Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

  1. #1
    smartcookie
    Guest

    Angry Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Can anyone make heads or tails of this recent amendment to 2256/2257?

    I gather it expands record-keeping requirements for what was previously excluded, meaning content with simulated sex (that includes any depiction of sado-masochism) or even nudity. 2257 disclaimers now have to appear on every page of a website and not just the entrance page. Furthermore, violation of these rules, even if you're a webmaster who didn't produce the content, means a hefty fine and possibly ending up on the sex offender registry list.

    So this basically means that posting a picture of two topless chicks who are squeezing eachother's buttcheeks and holding whips is now defined as obscenity and prosecutable as such. Is that right?

  2. #2
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2004
    Posts
    6,336
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    I think it was considered obscene to have simulated sex because obscene was not very defined in the original document but the only other significant change seems to be the 2257 link has to be on every page.

    Amended



    Because there ain't no tits on the radio

  3. #3
    God/dess leilanicandy's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2005
    Location
    where they like American Boys
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by smartcookie
    Can anyone make heads or tails of this recent amendment to 2256/2257?

    I gather it expands record-keeping requirements for what was previously excluded, meaning content with simulated sex (that includes any depiction of sado-masochism) or even nudity. 2257 disclaimers now have to appear on every page of a website and not just the entrance page. Furthermore, violation of these rules, even if you're a webmaster who didn't produce the content, means a hefty fine and possibly ending up on the sex offender registry list.

    So this basically means that posting a picture of two topless chicks who are squeezing eachother's buttcheeks and holding whips is now defined as obscenity and prosecutable as such. Is that right?
    <- RIGHT


    I think they are violating our first amedment. But I dont know if anybody is willing to stand up and fight for it. I believe they should have parental control over the internet. I refuse to be responible for some child trying to get on the internet to look at nude people. If people can't control there child on the internet than they should not be on it!

    DAMN REPUBLICAN DAMN REPUBLICAN WE DID NOT START WITH ALL THIS RELIGOUS SHIT UNTIL BUSH CAME IN TO OFFICE. wE WAS FIND WHEN CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE. SO WHAT HE GOT HIS DICK SUCK. BUT HE KEPT THE COUNTRY OUT OF DEPT.
    If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
    Baruch Spindza

    It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
    The Stars

    Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
    Thomas Dewar

    Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
    Swedish Proverb

  4. #4
    God/dess
    Joined
    May 2004
    Posts
    6,336
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    What's funny is that I don't think playboy.com is compliant.



    Because there ain't no tits on the radio

  5. #5
    Featured Member lunchbox's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2005
    Location
    falling from grace
    Posts
    1,943
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by leilanicandy
    <- RIGHT


    I think they are violating our first amedment. But I dont know if anybody is willing to stand up and fight for it. I believe they should have parental control over the internet. I refuse to be responible for some child trying to get on the internet to look at nude people. If people can't control there child on the internet than they should not be on it!

    DAMN REPUBLICAN DAMN REPUBLICAN WE DID NOT START WITH ALL THIS RELIGOUS SHIT UNTIL BUSH CAME IN TO OFFICE. wE WAS FIND WHEN CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE. SO WHAT HE GOT HIS DICK SUCK. BUT HE KEPT THE COUNTRY OUT OF DEPT.
    Umm relax? It's to ensure everything on the site is legal.

  6. #6
    smartcookie
    Guest

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Sorry, lunchbox, I don't think so. This is an anti-porn morality crusade disguised as a "save the children" mission. I'd be surprised if one child has been rescued from the jaws of pedophiles by this crackdown. If you've been following the very disturbing series of articles about online predators/child pornographers that's been running in the New York Times, you'll see that the real sickos out there are already one step ahead, and won't be affected by any of these measures.

    Right now, as I'm understanding it, Stripperweb isn't even compliant, because pictures posted in the Gallery and Picture Post area fall under the definition of "lascivious display of genitalia" and "simulated sexual content".

  7. #7
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2002
    Location
    OUTTATHISWORLD
    Posts
    7,219
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 23 Times in 15 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    I'm clueless to the whole matter but is this pertaining to the usa only or to other countries as well?


  8. #8
    smartcookie
    Guest

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    The U.S.A.

  9. #9
    Featured Member lunchbox's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2005
    Location
    falling from grace
    Posts
    1,943
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by smartcookie
    Sorry, lunchbox, I don't think so. This is an anti-porn morality crusade disguised as a "save the children" mission. I'd be surprised if one child has been rescued from the jaws of pedophiles by this crackdown. If you've been following the very disturbing series of articles about online predators/child pornographers that's been running in the New York Times, you'll see that the real sickos out there are already one step ahead, and won't be affected by any of these measures.

