US Rules All Porn is Child Porn...

28 comments
Source Title:
All porn is child porn
Story Text:

All online porn is child porn unless you can prove otherwise

is what The Register are reporting on the new US law that has been extended to cover websites and other new media.

The law essentially places the onus on operators and suppliers of Adult content to prove that the participants are of legal age. By default this means that without proof of age, an operator of an adult site will be held and considered a child pornographer.

It won't matter whether your site caters for "Old Grannie loving" or "MILFs" as proof of each of the participants in acts will be required to be shown.

Sites have already taken themselves offline as they do not have the required proof. Some of these sites are not pornographic in nature but may have adult pictures within their whole.

The full text of the legislation is available from Cornell University

Comments

Wow..

I'm a bit surpised it took this long to move online though. For some reason, it seems like this should have happened in 2000.

Another part of the law, that's sure to cause some problems w/ site operators:

But wait - there's more. Any site affected by 2257 must also publish a physical address that serves as its "place of business." Someone must be available at that address 20 hours a week just in case a law enforcement officer wants to gain access to those 2257 records.

http://www.alternet.org/story/22289/

Man, I'm glad I sell merchandise that doesn't cross the Red States' moral stance.

What a load of shit

and now all sex is considered paedophile sex also so unless you can prove otherwise, you're all going to jail you nasty perverts.

Well

I'm not sure its such a bad thing.

As I see it ramming a dildo up your tuppence is still within the law however if you want to photograph others doing the same and sell on for a profit then you need to be in a position to prove that the models are of legal age. In an adult www where the teen niche is far and away the biggest thats not a bad thing, is it?

Yeah

Totally agree youngsters need to be protected.

Why don't we bomb all of Ireland so we kill all the terrorists?

Just seems a bit rash to me.

Why don't we bomb all of Ireland so we kill all the terrorists?

North or South?

I used to own a scrapyard [car breakers] the laws and regulations far outweigh anything I have ever seen online. Online needs to get with the program PDQ.

North or South?

I thought I'd leave that out. In the interests of something or other.

if you want to photograph

Quote:
if you want to photograph others doing the same and sell on for a profit then you need to be in a position to prove that the models are of legal age.

In theory, that's great. Frankyly i'd find it hard to argue against it, im for it in fact. But andy's point is valid, it makes adult seem so... awful..

I look at porn regulary, don't you? (women aside here, just for this point)

I click on 'teen' on occasion, it's not my thing, but i do click it, and among the select sites i frequent, they ain't teens, or at the very least they're not underage (but of course it's impossible to know for sure).

I think this says that if you watch/look/listen to porn you're some kind of offender, and for the majority of ordinary people, and ordinary porn sites, that simply isn't the case.

Having said all that, how can you argue against protecting minors? Im all for it, but i think this takes a wrong direction, the onus should be on law, not publisher. Most publishers are legit...

The main problem with the

The main problem with the legislation (as I understand it) is that it does not only cover photographers/original producers (who've always been subject to model release laws)... this law means anyone who's running an adult site using existing photos needs to have copies of all the model releases themselves, rather than just being able to refer inquiries to the original photographer.

And it's not just commercial sites either (although I don't know of too many not-for-profit porn sites, granted...).

I'd have no problem if it was a matter of "photographer must keep model release records with proof of age, and anyone who re-publishes photos must be able to provide contact information for the original source of the photos." I think this law goes way too far though.

This has nothing to do with protecting children. It's anti-porn in general... promoted by the same sort of people who are campaigning to for school sex education programs to stop talking about contraception and disease prevention in favor of an 'abstinence only' curriculum... (and probably also the same nutters pushing for the addition of creationism/"intelligent design" to school science classes)

Yeah Mivox, the folks with the pointy hats!

>teen niche is far and away the biggest

Are you sure?

I heard the big money was in oldies and she-males.

This has nothing to do with

Quote:
This has nothing to do with protecting children. It's anti-porn in general... promoted by the same sort of people who are campaigning to for school sex education programs to stop talking about contraception and disease prevention in favor of an 'abstinence only' curriculum...

For real? Do we have these fuckwits in england too?

This has nothing to do with protecting children. It's anti-porn

I agree 100%, however I think that porn, for all its good points, should [and will] be a more difficult thing to distribute to a mass audiance than it is currently. From an SEO point of view I think that needs to be taken on board not ignored.

no difference between pr0n and Readers Digest

From where I sit there's absolutely no difference between some pr0n site and Reader Digest.

Both are publications dealing with some subject(s). Both are 100% legal as well. Difference in target groups and subjects covered, otherwise not.

For that matter the NY Times, or The Times. Just publications. Some publish news stories, some publish pr0n, no big deal.

---

I should add -- in all honesty -- that i'm a good deal more worried about the average "news media" influence on how kids perceive the world than I am about them (the kids) seeing human reproduction in any of it's multiple shapes.

Why the f*** is it perceived as "natural" and "desirable" to see people get killed in the most bizarre ways, while at the same time sex (and indeed pr0n) is considered dangerous - something people should be protected from? What's wrong with people these days?

News media is scary, pr0n is not.

why not set up porn sites on

why not set up porn sites on a different port and give them their own protocol like httpx:// that way you can filter the sites for kids without net nanny type of software. Just set a browser to block port 6969 :p

I'm all for the proof of age

I'm all for the proof of age deal; definitely needs to be done for questionable topics and circumstances. I imagine there are quite a few publishers/photographers that try and skirt the issues.

That being said however, if they go after a grandma sex site that is filled solely with a bunch of blue hairs, that are clearly blue hairs because of their visible wrinkles and gray hair, and asking for proof of age just to shut them down because they are an adult site and they don't have proof of age then there is a problem.

If they are going go that route then I believe EVERY restaurant, bar, convenience store, or any store that sells liquor needs to ask for proof of age no matter if the MF looks 90 years old or not.

Then, if they did that, there wouldn't be a problem imho.

Laws for this and that..

..as NFFC pointed out most businesses have a heavy weight of regulation to shoulder.

What society is particularly bad in (in England anyway) is balancing the cost of enforcement/good that the law brings/savings that it makes/or whatever.

As I often have to point out to bureaucrats, they could cut road deaths at a stroke by re-introducing the old law that made it compulsary for a man with a red flag to walk in front of every car. Society is not prepared to do that...

..but it is prepared to foist a large number of laws on businesses. In the end governments are there for better or worse, to govern. They will continue to introduce laws, some of which are good and some bad. Who is the judge, but once there are unlikely to be repealed?

Do geographical borders really count?

Doesn't a law like this simply result in a lot of this kind of content being moved to servers located in other countries? It seems a symbolic gesture rather than an effective one?

laws vs. the individual

Good points cornwall. We have far too many laws in this world already.

Plus, when it comes to "protection of minors" it's the darn parent's responsability to raise and educate their child(ren) and provide a safe childhood for them. If you don't want to raise your kids, well then you shouldn't have gotten them in the first place. Society can't raise your kids for you - at least that is definately not what any sane person would want.

All that said, of course I object to the use of child labour in pr0n as well as in any other industry. Children are children, they should be allowed the luxuries of play and education.

erosion of due process

It is acceptable that performers featured in adult material are required to be of the age of majority in their home jurisdiction.

What is dangerous about this law is that it is just another in a series of laws that feature a presumption of guilt. What is even more dangerous is that this is just one example. People are getting accustomed to the erosion of due process in all kinds of areas. If each one attacks a small group that everyone else feels is an acceptable casualty, then soon everyone has been targeted as a member of some small group that everyone else deemed to be unimportant. Divide and conquer.

Public servants hate to lose arguments, and when they do, they push for laws that make it easier for them to win. Take a look at your local income tax code in most jurisdictions. Every time the government loses in court, another regulation is passed to nullify the reasoning of the court.

This is not about porn. It is about control. It is about a particular interpretation of who "undesirables" are. It is about fear mongering. It is about all the basest of motivations lurking in the hearts of the most cowardly portions of the world.

Someday, the bravest seo's may be called upon to "get the message out" when the open networks are choked down. Someday, we may all be in need of an alternate network.

In the US:

  • No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.
  • No one is allowed to ride a bicycle in a swimming pool.
  • A person may not walk around on Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket.
  • Slippers are not to be worn after 10 p.m.

borders

That was really insightful, plumsauce. One might even think that you've read some Hermann Göring, as those are indeed the ways of the dark side. It's called "propaganda" and (H.G. was the first minister of such, afaik, although he had several historical precedents, notably in ancient Rome)

Plus, it's one more case where US legislators assume that US laws are valid in the rest of the world as well. Or, that US jurisdiction goes beyond US borders.

