Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AlienQ
But by no means is it censorship...
LOL!
You people really crack me up. Making excuses for the loss of freedom.
|
I've begun to realize these new additions to current regulations are both retarded by their ambiguity and, at the same time, do attempt to address a problem:
Take a person who tells you a watch is a Rolex. You buy it, or it's given to you and you sell it to someone else. The person you sold it to gets it appraised and it turns out the watch isn't a Rolex. You have no proof it is because you didn't ask for any from the person you got it from.
In my mind, I can apply this same analogy to these new additions to the 2257 regulations -- you take an image from somebody, assume on good-faith with no documentation that the image is legit and re-distribute it freely. What if the image wasn't legit? Should you be held at fault for redistributing it? Fuck yes you should.
By all means, these new additions are definitely obscure / not well defined / broadly open-ended / etc. However, and it could just be how I read into your posts, the "loss of freedom" you speak of sounds like you complaining about how you can't do whatever you want with content you may know nothing about which could contain legitimate illegal material.
As a responsible person in the adult business, how can you not what to verify all that you disseminate?
