US Attorney General Policy on "Teen" Porn - GoFuckYourself.com

pimplink · 08-10-2001, 01:23 AM

One implication of the recent, well needed, child porn busts is the possible spillover into legal porn. These recent busts may be used to illustrate the "evils of porn" and twisted to justify a crackdown on online adult entertainment, Ed Meese style. One category of adult content seems particularly vulnerable-- the "teen" category. In the biz, "teen" is defined as 18-21. Unfortunately, the "mainstream" world does not see it that way and may result in harassment if not outright prosecution.

Any way to deal with this trend?

The first thing to come to mind is to
a) use content from a reputable provider that can supply Sec 2257 info as well as a content license
b) use softcore -- no teen hardcore stuff
c) I'm seeing this more often, use nonnude with suggestive strip tease
d) move to Canada or the Netherlands =) [nice option, specially the Amsterdam part, but kinda costly]

Another possible approach, based on the Attorney General's relatively recent testimony to Congress, is to crack down on "intellectual property rights" violators. Using this as cover, law enforcement can probably close down a lot of the porn galleries out there due to unlicensed content. It would be interesting if this approach is taken since it would pit the content provider against gallery owners furthering a right wing push to "clean up the Net."

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Pimplink

[This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 08-10-2001).]

SonOfRage · 08-10-2001, 01:34 AM

I think you guys are a bunch of paranoid mutha fuckaz. The govt has more important shit to do than police the internet.

The Govt knows how much money is being made off of porn because of the IRS. That is a huge chunk of change boosting the economy. With recession in the midst, I doubt they will want to lose the P-Dollar.

----------------

BoneProne Family Pimp
SonOfRage AKA P-Dollar

Kimmykim · 08-10-2001, 01:35 AM

We've just had a conversation with the only customs agent who's full time in porn in our district. If you'd like to know how she thinks about a particular site, email it to me and I'll get her to look at it.

The difference between what is marginal and what is prosecutorial material may be a wider gap than you thought.

Doesnt mean we are going to be more allowing, just means that I'll tell you what Judy said.

pimplink · 08-10-2001, 01:49 AM

I'm not worried too much about my galleries--I focus on hentai [toonz] and mature [over 40] categories. I'm just worried about the industry in general. GW's got more than 3 years left in office [hopefully not more!] so we definitely have to keep in mind what particular scenarios may play out on the federal level.

State level is another cause for concern as well... most "obscenity" prosecutions in the US occur on the state level. Maybe state level prosecutions would increase under federal guidance.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim:
We've just had a conversation with the only customs agent who's full time in porn in our district. If you'd like to know how she thinks about a particular site, email it to me and I'll get her to look at it.

The difference between what is marginal and what is prosecutorial material may be a wider gap than you thought.

Doesnt mean we are going to be more allowing, just means that I'll tell you what Judy said.

Kimmykim · 08-10-2001, 01:54 AM

I don't expect to see much of a change based on her answers.

Maybe on the state level but if Wassermans defense of porn across state lines isn't prosecutable in OK then that would lighten it up for everyone.

The money's still an issue and I don't see the current admin stealing the 300 dollar tax rebate to prosecute anything with lol.

The end remains that Miller's not a federal issue, it's a local issue and if you have prosecutors at the local level who are afraid to challenge it then it's good for the industry --

pimplink · 08-10-2001, 02:01 AM

The Miller standard [defining obscene material as "appealing to a prurient interest in sex with no redeeming literary, artistic, political, or social value as defined by local community standards"]
is easy to defend against if your only market is San Francisco or Santa Monica.

Unfortunately, the recent incidence of "borderless" jurisdiction in obscenity cases scare me. Take the case of the Tennessee inspector that logged onto an amateur porn bbs and was able to prosecute the owners in Tennessee. Also, California, while generally liberal, also has a conservative belt--Orange County, Northern California outside of the coastal counties, etc. I'm sure this describes New York, Massachussetts and other generally "permissive" states.

I'm sorry for sounding paranoid but I'd rather wake people up to these possibilities instead of watching another rerun of the 80's under Ed Meese.

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim:
I don't expect to see much of a change based on her answers.

Maybe on the state level but if Wassermans defense of porn across state lines isn't prosecutable in OK then that would lighten it up for everyone.

The money's still an issue and I don't see the current admin stealing the 300 dollar tax rebate to prosecute anything with lol.

The end remains that Miller's not a federal issue, it's a local issue and if you have prosecutors at the local level who are afraid to challenge it then it's good for the industry --

phogirl69 · 08-10-2001, 02:06 AM

Kimmy Kim

Hi, Can I please have your e-mail? I would like to mail you a site so your friend can take a look at a stie, but it's not in your profile. Thanks

pimplink · 08-10-2001, 02:18 AM

Hi Phogirl, quick question: are you vietnamese? Pho is really good stuff.

