The End of Online Porn!!!

[TeddyRacer1]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/02/on...mut/index.html

According to the Bush administration, they're trying to limit access by minors to adult sites. They want the free content from sponsors not be able to be posted freely on th net without verifying the viewer's age. I don't condone letting minors into my site, but come on, growing up in a major metropolitan city, where most of my friends were older growing up, if you don't see it online, one of your buddies will rip it off from a liquor store, and we'll all get a peek at a friend's house. The point of this post, get involved politically, "write letters to your congressman/woman telling them you want your freedom of speech rights reserved" !!!! Fuck Bush and the Republican Party!!1


Regards,

Teddy

[brizzad]

[benc]

I think you mean the end of free hardcore porn. In that case, I say, the sooner the better.

[riosluts]

Hail to the Adult Verification Services

[spamofon]

move to canada

[Michaelious]

or holland maybe..i dunoo

[icedemon]

They tried this a couple of years ago. I remember when all the free sites in the US turned into AVS sites with in a month. After the law got shot down, some went back to free and some kept the AVS.

I'm wondering what makes them believe this law won't get shutdown like the others in the past.

[Trax]

Originally posted by brizzad

´

my thought

[PiksalDesign]

The end of free porn, its about damn, this would put ALL back in the game.

[TeddyRacer1]

yeah i guess, it's just a back and forth type of deal with these online obscenity laws. the conservatives are in the white house, so everything with the word "sex" on it is bad!

comments about moving,... i'm working on that,... with Bush in the WH, I hate this goddam country,... wish it was Holland or something lol

[polish_aristocrat]

They cannot solve the problem simply by creating a law.
Internet is worlwide.
So a US law will be a dead law, but if they are trying to regulate the internet worlwide, then...I really hope they won't try it.

I have nothing against making more use of the misleading - domains law ( Zuccarini etc. )
But on the other hand, I wonder if someone from outside the US ( let's say Poland ) could be sued for having a domains name like kidsadvice.com leading to a porn site.
I do not applaud by any means such behavior, but...I hope they wouldn't be able to do anything against him, unless of course the interent body ICANN introduces a similar law.

[besterman]

the problem is moreso with affiliates. Paysites can setup some sort of system, but affiliates have sites and post content that are not protected. Look at all the direct adult adwords running on google...Essentially every affiliate must link off to a age-protected front and nowhere else. Then you have the foreign companies that will have power to circumvent this and have a competitive advantage. Consider also that sites have many deep links, meaning even if the front-page follows the law, you'd have to install server-side software to control every single page on your site that a search engine may crawl - it's really a can of worms

[Ash@phpFX]

am i correct in assuming that US laws would fuck an aussie webmaster in the arse if his server was in the US?

[mardigras]

Originally posted by asher
am i correct in assuming that US laws would fuck an aussie webmaster in the arse if his server was in the US?

Yep.

[juicybucks]

Originally posted by brizzad

lol yep

[adultvisitors]

Porn can never be restricted in reallity

[mardigras]

This is interesting... The govt. wants age verified by credit cards while the credit card companies say, "Nope!"... good way to put a hurt on online porn... but only that which originates in the US

[Tuna]

here we go again..

[SENSEX]

who the fuck does Bush think he is? The internet is not limited to American citizens. It's a worldwide thing, hence the term "world wide web". He can try all he wants, but in the end American based sponsors/programs is all he is going to end up hurting. It's never going to stop IMO. The responsibility is on the parents to stop their children from accessing porn.

[icedemon]

Originally posted by asher
am i correct in assuming that US laws would fuck an aussie webmaster in the arse if his server was in the US?

They can get your server shutdown, but nothing against you. I've even seen where if the host was in a certain state in the US, it has to follow that state's law also.

Anybody in the US can get past the US laws by getting a host outside of the US and getting a PO Box outside of the US. As long as ICANN doesn't make some rule where your domain name can be taken away, you can get past the US laws pretty much and still live in the US. I'm not recommending anybody in the US do that though.

[mardigras]

Originally posted by SENSEX
He can try all he wants, but in the end American based sponsors/programs is all he is going to end up hurting.

Unless he threatens sanctions against countries that don't follow suit...

[tolik]

hostings and billings in EU -> this is a way.

let Bush suck donkey balls

[rounders]

thatll be the day!

