:2 cents:

you're absolutely wrong. Please refer to the first post and check about some law discussion pertaining to the Supreme Court in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Nothing more, nothing else. If you as a canadian feel included within it, it's your problem, but some of us have a wider vision on this matter :winkwink:

I was keeping out of this but have to ask....

Why do so many people in this thread seem to think that this law is going to make images of people illegal on the Internet? After all that's the only way 'marketing tools' will actually be removed to any huge extent. There was me thinking this was just about uncensored pronography. Silly me.

:glugglug

Good News for foreign host companies :2 cents:

You couldn't be more wrong about that. :)

I am free speech first, business second, and always have been.

Unlike you and some others here, I respect the first amendment and the idea of a free society above the dollar.

I would rather have free speech and no money than millions of dollars and no free speech.

Most of the arguments that people make to support unconstitutional censorship are that it would make them more money.

Think about how sad that is.

And what if you have a gangbang, facial, blowjob, or interracial site? How do you describe you content in terms that won?t run afoul of this law. What if you are google or another big search engine and your algorithm picks up these terms ?Anal - oral - facials - gangbangs - interracial & more!? do you have to throw out your entire system and now hand review every site included in your search engine? What if you run a non adult BBS and one you members posts ?My girl gave me a big fat hummer last night and I busted a nut on her face.? Guess what under this law you are liable as the web publisher.

It all depends on what you want the Internet to be. I prefer it be a medium were adults can freely exchange ideas without government supervision and micro management others prefer that it become a cheap G rated babysitter for their kids.

There seems to be no middle ground. I wouldn?t mind if all promotional materials had to be soft-core, but this law goes much further than that.

It would hurt some people, it would help some people. I just can't believe anyone would support this blatant attempt at censoring material that the religious masses deem unworthy, even if it could make them a few bucks. That's a major constitutional assfucking right there.

And since this is a US law only it wouldn't help shit, it would just be all American webamsters being restricted while the rest of the world continues to give away gobs of free porn.

Right wing pro-censorship anti-porn porn webmasters are funny.

If you wanna talk, at least get your facts straight. I didn't see anywhere that this would be prohibited, in fact I hardly doubt it. But if it's the case, it's just CHARGING for what it was free until today. Please explain me how the hell does it affect freedom of speech or any freedom whatsoever, because I cannot see it. I'll just ask you a simple question: do you go to the newstands and turn'em on fire just because they ask you to pay for a magazine or simply pay, without even questioning freedom, moral values, religion and all that crap some clueless are turning this thread into? In fact, as far as I know US is not known exactly because of the freedom of speech. Wether it comes to military, economics or social interests, censorship is quit epresent in US media. And yet I don't see you and neither of this board going into mutiny because of that. So, something that is and always was paid now has to be free? why? I beg you to answer this in a logical manner, because this thread is starting to look like some kind of schizophrenia treaty

You don't think that censorship has anything to do with free speech and you mention "logic". :1orglaugh

As far as what people go into mutiny about on GFY, I have no control over pro-censorship webmasters. Long before internet porn existed, I have been involved in the fight for free speech.

Anyone who puts money above freedom is very shortsighted.

Excellent post, but like Carrie mentioned, it's falling on deaf ears.

1-) This is NOT about religious zealots. Sick of hearing people bark about that. Sure that may be part of it, but children's protection rights advocates are not about religion.

2-) I don't know where, but somehow, some way, people misconstrued this new law as the end of porn. All it will end is it being free. No more, no less. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. We are talking about obscenity laws. You will still be legally allowed to have graphics content INSIDE the paid members area. It's really quite simple, but again, the ones bitching about it either own a TGP, get traffic from TGPs to promote their free enter email shit or need to stuff in your face graphics down surfers throats to convert 1 in 8,000

The laws already exist. They are just coming to the digital age now. It's not so much about kids either, it's about people surfing and ending up at sites with things they didn't want to see. If you have friends or family, not in this business, I am SURE you can relate to the embarrassment and frustration THEY would feel stumbling upon sites that they don't want to see.