There are countries out there that have laws that I'd hate to see applied to a normal democratic society. If the US unchallenged can assume that their laws are valid in another part of the world, well then, so can other states. Eg. France could apply it's laws to the US. Or China could. Any country could, with the exact same degree of legitimacy.

Respect of borders is really important. Borders are what defines a sovereign state. If you don't respect that there's a border, and hence a limit to your jurisdiction, then you simply don't recognize the state as being an entity on it's own. Not being "an entity on it's own" what is it then? There is a term for states that are not on their own - Tibet is one current example, but there are several others.

Oh Dear...

Once again legislation is passed that assumes the US = The World (or EU = The World in some cases)

All they have done is hand a licence to print money to the porn merchants working from countries that are outwith US control.

The real targets of this legislation are already well outside its reach - all they have done is penalise the ones that have no desire to break the law anyway.

Its stoopid law, passed by idiots and will do nothing to reduce the real problem IMO

economic hegemony

No, I haven't read HG to any extent. Although I recognise his place in history.

I look to the states of the EU as leaders in protecting personal freedom. With the exception of the UK, which follows the whims of the US without question.

The practical problem is that bandwidth is *much* cheaper in the US. So, many businesses host in the US with the ever present risk that their servers will be seized under whatever pretext is available.

At some point, this consideration will be overshadowed by the need for assurance of business continuity. At this point, commercial considerations will hopefully rein in the more obvious abuses.

I don't see a problem with this law.

All offline business has regulations. Some strict, some lax. Who keeps the age records currently? How well is this tracked. There have been too many cases of child abductions in the US for the citizens to ignore this issue. In every case, they have always found child p@rn in the posession of the criminal. There is a link that can't be denied.

In many states you can't buy cigarettes without providing ID - no matter how old you are. Everyone accepts it without much pushback as it is normal business regulations.

Are you comparing child porn

All offline business has regulations. Some strict, some lax. Who keeps the age records currently? How well is this tracked. There have been too many cases of child abductions in the US for the citizens to ignore this issue. In every case, they have always found child p@rn in the posession of the criminal. There is a link that can't be denied.

Are you comparing child porn to legitimate porn?

Regulating US based online porn won't affect child porn one way or the other will it since it's already illegal.

I'm not saying some regulation is a bad thing, but some elements of these new regulations are so ludicrous in many ways it does appear to be an attempt to purge a lot of porn off the internet.

It will probabaly succeed in getting rid of a lot of sites, but still won't make a dent. There's just so much of it, and I really can't imagine the US tax payer being too happy having their money spent on extraditing some part time Dutch webmaster with a "big boobies" members site who happens to have not quite all his paperwork in order.

I'm curious - how would this

I'm curious - how would this affect Google images?

Especially when Google display what may be child porn, ranking high for one or more common non-adult keywords?

this is such a pointless law.

it's already illegal to show children doing any of the things this law outlaws, and a few things besides.

If someone is showing kiddy pics then they deserve locking up. If someone isshowing kiddy pics then I doubt that asking them to provide a signed bit of paper saying the model is over 16 (18? 21?) is going to phase them too much.

So the legal people should be locking up the sickos that already exist - not attempting to redefine everyone who enables adult porn into the 'illegal' camp.

And yeah - Google (and Yahoo and probably the others) is going to have an interesting time with this aren't they? The first court case is going to be a huge story....

>There is a link that can't be denied.

Yes, perhaps, but I think you'll find that this link is not present with MOST of the big time porn publishers.

Just Bush and Company trying to force their values on us....

I can't really put it any other way. This is just an attempt to make it harder for adult affiliates and sponsors to work in the United States. Although I feel it won't be enforced, it is a nice way to scare people off.

The problem with this is that it is actually dangerous to the actors and actresses. Now a stalker only needs to sign up as an affiliate and can be given the home address of his favorite model. Apparently the safety and privacy of individuals are not a concern for Bush.

This new legislation won't protect children. Those posting child porn are certainly not the ones following the old regulations. It amazes me that our society has no problems letting child molesters out on the street with little to no time in jail, but God forbid a webmaster put up a few naked pictures.

Nope

"US Rules All Porn is Child Porn"

No it doesn't.

It says if you have pictures of people engaged in "actual sexually explicit conduct" then you have to have your paperwork in order. If you don't then you are charged with an offence. The offence is not pushing child porn, it's failing to have your paperwork all neat and tidy.

What really surprises me about this is how long it took them to do it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.