Quote:

Originally posted by phogirl69:

Kimmy Kim

Hi, Can I please have your e-mail? I would like to mail you a site so your friend can take a look at a stie, but it's not in your profile. Thanks

phogirl69 · 08-10-2001, 02:23 AM

Here is an interesting article in regards to the Texas case written by an attorney
http://www.adultwebmastergold.com/ar...ar_reach.shtml

It points out that you could be responsible for having links to sites that are illegal, and that you could even be responsible for promoting sponsors with questionable content. The article also brings up a good point about not "not being too chatty" on the boards because prosecutors might be monitoring them for info. Just something to be aware of for all you guys that post "how much pot" you smoke and all that other good stuff in a PUBLIC forum

phogirl69 · 08-10-2001, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink:
Hi Phogirl, quick question: are you vietnamese? Pho is really good stuff.

Yep, I'm Viet. The Pho restaurants are usually numbered such as PHO 007
or PHO 54 so I just named myself Phogirl69.
Pho is very yummy, I'm getting hungry just thinking about it.

Incognito · 08-10-2001, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phogirl69:

Here is an interesting article in regards to the Texas case written by an attorney
http://www.adultwebmastergold.com/ar...ar_reach.shtml

It points out that you could be responsible for having links to sites that are illegal, and that you could even be responsible for promoting sponsors with questionable content. The article also brings up a good point about not "not being too chatty" on the boards because prosecutors might be monitoring them for info. Just something to be aware of for all you guys that post "how much pot" you smoke and all that other good stuff in a PUBLIC forum

FOR THE RECORD:
I dont like CP. I dont do CP. I dont do BORDERLINE CP (lolitas). I dont like BORDERLINE CP (lolitas).
Fuck , I almost dont have legal 18-21 TEENS at all.

I've been reading all this crap , all the news (btw all russian internet news agencies as always have already stole it all, translated, exxagureated and posted) about this case and I have just ONE question which is still in my mind.

Dont You see that this a witch hunt? No conspiracy, no threats and I am no paranoid.
It's a fucking witch hunt.

What they are doing over there in US right now with this case is so fucking close to communist times in Russia that it goes beyond beleif.
All the same fake numbers and loud words.

Damn I am glad they put that Reedy away for long. But rest? Is it fucking serious?

Read the arcticle the girl has posted up there.
I quote a part I liked most:
-------------------------------------------
1. You can be convicted for linking to content that is objectionable;
2. It is not a defense to say that you did not know what was on these links;
3. If you receive money from another site, then you are a co-conspirator if their content is illegal;
4. Just because content is legal in another country does not make it legal here;

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE OF ALL:

5. KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!!!!

----------------------------------------
Let me rephrase it for You if You didnt get it:

1. They can put You to jail for ANYTHING.
2. They advise You to keep Your mouth SHUT.

Hope You get the idea. Cause we in Russia saw it all long time ago.

Good luck guys - there's some HEAVY shit going in Your country.

P.S. A "witch hunt" is a process where in the end WEAK people get together and basicly get revenge and attack for any non-existant reasons people they envy.
In many ways it is also similar to Nazis.
In all ways - it is extremely dangerous.

pimplink · 08-10-2001, 10:48 AM

Yeah, its jacked up politics once again.

Quote:

Originally posted by Incognito:
FOR THE RECORD:
I dont like CP. I dont do CP. I dont do BORDERLINE CP (lolitas). I dont like BORDERLINE CP (lolitas).
Fuck , I almost dont have legal 18-21 TEENS at all.

I've been reading all this crap , all the news (btw all russian internet news agencies as always have already stole it all, translated, exxagureated and posted) about this case and I have just ONE question which is still in my mind.

Dont You see that this a witch hunt? No conspiracy, no threats and I am no paranoid.
It's a fucking witch hunt.

What they are doing over there in US right now with this case is so fucking close to communist times in Russia that it goes beyond beleif.
All the same fake numbers and loud words.

Damn I am glad they put that Reedy away for long. But rest? Is it fucking serious?

Read the arcticle the girl has posted up there.
I quote a part I liked most:

Kimmykim · 08-10-2001, 03:20 PM

phogirl -- its [email protected] --

Interestingly enough, Judy was in our office today -- she goes over anything we have a question or a complaint about -- and I talked to her about a few things --

The case I'm referring to pimplink -- is one that is being pursued in Oklahoma against a site run by a couple in Dallas. One of the primary defense positions is going to be that 'borderless' jurisdiction is not allowable for prosecution, and there have been recent indications that some of the higher courts will support such a decision if it's made, even on appeal.

