What is Digg?195 Comments
- Prontech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12rodball .. I totally agree ... but here is the "joke" ... the law abiding people keep their records. The child porngraphers .. don't keep records because they can't .. there is no ID keep. So what this does is essentially make all law abiding adult website owners to keep all these records for 35 year old women and if they make one paper work mistake the are going to jail. That is the real intent of the law.
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12There are already laws against child pornography. It should be very simple, all photos or videos containing children performing sexual acts on themselves or others is illegal.
This law means that a site will be required to verify the name and address of every person who posts a photo. Not only that but a reseller of content must also have access to all of the data. To put this real world terms, not only would Penthouse magazine be required to make sure that their models are 18+, every bookstore or 7-11 selling the magazine would be required to have such records and if Penthouse should have lied about the records to the store owner, the store owner also gets charged. This law is not aimed to help curb child pornography (that would require the US giving aid to the poorest nations where most sex trafficking takes place) but is an extremely cumbersome law designed to be cumbersome in order to remove a legal business from the marketplace. - bigboy101011, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6What about stakers, if the home address and SS# of a porn star is availble to the public there is a big danger of crazy fans or crazys anti-porn people stalking or doing worse to stars.
not to mention i remeber hearing about a case where some famious actress had lied about her age on her US issued passport and used that as her identification, so if you think about it the ID that is used in the records could be wrong. - SFBay, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6To all those moral crusaders: can you please explain how it's so morally and ethically indefensible to take a picture of someone having sex on the day before their 18th birthday, but absolutely no problem the next day? In fact what the hell is wrong with making a recording of them having sex, naturally, at whatever age?
Of course I don't support some 10 year old being raped or whatever but half the girls I know lost their virginity at 16 or even younger. You say it's AOK for them to have sex at 16 but totally unforgivable to record it?? What about if THEY record it, is that OK then? I mean of course you have to set the limit somewhere in law, fine, but don't act like the pornographer is some kind of evil pervert for making a video of a 17.9 year old.
Seriously, I love the US, but it sometimes seems to be a nation of brainwashed puritans. - saon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5jkfan87: how is this law going to stop child pornagraphy? Is it going to go after all the hosted p2p child porn? Is it going to crack down on freenet and other types of darknets? Is it going to crack down on WASTE type systems? no. Most child porn is not accessible via http, and there are plenty of ways to obtain child porn outside of your web browser. This law, whether it was made with the intention of stopping child pornography or not, will be utterly ineffective because it cannot be enforced at the required level. There are already laws against child porn that can put people away for quite some time. This new law only imposes extra work on legitimate pornographers.
I'm all for stopping child pornography, but I don't think this law is going to. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Yeah..those damn governemnt agencies trying to prevent child pornography!"
Are you retarded? You're the kind of person who goes around saying "how dare you get upset about people's civil rights being violated. The government is just trying to get the terrorists!". This isn't about child porn. It's about porn. Period. - noodhoog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4War good, porn bad!
Religious fundamentalism good, science and progress bad!
Death penalty good! abortion bad!
What an enlightened time we live in... - NewEvolution, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"What the hell kind of world is it where the selfish pricks in the porn industry make it impossible for a kid to walk outside his house, or into his bedroom with a computer, and be alone and free of porn, if I AS HIS PARENT want that. This is not YOUR choice. This is MY choice." - tubejay
I guess you'll just have to lock your kid in the cellar then.
Guess what...when your kid takes his/her pants off, he/she sees a penis/vagina. OH NOEZ! Better cut out their eyes. And their fingers, lord knows you don't want them touching themselves.
Your kid might also be hit by a car. Better make it illegal to own or manufacture them too.
