GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Trump and banning porn (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1227694)

Hannes 11-10-2016 01:01 PM

if he's smart, hell figure a way to profit off of it

Matt 26z 11-10-2016 01:19 PM

Several major countries requiring a paywall would revive the industry IMO.

Sites like Tumblr and Twitter alone are incredibly damaging.

crockett 11-10-2016 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gallag97 (Post 21290734)
if he's smart, hell figure a way to profit off of it

So you have no issue with a elected official creating policy so he can profit from it?

insider22 11-10-2016 02:16 PM

Going after porn just doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 21285931)
but have you met Pence, conservative Supreme Court, and the fully conservative congress?

That really is a stressful thought.

sicone 11-10-2016 03:50 PM

He makes to much from PPV porn in his hotels. He won't cut off viable income streams for himself.

crockett 11-10-2016 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicone (Post 21291097)
He makes to much from PPV porn in his hotels. He won't cut off viable income streams for himself.

He specifically only mentioned "internet porn"

Coup 11-10-2016 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseQuinn (Post 21287554)
I'm really curious about the above statement

if you mean in terms of the industry changing vis a vis the role of women/performers as more active agents within all aspects of the industry, with the redistribution of power that signifies I could see where you might be coming from

don't think that wasn't your point though (this is a genuine question btw)

No, I just feel that feminism has shifted from a goal of female equality to a goal of female domination. It's as if feminist are now all about their own sexuality and out to demonize male sexuality. If I'm right, feminism will be a danger to porn by virtue of shaming men away from it.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...drYXxQnYp0uh1U

Get a load of how worked up they are getting about things that appeal to male sexuality in fucking video games. This is where feminism seems to be headed and I don't think it's going to be any friend to porn in the future.

Barry-xlovecam 11-10-2016 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sicone (Post 21291097)
He makes to much from PPV porn in his hotels. He won't cut off viable income streams for himself.

Cable TV and PPV is exempt if;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257A

Quote:

(h)
(1) The provisions of this section and section 2257 shall not apply to matter, or any image therein, containing one or more visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct, or actual sexually explicit conduct as described in clause (v) of section 2256(2)(A), if such matter—
(A)
(i) is intended for commercial distribution;
(ii) is created as a part of a commercial enterprise by a person who certifies to the Attorney General that such person regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually identifiable information regarding all performers, including minor performers, employed by that person, pursuant to Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where such information includes the name, address, and date of birth of the performer; and
(iii) is not produced, marketed or made available by the person described in clause (ii) to another in circumstances such than [1] an ordinary person would conclude that the matter contains a visual depiction that is child pornography as defined in section 2256(8); or
Cable operators and their distributing customers ( a hotel as a sub seller) are exempted from recordkeeping so long as the get waiver and meet the certification requirements outlined above.

The last 2257 lawsuit never got to the US Supreme Court. Should Trump appoint 2 new Justices his first term --1 is a definite a 2nd appointment is a real possibility -- a new DOJ and AG could work 2257 from a new angle and get this back in court again 'de novo' and take the whole law (probably rewritten some) through the courts. 2257 is a way to harass (by making it difficult to be in lawful compliance) not ban porn.

crockett 11-10-2016 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker (Post 21287596)
VP's have no say. Pence will learn quickly it's the DT show. There will be too many bridges to gap with the nation to attack something this trival. Possibly in a second term. Right now the nation is angry, afraid, twinks and towels are crying, jive brothers are calling all whites racist.. shit like that needs to be addressed first. If he does, hopefully he goes after the proliferation of porn and implements an age verification system or something reasonable and not too draconian. Obscenity and 2257
Has very little affect on actually stopping or curbing it. Going after tubes would be a smart angle.

You have not paid much attention to what Trump has said. Trump plans to make Pence the most powerful VP in history by having deal with all these types of policy issues.

How do you guys vote for someone you have no idea what they have publicly stated? Wishful thinking?