Either way if it goes all the way to trial, it's going to finally set a precedent -- good or bad -- that will at least establish some firmer footing for everyone

DirtyHo · 08-10-2001, 05:19 PM

KimmyKim

What does Judy think about beast sites?

I am under the assumption that your organization and others obviously know what they are doing when it comes to processing for a subject matter that many people claim is illegal. Granted most of the complaining are armchair lawyers.

It is obviously a lucrative niche to the point where CaveCreek hosts the material.

Whats Judy's take on bestiality? Perhaps you can help clear up alot of the misconception around here regarding beast material.

Kimmykim · 08-10-2001, 06:59 PM

Well, I'll say a couple of things about them, and leave my personal feelings out of it

The legality of these sites is such that in 26 (was 24 until recently) states there is no direct law prohibiting it. Most of the laws on the different states books which do pertain to it are worded in ways that reference unnatural acts, which is a very broad brush and can include much more than these specific acts.

And no, Customs won't be prosecuting anyone for it under the current system, and it would take laws being made on the federal level in order for them to get involved. That's straight from the top so to speak.

Now before everyone runs off to try and start a site let me bring up one point --

Porn prosecutions aren't made on what positions are legal or not, or whether or not its ok to have sex with someone you aren't married to.

Prosecution comes in the guise of obscenity most of the time, and I don't know how many locations you will find in the US where a dog getting a blowjob from some chick isn't going to be found obscene.

If you are a paysite owner (or a freesite owner as well) I would suggest taking your cue from the large program tours as to what you can most likely get away with and not. These are the guys who've got the money and spend it to hire attorneys to advise them on where to draw the line with tours and types of sites to push. That or hire a lawyer of your own to advise you in what is definitely a grey area

UnseenWorld · 08-11-2001, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink:
I'm not worried too much about my galleries--I focus on hentai [toonz] and mature [over 40] categories. I'm just worried about the industry in general. GW's got more than 3 years left in office [hopefully not more!] so we definitely have to keep in mind what particular scenarios may play out on the federal level.

State level is another cause for concern as well... most "obscenity" prosecutions in the US occur on the state level. Maybe state level prosecutions would increase under federal guidance.

If your Hentai girls look young and appear to be engaging in sexual activities, you're not exactly home free. the prosecutors have been wanting to extend their domain from depictions of actual children into more imaginary areas, such as photorealistic depictions of children made possible by advances in computer graphics.

Recently, a pedophile's parole was revoked for possession of child pornography. The CP in question was his inner thoughts as put down in his diary.

What's next, apparently, is being put in prison for our dreams.

------------------
Producer of truly original teen/young woman-oriented adult content at Wonders of the Unseen World

pimplink · 08-11-2001, 01:36 PM

That is disturbing but not surprising, there's actually a case of a video distributor that went to prison because he was distributing videos of girls in leotards and dancing outfits. Fully clothed. The court said this violated the anti-child porn laws since they were made for the "titillation of the viewer" There were was no nudity, no touching of private parts, no "come hither" looks to the camera, no lollipops or teddy bears [frequent theme in "teen" galleries].

I think the name of the case was Knox.

As for hentai being covered, all the statutes I've been looking at say "actual children" which has been extended by the courts to computer enhanced adults but must still be an actual person.

Quote:

Originally posted by UnseenWorld:
If your Hentai girls look young and appear to be engaging in sexual activities, you're not exactly home free. the prosecutors have been wanting to extend their domain from depictions of actual children into more imaginary areas, such as photorealistic depictions of children made possible by advances in computer graphics.

Recently, a pedophile's parole was revoked for possession of child pornography. The CP in question was his inner thoughts as put down in his diary.

What's next, apparently, is being put in prison for our dreams.

UnseenWorld · 08-11-2001, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pimplink:
As for hentai being covered, all the statutes I've been looking at say "actual children" which has been extended by the courts to computer enhanced adults but must still be an actual person.

As I said, "the prosecutors have been wanting to extend their domain from depictions of actual children into more imaginary areas, such as photorealistic depictions of children made possible by advances in computer graphics"

At one time, the rationale for prosecuting child porn was that actual children needed to be violated to produce it. Now, the prosecutors want a broader rationale. I never said this approach was current, as you can read, I said it was planned and on their wish list. Just because they aren't prosecuting such sites now is no guarantee they won't prosecute you someday.

I do lots of photography of legal but young-looking girls. I live under this potential future threat all the time.

