. The unique working of this global market place is not going to change because of a new law in the US.
If you truly believe the US government has the will and the power to keep US citizens away from that global market space, you need to have your head examined.
That the new law will effect US citizens to buy and sell within their own (local) market is fact.
no sig 4uComment
-
kris: the laws of the united states do not apply to non U.S. citizens. Meaning, if non U.S. webmasters don't comply the worst that can happen is that they cannot be allowed access to the country. They can't and will not block URLS. I'm not even a citizen and I know more about your constitution then you.
Secondly, you cannot be extradited for this particular (crime) even if the united states does try to prosecute you.
Third, for a real-life example of what I'm talking about take this guy that operates a warez site located in SWEDEN and is breaking 10-20 U.S. copyright laws, and as you can see from his replies I don't think he is scared of Microsoft, EA or the U.S. government.
http://thepiratebay.org/legal.php
Now either you are just really ignorant and stupid or you are trying to scare other webmasters to leave less competition for yourself, but honestly - I don't think you are the smart.Comment
-
You are right. Here in Quebec, legal drinking age is 18. So if a bar owner here served booze to an 18 years old american, the USA would want to extradite him ????Originally posted by w0rstluk
That would be even more of an embarrassement that the infamous " Freedom Fries "
I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !
But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....Comment
-
the us has no jurisdiction over other countries. The only thing they could do would be to require internet service providers to block certain ip's. I bought this would ever happen in the us as there is something called freedom of speach. and innocent until proven guilty. which means a site needs to be proven they are quilty. Its an interesting debate.Big Boob trades icq 265907826Comment
-
Here it comes...
The US Morality Firewall - protecting americans from the evil world outside its borders.
So far, most developing nations still aspire to (american) western standards/styles of life - at the rate things are going, I would not count on this lasting for much longer.
The day a second or third world country says "We want to progress, but we don't want McDonalds or WalMart" is the day, things take take a turn for a more sensible future for all. And, that day is just the around the corner.
-DinoComment
-
I don't see the problem. The US government isn't prosecuting dutch coffeeshops which sell marihuana to US tourists. Why should they prosecute websites hosted on dutch servers, owned by foreign webmasters selling porn to US customers.Comment
-
stop making senseOriginally posted by sjoerdv
I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !
But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....Comment
-
2257 is going to break the existing EU privacy-related laws. So it would NEVER be international.Originally posted by jollyperv
Obey the CowgodComment
-
The gov can put legal pressure on all ISP's to block the site or be shut down or fined themselves .. If I was (as I have been) an ISP .. I'd shut your ass off in a heart beat.Originally posted by WarChildComment
-
Originally posted by dcortezHere it comes...
The US Morality Firewall - protecting americans from the evil world outside its borders.
So far, most developing nations still aspire to (american) western standards/styles of life - at the rate things are going, I would not count on this lasting for much longer.
The day a second or third world country says "We want to progress, but we don't want McDonalds or WalMart" is the day, things take take a turn for a more sensible future for all. And, that day is just the around the corner.
-Dino
Amazing thread Dino and full of the usual ignorance! :-)
If anyone even things there are not more serious issues on the table re international law than some crap referenced under USC 2257 - they gotta be living in lala land.
The principle of protecting children is 100% valid - that's where all this shit stops. After all, that is the purpose of 2257? Or is it? :-)
Keeping records do not protect children and neither do labels of "compliance" on websites. That is the action of deskbound policy makers who have nada clue about fuck all and, most likely guided by a load of perverse rightous folks cloaked in a shroud of religeon. (If that ain't an abuse of religeon, nothing is)
Protecting children means parents need to get off their asses and do this in real life.
Secondly, parents need to quit abusing their children - most abusers are family members.
Thirdly, there are laws in place for child protection (OK.. including 2257), and not being enforced. Yea, I know it costs money to enforce laws - but don't bother instigating laws that cannot be enforced.
To enforce a law on record-keeping is clearly uneconomical and has no or little effect on abused children.
If the US govt is actually serious about child protection - start off cooperating with others who already extend facilities to the US govt for the prosecution of pedos and related offenders.
The concept of USC 2257 is so ludricrous it has nada chance of international acceptable. (For all the "words" in it - it's a very badly formulated law).
What may gain international acceptance is the concept of an international org to pursue child offenders over the boundaries of other jurisdictions. Often the nature of child offenses involve several countries, although currently most police forces collaborate in this area.
Bottom line, I doubt the US would agree to any international org on anything - considering they can't even agree to a court for the prosecution of crimes against humanity and war crimes. Don't even tell me they want "international cooperation" on a crappy US civil code - it's too silly.
The only law that applies to anyone on this planet are the laws of the country in which they reside - all others are irrelevant.Last edited by Webby; 06-10-2005, 03:45 PM.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
If there are laws in place to force ISP's to shut down websites, the govt are entirely within their rights to do so.Originally posted by RingoChen
It is up to a judge whether the govt has adopted these rights legitimately or using them under another guise "illegally".
The moment one country adopts an attitude of arbitrary censorship and internet interference, - rest assured, other countries will have a response and probably at different levels and in different ways. It does not take 20-20 vision to see that US govt is not exactly leading popularity stakes internationally. Hell knows why they keep shooting themselves in the foot.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
The US cannot invoke any international law... They have no power.Last edited by MyNameIsEmily; 06-23-2005, 09:12 AM.
