Arm yourself!! Fight back on the war against porn!! NOW!!

[BeatingSkull]

it has come to my attention that some webmasters are just simply unaware of the potential risks they face in this biz. Myself included.

due to recent events, i had to take a deep look into what i am working with. i have been doing alot of research the last day & it is determined that obscenity in actual terms & definiton simply does not exist.

obscenity is based solely on what community standards deem as obscene.

Webmasters need to arm themselves with the tools & knowledge to make sure they are compliant with all local, state & federal laws. This not only includes laws to protect themselves against possible obscenity charges, but you also have a duty to protect minors. here is a list of recommended reading to get you started on your homework. If you want to survive, then you need to do your homework to pass!

http://www.adultindustryupdate.com/a...le%2011-04.pdf

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...ic=pornography

http://www.aegis.com/law/fedapp/3D/1...94C031055.html

http://www.davismccownlaw.com/articles/a-obslaw.htm

http://censorware.net/essays/obscene_jt.html

http://www.llrx.com/features/updatecipa.htm

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Obscene

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-262.html


also beware of laws regarding the protection of children & if your site is easily accessible to minors, there are criminal & civil charges that you possibly face.

take the time to make sure your site is not accessible to children.
please visit http://www.icra.org/ & label your site
also visit http://www.safesurf.com/classify/ & register your site there as well

take a look at http://www.asacp.org/index.php & become a member to show your support



do your homework!! arm yourself with the tools!! arm yourself with the knowledge!! stick together!! use the tools & knowledge to win this war!!

BUSH HAS DECLARED WAR ON YOUR INDUSTRY!!!!!!!!1
Get up & fight back!!! read, research, educate yourself, take the required steps & use your fucking tools as well as your head. teach others & stick together!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

[synapse]

to be informed is to be forewarned

[pussyserver - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Really Really Really good post with good information. I say this should get a sticky.

[BeatingSkull]

Originally Posted by pussyserver

Really Really Really good post with good information. I say this should get a sticky.

help.. i dont know how to get a sticky?

[sumphatpimp]

hey!
is the DOJ open on Saturday?
I think I will turn myself in today and avoid the rush.
if you wait you will have to stand in a really long line.
I hate lines.

[gornyhuy]

Nice post.
The sky is falling!!!!

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by BeatingSkull

if your site is easily accessible to minors, there are criminal & civil charges that you possibly face.

ICRA is good, much better alternative than the .xxx idea, but....
except spamming children or using misleading domains, there are no laws that restrict the accessibility.... or I'm I wrong on this one? Refer, please, I thought I knew all the laws by now.

[BeatingSkull]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

ICRA is good, much better alternative than the .xxx idea, but....
except spamming children or using misleading domains, there are no laws that restrict the accessibility.... or I'm I wrong on this one? Refer, please, I thought I knew all the laws by now.

Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by BeatingSkull

Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)

To me, that looks like a requirement for internet safety at schools and libraries, and not a law that restrict a website.

Not that I have anything against protecting children, and I also encourage to use filters. Still we need to know what is fact and not, to avoid confusion. Sure, some parents or organizations might have (or will) tried civil charges, but its a difference between laws and moral. There are also differences between freesites and paysites... and between nations. As you say, there are potential risks, and first thing to learn in this biz, is your local laws.

[SilentKnight]

One thing many webmasters and producers fail to realize is - the justice system (a misgnomer if ever there was one) can charge you with practically anything they like.

Whether the state/crown prosecutor will win his case is another matter. That doesn't matter to them. When you attempt to defend yourself in court...they've already won by financial attrition.

SilentKnight

www.kastlearchives.com
www.chamberofchains.com
www.fetishopolis.com

[BeatingSkull]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

To me, that looks like a requirement for internet safety at schools and libraries, and not a law that restrict a website.

Not that I have anything against protecting children, and I also encourage to use filters. Still we need to know what is fact and not, to avoid confusion. Sure, some parents or organizations might have (or will) tried civil charges, but its a difference between laws and moral. There are also differences between freesites and paysites... and between nations. As you say, there are potential risks, and first thing to learn in this biz, is your local laws.

it would be the same as if you handed a porn magazine to a kid. which is against the law!