So far, as I understand it, the courts haven't been too friendly to this kind of attempt at extending the reach of the law, but appeals go to a Supreme Court which is plenty conservative now and me become even moreso during this President's term.

The young voter, for the most part, is our ally in this area, so we must all do what we can to make sure our youngest voters get out and vote.

------------------
Producer of truly original teen/young woman-oriented adult content at Wonders of the Unseen World

Rose · 08-11-2001, 06:01 PM

1. You can be convicted for linking to content that is objectionable
----------------------------------------

If this is true they would have to shut down
every search engine on the net.

------------------
Submit your free sites for free traffic
Get Best Content on the Net

Kimmykim · 08-11-2001, 06:24 PM

Always make the good points Rose

One more time and I'm done harping -- child pornography is a FEDERAL crime, investigated and prosecuted by the FBI and US Customs (sometimes in conjunction with other countries) -- production of, possession of, distribution of child pornography are federal issues and they will be heading up the team that comes to the house to get you if you are caught doing it.

Obscenity, which is where porn is covered under state and local laws is NOT a federal matter, the feds don't deal with it currently. The Miller Test is the applicable standard for it, and it varies wildly from one community to the next as to what would be considered obscene.

Currently there is at least one case involving a web site where the defense is contending that the prosecution has NO jurisdiction and NO reason to prosecute based simply on the prosecutors being able to view the website in their locality. Whether this holds up or not as a defense will be an interesting and very important point for all web site owners since once a precedent is set, most courts will not overturn it unless it's in appeals courts.

If you want to do as much to protect yourself as you can with your sites, go to the store and buy a copy of Playboy -- (if they don't allow Playboy sales where you live this could mean you best talk to a lawyer you trust about it all right fast) and see what's in there. If you've got stuff on your tours and in your galleries and you are worried about prosecution, use that as a guideline for what you post

Rose · 08-11-2001, 06:33 PM

Also from that article it appears That Texas
couple were running AVS service.Does anyone know what was the name of that AVS?

08-10-2001, 01:23 AM	#1
pimplink Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Closer than you think Posts: 9,535	US Attorney General Policy on "Teen" Porn One implication of the recent, well needed, child porn busts is the possible spillover into legal porn. These recent busts may be used to illustrate the "evils of porn" and twisted to justify a crackdown on online adult entertainment, Ed Meese style. One category of adult content seems particularly vulnerable-- the "teen" category. In the biz, "teen" is defined as 18-21. Unfortunately, the "mainstream" world does not see it that way and may result in harassment if not outright prosecution. Any way to deal with this trend? The first thing to come to mind is to a) use content from a reputable provider that can supply Sec 2257 info as well as a content license b) use softcore -- no teen hardcore stuff c) I'm seeing this more often, use nonnude with suggestive strip tease d) move to Canada or the Netherlands =) [nice option, specially the Amsterdam part, but kinda costly] Another possible approach, based on the Attorney General's relatively recent testimony to Congress, is to crack down on "intellectual property rights" violators. Using this as cover, law enforcement can probably close down a lot of the porn galleries out there due to unlicensed content. It would be interesting if this approach is taken since it would pit the content provider against gallery owners furthering a right wing push to "clean up the Net." What are your thoughts on this issue? Pimplink [This message has been edited by pimplink (edited 08-10-2001).]

08-10-2001, 01:34 AM	#2
SonOfRage Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: You have a cute daughter, mind if I jack? Posts: 632	I think you guys are a bunch of paranoid mutha fuckaz. The govt has more important shit to do than police the internet. The Govt knows how much money is being made off of porn because of the IRS. That is a huge chunk of change boosting the economy. With recession in the midst, I doubt they will want to lose the P-Dollar. ---------------- BoneProne Family Pimp SonOfRage AKA P-Dollar

08-10-2001, 01:35 AM	#3
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	We've just had a conversation with the only customs agent who's full time in porn in our district. If you'd like to know how she thinks about a particular site, email it to me and I'll get her to look at it. The difference between what is marginal and what is prosecutorial material may be a wider gap than you thought. Doesnt mean we are going to be more allowing, just means that I'll tell you what Judy said.