Comment
-
Thats all it comes down to though.. not visiting America. For most people that doesn't mean shit. All they can do is shake their fists otherwise.Originally posted by brokeComment
-
Originally posted by prezzzI'm so fuckin' amused by all those idiots who think that the whole world needs and has to obey US laws... You're fuckin' clueless.
I continue to be amazed that importers of goods and/or services to the US think they are not bound by the laws of the land they are importing to...Comment
-
That's a kinda modest understatement!Originally posted by MyNameIsEmily
But true. The last and probably the most remote thing on the table for consideration as international law is some piece of US Civil Code.
Before that ever comes to pass, other nations are still waiting for compliance of other ratified treaties on a wide range of issues, but instead get moans and whines about diverse subjects like - the UN is evil and corrupt and we need to quit paying the club membership. Nothing new there - that record has been played out in real life and the international community just ignored em.
The content of 2257 is something no international jurist would support being adopted or even touched with two sets of rubber gloves on.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Dutch coffee shops are not selling to US citizens on US soil in violation of US law ...Originally posted by sjoerdvComment
-
I read something that they were going to discuss it at the G8 summit - BUT it was from the 2004 one.Comment
-
Bottom line broke is that it is entirely up to the US to conduct itself as it sees fit. If it choses to embark on some "war" on the internet next and start screwing that up, - other nations will probably start buggering around with reciprocal conduct.Originally posted by broke
There are also wider issues that involve international trade (remember that WTO ruling on gambling?) and the issue of censorship on the net (which the US admin would obviously love - and replace with their dogma)
The US is free to block IP's or whatever they wish - but they can pay for this monitoring. What would you think if any other continent started that crap? Gotta laugh! :-)XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
They were devoting three full days to this?Originally posted by sexyelisha
XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Read this for an example of the situation :
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Technolog...869041991.html
"The focus today is on how we can do more about it [online gambling] and how we can charge people. If they are American citizens, it would be a little easier for us. They can face prosecution if they enter the United States."Last edited by bhutocracy; 06-23-2005, 09:44 AM.Comment
-
As both should....Originally posted by Webby
That's not what we're talking about, though. We're talking about conciously violating the laws of a trade partner and thumbing one's nose at those laws....
Of course I do...Originally posted by Webby
I also remember watching the EU subsidise Airbus with GO improvements and watching them give an R&D war-chest... with the tacit approval of the WTO.
But that's neither here nor there...
Bottome line:
When you enter a coutry, you abide by their laws. When you wish to do business in a country, you abide by their laws.
Frankly, I'd think the same thing.Originally posted by Webby
Abide by the laws of your market and use them to your advantage. Much better than beating your head against a wall and lamenting the "unfair" laws.Last edited by broke; 06-23-2005, 09:56 AM.Comment
-
2257 doesn't say you have to keep the records ONLINE, moron. Anyone who thinks that you are suppose to put a model's info online for everyone to read is an idiot.Originally posted by FabienIn Uk it's against the law to keep records of people on a web site
Now wtf you do with this one ??????Comment
-
Frankly, gotta agree with that!Originally posted by broke
Tho a secondary consideration, that was another reason we complied with the original USC 2257 - the first being it was at least some measure to establish the age of talent and hopefully reduce CP. It was also in a way, an international standard for adult net content - tho maybe not any official one.
Couple that with the fact we had servers within US jurisdiction - it was reasonable to show some courtesy towards the host country. Tho in real life, there is little that could be done, apart from server closure, because the corps were not US based or operating under US law.
With the "new" 2257, this is simply a record-keeping exercise for dirty pics. We already know and have evidence that models are over 18 and fully aware/responsible, of sound mind (least on occasion) and responsible for their actions. Amended 2257 is simply an invention of the current Admin and offers nothing on CP enforcement - they never even got off their asses and prosecuted under the original code.
So... all servers were removed from US territory some years back since it was evident there was going to be, at some time, a problem.
Servers broadcast to the net and make no specific aim of blocking contact with this or that country. If a country wants to block certain IP's or other access, they are free to do so. I don't distinguish the laws of Iran to the laws of the US when serving content - if it is illegal in that country - the surfer can leave the website.XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Last years - dont think it is in this one.. but never can tell. I dont live too far away from where its being held.. there were already security measurements all around Gleneagles a month ago. scaryThey were devoting three full days to this?Comment
-
First of all, I hope you're not getting the impression that I'm in favor of the current regulations....
I'm not.
Frankly -- that's a weak arguement.Originally posted by Webby
Data packets -- Fedex envelopes (KLM envelopes , BA envelopes , LU envelopes ).
All the same.
Sorry I'm going to run out of this one Webby... the the SC eminent domain ruling has me more upset...
Best wishes and good health.Comment
-
Vastly different!! :-) In that case all adult webmasters are probably violating what you are suggesting, since a number of countries already have what may be described as extreme views on porn and this is illegal within their country. They can all make the same claim :-)Originally posted by broke
Yea.. understand! Good luck and hope all this shit works out well for ya in the end!!
XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.Comment
-
Originally posted by GatorB
I've been hearing that quite often.
What does 2257 say about the federal avaliability of records?Comment
-
The US government compitentOriginally posted by Kris The Knife
Comment
Comment