    Right now, as I'm understanding it, Stripperweb isn't even compliant, because pictures posted in the Gallery and Picture Post area fall under the definition of "lascivious display of genitalia" and "simulated sexual content".
    This is making sure everyone in porn has their legal information on file in case their age come into question. It has nothing to do with the people looking at porn as the person I was responding to said or freedom of speech.

    I don't read the NYT for personal reasons, so I don't know the article. However, I do know a lot about this already. Softcore kiddie porn hides behind the first amendment as art, and the Supreme Court has upheld this. I would assume hardcore kiddie porn is trafficked underground. Just a few years back there was a huge international bust. I presume we will see this happen every so often as they get everyone in one of these underground rings.

    I don't see how you are saying a law requiring records be kept about performers, and that a message of compliance, with the location of those records be publicly displayed is anti porn. It's regulation, everyone deals with it, BFD, we will still be able to look at girls doing A2M tomorrow.

  10. #10
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    So this basically means that posting a picture of two topless chicks who are squeezing eachother's buttcheeks and holding whips is now defined as obscenity and prosecutable as such
    no ! ... it means that a picture of two topless chicks who are squeezing each other's butt cheeks has sufficient 'sexual content' to require the names and personal info of the models to be kept in the website's Section 2257 compliance file, no more and no less. It also means that if two topless chicks are squeezing each other's butt cheeks on a webcam that they must both post their real names, real addresses and real ages on that webcam page in order to comply with Section 2257. Not doing so risks a potential federal bust for disseminating child pornography ... on the presumption that the 'sexual content' is being distributed without legal proof that the models / actresses involved areat least 18 years old.

    As lunchbox points out, the only 'stated' purpose of the Section 2257 law is to make sure that there is never a replay of Tracy Lords, i.e. a 17 year old worldwide porn star ! However, in the real world, the recorkeeping and inspection and webcam disclosure requirements involved in legally proving that models / actresses are in fact over 18 years old has a lot of 'unintended consequences'. The 'stated' purpose of HR4472 is to clarify exactly where the presently ambiguous 'dotted line' falls in regard to the type /degree of 'sexual content' which falls under Section 2257 compliance requirements versus those that do not. There is no actual legal restriction change proposed in HR4472 in regard to pictures / videos containing 'sexual content' being distributed, only a clearer definition of what sorts of 'sexual content' must meet Section 2257 requirements. According to my attorney, this now includes just about anything which contains nudity plus any aspect of sexual innuendo i.e. a single model touching her own bare breasts would not be exempt.

    Obviously, where an independent adult website being operated by a single model is concerned, the most ponderous requirements are A.) providing a home / business address where somebody is guaranteed to be present during 'business hours' (i.e. 9-5 on weekdays) should a Section 2257 inspection take place, and B.) waiving legal right to probable cause / unreasonable search should a Section 2257 inspector enter your home / business and see anything else that is bustworthy even if it is totally unrelated to adult website or Section 2257 activities. Here's some 'pro' legal advice re Section 2257 inspections ...




    'm clueless to the whole matter but is this pertaining to the usa only or to other countries as well?
    It's a matter of US law, and it applies to any website / magazine / video outfit that is selling product with 'sexual content' within the USA, even if the 'business address' of that webserver / magazine / video outfit is not actually located within the USA. I discovered this fact when I was researching options to shutting down my own adult pay website, where it turned out that potentially moving my website to a european webserver wouldn't help a bit in terms of Section 2257 requirements applying as long as I was still selling website memberships to customers located in the USA. Of course if the webmaster actually lives outside of the USA, and the webserver is also physically located outside of the USA, the probability of a Section 2257 inspection or bust ever taking place is essentially zero. But a webmaster whose adult business address is inside the USA working from a foreign webserver is actually MORE likely to attract attention.

    Again, the 'easy way out' of the Section 2257 compliance issues is for the would-be single girl independent adult webmaster to place herself under the 'umbrella' of a larger website / webcam host via a 'partners' program. Doing this transfers essentially all of the Section 2257 compliance (and bust risk) responsibility to the webmaster of the larger website / webcam business - who does have the full time office staff, attorneys etc. to deal with it. However, doing this also transfers 20-30-50% of your own website's gross revenue to the larger website / webcam business as well !
    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 08-27-2006 at 09:29 AM.

  11. #11
    smartcookie
    Guest

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Thank you - it makes much more sense now. I really can't say it any better than AVN so in their words
    On July 20, the U.S. Senate passed its version of House Resolution (H.R.) 4472, now titled the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, with minor changes that the House approved, and President Bush today signed into law.

    Twenty-five years ago today, six-year-old Adam Walsh was abducted from a mall in Hollywood, Florida, to be discovered dead in a canal 100 miles from his home two weeks later – so what better date to sign a bill, most of whose provisions create new categories of offenses and increase penalties for child sexual abuse, child prostitution and trafficking in children?

