If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Porn sites say new laws requiring they maintain proof-of-age records for all their performers are overly burdensome and threaten to shut down the industry. Which couldn't possibly have been the goal, could it?   (online.wsj.com) divider line 242
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

6591 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2006 at 10:53 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



242 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-02-13 11:29:03 AM
I want a bag of whatever 5uperman is smoking.
 
2006-02-13 11:29:24 AM
"We are raising generations of children who think the only way to make love is to whip each other or make women into punching bags. This is the problem.

It's not a joke."

Jesus, what kind of porn do you look at?

I think you are projecting your problems.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-02-13 11:29:35 AM
Are you saying kiddie-porn should be there?

Of course I am. Everybody knows the only possible motive for questioning authority on this issue is a desire to rape children. Now you'll need to excuse me, I seem to be stuck in something.
 
2006-02-13 11:32:22 AM
This law is designed to gum up the works so that some people will get cold feet, or not want to fark with the paperwork, and will get out of the business. For the anti-pron crusaders, it's a victory.

It will also do nothing to stop kiddie porn makers. The only thing the gov can really do is bust people who are looking for it. (which is fine by me).
 
2006-02-13 11:35:35 AM
I'm sure 5uperman is a guy but he's a farking soccer mom. It's that mentality that everyone else on the planet should have a hand in raising your kid for you. It's that "It Takes a Village" horseshiat that Hillary Clinton was pushing. It doesn't take a villiage, it takes parents. Deal with your kid's school, deal with the library and most of all deal with your kid. It's not our problem.
 
2006-02-13 11:36:21 AM
Best use of out-of-context graph goes to:

*drumroll*

mildmildwest
 
2006-02-13 11:37:03 AM
5uperman: Those of you dolts who always respond with: "it's the parents job" or "try monitoring your kids, not the internet" are way over simplifying the matter. The majority of kids now screen porn at school or at the library.

Then blame clueless administrators or librarians. Or, blame the fact that most schools/libraries can implement a filtering system or hire more staff, but chose not to. Or, that your daughters legs were physically broken and her eyelids were forced open so she couldn't close them or leave the situation.

Children are so protected these days. Everyone rather lock their kids in a padded room where nothing can hurt them than expose them to what the world is really like. Obviously 5 year olds shouldn't be looking at porn, but at the same time 5 year olds shouldn't be ANYWHERE on the internet without supervision. All this "helicopter parent" nonsense brings about a situation where kids grow up and go off to college, and parents wonder why they see their kid on GGW. Once the controls are taken away, the now adult has yet to understand their sexuality, and spends their time screwing anything that walks. On second thought, DO cloister your children from real life. It'll boost the porn industry when they get older and suddenly realize what other uses their crotch has.
 
2006-02-13 11:37:04 AM
5uperman

My daughter came home on the third day of school this year with a story about two boys in her class who had been using the school's library computer to look at truly evil pictures. She was talking about fecal matter and various penetrations! This can not be tolerated in a modern society. In their school there are forty seven library computers and TWO librarians! How the heck are parents supposed to counter that?

What people like you never seem to understand is that it's your own goddamned fault for insisting that trendy new INTARWEB be stuck in every school and library in the first place without contemplating the nature of the technology in the first place. Instead of admitting that you as parents made a mistake in not thoroughly researching the capabilities of the technology before introducing it to children, you (as usual) now demand everyone cater to you.

No matter what you do, porn will be easily accessible on the web, no matter what laws you or anyone else try to pass. Short of pulling the plug, you already lost. You got that? YOU ALREADY LOST. That's one of the most beautiful things about the internet: whenever some dolt like you comes along and tries to mess with it, there's always someone, somewhere on planet earth that foils your scheme.

Get over it.

So get to lobbying for getting those computers out now...go on, run along...
 
2006-02-13 11:37:39 AM
5uperman
Think about it....without pr0n....us perverts will be forced to other means to satiate our vast sexual appetites.
 
2006-02-13 11:37:42 AM
Mr. Clarence Butterworth: I want a bag of whatever 5uperman is smoking.

Same here, same here. It's been a while since I smoked something that made me batshiat crazy
 
2006-02-13 11:37:56 AM
HotWingConspiracy: Jesus, what kind of porn do you look at?

I think you are projecting your problems.


I realize most of you have exclusive relationships with the tube sock under your pillow, but there are those of us who have actually consummated a relationship and have given birth to children.

We have a considerably more informed perspective of what influences this country's youth, and the internet can be devastating.

No one is censoring adult pornography, you simply have to show your ID! This is no different than showing your license at the magazine stand or the movie theater! Oooooooh, the outrage!
 
