US Supreme Ct ruling on porn sites
 

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5248357.html

Anyone know any other links? Care to venture a guess re impact on the industry?

bump
Seems to be the only link worth reading, had a quick search and all links seem to lead back to zdnet.

I sure as hell hope this thing doesn't go through. America will truely be FUBAR, thanks to Bush, if we have to censor the entire internet because parents aren't responsible enough to put their kids on a leash when they're online.

Right-Wingers can go to hell.

there should just be a ban on free porn. It would deter underage viewing by a huge percentage. ;)

Who are you, George Bush or As-h-c-r-oft?? How are you going to sell porn... if you can't show a sample of what they're getting? Explain that to us.

I don't CARE if it deters underage viewing. Children should be supervised, and not allowed to do whatever the FUCK they want just because mommy and daddy can't afford a babysitter. Parents need to take responsibility for their actions, or lack thereof, and learn that deterring underage viewing isn't SOCIETY's responsibility. Their children have to SEARCH for what we sell, we don't just pop it up on their computer screen.

Clinton is the one that signed this into law,
Bush didn't. So why blame Bush.

I had quite a few playboy and penthouse magazines when I was 11 years old.

As far as I know, there was no free porn on the net at the time.

Also, I'd like to think I turned out alright despite it.

Looking at some nudy pics and jerking off as a teenager isn't the problem... it's how their parents raise them.

I'm not condoning giving kids access to porn, but regardless of this court decision, little boys will still jerk off to naked girls... it's what kids do.

Clinton proposed the Communications Decency Act, but it was NOT signed into law. Who the hell even mentioned the CDA to begin with? CDA isn't even being proposed anymore because it was too all-encompasing.

And YES Bush and his chronies are pushing all this new bullshit into the courts. Do some research.

Lots of info in this thread:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=317932

Interesting use of "Child Protection" as a possible trojan horse to cripple online porn.

One obvious development (which I agree with) -- mandatory warning pages. But will this be enough to comply?

check avn.com for latest news - there wasnt a ruling today, possibly tomorrow

I think it will get approved. Its time for a change in the way things are done. :2 cents:

HAHAHA please MM dont take this the wrong way....but you saying "so what i read playboys as a boy and im fine"..(and also an adult webmaster!) really made me laugh my ass off

i hope no judges read this..:(

LMAO

Heh, well... if you wanted to get literal about it... I infact don't push porn to surfers at all. Never have actually... so in a matter of speaking, I could still call myself a little angel :)

heh, ok.. maybe not. :winkwink:

sponsors will probably just incorperate offshore in places like panama or belize, along with some hosting in canada it shouldnt be a problem.

Hate to burst your balloon , for a long long time porn for sold without giving it away. Its time to clean up our acts this its not fair whining is a waste of time. Its time for our industry to grow up and run business like adults not teenage boys.

Hopefully there will be plenty of opportunities for us Canadians :thumbsup

why does the responsibilty have to lie on us?


theres software built into browsers that allow parents to control the sites their kids go to.

Because thats the way of the world. The adult industry from strip clubs to book store were always responsible for keeping kids out.Also browser filter doesnt stop graphic spam in kids emails boxes.

I guess my question is this.. By what means are they going to verify age? Use the AVS model?

Would every surfer have to provide "ID" at every site?

Why would I have to verify someones ID if a surfer already came from a site where they were already verified.

Sounds more like everyone with a free site is going to have to get underneath some sort of Verification System.

I do see some potential possibilites upcoming if this goes through

All you people that think this would be a good thing need to pull your heads out of your asses and actually read the damn thing. Simply censoring tours and having warning pages will not make you compliant with this law. If your censored tour features fully clothed models and is merely suggestive like ?see me spread my legs inside? you could be liable under the law. The law also specifies that writing is included. In other words you could only use the blandest clinical terms to describe what is inside your site?s member?s area. Furthermore, all kinds of mainstream sites would be impacted. The government in their arguments concedes if you run something as tame as a BBS fan site for a television show you would have to hire a full time moderator to approve each post before it is posted to the internet, or put the entire thing behind age verification. GFY would have to be behind an age verification system.

The law as it is written is an indecency standard like the one they use for radio broadcasts not one that simply requires sexually explicit material to be password protected.

The ACLU has a huge section on their site about this. I urge you to read their brief, then the governments and then come back here and tell me how you think this is a good thing.


http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=15079&c=130

Clinton signed CDA into law in Feb 1996.

This thread is about COPA (CDA the sequel), which was signed into law in October 1998... care to guess by who?

Got any other facts you need corrected?

TheTruthHurts:

You you seriously think it matters which fucking US politician/President created whatever version of this law?

The fact is the US as a country has this currently before the Supreme Court and, tho there is due respect to child protection, - it is a further violation of US civil rights and possibly another nail in the coffin for many US webmasters and an "inhibitor" on Joe Public seeing what the hell he wants to see.

No other western country has this degree of control or "inhibitors" on their citizens.

Your political bullshit is totally negative and equates well with a communist dogma. It's a disease - a severe one.

good points, selling a porn membership is not going to be easy if you can't even display any nudity in your tours....