Jel 11-10-2016 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JesseQuinn (Post 21287554)
I'm really curious about the above statement

if you mean in terms of the industry changing vis a vis the role of women/performers as more active agents within all aspects of the industry, with the redistribution of power that signifies I could see where you might be coming from

don't think that wasn't your point though (this is a genuine question btw)

Grab a copy of this book: https://www.amazon.com/Porn-Panic-Se...dp/1785353748/

Obviously the UK isn't the USA, but I think you'll still find it extremely relevant, and get some answers to the question (and related ones) you posed :thumbsup Does a fantastic job of highlighting the left's shift to becoming more and more anti-porn, and more and more pro-censorship. Extremely interesting read :)

twinvisible 11-21-2016 02:22 AM

Now that Sessions is AG, I think he's going to make it a massive pain in the ass for us. He can't ban porn but they will find a way to make it really difficult.

Barry-xlovecam 11-21-2016 06:57 AM

Sen. Sessions seems to be a shoo-in for confirmation in the US Senate. Sen. Sessions is the AG appointee until confirmed, that said;

A strong-arm anti-porn crusade may have some very dark consequences.

Today is not 10 years ago. A whole subnet exists within the Internet where no government has control. Porn may just move to a "safe place" making legitimate law enforcement very difficult. Digital currencies can be used and the whole porn economy will go underground.

Ironic isn't it?

Paul Markham 11-21-2016 07:05 AM

How can they ban porn?

I want you all to think before you reply and come up with ideas.

My position is. It's 100% impossible.

Barry-xlovecam 11-21-2016 10:56 AM

Its all political.

You have to understand the people in the USA Paul -- you think you do but you really don't.

Take the coalition of voters that elected Trump. Why do you think Mike Pence is where is is now -- Vice President Elect?

Pence represents that minority within that voter coalition that wants to "ban" porn and bring Bible education back into public schools. Creationists that reject Darwinism. Real knuckle-draggers.

So, you harass the targeted Internet porn and reduce its footprint while the foreign owned tube rape the porn content industry. It's a game to win a voter block. Half of the government is probably a fappin' a good part of the day. Maybe, it is a wage recovery action. :1orglaugh

C H R I S 11-21-2016 11:15 AM

There cannot be a ban but they will bring back obscenity trials and start passing laws to curtail both production and distribution/billing. I think they'll try to cut off billing pressuring visa/mc to not process for adult within the US, then this industry is FUCKED. How did that work out for online gambling?

twinvisible 11-21-2016 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C H R I S (Post 21319495)
There cannot be a ban but they will bring back obscenity trials and start passing laws to curtail both production and distribution/billing. I think they'll try to cut off billing pressuring visa/mc to not process for adult within the US, then this industry is FUCKED. How did that work out for online gambling?

Correct. For gambling they made it impossible to deposit or withdraw funds from US soil. These fly-by-night check issuing companies would pop up for a little bit only to be shut down or take the money and run.

Now there are zero US players on poker sites unless they are using a VPN with an out of country address. The AG could easily think of a way to throw a wrench into the whole industry. Perhaps just issuing a cumbersome requirement on producers, webhosts or cc companies that slowly starves the US market.

Edit: Look at what the UK is doing - UK Government Confirm Move to Force ISPs into Blocking "Adult" Sites - ISPreview UK

Paul Markham 11-22-2016 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 21287509)
Well no shit...just like Bush's 2257 didn't ban porn but made it much more a PITA

As that proves. It had little effect on the industry.

Paul Markham 11-22-2016 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinvisible (Post 21285094)
He wouldn't be able to ban sites that promote and sell porn? I know its a 1st amendment issue but could easily be slipped into other bills as pork. That's essentially how gambling sites were banned in the US with great success. With control of what will be all three branches I would say it's more possible now than ever and certainly is on the radar of conservative constituents.

Explain to us how he can ban porn.

Relic 11-22-2016 02:39 AM

If the gambling world is any measurable indicator, bans do not work.

Yanks_Todd 11-29-2016 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 21321571)
As that proves. It had little effect on the industry.

Did it not cost you money and time to be compliant? Did you ever have to cancel a shoot because of lack of docs when she was clearly over 18? Did you ever have to dump a shoot because of questionable docs? We still maintain above bar 2257 documentation just in case. It had effect, trust me.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123