08-10-2001, 01:54 AM	#5
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	I don't expect to see much of a change based on her answers. Maybe on the state level but if Wassermans defense of porn across state lines isn't prosecutable in OK then that would lighten it up for everyone. The money's still an issue and I don't see the current admin stealing the 300 dollar tax rebate to prosecute anything with lol. The end remains that Miller's not a federal issue, it's a local issue and if you have prosecutors at the local level who are afraid to challenge it then it's good for the industry --

08-10-2001, 02:06 AM	#7
phogirl69 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,330	Kimmy Kim Hi, Can I please have your e-mail? I would like to mail you a site so your friend can take a look at a stie, but it's not in your profile. Thanks

08-10-2001, 02:23 AM	#9
phogirl69 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,330	Here is an interesting article in regards to the Texas case written by an attorney http://www.adultwebmastergold.com/ar...ar_reach.shtml It points out that you could be responsible for having links to sites that are illegal, and that you could even be responsible for promoting sponsors with questionable content. The article also brings up a good point about not "not being too chatty" on the boards because prosecutors might be monitoring them for info. Just something to be aware of for all you guys that post "how much pot" you smoke and all that other good stuff in a PUBLIC forum

08-10-2001, 03:20 PM	#13
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	phogirl -- its [email protected] -- Interestingly enough, Judy was in our office today -- she goes over anything we have a question or a complaint about -- and I talked to her about a few things -- The case I'm referring to pimplink -- is one that is being pursued in Oklahoma against a site run by a couple in Dallas. One of the primary defense positions is going to be that 'borderless' jurisdiction is not allowable for prosecution, and there have been recent indications that some of the higher courts will support such a decision if it's made, even on appeal. Either way if it goes all the way to trial, it's going to finally set a precedent -- good or bad -- that will at least establish some firmer footing for everyone

08-10-2001, 05:19 PM	#14
DirtyHo Registered User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Bakersfield, CA Posts: 12	KimmyKim What does Judy think about beast sites? I am under the assumption that your organization and others obviously know what they are doing when it comes to processing for a subject matter that many people claim is illegal. Granted most of the complaining are armchair lawyers. It is obviously a lucrative niche to the point where CaveCreek hosts the material. Whats Judy's take on bestiality? Perhaps you can help clear up alot of the misconception around here regarding beast material.

08-10-2001, 06:59 PM	#15
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Well, I'll say a couple of things about them, and leave my personal feelings out of it The legality of these sites is such that in 26 (was 24 until recently) states there is no direct law prohibiting it. Most of the laws on the different states books which do pertain to it are worded in ways that reference unnatural acts, which is a very broad brush and can include much more than these specific acts. And no, Customs won't be prosecuting anyone for it under the current system, and it would take laws being made on the federal level in order for them to get involved. That's straight from the top so to speak. Now before everyone runs off to try and start a site let me bring up one point -- Porn prosecutions aren't made on what positions are legal or not, or whether or not its ok to have sex with someone you aren't married to. Prosecution comes in the guise of obscenity most of the time, and I don't know how many locations you will find in the US where a dog getting a blowjob from some chick isn't going to be found obscene. If you are a paysite owner (or a freesite owner as well) I would suggest taking your cue from the large program tours as to what you can most likely get away with and not. These are the guys who've got the money and spend it to hire attorneys to advise them on where to draw the line with tours and types of sites to push. That or hire a lawyer of your own to advise you in what is definitely a grey area

08-11-2001, 06:01 PM	#19
Rose Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: ON,Canada Posts: 1,456	1. You can be convicted for linking to content that is objectionable ---------------------------------------- If this is true they would have to shut down every search engine on the net. ------------------ Submit your free sites for free traffic Get Best Content on the Net

08-11-2001, 06:24 PM	#20
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Always make the good points Rose One more time and I'm done harping -- child pornography is a FEDERAL crime, investigated and prosecuted by the FBI and US Customs (sometimes in conjunction with other countries) -- production of, possession of, distribution of child pornography are federal issues and they will be heading up the team that comes to the house to get you if you are caught doing it. Obscenity, which is where porn is covered under state and local laws is NOT a federal matter, the feds don't deal with it currently. The Miller Test is the applicable standard for it, and it varies wildly from one community to the next as to what would be considered obscene. Currently there is at least one case involving a web site where the defense is contending that the prosecution has NO jurisdiction and NO reason to prosecute based simply on the prosecutors being able to view the website in their locality. Whether this holds up or not as a defense will be an interesting and very important point for all web site owners since once a precedent is set, most courts will not overturn it unless it's in appeals courts. If you want to do as much to protect yourself as you can with your sites, go to the store and buy a copy of Playboy -- (if they don't allow Playboy sales where you live this could mean you best talk to a lawyer you trust about it all right fast) and see what's in there. If you've got stuff on your tours and in your galleries and you are worried about prosecution, use that as a guideline for what you post

08-11-2001, 06:33 PM	#21
Rose Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: ON,Canada Posts: 1,456	Also from that article it appears That Texas couple were running AVS service.Does anyone know what was the name of that AVS?