2006-02-13 11:38:28 AM
"It will also do nothing to stop kiddie porn makers. The only thing the gov can really do is bust people who are looking for it. (which is fine by me)."

Strangely enough, kids are emerging as the most prolific kid-porn producers. Web cams are cheap and high quality now. No need to "look" for anything. Just fire up yahoo cams and you have a straight connection.

There was a whole show about it on MSNBC I think. The only advice at the end was "Don't buy your kid a web cam."
 
2006-02-13 11:40:26 AM
I'm also sure that 5uperman is the kind of asshole average soccer mom dad who shrieks OMG OMG MY DAUGHTER HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO PORN!!

but won't mind a bit if she watches a pg-13 movie where 200 people get killed, a la governator.
 
2006-02-13 11:41:30 AM
5uperman
No one is censoring adult pornography, you simply have to show your ID! This is no different than showing your license at the magazine stand or the movie theater! Oooooooh, the outrage!

... I don't think you quite understand what is going on here...
 
2006-02-13 11:42:02 AM
Anyone else see a golden business opportunity here? If I am reading the law correctly it says that records must be kept and that they must be accessible at all times. The Porn industry makes lots of $$$$. They don't want to deal with keeping the records, storing them, and making them accessible. Why not a third party to keep the records and make sure they are accessible when the government wants them? Its not a hard concept and you could make big money.
 
2006-02-13 11:42:12 AM
2006-02-13 11:37:56 AM 5uperman

You didn't answer the question. Why do you look at women being beat?
 
2006-02-13 11:43:08 AM
Tatsuma

You forgot the Jesus chainsaw massacre. Because, as someone close to me once said, "but it's historically accurate, you don't complain about 'Schindler's list'!"
 
2006-02-13 11:44:49 AM
5uperman

I agree with Mugato. It's not the rest of the world's responsability to raise your child, or mine. It's up to you as a parent to make sure your child has a healthy attitude about sex. The world is not going to be this place with a little paper wrapper around it that says "sanitized for your child's protection". Get used to that idea.

The internet is worldwide. Many pron sites that are available are not the product of US producers, therefore this silly little law you seem to love so much has absolutely no effect on them at all!

Pornography has a right to exist whether you like it or not. How it effects (or doesn't effect) those close to you is your responsability. Man up and take the bull by the horns.
 
2006-02-13 11:45:01 AM
5uperman: Romans did not see depictions of sex as causes or symptoms of moral degeneracy. The morality they were concerned about was that men maintained their absolute power of life and death over the household, and fulfilled their civic and military obligations as citizens outside the home.

The idea that the average Roman lived a life like that shown in Satyricon is mistaken. Even more mistaken is the idea that, somehow, the Romans were undone by their own sexual libertinism. Yes, a moral decline in people's sense of duty to the state was a major problem in the latter days of the Empire, but if anything Christianity, with its radical ideas of pacifism, meekness, human equality and an afterlife, was more of a corrupting influence than porn ever could have been.
 
2006-02-13 11:45:09 AM
5uperman: No one is censoring adult pornography, you simply have to show your ID! This is no different than showing your license at the magazine stand or the movie theater! Oooooooh, the outrage!

.... you are completely clueless as to what this topic is about, are you?

ccmods: You forgot the Jesus chainsaw massacre. Because, as someone close to me once said, "but it's historically accurate, you don't complain about 'Schindler's list'!"

... kidding, right?
 
2006-02-13 11:45:21 AM
Why not a third party to keep the records and make sure they are accessible when the government wants them?

Porn video/dvd companies already do, but for some reason, websites usually do not.
 
2006-02-13 11:46:05 AM
I have to admit, I think the basis of the law is a good one, that all models should have appropriate documentation. It creates a problem in that large picture sets purchased by websites must have accompanying documentation for hundreds or even thousands of models, but as someone said, scan 'em and include them on a CD or DVD. That's not too hard. Rewrite model clauses so they have to include them, change your sale policy to other sites and companies so that the needed info is always included.

The real problem is the retroactive bullshiat. Every single site out there will have to go back and trace their picture purchases back to the original photographers to get the documentation to store it themselves--and as someone pointed out, sometimes the original producer doesn't want to give it up because of a model contract. They'd have no problem giving it up to law enforcement, but to have to expose the address of every model they use would be a tremendous violation of privacy. I'm not sure that anyone trumpeting the goodness of this law really realizes what a headache that's going to be (or already is) for site purveyors to do this, and that it truly will put a large numebr of people out of business because of record-keeping. Terrabytes of data will have to be verfied. Tens of thousands of images, movies, you name it. Not on a going-forward basis, but for the last seven years.