[juicybucks]

Originally posted by SENSEX
who the fuck does Bush think he is? The internet is not limited to American citizens. It's a worldwide thing, hence the term "world wide web". He can try all he wants, but in the end American based sponsors/programs is all he is going to end up hurting. It's never going to stop IMO. The responsibility is on the parents to stop their children from accessing porn.

so, how much do you get paid to be a sigwhore that sprouts garbage to just show that sig

[ProfitPrograms]

Originally posted by spamofon
move to canada

exactly - thats what i am doing - toronto here i come

[CPAK]

Yeah.. it will be the end of TGP sites....

[SENSEX]

Originally posted by juicybucks


so, how much do you get paid to be a sigwhore that sprouts garbage to just show that sig

go douce yourself in gas and light a match. Go ask Trey how much he pays me.

And I dont spout garbage and you've hurt my feelings

[TeddyRacer1]

yep, yep, true, Bush cannot limit the internet,... it is call "WWW" a community online outside the US,... yep,.. Bush keep your hands off the net!

yep,... Bush does suck donkey balls

Him and John Ash-hahahahaha are prolly whacking off to some of Playboy's Spice channels on pay-per-view, fucking hypocrites, no matter how much regulation you pass, there always be porn!
Remember "The Prohibition" that didn't work, the more you want people to stop doing something, the more they want to do it! Alittle psychology lesson for you: Bush!

[NoCarrier]

Originally posted by teddyracer1
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/02/on...mut/index.html

According to the Bush administration, they're trying to limit access by minors to adult sites. They want the free content from sponsors not be able to be posted freely on th net without verifying the viewer's age. I don't condone letting minors into my site, but come on, growing up in a major metropolitan city, where most of my friends were older growing up, if you don't see it online, one of your buddies will rip it off from a liquor store, and we'll all get a peek at a friend's house. The point of this post, get involved politically, "write letters to your congressman/woman telling them you want your freedom of speech rights reserved" !!!! Fuck Bush and the Republican Party!!1


Regards,

Teddy

It's election year. They have to give candies to the right extremist christian voters. Be prepared.

[The CaVeMaN]

never

[cashman]

It should be up to the parent to monitor their kids, just like cable and magazines.

[NoCarrier]

Ashhahahahaha, John, Atty. Gen. v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
03-0218

http://journalism.medill.northwester...=33206&-search

Appealed From: 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (March 6, 2003)

Oral Argument:

Opinion Issued:

Subject: Child Online Protection Act, 1st Amendment


Question(s) presented: Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

BY LAUREN PUERNER, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

Imagine: Your pre-teen child sits down at the family computer and, while surfing the World Wide Web, inadvertently comes across a site displaying pornography and curiously starts perusing.

Congress has been trying to protect minors from this situation for almost ten years, mostly through the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), which is meant to shield people under 17 from pornography and other "harmful" material on the Web.

COPA, which was signed into law in October of 1998, seeks to restrict minors? access to harmful material that is commercially distributed via the Web. In doing so, COPA places strict civil and criminal punishments on any commercial Web publisher who violates it.

Yet COPA also tries to protect these Web publishers from prosecution if they enact age-verification safeguards, such as requiring a credit card number or a digital certificate.

Now imagine: You, an adult over the age of 17, come across pornography on the Web and wish to curiously start perusing.

Under COPA, you would have to present some form of age-verifying identification in order to proceed.

Claiming this requirement, and others provided under COPA, violate adults? 1st Amendment rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and various other individuals, entities and organizations filed suit seeking a preliminary injunction.

A little more than three months after the suit was filed, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania accepted the ACLU?s argument and granted the injunction. In its ruling, the court held that "COPA imposes a burden on speech that is protected for adults."

A 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, claiming COPA?s definition of "material harmful to minors," which relies on "community standards" to determine if the material is "designed to appeal to ? the prurient interest" of people under 17, places too great of a burden on 1st Amendment rights.

The court reasoned that because the Web does not have geographical boundaries, its publishers can?t control where their material is read or viewed, and they therefore have no way of preventing their material from entering a community that would deem it offensive.

Thus the court decided that under COPA, publishers would have to cater to the most puritan communities by censoring material its members would find offensive, even if more liberal communities may consider it acceptable.

On May 21, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case.

