Can someone from the DOJ explain this? - GoFuckYourself.com

FightThisPatent · 11-07-2007, 01:46 PM

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!

Hank_Heartland · 11-07-2007, 02:17 PM

You tell'em Bro

FightThisPatent · 11-07-2007, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank_Heartland

You tell'em Bro

Hank??!?!?!?!? Long time no cactus hug.

When is the next Hank sighting?

Fight the paparazzi!

FightThisPatent · 11-07-2007, 09:33 PM

Fight the bump!

11-07-2007, 01:46 PM	#1
FightThisPatent 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 fcks) 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
Hank_Heartland 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, 09:33 PM	#4
FightThisPatent 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