That, my friend, is horseshiat. This won't stop child porn, this stops the porn made by adults, of adults, for adults (and teenage boys). Traci Lords used a fake passport to star in porn under the age of 18. How would this law have helped to root her out? The real producers of child porn don't keep records, anyway. How does this stop them?

It doesn't.

/fewer boobies links on Fark are a bad thing
 
2006-02-13 11:46:32 AM
I simply do not trust a government enough to allow them to define what I can see and cannot see.

I can freely download anything from torrent, I don't. You might. I may not agree with your viewing habits but I don't want Mr. Guberment getting that much power.

I admit that todays kids have more access to porn that I did. I don't fear for the future because of it, just like booze 99.99% will learn to control their urges. The others never will and never have.

Kids will learn about love and sex from watching their parents...I don't mean watching their parents have sex! I mean they'll see dad sneak up and kiss mom while mom is cooking breakfast (or dad!) and see mom and dad talk walks together, go out on dates sans enfants.

r
 
2006-02-13 11:47:17 AM
I'm working on a comment (student-authored article) on this exact law (and its big brother, HR 3132, which was passed by the House IMMEDIATELY after these new recordkeeping rules were promulgated by the attorney general in pursuance of 2257). I cannot go into the full length here (for obvious reasons), but here are a few key points:
1) This ONLY affects legal pornographers. Existing child-pornographers will continue to break this law, just like they break normal child-pornography laws. Only pornographers who wish to avoid malicious prosecution (such as the group that sued and received the current injunction in California) will follow these requirements.
2) As bad as this law is, have a look at HR 3132: it eliminates the "actual" qualifier in the definition of sexually explicit conduct, as well as expanding that to include lascivious displays of genitals (which, according to SCOTUS precedent, includes non-nude displays). This is a classic one-two punch by the Congress, where they pass half of a law (the record keeping requirements), then, attach the scary part (3132's Child Pornography Prevention Act) as part of a larger, seperate law (the CPPA is part of a larger act regarding sexual offenders, etc.). They're sneaking this in.

Watch out people.
 
2006-02-13 11:47:38 AM
5uperman
No one is censoring adult pornography, you simply have to show your ID! This is no different than showing your license at the magazine stand or the movie theater! Oooooooh, the outrage!

I think you missed the issue at hand. The problem seems to be that they must go back 10 years and contact other companies some of which no longer exist to get records that may or may not exist. The retroactivity of the law is the problem. If this was simply a requirement for new productions then I think this would be a non-issue.
 
2006-02-13 11:47:49 AM
rob.d: I mean they'll see dad sneak up and kiss mom while mom is cooking breakfast (or dad!) and see mom and dad talk walks together, go out on dates sans enfants.

Canadians are so cute with their rose-tinted glasses.

As if married couples with children had sex or still loved each others
 
2006-02-13 11:48:49 AM
Tatsuma: but won't mind a bit if she watches a pg-13 movie where 200 people get killed, a la governator.

Classic staw man once again. You people are desperate to hold onto your degenerate nonsense.

The difference between violence and sex is that sex will be a daily temptation starting with puberty, where guns and grenades are only available to kids in militia-families.

I agree that children should not watch violent images, it can alter behavior, but it almost never, less than about 0.001% of the time, leads to actual murder and mayhem. Meanwhile thousands of kids a day get STD's or get pregnant.

For every Columbine, there are 1,000,000 abortions and thousands of AIDS deaths.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE NOW? IDIOT?
 
2006-02-13 11:49:55 AM
Tatsuma, I have been married over 12 years (5 with kids). Maybe I'm just a hoser but I love my wife.

We went out on a date yesterday for valintines day.

Hokey is good.
 
2006-02-13 11:50:03 AM
AKA Joker
It'd probably just be simpler to start an offshore holding area for all the porn, in case some site got raided. I always just assumed thats what kazaa was invented for. Change it's name to "free pr0n!" and be done with it already.

Tatsuma

Someone actually did say that to me, in all seriousness. That particular person also brought their 12 year old son to go see it, and has a copy of it on DVD. I fear for that poor boy's future, and his therapist bills.
 
2006-02-13 11:50:19 AM
5uperman: Classic staw man once again. You people are desperate to hold onto your degenerate nonsense.

The difference between violence and sex is that sex will be a daily temptation starting with puberty, where guns and grenades are only available to kids in militia-families.

I agree that children should not watch violent images, it can alter behavior, but it almost never, less than about 0.001% of the time, leads to actual murder and mayhem. Meanwhile thousands of kids a day get STD's or get pregnant.

