2257 story on CNBC at 8pm - GoFuckYourself.com

Axeman · 02-13-2006, 05:58 PM

A news story regarding 2257 and the online adult industry is
on On the Money at 8pm on CNBC

BobG · 02-13-2006, 06:02 PM

yes, yes. Should be interesting.

Taboo · 02-13-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

A news story regarding 2257 and the online adult industry is
on On the Money at 8pm on CNBC

thanks, almost missed it.

gideongallery · 02-13-2006, 06:05 PM

can someone tape this and post it somewhere i would love to see it but am at work now

Matt 26z · 02-13-2006, 06:18 PM

This is the first big mainstream coverage of it.

Let's see if they portray it as something that will prevent CP, or as a worthless paperwork law.

Taboo · 02-13-2006, 06:31 PM

it's on in a few minutes.
here's more coverage from WSJ that spawned the CNBC piece:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article..._20070212.html

marzzo · 02-13-2006, 06:31 PM

on in a few minutes.. also, Tom Sizemore will be on @ 10pm EST..

WellFuckMe · 02-13-2006, 06:37 PM

Exact quote :

Senator: "My problem is not underage performers in the content, but the underage persons looking and viewing the content. Most pornographic websites are viewed by children from age 11 to er um 17."

Is this guy high?

Axeman · 02-13-2006, 06:38 PM

Larry Walters put out the reasons why its a joke, to bad the host is a complete tool to understand things.

But i was glad that Larry said that if stalker wanted the passport of his favorite porn star, all he had to do was buy a set of her pics etc.

BobG · 02-13-2006, 06:39 PM

ok I was wrong. It was crap.

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 02-13-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WellFuckMe

Exact quote :

Senator: "My problem is not underage performers in the content, but the underage persons looking and viewing the content. Most pornographic websites are viewed by children from age 11 to er um 17."

Is this guy high?

Wow, Blatant lie's by a politician? LOL.

No surprise.

They are good we are evil.

Axeman · 02-13-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WellFuckMe

Exact quote :

Senator: "My problem is not underage performers in the content, but the underage persons looking and viewing the content. Most pornographic websites are viewed by children from age 11 to er um 17."

Is this guy high?

Yeah not well put, but his point is valid. It really should be the main concern.

Matt 26z · 02-13-2006, 06:43 PM

Well that was uneventful.

Walters should have pointed out that you can pass all the paperwork laws you want for the adult side of the industry, but the CP side -- a totally different industry -- isn't going to follow any laws at all.

Axeman · 02-13-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Well that was uneventful.

Walters should have pointed out that you can pass all the paperwork laws you want for the adult side of the industry, but the CP side -- a totally different industry -- isn't going to follow any laws at all.

good point. But with that dick of a host, would have been pretty tough to get anything in. After he treated the Visa chick, i knew the porn interview was going to suck.

Thee Johnclave · 02-13-2006, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

Yeah not well put, but his point is valid. It really should be the main concern.

You believe the main concern should not be stopping 11 year olds from engaging in a sexual act but from viewing one? Please tell me I misunderstood you.

Noir · 02-13-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy The Squid

You believe the main concern should not be stopping 11 year olds from engaging in a sexual act but from viewing one? Please tell me I misunderstood you.

Same here.

WTF

Axeman · 02-13-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy The Squid

You believe the main concern should not be stopping 11 year olds from engaging in a sexual act but from viewing one? Please tell me I misunderstood you.

Hard to deal with the scum that do CP, but no question when you find it you prosecute it as hard as you can. no ammount of paperwork or laws is going to stop scum like that.

But what we as a country and industry do have control over is better controlling who see's the material. And thats what the congressman was trying to get across.

Lycanthrope · 02-13-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy The Squid

You believe the main concern should not be stopping 11 year olds from engaging in a sexual act but from viewing one? Please tell me I misunderstood you.

I was hoping the same.

Lycanthrope · 02-13-2006, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

Hard to deal with the scum that do CP, but no question when you find it you prosecute it as hard as you can. no ammount of paperwork or laws is going to stop scum like that.

That is true, but this is what 2257 alleges to be about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

But what we as a country and industry do have control over is better controlling who see's the material. And thats what the congressman was trying to get across.

Bullshit. It is neither ours nor the government's responsibility to babysit people's children. Yes, we can be somewhat responsible - labelling with ICRA and what have you, but parents should be watching their own children.

Besides, that second point has nothing to do with 2257.

Axeman · 02-13-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

That is true, but this is what 2257 alleges to be about.

Bullshit. It is neither ours nor the government's responsibility to babysit people's children. Yes, we can be somewhat responsible - labelling with ICRA and what have you, but parents should be watching their own children.

Besides, that second point has nothing to do with 2257.

Strongly disagree. It's ours and the parents responsibility. And if we wont do it ourselves and the government wants to help aid the age verification along, then i am all for it.