    But Title V of that bill, the section titled "Child Pornography Prevention," also revamps 18 U.S.C. §2257, the statute derived from the Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990, whose effect will be to put more adult content producers at risk for federal prison sentences and fines, even though they deal exclusively in material made by adults, for adults.







  12. #12
    God/dess Lysondra's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Another Country
    Posts
    18,664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 148 Times in 100 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Whoa, this is what my boyfriend was talking about yesterday. He said the US violated the first amendment (for the first time, apparantly) 'for the children'. We were discussing bullshit we had to deal with 'for the children' when I mentioned how I wanted my uterus removed but no doctor would do it because I might 'want children' someday (ignore the fact I have cancer and my child would CERTAINLY get it).

    This 'for the children' shit BUGS me.


    Look like a woman
    Think like a man
    Act like a lady
    Work like a dog

    - My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success

  13. #13
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    ^^^ I hear you ... the 'nanny state' feeling the need to pre-emptively protect children from the decisions / actions / inactions of their parents / elders BEFORE any actual 'wrongdoing' has occurred. First amendment wise, some are of the opinion that this sort of gov't intrusion constitutes 'prior restraint'. Others are of the opinion that it is the gov't's responsibility, and not the parents' responsibility, to determine acceptable limits in regard to subjects that children should and should not be exposed to under any circumstances.

    However, for the sake of historical accuracy, I would again point out that Section 2257 came into being under Bill Clinton's administration prior to the widespread availability of internet access, and was targeted towards adult magazine publishers and adult video producers. The only real 'changes' since then have been nailing down the specifics of how to apply the same 'old' law to 'new' media.

  14. #14
    God/dess Lysondra's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Another Country
    Posts
    18,664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 148 Times in 100 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    It's still crap. If my child looked up porn it would be MY fault for not watching my child or installing appropriate blocking programs (which, with a smart enough child, can be overridden). I see no reason why the government should be 'protecting the children' from things a parent should be on watch for. I never wanted the child in question that looked up the porn - so why should my career suffer for a child I have no connection to because his mommy is butthurt that there is naked people online. OMGNO! -.-

    Sorry, ranting.


    Look like a woman
    Think like a man
    Act like a lady
    Work like a dog

    - My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success

  15. #15
    God/dess leilanicandy's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2005
    Location
    where they like American Boys
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by lilithmorrigan
    It's still crap. If my child looked up porn it would be MY fault for not watching my child or installing appropriate blocking programs (which, with a smart enough child, can be overridden). I see no reason why the government should be 'protecting the children' from things a parent should be on watch for. I never wanted the child in question that looked up the porn - so why should my career suffer for a child I have no connection to because his mommy is butthurt that there is naked people online. OMGNO! -.-

    Sorry, ranting.

    I agree with you! it's like you have alchol in your house and your child drinks it! Or you have porn magazine and your child found it, or bleach where a two year old can reach it and drink it! I believe they call these things neglect. Because the parent was not properly wacthing them ot using the proper tools to prevent these things for happening! So what makes the internet differant. they have crazy stuff late night on tv!No one said anything about that!
    If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
    Baruch Spindza

    It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
    The Stars

    Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
    Thomas Dewar

    Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
    Swedish Proverb

  16. #16
    God/dess Lysondra's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Another Country
    Posts
    18,664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 148 Times in 100 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    ^ Your comparisons are MUCH better than what I could come up with, thank you. If it's in your home (sharp corner, alcohol), it's YOUR responsibility to monitor it. If you're butthurt THAT much about your child finding pornography - don't have the internet!


    Look like a woman
    Think like a man
    Act like a lady
    Work like a dog

    - My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success

  17. #17
    God/dess leilanicandy's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2005
    Location
    where they like American Boys
    Posts
    2,111
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    They are causing people who work in the web cam field (to put put there personal info and put thier lives in danger.) I can see it now some perv stalking me at my home because i had to put up my home address. They can mointor there child acess on the internet. while they are on it! Get blocking pograms. If it is such a big issue than how come dont goverment dont offer free blocking programs. Look st the my space perv that go around trying to hook up with little girls.

    I think the goverment is now making excuses. I think they are just trying to find another a good way to mointor the money that people make on the internet and they are using children to suger coat it. Because it is the parent responiblity to mointor the childs activity! I think they saying this so who every is agaisnt this they are not caring about the children. Because the child can go on tv and wacth porn anytime they want! The goverment just think they are slick. They want to track the money made so you can pay taxes on it! They got smart and figure out it'a lot of money in the web cam business. See if they have aphysical address they can charge and fine you buy state and city.