For every Columbine, there are 1,000,000 abortions and thousands of AIDS deaths.

SEE THE DIFFERENCE NOW? IDIOT?


So, that's a yes?


Violence = GOOD!
Sex = BAD!

With such a hatred for the human body and it's natural functions, you're either a southern baptist, eh?
 
2006-02-13 11:51:21 AM
Good thing the "war on terror" has been won, god forbid a law abiding adult might want to look at boobies.
 
2006-02-13 11:52:29 AM
rob.d: Tatsuma, I have been married over 12 years (5 with kids). Maybe I'm just a hoser but I love my wife.

We went out on a date yesterday for valintines day.

Hokey is good.


Ah! You're a bot, and you don't past the turing test. Your programmer made you way too perfect, there's no way that this would ever happen

ccmods: Someone actually did say that to me, in all seriousness. That particular person also brought their 12 year old son to go see it, and has a copy of it on DVD. I fear for that poor boy's future, and his therapist bills.

Oy! talk about being traumatized. That's ridiculous.
 
2006-02-13 11:54:06 AM
5uperman
I agree that children should not watch violent images, it can alter behavior, but it almost never, less than about 0.001% of the time, leads to actual murder and mayhem. Meanwhile thousands of kids a day get STD's or get pregnant.

Funny, I wanted to have sex even before I went on the internet... something about hormones... puberty... maybe I'm the only one.
 
2006-02-13 11:54:11 AM
5uperman:

My question for you is this: why do you feel the need to tell other people how to educate their children regarding sexuality? Moreover, why do you feel that your conception of sexual conduct - which, obviously, is quite significantly different from many of ours - is definately more correct?

I also find it ironic that while complaining of Tatsuma's alleged straw-man, you yourself craft one: "For every Columbine, there are 1,000,000 abortions and thousands of AIDS deaths."

Yes, it's empirically true, but it has no bearing here. The larger number of abortions and AIDS deaths is due to the easier access to sex. Out of curiosity, you're aware that there was birth control and abortions prior to mainstream pornography, right?

Moreover, porn doesn't cause abortions. Unwanted pregnancies and women's rigths cause abortions. Know what causes killings? Killers. They're not killers because they were exposed to violent media, but rather because they were taught that violence against one another is acceptable for some reason.

Pornography causes people to view sex as detached from love, yes, but it doesn't do ANYTHING to making love. I fark my girlfriend, and I've made love to girlfriends. I know the difference, do you?
 
2006-02-13 11:54:26 AM
5uperman, interesting you call strawman, then do the exact same thing with your Columbine/AIDS/abortion argument.

Guns are not just available to militia families. There are a great many non-militia folks out there who own handguns, sporting rifles, shotguns, etc. Your generalization is weak.

You also seem to be corelating pornography and sex between minors. That's a causality error.
 
2006-02-13 11:55:43 AM
mattharvest: I also find it ironic that while complaining of Tatsuma's alleged straw-man, you yourself craft one: "For every Columbine, there are 1,000,000 abortions and thousands of AIDS deaths."

Completely true

Pornography causes people to view sex as detached from love, yes, but it doesn't do ANYTHING to making love. I fark my girlfriend, and I've made love to girlfriends. I know the difference, do you?

That's true, cause I fark his girlfriend too
 
2006-02-13 11:56:37 AM
The internet accelerates this sense of detachment between true sexual relationships and porn. We are raising generations of children who think the only way to make love is to whip each other or make women into punching bags. This is the problem.

It's not a joke.


Bullshiat. The notion of women as punching bags has been around a lot longer than the internet, and probably a lot longer than porn.
 
2006-02-13 11:56:49 AM
5uperman
I realize most of you have exclusive relationships with the tube sock under your pillow, but there are those of us who have actually consummated a relationship and have given birth to children.


Wow, you are amazing. I've been married for over 13 years and have a four year old daughter. Oddly enough, in my house it was my wife who did the birthing thing. You must be some kind of miracle man to actually given birth! Kudos to you!


We have a considerably more informed perspective of what influences this country's youth, and the internet can be devastating.


I'm a parent, too, and I have enough of an informed perspective to be able to tell that you are full of crap. If you are so anti-internet, why are you on it?

No one is censoring adult pornography, you simply have to show your ID! This is no different than showing your license at the magazine stand or the movie theater! Oooooooh, the outrage!

Well, in the days before the internet, kids still got their hands on porn through Dad's Playboys, or other stealthly aquired magazines. The only thing that has changed is that it's become digital. Everything that's on the internet now has existed in other forms for years. Once again, it takes a parent to monitor his kids' activities and to put them in proper perspective. That is your job as a parent!