Should it be ok for all porn stores to let children enter and rent videos and just say hey its not my job to keep adult materials from these kids, it's their parents.....

Axeman · 02-13-2006, 07:03 PM

Also Lycanthorpe, you shouldn't comment on something you did not watch, as you don't know the context of what was said.

Watch the whole segment first, then comment.

crockett · 02-13-2006, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WellFuckMe

Exact quote :

Senator: "My problem is not underage performers in the content, but the underage persons looking and viewing the content. Most pornographic websites are viewed by children from age 11 to er um 17."

Is this guy high?

I couldn't believe it when that moron said that.. Just like usual Senators have no fucking clue what they are promoting. They just want their name in the press looking like they are doing something. 2257 has absolutely nothing to do with minors watching porn.

sfera · 02-13-2006, 07:13 PM

wonder if they will mention gfy lol

Axeman · 02-13-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I couldn't believe it when that moron said that.. Just like usual Senators have no fucking clue what they are promoting. They just want their name in the press looking like they are doing something. 2257 has absolutely nothing to do with minors watching porn.

You could see the host cut him off and back to the issue as soon as he could.

I was surprised who they got to do it though. A democrat from UTAH! Come on!

Larry Walters handled himself good and made his points quickly before getting cut off. Though the host didnt seem to grasp the secondary producer aspect.

Matt 26z · 02-13-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lycanthrope

Bullshit. It is neither ours nor the government's responsibility to babysit people's children. Yes, we can be somewhat responsible - labelling with ICRA and what have you, but parents should be watching their own children.

This is certainly going to be a hot debate over the next few years.

The internet is not just some toy like it was during the internet boom. It has now grown into being a part of people's lives, including kids.

I don't think "parents should watch their kids" is a completely valid argument from webmasters any longer. It still holds some weight, but webmasters need to accept that the line between real life and cyberspace is growing thinner and thinner as each year goes by.

The ICRA ratings are a good start, but they really need to release one standard line of code for all adult websites. Their initial process to get the adult site code is a bit of a pain in the ass.

02-13-2006, 05:58 PM	#1
Axeman Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Swamp Posts: 5,201	2257 story on CNBC at 8pm A news story regarding 2257 and the online adult industry is on On the Money at 8pm on CNBC __________________ XXXRewards - Karups - Boyfun - Jawked. Paying on time since 1997. Contact me at brent [at] xxxrewards.com

02-13-2006, 06:05 PM	#4
gideongallery Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 7,082	can someone tape this and post it somewhere i would love to see it but am at work now __________________ “When crimes occur through the mail, you don’t shut the post office down,” Steve Wozniak

02-13-2006, 06:31 PM	#7
marzzo Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,134	on in a few minutes.. also, Tom Sizemore will be on @ 10pm EST.. __________________ 4 5 zero - 2 2 - nine nine nine

02-13-2006, 06:37 PM	#8
WellFuckMe Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Intarweb Posts: 15	Exact quote : Senator: "My problem is not underage performers in the content, but the underage persons looking and viewing the content. Most pornographic websites are viewed by children from age 11 to er um 17." Is this guy high? __________________ I'm here for the pics.

02-13-2006, 06:38 PM	#9
Axeman Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Swamp Posts: 5,201	Larry Walters put out the reasons why its a joke, to bad the host is a complete tool to understand things. But i was glad that Larry said that if stalker wanted the passport of his favorite porn star, all he had to do was buy a set of her pics etc. __________________ XXXRewards - Karups - Boyfun - Jawked. Paying on time since 1997. Contact me at brent [at] xxxrewards.com

02-13-2006, 06:02 PM	#2
BobG Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,274	yes, yes. Should be interesting.

02-13-2006, 06:18 PM	#5
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	This is the first big mainstream coverage of it. Let's see if they portray it as something that will prevent CP, or as a worthless paperwork law.

02-13-2006, 06:31 PM	#6
Taboo Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: I'd rather be networking than not working. Posts: 3,700	it's on in a few minutes. here's more coverage from WSJ that spawned the CNBC piece: http://online.wsj.com/public/article..._20070212.html

02-13-2006, 06:39 PM	#10
BobG Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 4,274	ok I was wrong. It was crap.

02-13-2006, 06:43 PM	#13
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	Well that was uneventful. Walters should have pointed out that you can pass all the paperwork laws you want for the adult side of the industry, but the CP side -- a totally different industry -- isn't going to follow any laws at all.

02-13-2006, 07:03 PM	#21
Axeman Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Swamp Posts: 5,201	Also Lycanthorpe, you shouldn't comment on something you did not watch, as you don't know the context of what was said. Watch the whole segment first, then comment. __________________ XXXRewards - Karups - Boyfun - Jawked. Paying on time since 1997. Contact me at brent [at] xxxrewards.com

02-13-2006, 07:13 PM	#23
sfera Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: ICQ: 248877409 Posts: 8,597	wonder if they will mention gfy lol