If you can't break it to your kid what sex is, and the fact that some people enjoy it without being deluded into thinking it's going to destroy their fragile little mind, you should probably not be having children. If you're using this law as some kind of porn-cleanser of the internet, then you're admitting that it is indeed a legal strong-arm tactic of the government to debilitate an industry based on its own interpretation of moral righteousness. Last I checked, the government wasn't supposed to legislate morality. If you'd like to start your own ultra-christian conservative bubble nation in the heart of Texas, be my guest...but don't bring your high and mighty Christian ideals to bear on the rest of us "sinners." - phunguss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6good thing amerika isn't the only place that makes porn
- jayf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It sounds like this will be as effective as prohibition was way back when.
The internet is driven by porn. Want proof?
When I bought my first PC in 94 my friend thought I was a loser for wasting $2000
on a homework machine. Then I showed him BBS porn and the next words out his
mouth were "So where do you get one of these things?" Instant convert. - szelij, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Well in good news, the US government isn't the world government and the Internet has so far escaped attempts to curtail its distribution power and the ability to 'ignore' laws.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Welcome to the USSA, folks.
Someone posted the charactistics of a Facist state in another thread, and they are appropriate in this case too. In this case, 12 applies.
"1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. " - suave1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Child porn is already illegal.
To the posters who are crying what's the big deal, well, I have to say that in the real porn world, child porn is not accepted. There is not one company that is producing it. Child porn is made by sick freaks who don't how it fks people up or what 2257 is.
The only people affected my 2257 are the companies and web masters that do follow the law already.
an excerpt from violet blue:
(...) I think they are making a huge mistake, based on a law that is unenforcable. The law violates privacy -- I was sent the 2257 information for the porn performers I featured in my last podcast. I now have enough information to steal the actual identity, and stalk, every performer in that film. They performers don't even know I have that information, or who else might have it as a legal requirement, and nothing makes me more uncomfortable than having that information in my posession.
Violet's complete post: http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2005/12/tribe_and_2257.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3what a waste of ***** time and money....
- chicomdk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
"not to mention i remember hearing about a case where some famous actress had lied about her age on her US issued passport and used that as her identification, so if you think about it the ID that is used in the records could be wrong."
That would be Tracy Lords she forged her birth certificate and used it to get US Passport as her proof of age it was a big deal because the Govt wanted basically burn the porn studio she worked for to the ground but decided not too because it would come out that the she fooled the all might US govt and their infallible system. There was special about the porn industry on HBO a few months back - maxsunset, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Slightly off topic, but I'm still wondering why .xxx never happened? It seems to me, that it would be a win-win situation for both sides.
- linkvx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5430343841227974645&q=the+internet+is+for+porn
- Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Im very ashamed our Gov't seems to lack the ability to actually do anything. Its getting to the point that I want the govt to take something away just to prove they could actually y do something or stop me from doing something. I cant fight an "all powerful, oppressing govt" if they couldnt imposed thier will even when they try. Apparently they only thing they can do is tax, and amazingly like millions dont even do that.............
- ecchichuu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't think Canada likes porn either.
- PhilliesBlunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Mmkay, first off, nobody supports kiddie porn... except for sick people on underground distribution networks who aren't exactly making their hobby public.
Second, most porn producers are scumbags, but then again, so are the heads of most corporations, most politicians, and people who would otherwise be considered good citizens because what they do on the surface is considered socially acceptable. Being an ***** isn't exactly illegal.
That being said, most pornographers are business people who are well aware of the regulations against their industry, and are responsible enough to follow them if for no other reason then to protect their livelihood. While there's a philosophical discussion that needs to take place, IE, why a 16 year old is considered a child if they do porn, but an adult if they commit a crime, that's a different discussion. Nobody is going to dispute that all models should be of legal age, and should be able to prove it. These laws were already on the books.
All that this law does is create more red tape, and remove any form of privacy from anyone working in the porn industry, and they're doing it under the cover of preventing Child Porn, which is a nice little propaganda tactic, especially because the sheep will go "It's fighting Child Porn, so it MUST be a good thing right?" Hey, beats thinking. To stop Child Porn, you need to fix the culture, as well as the situations that cause human trafficking which is the cause of most of it. It's not a simple issue, and it will require a lot of imagination to come up with a solution, not just mindless, pleasant sounding rhetoric that does nothing. - tablatronix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think the issue is how does this affect existing stock ?