"Harmful to Minors"

"Harmful to Minors" laws in the past have been state based. The Children's Online Protection Act would have created a federal "Harmful to Minors law," but it has been enjoined [that means the law is not in effect] by the courts. (ACLU v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4152 (3d Cir. Pa. 2003)). The Justice Department is appealing this decision to the Supreme Court.

CIPA is the first law in effect with a federal definition of "Harmful to Minors." It defines ?material that is harmful to minors? as:

HARMFUL TO MINORS -- The term "harmful to minors'' means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that --
(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors.

(3) SEXUAL ACT; SEXUAL CONTACT. --The terms "sexual act'' and "sexual contact'' have the meanings given such terms in section 2246 of title 18, United States Code.

[Note: 18 U.S.C. ? 2246 (2003)
(3) the term "sexual contact" means the intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person]

[Libertine]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

To me, that looks like a requirement for internet safety at schools and libraries, and not a law that restrict a website.

Not that I have anything against protecting children, and I also encourage to use filters. Still we need to know what is fact and not, to avoid confusion. Sure, some parents or organizations might have (or will) tried civil charges, but its a difference between laws and moral. There are also differences between freesites and paysites... and between nations. As you say, there are potential risks, and first thing to learn in this biz, is your local laws.

A good start in avoiding risks is making it look like you are doing your best to be responsible. By taking basic precautions (ICRA rating, warning pages, no hardcore on unprotected pages, etc) you make yourself a somewhat harder target, and thus are less likely to be picked out from the herd.

A 5' petite woman and a 6'4" muscular guy could both be mugged when walking down the street, but the latter is a lot less likely to be seen as an easy target. Likewise, a site that takes precautions is safer from predators than a site that doesn't.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by BeatingSkull

i have been doing alot of research the last day & it is determined that obscenity in actual terms & definiton simply does not exist.

You did? Welcome to the adult biz!

A definition of obscenity is as elusive as Utopia in most other countries as well as the US - it always was.

The reason for, eg a visit by the FBI is to permit them collect evidence for evaluation (same in most countries) and based on that "evidence" a decision will be made to prosecutor under whatever laws (they may be called "Obscenity" laws or some other stuff).

Until a jury revues the evidence in court and delivers a verdict - who knows what is obscene or not? That's why the jury is there.

Before ever reaching that stage, any webmaster can use his/her own judgement as to what is displayed on websites. If you feel you could not stand in front of a jury and explain, (using any known precedents and exclusions within whatever law), why the talent has a dick suck in her face and a dripping cumshot, - perhaps it's better to avoid using that image.

There are also some, often very weird guidelines provided by first ammendment lawyers. One being... blowjobs are fine, but not have the hand of they guy getting the blowjob on the head of the girl - reason being the suggestion of "forced sex".

Hell I give up.. It's easier not falling under US laws and just using common sense :-)

[Huggles]

I live in Canada


Should I even skim over anything of this post?

[Webby]

Originally Posted by Huggles

I live in Canada


Should I even skim over anything of this post?

Only if ya host within the US... otherwise Canada's own laws are more relevant..

[broke]

Originally Posted by BeatingSkull

obscenity is based solely on what community standards deem as obscene.

It's fun to watch the clueless council the clueless.

[pornguy]

the thing that truly pisses me of the most about the laws to protect the shildren only put the hammer over our heads. The parents can do what ever the fuck they want.

If a man and a woman have anal sex in their house, and their kid watches, it is a violation of thier rights to arrest them. It happened in the privacy of thier own home. If the child sits un attended at a computer, and surfs porn, then it is the pornographers fault, that his site was not triple sealed in lead with titanium bracers, supported by SAM sites.

[Halcyon]

good links. Thanks.

[basschick]

you are 100% wrong here. people have their children taken away for this and gone to jail - and have for as long as i've been an adult, which is a looooooong time...

Originally Posted by pornguy

If a man and a woman have anal sex in their house, and their kid watches, it is a violation of thier rights to arrest them. It happened in the privacy of thier own home. If the child sits un attended at a computer, and surfs porn, then it is the pornographers fault, that his site was not triple sealed in lead with titanium bracers, supported by SAM sites.

[basschick]

BeatingSkull - great posts, great thread!

[Elli]

Excellent info, thank you!

[Dalai lama]

Good info

[BeatingSkull]

this needs a bump