Great Post, Kingfish! Great Read!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kingfish
All you people that think this would be a good thing need to pull your heads out of your asses and actually read the damn thing. Simply censoring tours and having warning pages will not make you compliant with this law. If your censored tour features fully clothed models and is merely suggestive like ?see me spread my legs inside? you could be liable under the law. The law also specifies that writing is included. In other words you could only use the blandest clinical terms to describe what is inside your site?s member?s area. Furthermore, all kinds of mainstream sites would be impacted. The government in their arguments concedes if you run something as tame as a BBS fan site for a television show you would have to hire a full time moderator to approve each post before it is posted to the internet, or put the entire thing behind age verification. GFY would have to be behind an age verification system.
The law as it is written is an indecency standard like the one they use for radio broadcasts not one that simply requires sexually explicit material to be password protected.
The ACLU has a huge section on their site about this. I urge you to read their brief, then the governments and then come back here and tell me how you think this is a good thing.
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15079&c=130
|