Some parents limit their kids' TV time because, not only is it a massive time waster and brain softening agent, but there's things that are not appropriate. Try that same statergry with the internet, and see what happens!
 
2006-02-13 11:56:52 AM
"That's true, cause I fark his girlfriend too"

So THAT'S where those pics came from! ;)
 
2006-02-13 11:57:57 AM
I know several people have pointed this out: but 5uperman doesn't even know what the law he's blindly defending says. I just wanted to re-iterate that.

I noticed that in his inital response, so I assumed he was just one of those people pretending to be a troll. But now I think he's serious. I'm confused.
 
2006-02-13 11:57:58 AM
zappaisfrank: Pornography has a right to exist whether you like it or not. How it effects (or doesn't effect) those close to you is your responsability. Man up and take the bull by the horns.

It is my responsibility- that's why I'm speaking out. That's why I support internet laws. Fool.

You are arguing no harm, no foul. But no one knows what the affect of the vast prevelance of this material will have on children. Never before has this type of material, been available to so many. There is no precedent, so I choose to err on the side of caution. That's why your argument fails.

/I do realize this law aims to protect against child-porn- a noble goal that I doubt any of us would disagree with. The real issue at hand is the saturation of the material.

No one has answered why limiting porn to adults would be such a horrible goal. You have no argument there. Silence.
 
2006-02-13 11:58:06 AM
5uperman writes: I realize most of you have exclusive relationships with the tube sock under your pillow, but there are those of us who have actually consummated a relationship and have given birth to children.

Somehow, I think that your consummation rituals involve GHB and/or a gun placed strategically under a chin.
 
2006-02-13 11:59:46 AM
This is just an expansion of a law that already exists. When I worked at a company that did some adult entertainment, we used to have to keep forms on all the "actors."

PS. The adult industry needs to learn that people do feel sympathy for them...
 
2006-02-13 11:59:47 AM
"No one has answered why limiting porn to adults would be such a horrible goal. You have no argument there. Silence."

We're capitalists.

You still haven't told us why you watch violent porn.
 
2006-02-13 12:00:39 PM
ccmods
It'd probably just be simpler to start an offshore holding area for all the porn, in case some site got raided. I always just assumed thats what kazaa was invented for. Change it's name to "free pr0n!" and be done with it already.

That may be true but if you had a third party set up with records available then you could simply reference that. Say you have a photographer who takes pictures of a woman. Now if he wants to sell those pictures hes got to supply the 2257 information to a third party that can reference it. So no matter whom he sells those pictures to they have access to the necessary information. As I said above this is a non-issue with all new pornography as they are required to collect this material at production. The problem lies in retroactivity. No records exist for 10, 20, 30 year old pornography.
 
2006-02-13 12:00:51 PM
5uperman: No one has answered why limiting porn to adults would be such a horrible goal. You have no argument there. Silence.

Yes, yes we did:

It's a bad thing because it's tampering with freedom. What two or more consenting adults want to film, market and broadcast to a consenting adult audience is NONE. OF. YOUR. FARKING. BUSINESS.

You don't want to watch it? Don't! Then let us live alone

your question is even more stupid than:

No one has answered why limiting alcohol to adults would be such a horrible goal
or
No one has answered why limiting tobacco to adults would be such a horrible goal

Those have ACTUAL SIDE-EFFECTS which can lead to death, while porn doesn't.*

*except kittens and marriages
 
2006-02-13 12:03:12 PM
fudgefactor7: You also seem to be corelating pornography and sex between minors. That's a causality error.

I would bet my life savings Fudgefactor has never kissed a woman.

/error. error. does not compute. dork.
 
2006-02-13 12:03:29 PM
/I do realize this law aims to protect against child-porn- a noble goal that I doubt any of us would disagree with

That's what it purports to say, but the language of the law has nothing to do with eliminating illegal porn.
 
2006-02-13 12:04:53 PM
Tatsuma: No one has answered why limiting alcohol to adults would be such a horrible goal
or
No one has answered why limiting tobacco to adults would be such a horrible goal

We do limit those things. Sales certain hours, checking direct IDs, tickets for buying someone an underage drink or cigs, laws on bars, liences to sell booze, etc.
 
2006-02-13 12:06:30 PM
Tatsuma: 2257 completely kills the amateur market. There's no way in hell you can ever retrace them for ID, so that's PMITA prison for you, my friend

It pretty much kills the user-submitted sites. People will hesitate to submit their personal home videos when they know that there will be a paper trail to link them to their vids.
 
Displayed 50 of 242 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report