|
|
|
|
||||
|
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
 |
|
|||||||
| Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
|
Thread Tools |
11-07-2007, 01:46 PM
|
#1 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,090
|
Can someone from the DOJ explain this?
From my Fight the Blog blog on xbiz:
http://www.xbiz.com/blogs/blog.php?b=brandon#86088 2257 regulations have been buzzing around the online adult entertainment community for the last couple of years. Some companies have taken seriously in doing their documentation while others have not. 2257 is a Federal law that applies to "sexually explicit" content to ensure that minors were not used in the production. Throw in some obscenity and COPA terms and you have yourself an interesting conversation about porn. While adult websites are the target for inspections for 2257 and obscenity charges and under the requirement (though currently being challenged by FSC) to have 2257 documentation, how can mainstream (non-adult) websites show the same content that adult sites are so worried about in 2257 compliance? Case in point: http://video.yahoo.com/?t=t&fr=&p=swingers (video titled: Hot milf sucks and f*cks) or http://video.yahoo.com/?t=t&fr=&p=blow+job View this link, and you will find porn (copyright infringement). The content is clearly sexually explicit, yet there are no 2257 labelling, and no 2257 compliance. Many webmasters agree that there is too much free content out on the web. This free content also means that kids can see the video content, that normally is tucked behind a warning page. The *tube type websites seem to bypass the 2257 responsibilities that Congress has inacted for adult companies. The use of underaged minors in legal adult content has not shown up in alarming numbers (i heard the stat there was like maybe 4-5 cases in last 15 years starting with Tracy Lords. Child porn has shown up more so on church-employed individual computers than on legal porn websites) --and today they arrested a guy who is a head of some children's museum. and yes, it was here in the US. Adults and kids can easily view porn on websites as mainstream as Yahoo (and google, etc)... without having to worry about 2257, and that, is truely obscene. Fight the blind eye!
__________________
http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! | http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957 |
|
|
|
11-07-2007, 02:17 PM
|
#2 |
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: chicago, il
Posts: 3,987
|
You tell'em Bro
__________________
Icq = 459565429 AIM = butlerhankb http://stripperpins.com Twitter = @stripperpins Facebook = Stripperpins.com [email protected] |
|
|
|
|
11-07-2007, 02:39 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,090
|
Quote:
When is the next Hank sighting? Fight the paparazzi!
__________________
http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! | http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957 |
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2007, 09:33 PM
|
#4 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,090
|
Fight the bump!
__________________
http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! | http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957 |
|
|
|