This is retroactive 10 years.
This is almost like going into any business and telling them that they cant sell any of their stock, you have to get all new stuff that's properly register as per this new law.
How can any business survive that ?
Its amazing how the government can just step in anytime and completely screw someones life, ruin their business and treat them like criminals and easily so when they are a minority or operate on the fringe of society.
The proportion of operators that don't comply with age of consent law are much less than those affected by this regulation.
That's why its unjust. It has nothing to do with child porn.
You think child pornographers have legally registered businesses ?
Will this protect children from here out ?
hardly, It might prevent some of the older sixteen,seventeen year old stuff, but anyone younger is clearly a minor and wouldnt be found on websites. - akroche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3This isn't just about porn.
Legal dating sites and online communities, especially LGBT sites, are in the crosshairs of this initiative. It is a thinly veiled attempt to legislate morality, under the guise of protecting children, and it represents a denial of free speech to a segment of American citizens. If we make this about porn and adult entertainment, we will lose sight of the real issue.
As the straight, female, mother of a young child, who has never spent a moment on porn on the Internet, I should be all for this. I'm all for protecting children, but 2257 doesn't accompllish that objective. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2good more russian porn :)
- chinny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2im reminded of a quote from Scrubs, Dr Cox: if you got rid of all the porn from the internet, there wil only be one site left, bringbacktheporn.com
- jwalk81980, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Porn business? Wait - peolpe pay for porn?
- Clockhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They can't do this! ASCII porn is great on a blackberry during meetings ;-)
http://www.howamericaworks.com/posts/32.htm - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1don't be a stuipid bitch everyone knows that porn has drove the internet for a real long time. if you take out the porn you take out about half of the internet
- rodball, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I like porn as much as the next guy, but I want to make sure the "performers" are really adults.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Teaching one's child right from wrong is/should be the goal of any parent. If your child does that stuff on purpose then it is the parent's fault. If you child brings a gun to school and shoots his teacher, it is the parents fault. If a child does drugs, it is the parents fault, etc. This is simply the way parenting works.
As of right now many parents do have the capability to block out most porn with the use of filters, whether they use that capabilty or ignore that it exists, is their own issue. - NetSliderX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So ... does this go for the MILF sites too...?
- darwinsplato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1if a woman...say tracy lords, at whatever age she was 16-17 maybe, was determined enough to procure/create (hell even think about it) fake identification only so that she could be an adult star, then I say she is old enough to make a conscious decision to submit to consensual sex in front of a camera.
- Nezzari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Those monsters!
- linkvx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1^ the internet is for porn
- syuusuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The internet is for porn
- zone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38=====D
oh no! now digg is guilty too! - galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am just waiting for a trial where a 16 year old is tried as an ADULT for committing a porn crime!!
Weird law system here... At 16, you are a child, if you ***** in front of a camera, but an adult, if you commit certain crimes at the exact same age. - Prontech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1tubejay wrote: "Are you retarded? You're the kind of person who goes around saying "how dare you get upset about people's civil rights being violated. The government is just trying to get the terrorists!". This isn't about child porn. It's about porn. Period."
Actually, it IS about child porn. You are just so arrogant and foolish, that you believe what you want regardless of proof or fact. Before the Internet, people actually had to PROVE who they were and how old they were before pictures were published in Penthouse. You didn't need the gas station selling the magazine to prove it, because you could go back to Penthouse for the records. With digital photos spread across the web, it's obvious if you want to use your brain for a second, how that presents a problem. No longer can the age of these people be verified, and the poor under age girls being used and abused in this way no longer have government protection. Their lives are ruined.
You demonstrate the problem though, people just don't care anymore who's lives they completely destroy. You want these 15 year old girls to take it up the ass for your pleasure, and you want loopholes in the system so that can be made possible.