Almost a year later, on May 13, 2002, the Court ruled 8-1 that COPA was not unconstitutional simply because it used "community standards" to dictate material harmful to minors. But, in vacating the 3rd Circuit?s judgment, the Court prohibited the federal government from enforcing COPA until the 3rd Circuit examined the case more fully.

Considering factors other than "community standards," the 3rd Circuit unanimously affirmed its prior ruling, once again enjoining COPA on 1st Amendment grounds.

In the opinion written by Senior Circuit Judge Leonard Garth, the court held that COPA?s requirement that the "harmful material" be considered "as a whole" rather than "in context" violates the 1st Amendment?s requirement to consider context.

The court explained this reasoning using an anecdote from the brief of amicus California Museum of Photography/University of California at Riverside. According to the court, the museum maintains a Web site that displays artwork from its collection. The Web site (which was last visited by the court on Feb. 6) contains several photographs, and each one serves as a link to a particular photographer?s online exhibit. One of these photographs is of a naked woman.

The court said that viewing this photograph "as a whole" and without regard to its surrounding context would meet COPA?s definition of "material harmful to minors." Yet the court argued, "This same photograph, when treated in context as a component of the entire Web page, cannot be said to be ?harmful to minors.?"

Thus it ruled, "The burden that COPA would impose on harmless material accompanying such single images causes COPA to be substantially over-inclusive."

The 3rd Circuit concluded that COPA?s definition of "minor" is also significantly over-inclusive because "the type of material that might be considered harmful to a younger minor is vastly different ? than material that is harmful to a minor that is just shy of seventeen years old."

Garth used sex education as an example to illustrate what may be valuable and not offensive to 16-year-olds but invaluable and offensive to a younger group of minors.

Yet the court used another example to illustrate that the government?s "regular course" claim is still too broad. The opinion explained that a Web site that deals primarily with medical information, but that publishes a biweekly column on sexual matters, could be liable under COPA.

Next, the court ruled that COPAs? defenses from prosecution would deter adults from viewing constitutionally protected speech.

"Many web users are simply unwilling to provide identification information in order to gain access to content, especially where the information they wish to access is sensitive or controversial."

The federal government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend Congress' continuing attempt to protect minors from offensive material over the internet.

The U.S. Solicitor General argued in the government's petition for writ of certiorari that the 3rd Circuit rejected its argument "that the question under COPA is whether material has serious value for a legitimate minority of normal older adolescents."

The court also said COPA?s limitation of liability to people making communications "for commercial purposes" extends to too many Web publishers. According to the opinion, "a Web publisher will be subjected to liability due to the fact that even a small part of his or her Web site has ?material harmful to minors.?"

The government argued that COPA?s reach is limited to businesses that seek to profit from material that is "harmful to minors" as "a regular course" of their business.

In its brief opposing Supreme Court review, the ACLU argued that studies have shown that up to three-fourths of Web users won?t give up personal information to Web sites and that two-thirds of Web users wouldn?t even do it for money.

On Oct. 14, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court accepted review in the case for the second time.





Attorneys in this case:
For John D. Ashhahahahaha, Attorney General:
Theodore B. Olson
Solicitor General, Counsel of Record
PETER D. KEISLER
Assistant Attorney General
EDWIN S. KNEEDLER
Deputy Solicitor General
IRVING L. GORNSTEIN
Assistant to the Solicitor General
BARBARA L. HERWIG
CHARLES W. SCARBOROUGH
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
(202) 514-2217

For American Civil Liberties Union, et al.:
Ann E. Beeson
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2601

Amici:
For Focus on the Family and Family Research Council:
William Wagner
Cooley Law School
300 South Capitol
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 371-5140

For DuPage County, Illinois:
Richard Hodyl Jr.
Williams Montgomery & John Ltd.
Twenty North Wacker Drive
Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 443-3200

For Morality In Media, Inc.:
Paul J. McGeady
475 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10115
(212) 870-3232

(This brief written by Lauren Puerner)

[OzKaNoz]

Originally posted by benc
I think you mean the end of free hardcore porn. In that case, I say, the sooner the better.

I agree and its about damn time!

Oz

[kenny]

They have been trying to do this for almost 10 years. The courts keep rejecting it. Yes ladies and gentlemen even before Bush.