Unfortunately, a bunch of webmasters with great traffic mislead the 1999 newbies into believing TGPs, link list, link trades and search engines were the only way to get traffic. They sent half of this industry on a wild goose chase, in order to protect their own interests. I can appreciate that, of course I do the same myself. But ultimately, the trendy TGPs and movie posts ended up making less money for everyone.

Oh and the "unconstitutional freedom of speech censorship" crap... There has always been loopholes in the law, limiting freedom of speech. You can't go out in public and start advertising "Cum guzzling sluts" why do you believe it would forever be allowed on the net? And talk about censorship! What do you call all the political correctness shit that became popular while Clinton was in office??? That's censorship at it's finest!!

By the way, for those of you who think "Cool just use hosting in other countries" ...Hope you'll be using sponsors from other countries as well, because hosting and sponsors will be the first ones liable. :2 cents:

I think it should be censored for many reasons

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Why do you make such long posts? :1orglaugh

Are you sure? Because myself and others I know, are doing just fine, practicing what I preach :winkwink:

What can I say? I'm in denial. I actually believe that some people's last brain cell will come front and center, if they read enough details to form a different opinion :1orglaugh

The major point is simple. The law, long term, isn't about restricting porn to minors or freesites - it's about precedent. Law in this country, particularly in the lower courts, runs to a large degree on precedent, eg, interpretation of the application of the law.

Case in point? Why do you think there was so much uproar about the recent Supremem Court decision on that Gay case? Ostensibly it was just about violating the rights of these two individuals to have consensual sex of their choosing. But to gay haters, it was about much more than that - and they think correctly. It was about setting a major precedent on gay rights that can and will be used in 1000's of other cases in the future.

In that case, it was a good thing. But when it comes to porn, what someone said earlier is true - those involved HAVE NO BOUNDS. If you think so, you are living in a fantasyland.

The bottom line is, the obscenity laws as written enable those with religious agendas to decided what is acceptable for adults to view. The whole 'community standards' thing is an incredible cluster fuck.

The only laws that should exist, IMHO, regarding adult sexual activities (and this includes prostitution, etc) should concern themselves solely with harm and consent. IE - here's what should be enforceably illegal: things that harm, or do not involve consent. Rape is illegal. Child porn is illegal. Bestiality is illegal (no consent). Beyond that, if you really want to stick to the constitution, everything else should be legal and up to an adult to make up his own mind about. If he's a sicko that likes to eat shit, and you don't like it - too bad.

Here's a parallel - it IS legal to march around and promote Nazi'ism. You can talk about jews being bad and how great Hitler was as much as you want. Don' t you think that's just as putrid as, say, scat? Sure it is. But it's legal for a reason - because you don't want someone deciding what it's okay for you to talk about in America. You want to decide for yourself.

And you sure as hell don't want laws passed deciding for you.

This bill, if passed, sets a precedent that will open the floodgates for other laws, more prosecution, and a hard time for any U.S. webmaster dealing in porn.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is sadly, sadly, sadly mistaken.

Free sites and restricting access to minors is simply the 'sheeps clothing' to make it palatable, and get a foot in the door on precedent. And look - it even works right here among adult webmasters themselves.

This forum, as it is run now, would be illegal under the law.

Oh, as a final note, in case anyone thinks I'm overboard re: obscenity, there should be bounds, blah, blah, blah. Here's little lesson for you:

Definition of the word 'prurient': characterized by lust. Synonyms - lustful, salacious, sexy

Here's the 'miller test', currently used as the standard to define obscenity:

"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

SO - the standard currently in place is this: if the work is devoted to inspiring prurient interest ONLY, it is obscene.

In other words, it is not just bad, but also unlawful, to have a work devoted solely to arousing feelings of lust.

Do you really want to let precedent get set on the enforcement of this?

If your point were accurate, why hasn't the offline adult industry suffered more than it has? There were much more religious people in this country when the XXX industry became mainstream, what stopped them then from using censorship tactics to further ban things? It's sheer paranoia to think that the US government has time and power to get into every detail of the online adult industry and close it down. They are going after the biggest problems, not slamming the door on the whole industry itself. That's Visa and MasterCard's job!