Pardon me douchebag, but who the fuck was talking to you, and where did I present an opinion on the matter in this thread?

I corrected (yet another) moron and his fucked up "facts".

Eat my ass,
TTH.

I wonder what the impact would be on free sites.

Good post, we all need to stay very aware of where the courts are taking us.

The Truth Hurts:

We all have adjectives, opinions and "attutudes" - you have expressed your feely?

You said enough that speaks volumes.

Great Post, Kingfish! Great Read!

$5 submissions:

Severe is a word that might apply :winkwink: Let's hope it don't happen!

ROFL...

TheTruthHurts:

You on something? :uhoh

yes, I get high off the ignorance of others.

You presented nothing, as usual...

Another useless post to demonstrate your closed mind.

:2 cents:

TheTruthHurts:

Ah.. the "arrogance drug" - understand now.

thanks to Bush? this was introduced during the Clinton Administration

I wish it would be found constitutional (which it won't be) because then we could eliminate free porn . . . and is that a bad thing?

Go back up, read, come back down, and dispute what I corrected..

directfiesta:

I was thinking the same - always the same pattern of "nothing" and looking for a "contest". Kinda boring.

When this was introduced in 1998, it is what got me interested in AVS for the first time

Guess what? When I first started there was no free porn, and we seemed to be able to sell it pretty well

Depending on how broadly it is interpreted, it may clamp down not just free porn .... see Kingfish's post.

it won't :2 cents: :2 cents: :2 cents:

$5 submissions:

For that reason I have the feeling it won't pass. Based on this judgements will be delivered thru various courts as precedents and they *could* end up deviating this law into something it was never mean't to be with risk to others it was never intended to "capture".

Been there, done this shit in the past and it ain't pretty. It's important that this is struck down. Tis only my opinion, but looking overall at the level of "officialdom" and "compliance" in general within the US and incarceration levels, this is a law that may well be abused.

Having said that, I'm still amazed there there have not been many DOJ actions against the adult webmaster community in almost a decade. Any porn defense lawyer will say they are just waiting for the day. Let's hope it has not arrived.

Dude, I would not sweat it, the Chicken Little's of the world only see what they want to see. It isn't going to pass the Constitutionality test, like I said, I wish it would (for purely selfish reasons), but it won't

COPA: Child Online Protection Act

Highlights: COPA offenders who make "harmful" material available to children can be forced to pay a daily fine of up to $50,000 per violation, and could get up to six months in jail. The federal government also can sue in civil court for up to $50,000 per day and per violation.
Original Sponsors: Rep. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio), former Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.)
Signed into law: President Clinton, 1998.
Status: The Supreme Court heard arguments on March 2, 2004. The law remains inactive.


- - - - - - - -


CIPA: Children's Internet Protection Act

Original Sponsors: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former Rep. Bob Franks (R-NJ).
Signed into law: President Clinton, 2000.
Status: Supreme Court upheld the law in a 6-3 decision on June 23, 2003. Case is Docket No. 02-361.


- - - - - - - -



PROTECT: Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act

Sponsors: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis).
Status: Passed Congress, April 2003. President Bush is expected to sign.


- - - - - - - -


CDA: Communications Decency Act

Highlights: The law called for up to two years in jail, plus up to a $250,000 fine for engaging in speech that is "indecent" or "patently offensive" in a place where minors can view or hear it.
Original Sponsor: Former Sen. James Exon (D-Neb.)
Signed into law: President Clinton, 1996, as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Status: Indecency prohibitions overturned by the Supreme Court in 1997.


- - - - - - - -


CPPA: Child Pornography Prevention Act

Original Sponsor: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Signed into law: President Clinton, 1996.
Status: Overturned by Supreme Court in 2002.


- - - - - - - -


COPPA: Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act (2002)

Highlights: Would have ordered U.S. Sentencing Commission to devise penalties, also would have required FBI to keep database of known child porn images.
Original Sponsor: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas)
Status: Passed the House last year, but did not receive Senate consideration before the end of the 107th Congress in 2002.


- - - - - - - -


COPPA: The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act


Highlights: Penalties are imposed for collecting personal data on children under 13 years old without receiving written parental consent.
Original Sponsor: Former Sen. Richard Bryan (D-Nev.)
Status: Signed into law by President Clinton, 1998.


- - - - - - - -


CMEPA: Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act

Highlights: Unspecified fines and up to 10 years in prison for violators, specifically, people who employ suggestively clothed models who are under 17 years old.
Original Sponsors: Reps. Mark Foley (R-Fla.), Nick Lampson (D-Texas)
Status: Died in the House at the end of the 107th Congress.

The orignal law was written by right wingers.

Clinton shouldn't have signed it, but he did not write it - he just signed what the Republican congress wrote and passed.

The Truth Hurts:

Still consuming good GFY bandwith with cut and pastes? :1orglaugh

Yea yea.. we know!

maybe you may have noticed . . . . Presidents don't write laws

You mean Copy and Paste... dumbass.

Who wrote the Patriot Act?

Not Bush, but probably someone from the executive branch?