There's a new movement afoot in Congress to broadly redefine 'obscenity' and 'pornography.'
Stay tuned...
There's a new movement afoot in Congress to broadly redefine 'obscenity' and 'pornography.'
Stay tuned...



I think, as long as they don't get to the point where the Supreme Court (and the federal courts in general) are packed with judges that agree with that crap, things won't change. Obscenity is defined at the local level, according to the USSC, and I don't see that changing in the near term.
Anything Congress passed and the W signed would almost certainly be struck down as unconstitutional (hopefully)!
Never underestimate a hot chick with brains - even if she's nekkid!
Women are like spaghetti - they're str8 until you get them wet.





Actually the most 'dangerous' porn legislation is the application to the internet of the already existing 'Traci Lords Law' (i.e. section 2257) which was passed during the CLINTON administration and which has applied to magazines, videos etc. for years. The ramifications of this already existing law to adult websites and particularly adult webcams is the main reason that I stopped doing both at the beginning of this year.
Clinton hasn't been in office for five years....yet you waited until this year to stop because of a piece of legislation that passed under his administration? I don't get it. Can you elaborate, please?





Sure - the Traci Lords Law when passed in the early 90's was immediately applied to magazine publishers and video producers. However, many of today's internet based adult enterprises i.e. pay sites and webcams, did not exist at that time. As a few pay sites and webcams started coming online in the late 90's the gov't realized that the Traci Lords Law already applied to them as well, but couldn't figure out exactly how to do so. As pay sites and webcams went crazy over the past 2-3 years, the gov't has been wrestling to come up with a uniform way to equally apply the Traci Lords Law to adult pay sites and webcams.Clinton hasn't been in office for five years....yet you waited until this year to stop because of a piece of legislation that passed under his administration? I don't get it. Can you elaborate, please?
The major problems stems from the fact that local pornography standards can easily control the sale/availability of adult magazines and videos in a particular community by not allowing adult bookstores/video stores, whereas they can't directly control the availability of internet services in their community. They also stem from the fact that with a magazine or adult video producer, it is very simple for them to keep an accurate record of the names, addresses, and ages of all models appearing in their productions, where there 10,000 times as many adult websites and webcams as there are adult magazine publishers and (mainstream) adult video producers.
This has led to large controversies over #1 whether all adult websites and webcams must conform with the most restrictive local community standards vs facing prosecution in that local community should a local resident partake of their services even though their content is 'legal' in the webmaster's/webcam host's home community or the home community of the web server used. It has led to even more controversies over #2 how adult websites and webcams must make available the true names, addresses and identities of the models appearing in their content i.e. potential felony prosecution of an adult webcam model who does not post her real name, real address and real age on the front page of her webcam for every web surfer in the world to see.
to me, the question of whether internet is controllable or affectable by local laws and standards is a no-brainer.
YES
Just as FCC rules that local community standards have a role in determining TV/Radio content - so should those local standards have a role on the internet. NOW, how to enforce those and control those (or even make people aware of the laws) is a sticky business and is why I usually lean toward "browser beware" on the internet. That, and the fact that it's not "forced on you" as TV/Radio signals are.





However, enforcement is another issue altogether. At least open air TV and radio stations are geographically located in more or less the same jurisdiction as the local laws and standards, so that they know in advance where the 'limits' lie in regard to content. The problem for a webmaste/webcam host is that the 'broadcast area' of their content is virtually unlimited. This raises a question as to whether or not it is reasonable to expect every adult webmaster/webcam host to abide by the strictest standard of any community in the USA which has internet service, versus subjecting that webmaster/webcam host to potential prosecution for violating the strict standards of a locality they aren't even aware exists.to me, the question of whether internet is controllable or affectable by local laws and standards is a no-brainer. YES
Also that's only 1/2 of the issue. The other half is complying with the Tracy Lords Law in regard to proof of age/identity, where live content is concerned..
Well it seems the current aim of the GOP is in fact to pack the Supreme Court with ultra conservative Judges.I think, as long as they don't get to the point where the Supreme Court (and the federal courts in general) are packed with judges that agree with that crap, things won't change.
IMO , being a moderate or a liberal is considered no differnt than an "evil doer" in this administration.



Your TV and Radio have neither an on/OFF switch nor a way to change stations?Originally Posted by discretedancer
If watching a program...say, the Super Bowl (once a great family event)....tell me how someone can anticipate "bad content" and turn off or change channels. On the 'net you click on a link to see content, and there are 2 or 3 warnings before any "bad stuff" is shown (usually).Originally Posted by Pan Dah
Bookmarks