If this law is passed, it's unlikely that it will be precedent in the future. This law wants sites to not be free and public for all to see. What could be comparable with that?

Other than paranoia, I don't understand your point. From what I gather, you think the government is going to somehow outlaw all porn on the internet in the future based on this first step. That's insane. They haven't gone after offline adult businesses that abide by the current rules, why would they attack porn online that also abides the law? Even though the major credit card companies act like they do nothing but lose money on adult sites, the fact is, a huge chunk of commerce on the net is porn and no one is going to want to put an end to that, they just want to contain the ones that are WAY out of control.

If anything, I think the adult world is becoming more liberal in the US than ever. Take Nevada for example. Perhaps one day their laws will become precedent to other states.

So we pay $10 or $20 bucks a month for GFY access :1orglaugh

I often wondered, how many surfers float around here, checking out all the free sample pics and videos, probably more content in threads than in most member areas :1orglaugh

... I think scrublists should be illegal too !!

Furious_Female, if these people were legitmately concerned with children's well-being, perhaps they would make PARENTS responsible. you can keep minors off adult content with a simple program, but most parents can't be bothered to do that.

maybe if more people in this country espoused parental responsibility - and all sorts of responsibility - perhaps the religious right would not be so anxious to have big brother do it for us.

To reiterate, it's NOT (edit) solely for the purpose of protecting children. I agree parents SHOULD be responsible, but they are too lazy or ignorant to be. Most kids these days know more about computers by age 10 than most 40 year olds do. A lot of parents don't even realize the dangers and indecent things kids could stumble upon online. That's their fault, but even the ones that do know and use software to protect things, things still happen.

However, this is also about surfers landing on explicit sites, that they did not intend on seeing. This has NOTHING to do with religion, even though religious people may be pushing for the law more than others. My mom isn't religious, but I know she'd probably have a stroke if she searched for something and ended up at a porn site with cum dripping down some girls face.

I'm all for making money, but not at the expense of misleading people or GIVING away, what can be lucrative if payment were required. WHY would you WANT to refuse money. I don't understand the logic.

Furious Female,

I have TV to watch... so I'll post a reply, even though it's against my better judgement. I don't think you're going to change your mind, and I'm sure not going to change mine, and I generally find that an unproductive use of my time. However...

You said:

"If your point were accurate, why hasn't the offline adult industry suffered more than it has? There were much more religious people in this country when the XXX industry became mainstream, what stopped them then from using censorship tactics to further ban things?"

The Supreme Court (eg, People VS Larry Flynt and the like). As well as the fact that it hasn't been a priority for the Justice Department. When Regan was in term, offline mainstream pornographers DID go to jail. It was either the owner of VCA or Vivid, can't remember which, as well as others. Study your history on that. Now it is a priority for the DOJ, and this is simply an indicator of that.

You said:

"If this law is passed, it's unlikely that it will be precedent in the future. "

Actually, the moment it's passed, it's precedent.

You said:

"This law wants sites to not be free and public for all to see. What could be comparable with that?"

Actually it wants any terminology that is explicit (eg, words), not just images. Or any nudity WHATSOEVER. How can you, with that, ask what is comparable? With the right jury and precedent - all of it is comparable.

You said:

"They haven't gone after offline adult businesses that abide by the current rules, why would they attack porn online that also abides the law?"

Patently untrue. Take the case of the amateur website operator in Florida who called the cops because she had a stalker. Their response, when they found out what she did, was to raid her home, confiscate her computers, and try to indite her.

You said:

"Even though the major credit card companies act like they do nothing but lose money on adult sites, the fact is, a huge chunk of commerce on the net is porn and no one is going to want to put an end to that, they just want to contain the ones that are WAY out of control."

Sorry, but Adult is a speck for VISA/MC. They could do without the money adult generates without even yawning.

Look, I'm really not slamming you. I'm sorry you think it's all 'paranoia', but I guess we'll have to just disagree. The bottom line is, yes, the current DOJ IS after porn on the web. They'd LOVE to be able to take down ALL porn, mainstream or otherwise. Why? Because they honestly, truly feel it is wrong. On a deep, and fundamental level. They just know they can't, at the moment.