This is a big problem, there are a lot of minors in the industry right now because it is SO easy to get around the rules. The guy taking the picture can sell it to someone. That person can sell it to someone. That person can say, they didn't take the pictures, they don't know who the girl is, they don't know how old she is. That was supposed to be verified by who took the pictures. Well, who took the pictures? I don't know, I bought it from a reseller. Or I downloaded it from some web server.
You want no protection for minors, at the expense of their lives, and because of your greed.
Prontech Reply: No I'm not retarded ... you are not seeing the forest for the trees. You've missed the WHOLE point. Child Porn is already against the law and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It's a horrible thing that happens to children and I agree it is should be punished. BUT the child pornagraphers are already NOT keeping ID information and they will NEVER keep ID information. So forcing women that are adults to turn over their personal information to strangers is the retarded part. Come on ... cannot any reasonable person look at a picture of 30 + year old woman and not assume she is over 18? This is record keeping law designed to trip people up on paperwork so they can close them down. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This has to do with the age of people on the sites, not visiting them. Bad parenting is the reason for children accidentally visiting porn sites...
- offcenter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys.
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Awww, no more "legitimate" porn sites that have 50 pop ups.... Guess everyone will have to stick with torrenting porn.
- Heiliger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Wow.... What kind of world would we live in, if we couldn't freely and consistently saturate our minds with inappropriate imagery of objectified women... As we try to find the validation and acceptance that we have to work for to get from women in real life... Only deepening the wound of sexual addiction and further alienating us from the chance of having a full, uncompromised relationship with the women in our lives.
But, as long as it feels good, then it should be an acceptable part of society and no one should keep you from it, right?
Now THAT'S logic. - Brilhasti, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Those of you who think porn somehow precludes you from having a normal life & relationship are cracking me up.
- Sirocco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is *way* old news, and lame too.
- cranium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The fact is, the US can do nothing about porn, child-porn or otherwise. The only thing they can do is drive all of the providers overseas.
Online porn is a huge industry. If we drive the providers offshore, there will be economic ramifications.
Oh, and by the way, some countries have a much lower age of consent than 18.
This isn't about doing anything useful, it's about political positioning. Isn't that obvious? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Msg to Gov't: good luck with that :) An industry that is very closely tried to the worlds oldest profession is not going away anytime soon. See ya at the strip club
- SureGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Trying to remove porn from the internet is kinda like trying to get all the pee out of a swimming pool....
- NewEvolution, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Between senseless overregulation and corporate money-grubbing, the US is doing a damn good job of forcing every industry out of the country.
If the studio that filmed Back Door Babes XVII has their information, and I have clips of it on my porn site, why isn't it all fine and dandy to just tell the Feds that they can find the information they're looking for at the producing studio? All in all, this is just another attempt from the Christian Right to "moralize" the country. Good ***** luck with that. Perhaps they'll enact a law to place all homosexuals in "happy camps" next. - stimpy2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's about time! I figured something like this must have already been on the books. Guess not.
- 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0>> I don't feel safe putting my very young kids on the Internet. It's so easy to get to porn right now, and there's so many shady characters involved, that a house cleaning is needed.
Why don't you educate them about what they might encounter, as opposed to what most parents do, and pretend that it doesn't (or shouldn't) exist? It's not porn that's dangerous, it's ignorance.
I personally do not see the attraction to porn, but I also know how the government loves to throw money into black holes fighting "wars" that get absolutely nowhere, and regulating behavior to the point that it's driven underground. It reminds me of the warring continents in Orwell's 1984. - floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can't you see how this can be helpful? Here in South Dakota techs are required to report anything that we find on computers that looks like child porn to the cops. So say someone does that and you get brought up on charges. you lawyer ask where you got the pictures and you say at a web page where they were 18. so he says no prob we just get the girls cert from the web page. But if the web page doesn't have any certs for the girls..... well lets just say you better stock up on some "soap on a rope"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 184 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is