2 contradicting articles on AVN

[Paul Markham]

One seems to be advocating no controls or a lot less on the Internet and the other shows the result of the lack of controls and responsibility.

http://business.avn.com/articles/leg...gn=top_story_1

http://business.avn.com/articles/vid...gn=top_story_2

Should someone be aware that what they say or view online could be traced?

Should someone be allowed to put up a site that's full of hate, hurt and probably libel?

With an unregulated and controlled Internet, piracy is not a crime online, people can get away with it, libel is fine, etc.

This part was very revealing.

Of course, when it comes to sex the government has never had a problem lumping everyone into a one-size-fits-all, you-might-be-a-criminal box. The 2257 federal labeling and record keeping requirements, which force all producers and disseminators of adult content to keep records that show the age and identity of the performers being displayed, makes a similar assumption.

Are they saying keeping proof a model is over age is bad?

[Theo]

Two different articles (2nd is an interview) covering 2 different opinions.

2257 --> disseminators

[JFK]

Originally Posted by AVN Theo

Two different articles (2nd is an interview) covering 2 different opinions.

2257 --> disseminators

Thanks for clarifying that

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Should someone be allowed to put up a site that's full of hate, hurt and probably libel?

If you don't like what someone has to say, don't visit his site. Or take the time to write an article explaining why you think he is wrong. If he's selling a service or product, boycott him. Encourage others to boycott him. If he's telling lies, expose them. Write an article explaining how he is telling lies. ...

No need for a State operated censorship machine.

[seeandsee]

people have different views on some stuff

[CaptainHowdy]

[wehateporn]

Sometimes hate is justified

[TheSquealer]

i'm just happy to see Paul correctly using a big word like "contradicting".

Good for him. Seriously.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Are they saying keeping proof a model is over age is bad?

Of course not. Keeping proof a model is over age is a good thing. Governments making unnecessary rules and regulations about how you must store and make available that information is not. It creates a situation where overzealous government anti-porn crusaders can make your life miserable based on technicalities even if a model was clearly over aged.

[jimmycooper]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Of course not. Keeping proof a model is over age is a good thing. Governments making unnecessary rules and regulations about how you must store and make available that information is not. It creates a situation where overzealous government anti-porn crusaders can make your life miserable based on technicalities even if a model was clearly over aged.

Well said.

[wehateporn]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

i'm just happy to see Paul correctly using a big word like "contradicting".

Good for him. Seriously.

I say he put something else into a thesaurus to come up with that

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

Of course not. Keeping proof a model is over age is a good thing. Governments making unnecessary rules and regulations about how you must store and make available that information is not. It creates a situation where overzealous government anti-porn crusaders can make your life miserable based on technicalities even if a model was clearly over aged.

So can you explain how to write into law "only models who look to be under age" ?

The law is written so that it covers all models, not ones that in someones opinion look old enough.

As for clearly documented, well that's simple. If an FBI officer point to an image of a girl and says "Where's her 2257 documents?" He doesn't want to be told in the hard drive file.

As for you reply about hate and libel, well that wasn't very good. It was a very bad reply. So if someone Tweets that a politician is a pedophile, scammer, criminal or what ever and the news spreads fast, the rumor becomes fact. Then your solution isn't going to work.

What if someone found out you worked in adult and started to post your real name, address and that you were gay and liked young boys. Would your solution work and be acceptable to you?

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

So can you explain how to write into law "only models who look to be under age" ?

The law is written so that it covers all models, not ones that in someones opinion look old enough.

As for clearly documented, well that's simple. If an FBI officer point to an image of a girl and says "Where's her 2257 documents?" He doesn't want to be told in the hard drive file.

In a 'free country' that prides itself on a justice system where everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, there is no need for such regulations. In such a country all that is required is a law that says that you can't shoot models under a certain age.

In such a free country, the burden of proof in on the prosecutor. When the police suspects that someone has broken the law, it is their job to collect evidence. The prosecutor then presents this evidence to the court. The defendant gets the opportunity to defend himself. And finally the court (judge, jury,...) decides, based on the evidence presented, whether or not the defendant is guilty.

In such a system, the mere presumption of guilt alone is not enough to convict someone. If a police officer thinks that you committed a crime and has otherwise no evidence whatsoever, no prosecutor is ever going to prosecute you. If the prosecutor would prosecute you based on nothing more than the opinion of a police officer no judge in his right mind would accept that.

If you have a picture of 21 year old model on your site and a police officer visits your site and thinks she looks 17, in such a free country the police officer would need to collect evidence to prove that she actually is 17 years old. The prosecutor would then have to present this evidence in a court of law in order to prove to the court that you committed a crime. In that free country, you have no obligation to prove that you are innocent. You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Of course, a smart content provider would always keep some kind of evidence that the model was in fact of legal age when the content was created. However, that still doesn't mean that everyone MUST keep that kind of info.

Now, what happens when you start making laws, rules and regulations forcing everyone to store certain kinds of information to prove they have not violated the law and then force them to store that information in a specific way, is that you turn the whole presumption of innocence principle on its head. Instead of having a situation where the burden of proof was on the police and the prosecutor, you turn the whole thing in to a bureaucratic affair.

You create a situation where people can be punished for not storing the right kind of information in the right kind of way.

Let's apply the same principle to another area:
When you are driving your car from town A to city B and along the road the police catch you speeding, then you broke the law and they caught you in the act. They now have evidence they can present in court.
But what if they suddenly decided that they no longer needed to prove that you violated the traffic laws, but that you from now on need to keep records to prove that you did not violated the traffic laws and respected the speed limits? What if they started requiring people to log their speed/location (using gps)? What if the police could visit your house and demand that you provide proof that you did not speed?

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

As for you reply about hate and libel, well that wasn't very good. It was a very bad reply.

It was a strict and consistent application of proprietarian ethical theory.

Simply stated: you do not own your reputation. You do not own the part of people's brains where the information about how they think or feel about you is stored. If someone does or says something that causes other people to change their opinion about you then that person has not violated your property rights. The people who have changed their opinions have changed them themselves based on the new information presented.

Let's say for example that you own a clothing store and a competitor buys the building next to yours and opens a new clothing store. The competitor's store has a new ultramodern design. He carries new brands that your store doesn't. And he's running different kinds of promos. Based on those things people might start to think of your store as "old fashioned and expensive".
Has the owner of the new store done anything wrong? Did he violate your property rights? Of course not.

[RyuLion]

Originally Posted by AVN Theo

Two different articles (2nd is an interview) covering 2 different opinions.

2257 --> disseminators