I'm not a paranoid. I don't think the law will pass. And I don't think we're going to end up with a falling sky. I DO think that there are those who WANT that to happen. And the way we prevent it is by watching for laws like this one, and opposing them all the way.

That's not paranoia - that's good civics.

Later.

Just a small point of correction the law has already passed. The Supreme Court is reviewing the case to see if the injunction that prevented the law from being enforced should be lifted. If the injunction is lifted, it will be worded exactly as I have posted above.

Again you are disecting the prosal way too harshly. My point about the government not going after offline adult businesses was more of a "If they can exist and prosper under the current laws, why couldn't the online adult industry do the same?"

You can shred any law into tiny pieces and analyze each word of it to death and then give it a what if scenario, but the fact remains, the US government does not have time, money or power to overhaul the entire adult industry of the internet.

At this point, I would worry about keeping Visa/MasterCard happy and not about fighting the system, which is only trying to protect the interests in surfers underage or not, from being exposed to things they do not want or shouldn't be.

I shred it because that's what will happen in a court of law if someone decides to apply it to my sites or my business.

You can keep the 'adult web' broad and vague - but it will only remain so until the target becomes you. Then it's not broad and vague at all. It's specific, and all the 'prosal dissection' becomes a reality.

Is it LIKELY that you or I will come under the gun? No. Is POSSIBLE? Yes. Does the passage of this law make that possibility not only higher, but more enforceable? YES.

Look, based on the current definition of obscenity, EVERYTHING we do is illegal. Every paysite, and every free site. Whether or not that is enforced is reliant on a few factors: the DOJ priorities, the jury sitting on your case, luck, and the biggest one: whether or not they (the DOJ or local authorities) think your case is winnable. The last is probably the biggest factor, as you need to win to remain politically viable.

This law restricts adult expression on the web, period. It increases the overall risk level on the above factors.

As a last note, the comparison between online and offline is apples and oranges, and is, in fact, the whole basis behind the current injunction against enforcing this law. Here's what the Phil Circuit court said in their decision:

"When contemporary community standards are applied to the Internet, which does not permit speakers or exhibitors to limit their speech or exhibits geographically, the statute effectively limits the range of permissible material under the statute to that which is deemed acceptable only by the most puritanical communities," the appeals court ruled, noting that this limitation by definition "burdens speech otherwise protected under the First Amendment for adults as well as for minors living in more tolerant settings."

That's not MY paranoia - that's a bunch of judges being paranoid FOR me, my first amendment rights, and taking into account the possible injustices that can occur in enforcement of such a law.

Real world video stores, adult stores, etc, don't have the problems this law poses for us.

Besides, looking at it from a pragmatic view is the wrong way to look. You say that the government doesn't have the time or manpower. That shouldn't be the test. The test should be: If they DID have the time, money and manpower - would they?

In our case, the answer is yes, they would.

Ooops - one other point. Under the letter of that law, the following would also be illegal:

-link lists listing the text name of any site deemed offensive to minors. If your site is named "Hot MILF Pussy", the link list would be in violation of this law to list that title in a free area.

- domain names containing offensive terms. Gee, like "gofuckyourself.com"

-keywords or other words in meta tags containing terms deemed offensive to minors.

If any of this is concerned to be being used to a commercial end, it becomes illegal.

Still think it doesn't affect you?

Thank God there is freedom someplace... this is too time consuming to bother about the laws of the US...

I do'nt care about legality, i :BangBang:

It would be easier to take Furious_Female seriously if she wasn't promoting TCG in her sig. Do you think they provide any free content to their affiliates? Is any of it hardcore or is it all soft? Do they have hosted galleries? :1orglaugh

For all you pay site owners that are feeling giddy with excitement at what this law would do if it's passed. How much fun will it be to redesign all your sites to have softcore tours? Do you think you'll be able to have a 'Big Cock' site for example if COPA gets their way. How would you promote signups to your sites without showing nudity in your tours. And no, censoring penetration areas won't cut it because the image of a woman sitting naked on a guys lap will still be considered obscene, whether your can't see where the cock enters the vagina or not. How do you sell a 'Big Boob' site without showing some big boobs. And again, no, covering the nipples won't cut it either.

Censorship is a terrible thing and it will start with the extreme stuff and slowly gather steam and soon porn sites will be extinct because, after all, it's all obscene to a certain percentage of any community.

Anybody that is thinking this is a good thing needs their head examined. Paysites won?t fare any better all of their traffic will dry up. No affiliates, No search engine listings, if your site has hardcore stuff on the inside you can?t even accurately describe your content to a prospective customer.

OK :)

ROTFL!!!!

well didnt this turn into quite the fucking conversation.

How many people quit smoking when the price of cigarettes went up? A bunch...

How many people complained out the ass, but still paid anyway? Most of them....

Verdict? People tend to complain lots, but don't really act any differently given tougher restrictions. I think the verdict here will be the same. There will be thousands of complaints, but what this means is that pay sites can raise their prices and profits will go up, meaning that your conversions are worth more and the few thousand you lose will be countered by the huge increase in revenues.

I think this is a win win situation for the porn industry, it's just a case of thinking about the angles here. Porn is no different than any other product. When supply exceeds demand, the price is cheap. Do you think heavier restrictions will increase or decrease demand? The fact that there's less obtainable images and movies or whatever on the net means that supply in effect will be much less than demand meaning that prices can go up to increase revenues - basic economics.

Quit complaining about the situation and find a way to work with it. The first person that finds a way to work with it will be the richest off everyone else's backs.

As for the censorship bit...

Don't you guys have an entry in the constitution that guarantees your right to the freedom of expression and speech.

Doesn't porn fall under the "freedom of expression" doctrine?

Yes - it is all obscene to a certain percentage of any community.
free sites must exist...

As stated earlier in this thread ...
the problem is not "free sites" it's a way of determining your surfer is an an adult.

The "GodBush" initiative has gone to the extreme and needs to be settled in the next election.

You don't fuck with democracy on the internet.

Internet filters simply do not work, and everyone knows this. Yes it will stop Playboy and Hustler who voluntairly add their URL to the lists, but that is a small portion of the community.

The fact of the matter, nowhere is it legal to purchase or view pornography under the age of 18. This is not a freedom of expression issue, this is the stated and upheld law of the land. As well, people in day-to-day situations do not want obnoxious pop-ups and whatever else the lower portion of our community is doing. They want to have a internet experience without being asked to look at tits all day.

I said this earlier, and I will say it again - THERE ARE WAYS TO VERIFY AGE ONLINE WITHOUT A CREDIT CARD. It is as simple as putting "age verification" into google and you will find the 3 companies which provide it. CyberSource, Paymentech and VerifyME. I have been using one of the 3 for almost a year and a half and have not had an issue. I encourage COPA and whatever other laws are out there because it shuts down the shady portion of our industry that are using bogus freedom of speech arguments to try and make a buck, and increases my bank account.

This is funny to read, mostly because this has all been gone through TWICE already... and twice the law has been shot down.

You need to recognize this action for what it is: Ashhahahahaha is too busy to go after porn people with the current wishy-washy obscenity laws, and next year is an election year. In order to get this concept back in the public eye, without taking any real action, you kick it back to the courts, get it shot down in flames. The judgement on this will help to elevate the subject back up into the public's eye, and maybe you can get enough people rallying to use this as an election issue. In the meantime, there is no need to go after porn people, because the law is "awaiting judgement".

Here is the basic problem with the law as written: It is not constituional in the US to stop the flow of legal material. Adult stuff, except for things that are truly obscene, is legal. You can buy porn tapes at your local video store, you can buy dirty magazines, etc.

The question has to do with restriction: In order to keep the material away from minors, are you excessively infringing on the rights of adults to free speech?

Quite simply, the law as written raises the bar too high, and makes it likely that adults wanting to see legal adult material would have it blocked, and as such, free speech would be restricted. Not just for porn, but for material of sexual education, breast cancer, plastic surgery (can't show or openly discuss breasts or buttocks), STDs, or any number of other "adult" but not illegal subjects.

As I have posted before, there shoudl be two VERY simple laws passed for the internet:

1 - A law should be written to state that the internet and other online services are deemed to be "adult" areas. Similar to a NC-17 rated film, you cannot access the internet unless accompanies by an adult. The responsiblity to control this access would be returns to the parents, teachers, and other people who supervise children and their activities. Website operators, provided that the material on their sites is legal (obscenity...), would be free from senseless attacks on protected free speech.

2 - a .KIDS domain registry should be created, maintained by a non-profit organization that would be responsible to register domains and assure that the companies operating in these areas were in fact "kid friendly", including assuring that privacy rights laws are respected, perhpas by requring a bond or other performance assurance before the domain is issued. All major browsers would be required to have a ".KIDS" filter built in, that would allow parents to block access to all of the net EXCEPT .KIDS domains.

Basically, it is easier to build a playground in a city than it is to try to make an entire city kid-proof.

This will never happen, because conservative blowhards would have to pass a law that made internet porn effectively legal, which would blow them out of the water come re-election time.

Alex

3 Points. The bar is not set too high. The problem lies in the fact free information websites don't want to ask for a credit card so graphic information can be viewed. COPA does not ban artistic nudity (offline for example, who didn't look at National Geographic for the nudie pictures), but there needs to be a system in place to prevent minors from accessing info.

Law 1 - are you kidding?
Law 2 - .Kids, while in theory is a good idea, brings in the same free speech focus. Who will decide what is good for US children versus French children? .XXX makes more sense (akin to keeping offline properties in undesirable locations like near the airport), but even then we will bitch about which content should be able to have .com and which .xxx.

All we are doing is being reactive. For once in our lives, can we be proactive and do something remotely right by saying we do not want minors as customers? And if you tell me minors don't have credit cards, keep on beliving in passing an NC-17 law for the internet.

Mailman, one of the reasons the credit card thing gets thrown out is because it limits free speech to people with credit cards. Is an adult without a credit card not allowed to see legal material? Do more affluent people with good credit deserve access to more information than poorer people or people with no credit? On that point alone, the law is dead. Credit cards are an artificial barrier. More importantly, the credit card companies having no interest in being in the verification business (see actions takens against AVS sites), and they now issue cards to minors. It's a non-starter in so many ways.

As for XXX domains, I am sorry, but I don't want to move my business into a ghetto that is easily blocked by ISPs and carriers alike. Imagine AOL blocking .XXX domains, or requiring some sort of bizarre activation? Think adult filters from ISP are strong now? Wait until they can turn us all off with a single line of code. How about SEs refusing to list .XXX domains? Anyone want to be un-googled for life?

More importantly, how are you going to stop someone from outside the US from running on a .COM or a .ru or whatever? You ain't gonna do it. You can't enforce it, so it is USELESS.

Creating .KIDS works on the simple concept of defining good and measuring to good, in a way that can be controlled. Companies that market to kids or providing info to kids will want to be on it. Those companies selling porn WON'T.

The internet, like the rest of the world, is intended for adults. Children should be supervised and cared for, not left to roam freely.

Think about what you are suggesting.

Alex

Here's a couple of points to chew on...

1. Fuck people without credit cards. You can't get Playboy for free can you? No.

2. We can argue the free speech crap all day but 'we' have definitely made it way too easy for kids to see porn (even when they aren't looking for it).

Here's a bonus point...

3. Fuck people without credit cards.

Any questions?

Well actually you can. Several public libraries in my area that are funded with State and Federal Tax dollars have subscriptions to Playboy. So yes you can look at it for free. Better yet if I went into the right store a liquor store or Book Store I could simply skim entirely through the magazine to see if I wanted to buy it. Even some of the mainstream chain bookstores don?t wrap the adult magazines in my area. The only places that constantly wrap the adult magazines are the grocery stores and convenience stores that still carry adult magazines.

But to directly address your point (assuming it wasn?t free in my area) I could go buy my playboy with cash. I wouldn?t have to fill out a credit card application, possibly pay an annual fee, and then pay a verification fee just to look at the magazine to see if I wanted to buy it. And of course since I am 18 I know my tender of cash for Playboy won?t be refused where as If I could only pay for it with a credit card my card application may be turned down for any number of reasons.

Let me ask you this do the porn slappers in Las Vegas ask you to verify your age before handing you their materials?

hmmm... I'm not sure what do you mean, but I'd add this: Fuck people with no credit cards :winkwink:

Alex all valid points.

In regards to .Kids, as i said, it is a good concept, but cannot be applied to the real world as well. Do you suggest ISPs or other software allow only cruising of .Kids domain names? What is the work around? Does it apply to all minors on the planet? Who is to judge the content? Would Brittanica be allowed to put how babies are born in the area? And honestly, do you in your heart believe "those companies selling porn WON'T" market to kids? Wasn't someone just arrested for putting adult content on misspellings of Barney?

And as PornWolf says, if they don't have a credit card, fuck em. I know of no place in the Constitution where it says I have a right to view pornography - If it is there let me know.

I will repeat this again and again and again, there are systems available to check age online without a credit card. Google "age verification" and you will see for yourself. I employ one of the services, and frankly, i don't care what happens. I HOPE COPA is upheld. I will be around.

I have never spoken up before because i enjoy the utter ignorance of our community in this fact. Ashhahahahaha and company will continue to go after the businesses who are openly breaking the law - which to remind you, is that pornography is for individuals 18 and up. And nowhere offline is it acceptable to simply show a credit card to prove age if asked.

Lastly, the world is not intended for adults - it is intended for everyone to enjoy. I worry that our business has skewed your world view too much. 99.9% of this land, I can allow my daughter to walk around without fear of seeing a girl butt fuckin a goat. Is it my responsibility to guide her to navigate the world? Of course. But it is also my responsibility, as a businessman, to only market and sell my product to adults.

Ah yes, if they pass this law

the foreigners are going to rule the net and you will see all those big companies moving to Russia et al

or maybe they already have eh??

he he

you never know until the sky has fallen

it's scary

we won't be able to get bush out of there soon enough

Pornwolf: We didn't make it to easy for kids to see porn, adults made it to easy by once again buying another electronic babysitter, and sticking it in the kid's room, and giving them unfiltered net access. It isn't any more intelligent than dropping your kid in the middle of an adult bookstore, and then bitching about the covers of the magazines.

Mailman: .kids is simple - created by law, say "US" to be nice. Anyone who wants is has to meet the standards. Not a registry where an moron with a $20 bill can buy a domain, but something that is carefully maintained, monitored, and the companies reviewed before they are allowed to be part of the registry. The guidelines can be clearly spelled out.

Heck, if it works, add a .teens one as well, and aim the stuff a little "higher".

Anyone wants to stay on .com or whatever would be fine, but if the browsers are set for .kids only, well, there ya go.

Yes, kids would probably find a way to work around it, but then they would be the ones working hard to get there, not me working hard to give them something.

The world is intended for adults. We have bars, we have nightclubs, we have strip clubs, we have cars that you can't drive until a certain age. You cannot vote, you cannot die for your country, and technically, you aren't even suppose to smoke, drink or fuck until you are an adult.

We create in the real work playgrounds for children, places that they can go and play safely with other children. We don't send them downtown at midnight by themselves to wander around. Yet many parents don't have a problem with the 13 and 14 year olds being up late on the weekend "chatting on the internet" with who known who. Fucking mental.

It is a great American tradition to blame the outside sources for problems, but realistically children are their parent's responsbility until they are of age, and parents need to take that responsibility a little more seriously, The internet isn't the safest place, and any attempt to try to tame the whole thing down will backfire, and the issues will move offshore and out of the jurisdiction, except that the net knows no boundries, so it will still be there.

Look at KP. It sucks, it is against the law, and you can find it be searching google. If they can't stop the blatantly illegal stuff, what they fuck you think they are going to do against legal porn?

Alex

my free site lives!