Believe it or not most politicians on all parties side with things like this. The federal goverment be it Kerry, Bush, or who the fuck ever isnt going to side with your porn slanging asses

[cool1]

Originally posted by benc
I think you mean the end of free hardcore porn. In that case, I say, the sooner the better.

I agree get the hardcore behind a membership.
Means more money for us.

[VicMartin]

Originally posted by benc
I think you mean the end of free hardcore porn. In that case, I say, the sooner the better.

I fuckin' second that! Down w/ free porn.

[llabtaem]

It just goes to show you that we MUST get that snake eater Bush out of office. He is a power hungry cumstain (IMO). Be a citizen and stand up for your rights... VOTE damnit! I do agree that the Hard stuff should be protected to a certain extent... but I do not think that it should be protected because of minors.

I do not condone anyone under the age of 18 looking at the shit... laws are laws, and horny pubescent males will find something to jerk off to no matter what... There is just such a flood of the Hard shit out there, why buy a membership when you can go to a TGP literally any day, pick up 50 pics and 10 mpegs and rub one out? Keep the goodies for the paying cutomers... let the rest (freeloaders) see the panty shots and ass shots and nag them to death until they are forced to join.

As for server side software that someone had mentioned up there somewhere... well, say goodbye to your Google PR rankings. Webpower (iFriends.net) had this shit installed on their free hosting platform. We lost everything as far as SE traffic. Google can't spider it... it's fucking useless unless you rely strictly on branding your site and mass promoting it as a brand. No one is just going to stumble into the shit unless you have type-in traffic.

All in all... just get Bush out of office and I'll vote for whoever Flynt is voting for - then you can't go wrong (At least industry wise)

[Rictor]

Originally posted by teddyracer1
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/02/on...mut/index.html

According to the Bush administration, they're trying to limit access by minors to adult sites. They want the free content from sponsors not be able to be posted freely on th net without verifying the viewer's age. I don't condone letting minors into my site, but come on, growing up in a major metropolitan city, where most of my friends were older growing up, if you don't see it online, one of your buddies will rip it off from a liquor store, and we'll all get a peek at a friend's house. The point of this post, get involved politically, "write letters to your congressman/woman telling them you want your freedom of speech rights reserved" !!!! Fuck Bush and the Republican Party!!1


Regards,

Teddy

I'm in favor of this. More money for me.

[hova]

Hardcore should be behind memberships, thats just a good thing for us. So more money to us, or me

[Nubianprince]

Originally posted by spamofon
move to canada

LOL

[Rictor]

Anyone who thinks the U.S. can't enforce our laws worldwide is really sort of clueless about who runs this planet.

When we make a law we want enforced worldwide, we make everyone else get on board.

How many countries don't honor U.S. copyright laws, for example? 2 or 3?

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally posted by Rictor
Anyone who thinks the U.S. can't enforce our laws worldwide is really sort of clueless about who runs this planet.

That is why it should change.
I have no fucking objections to see McDonald everywhere, watching only Holywood movies, listenign to US music and buying US made products.
But foreign ( US ) laws shouldn't be enforced elsewhere, period

[CPAK]

Originally posted by polish_aristocrat

That is why it should change.
I have no fucking objections to see McDonald everywhere, watching only Holywood movies, listenign to US music and buying US made products.
But foreign ( US ) laws shouldn't be enforced elsewhere, period

[icedemon]

Originally posted by kenny
They have been trying to do this for almost 10 years. The courts keep rejecting it. Yes ladies and gentlemen even before Bush.

Believe it or not most politicians on all parties side with things like this. The federal goverment be it Kerry, Bush, or who the fuck ever isnt going to side with your porn slanging asses

Yea, the last time they tried this Clinton was in office. Actually they tried this 2 times while Clinton was in office. Doesn't matter who the politican is. The government is going to try and make a law in the US to stop porn.

Side note: I don't support Bush or Clinton. I don't like most of the people in government. Just a bunch of rich kids playing with my money.

[BuckLover]

It's all a big push to satisfy his "moral" voters!

[kenny]

Originally posted by BuckLover
It's all a big push to satisfy his "moral" voters!

Which the vast majority are

[cashman]

Election time is coming.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Good get rid of the fucken minors that surf porn them little fucks got no credit card and are a bandwidth drain...

Stop trying to make me vote republican.

[polish_aristocrat]

Originally posted by cashman
Election time is coming.

hope they won't find Osama before the elections

[Kicker]