    Just my thought now that i look more into it
    If you want the present to be differant from the past, study the past.
    Baruch Spindza

    It is what it is, not what you want it to become, that's important -- at least for now. Today, remember that things worth having are worth waiting for!
    The Stars

    Minds are like parachutes: They only function when open.
    Thomas Dewar

    Dont throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.
    Swedish Proverb

  18. #18
    smartcookie
    Guest

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by leilanicandy
    They want to track the money made so you can pay taxes on it!
    Why shouldn't they? Everyone ought to be paying their taxes.

    I'm sure that the fact that vast majority of sex work is untaxed is a factor here but I don't think it's the primary one. It's pseudo-morality. One only has to look at the organizations that championed this cause to confirm that.

    I mean for chrissakes - recently tried to make hotels drop pay-per-view porn!

  19. #19
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by lilithmorrigan
    ... He said the US violated the first amendment (for the first time, apparantly)....
    For the first time??? Assuming, for the sake of argument, you're not of the mistaken belief that the rights described in the First Amendment (or, for that matter, in any of the first 10 Amendments) are absolute, your opinion re whether or not the U.S. has violated the First Amendment depends entirely upon where/at what point on the spectrum you believe the line ought properly be drawn. Beyond that, have to bear in mind that there are (arguably, at least) either legitimate bases for imposing 'time, place and content' restrictions and/or competing Constitutionally-based reasons for allowing at least some degree of infringement upon what would otherwise seem to be a protected right.

    Just my $.02 but, considering the U.S.' long and sordid history in this area, you'd have to have a fairly restrictive view of the First Amendment to maintain that the U.S. managed to even make it past 1800, much less 1900, before it violated same 'for the first time'.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  20. #20
    God/dess Lysondra's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Another Country
    Posts
    18,664
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 148 Times in 100 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    I just said what he said. I stated that.


    Look like a woman
    Think like a man
    Act like a lady
    Work like a dog

    - My Great Grandmother Bessie's Recipe for Success

  21. #21
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    ok, some of you are a little off in what you think this is about. this ordinance or whatever the hell it is, has nothign to do with protecting children from SEEING porn. Its intent was to protect against children being USED IN PORN.

  22. #22
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    ^^^ yes that is the intent exactly, to provide some semblance of a legal mechanism whereby the 'producers' of adult material are forced to check the age and identity of the models / actors they are using ... to prevent future production of the sort of adult material commonly referred to as 'child porn'.

    As to the 'unspoken' aspects, yes I am absolutely certain that the fact the adult industry in general is notorious for, shall we say, - 'creative tax accounting' - provides a fairly strong incentive for the IRS to be interested in lists of real names, real addresses and social security numbers of people who are working as actors / models in the adult industry. The no warrant no probable cause provisions of Section 2257 inspections provide a wide open opportunity for IRS agents to walk into a couple of dozen adult website offices and come away with lists of thousands of actors / models who are potentially 'ripe' for further investigation.

    The only really major constitutional 'bitch' I have about Section 2257 is the way that the no warrant no probable cause access to information provisions for inspecting Section 2257 files was opened up to any 'authorized' agency (regardless of whether their primary responsibility is specifically related to Section 2257 compliance), and the fact that any potentially incriminating information / observations resulting from a warrantless, no probable cause Section 2257 inspection of a person's home / place of business - whether directly related to Section 2257 compliance, or semi-related i.e. tax evasion on unreported adult industry earnings, or totally unrelated i.e. a pot plant on the windowsill - can be used against the person in a court of law.

  23. #23
    smartcookie
    Guest

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    Quote Originally Posted by sander8son
    ok, some of you are a little off in what you think this is about. this ordinance or whatever the hell it is, has nothign to do with protecting children from SEEING porn. Its intent was to protect against children being USED IN PORN.
    If you can show me substantive proof that this requirement has made a dent in child pornography please do. Otherwise - how many women who have worked or are working in the U.S. porn industry are/were found to be underage in the last fifteen years? Two or three?

  24. #24
    Featured Member sander8son's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2003
    Location
    Under Bridge 227 on I-95, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,621
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    i didn't say it was effective, im just saying that a lot of you were ranting about it incorrectly. beleive me, im not in favour of it

  25. #25
    smartcookie
    Guest

    Default Re: Hr 4472 - Wtf?

    So what's the correct way to rant about it? And how does infringing upon an adult webcam's privacy (for example) by making her name and DOB available to anyone keep children safer?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. WTF Ebanned, WTF I say.
    By IsobelWren in forum Other Work
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 06-05-2011, 12:42 PM
  2. Dude... Just WTF... WTF
    By Sirona in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-04-2008, 02:56 AM
  3. WTF Do you mean?
    By pecanpimpstress1 in forum Dancer's Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-04-2008, 12:32 PM
  4. WTF???
    By Chass in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-18-2007, 01:32 PM
  5. Wtf
    By BrunetteGoddess in forum Body Business
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 04-28-2006, 02:33 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •