Porn and Politics in the USA
I Relay immediately this info received today.
I've never been naive but so many americans are.
I've never been naive but so many americans are.
Porn and Politics in the USA
Today July 13, 2007 at 1:55pm Quote Quote
Proposed 2257 Regulation Changes Contain Compromises, Complications --
Await Comment
by Darklady
WASHINGTON, DC -- Although the U.S. Department of Justice insists that its latest proposed amendments to 2257 record-keeping requirements is part of the government’s fight to protect children from sexual exploitation, Free Speech Coalition director Diane Duke and board chairman Jeffrey Douglas think there’s more – and less – to the picture than the feds are willing to admit.
Attorney Douglas is especially clear in his evaluation of the latest
compromises and continuations associated with the law, pointing out that part of their ability to gain support and sympathy stems from their being passed off as weapons in the fight against child sexual harm.
“Tragically, in spite of living in the era of Orwell’s big lie and
Big Brother, people still are operating under the just appallingly naïve notion that this statute and regulatory scheme have anything to do with child pornography.”
Such is not the case, according to both Duke and Douglas, with the
latter stating that “The people behind this don’t give a rat’s ass about deterring and detecting child pornography. Their sole interest is in raising the cost and deterring people from the creation and
distribution of sexually oriented material for and by consenting adults.”
Proof of this, as Douglas explains it, can be found in the government’s expansion of previous 2257 regulation to include “lascivious exhibition and simulated sex,” which mainstream Hollywood indulges in with minors on a regular basis, but can escape from burdensome paperwork regulations by merely sending an annual letter to the Department of Justice promising that everybody involved is of legal age and has had their ID checked and birth date recorded.
Thanks to changes brought about by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, things are a little bit more complicated for those working and playing in the adult entertainment industry.
Although the new regulations for 2257 affected simulated sex have not been revealed yet – other than Hollywood’s continued exemption – the latest proposals stubbornly affirm the Department of Justice’s contention that Congress originally intended secondary producers to be covered and co-equal with primary producers. Toward that end, it has proposed that the 1995 regulation documents are equally applicable to each kind of producer, something that Duke considers to be “just impossible, literally impossible to comply with” for many secondary producers.
The FSC director sees the latest salvo in the ongoing battle for speech rights as “an attack on the industry,” meant to “eliminate or hurt” it instead of pursue the stated goal of protecting minors from sexual predation.
While both Duke and Douglas caution industry members to remember that what the DoJ handed over in the seven page document soon to be added to
the FreeSpeechCoalition.com website is nothing more nor less than
proposed regulations, both are emphatic about how important it is that small and large content producers alike become involved during the 60-day comment period.
Not all legal council agrees, but Douglas encourages secondary
producers to continue to work with primary producers as they have been. Although the latest proposals would make July 27th, 2006 the earliest date for which secondary producers would be required to have 2257 compliant documentation, he cautions that the final regulations will doubtless be
different and therefore impossible to anticipate. “These regs are pretty much what people expected and pretty much as bad as people expected. While they certainly could be worse, there’s nothing in there that’s totally bizarre, unpredictable, bad, or totally out of left field, like several things were the last time around.”
According to Douglas, secondary producers should create contractual agreements with their primary sources, stating that if and when the proposals become law, they primary will provide appropriate documentation to the secondary.
In order to assist industry professionals in providing the government with the best possible feedback during the 60-day public comment period, the FSC will provide guides designed to highlight areas of special importance. Perhaps chief among those topics is the financial impact that coming into compliance with 2257 regulations would impose upon businesses and individuals.
Duke hopes that the FSC will be able to “really activate the entire
base of the adult entertainment industry” as happened with .xxx issues. Adding a 2257 component to the upcoming Adult Novelty Expo during the FSC membership meeting will be part of the strategy to rally interest and awareness.
Because those behind 2257 regulations have repeatedly revealed a
profound ignorance about the reality of doing business in the adult
industry – including FBI agents trained to conduct inspections being
unaware of the existence of compilation tapes – Douglas is emphatic about the urgency of producers becoming involved in the commen process. “It is critical that we get as much data back as possible,” he insists.
We are in a position to severely restrict the Department of Justice if we are able to accumulate the data, because there’s no question that this secondary producer component alone would cost a vast amount of money. We need to be able to document that, and in order to do that, we need as many people from as many walks of life in the industry as possible.”
Free Speech Coalition members should look for requests from information on the subject in the near future.
Additional changes that the proposed regulations would bring about include allowing domestic production companies shooting outside of the states to rely upon foreign government issued identification for foreign talent, less Draconian live feed recording requirements, and the right of producers to protect performer addresses during the identification duplication period, thus minimally reducing their risk of identify theft, stalking, or invasion of privacy. Adding to web design complexity is a change to the statute itself that would require a 2257 compliance statement on every page containing 2257 affected content.
Where individuals were reluctant to comment previously, Douglas believes they can feel more confident during this challenge. “We’ve seen what the inspections are actually like and can see that the businesses and individuals that did step forward have not been subject to harm, but we can not afford to have both segments of the industry silent regarding the impact of 2257; we’re going to need people to step forward to draft declarations and say ‘this is how it all impacts me,’” he explains.
The importance of getting involved is hard for Douglas to emphasize enough. “This has nothing to do with deterring child pornography or detecting child pornography,” he insists. “It’s deterring legitimate adults from creating, distributing, and purchasing sexual materials involving consensual adults – and developing a data base that the government can use to find and review every piece of sexually explicit material. They want to know what it is we’re looking at, we’re fantasizing about, so they can control our minds. As paranoid as that sounds, that is exactly what 2257 represents.”
19 comments:
Re: Porn and Politics in the USA
Reply #2 - Today at 12:43am Quote Quote
I will never believe it's about controlling "our" minds. it's always about controlling the money. Those people aren't that smart. but they are that greedy.
my other worry (being paranoid - but paranoia is my friend - as i like to say) is that this is just a way to begin to control speech. of course we now know that political speech in the form of lots of money is quite FREEE! just ask the supreme court. (I've always wondered - so if other people have more money than me - does that mean they have more freedom of speech?) so now that we're not worried about campaign contributions (whew) i could suggest that this has a lot more to do with the freedom to express oneself without worry of imprisonment. just think. it would be so easy to impugn one's political adversaries.
should i blow one of XX's best lines in our interviews? "porn is the canary of civilized society." perhaps he's not the first to say it. but it's a good quote.
Re: Porn and Politics in the USA
Reply #3 - Today at 1:24am Quote Quote
Fts
I must disagree.
These people are smart-very smart.
They take a fear that most parents have,child molesters in this case,then lay claim to be able to stop it by stoping all porn.
What parent is going to say anything against that?
It is called the politics of fear.
Simply Twisted
Re: Porn and Politics in the USA
Reply #4 - Today at 2:15am Quote Quote
You said it MB. Perfectly.
I really do wonder what has to happen in the US for the citizens to stand up and no longer stand for it (the govt. ruling with fear, the lack of free healthcare, the overworked population, the fact that college is not free....or reasonably priced, the constant offers of credit cards in the mail, the high fructose corn syrup in everything we eat, etc, etc).
Oops, I went off track...I think I'm just pissed because I pay a shit load of taxes here and yet I am not allowed to vote....and if I become active in any organisation or coalition that could make a difference I risk losing the greencard. Although I am a member of both the FSC and the NCSF through my companies. I could not put my legal name on any memberships though. Ugh, sorry, 2257 really gets me fired up...obviously about everything, whether relevant or not.
take care,
Re: Porn and Politics in the USA
Reply #5 - Today at 3:42am Quote Quote
It's ok Cr.
Rant away.
I'm sure PDG knew he was opening up a can of worms with this post.
Besides,I find it rather sad that you want to vote but can't.
I know LOT'S of people who bitch and moan about the gov.
They CAN vote,but didn't.
The lines are long.
My vote won't count.
I didn't have time.
Just some of the excuses I've seen.
Mb
Re: Porn and Politics in the USA
Reply #6 - Today at 9:42am Quote Quote
Heres my two cents, while I believe child pornography is illegal and is never morally correct, it is my opinion that the censorship of the porn industry has arisen from the illegalization of child pornography. Most people will (hopefully) agree with me that child pornography is a horrible and disgusting thing. It is because a general population believes that child pornography is not morally correct that it has been made illegal. Since then, whenever any lawmaker wanted to make some sort of pornography illegal, or at least hard to produce, all they had to do is to make the public believe that the type of pornography is "disgusting" or "morally unsound" and link it to child pornography. While this strategy does not work very well against "mainstream" pornography such as Playboy or Vivid, it is extremely powerful against smaller genres of pornogrpahy, such as Bondage and S&M. This is because the public does not know or care about this type of pornography and it can be easily villified by public figures. I believe that it will be ahrd for the porn industry to fight censorship since lawmakers can easily argue that the pople in the industry are only fighting because they want money. It is really up to people who whatch the pornography to stand up for what they believe is right. This of course almost never happens because of the social stigmata which accompanies a person who reveals publiclly that he or she enjoys pornography.
Thanks for reading! Smiley
Both points of view are acceptable together: they are not angels and they want at the same time our money and your (I don't have) souls.
Beating a dead horse time...
The biggest problem here is the same people that will take the 40 seconds each to sign up for 5 sites so that they can happily jerk off will not take that same time to sign petitions and other forms of protest. Can you imagine what John McCain or Hillary Clinton would do with a list of 9 or 10 million porn consuming (and that is ULTRA conservative) name that have registered to vote and have decided to vote primarily on civil liberties platforms....In a country where just over half the people vote (in 2000 the last time i could get the numbers) that would be a 10 percent bump for one candidate. That would mean the election and it would easily mean big problems should that candidate not live up to his/her word...
Take the time to vote...take the time to have your voice heard...
JC,
I've been beating this horse for a long time now
While I agree with you,it would be hard to find porno loveing guys(and gals) willing to put their name on paper.Sadly,it is a sign of the times we live in.
We could vote for a candidate that thinks free speech is most important,but they tend to be independent and would take votes from the Dems.That could lead to another right wing,bible pounding president
The Dems seem to be finding the (Lord) also.
My answer? If I had one,I would be a rich man.
Mb
I guess that part of my point is that if everyone (read that as EVERYONE) that keeps this billion dollar business spinning was like "I WATCH PORN AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT!" or even if you just got every American that thinks that freedom is important to get together it would be a voting block too powerful to ignore. Trust me I understand that I'm probably being naive here but we really need something similar to the "Rock the Vote" program the MTV had a few years ago....
As for your other point...I said that somewhere not that long ago - Ms. Clinton is just as much "family values" as anyone else...(read family values as bible thumping) and why are they? Because the middle of the country votes...the right wing seems to be able to organize and get the vote out...
If everyone voted that I hear complain about the state of this nation...imagine the good that would come of it...
We really need something similar to the "Rock the Vote" program the MTV had a few years ago....
I'm done for today...argh!!!
Ok.
How about a long shot here?
Have maybe Iain put into a short statement about the new english law.
Without adding or subtracting from it.
In england this is now illegal,etc.
Now,put a notice on all the web sites that will run it.
I don't know,maybe somthing like this=
All members from Briton please read.
Post the new law,etc.
Don't let this happen here=VOTE!!
I figure anyone who is on site will click on it just to see whats up in England Wink
If enough click on it,the word will spread.
It's not MTV,but hey,it may be worth a try.
Just an idea.
Mb
I would love to vote, I have never lived anywhere where I have not been able to, actually in Australia it is compulsary.
Does anyone actually know how many greencard (permanent residents) holders are in the US? None of them are allowed to vote....but they all pay taxes....ugh, I'm pissed off again.
Sometimes a pissed off Cr is sexier....lol
In any event the concept of trying to get cooperation from all the sites in the US to "unionize" and stand together for the greater good is actually not that bad. Many of the "respectable" sites (meaning professional above board solid sites) are members of the Free Speech Coalition and I would think that in partnership with them maybe something like a CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE FSC CIVIL RIGHTS PETITION would be right above click here to submit your payment on all those sites...something painless.
Hmmm....
Maybe I will get in touch with them....
Imagine Intersec and Twisted Factory and Kink and SocietySM all united for something...not to mention all the "mainstream" porn producers...
LOL,
I think you need to edit your list of "respectable" companies down a little......
LOL
I'm trying to keep everyone happy (isn't that what politicians do?) so that when I make my run for the presidency (I just became old enough) I can form a coalition of the perverted....
(In reply to MB)
I have posted the text of the new UK law - which will be voted on next Monday and become law in due course - as a separate post. I think the link to the text on the UK Parliament site would be what you were suggesting - for something written by lawyers it is actually quite readable.
As to whether voting will make any difference - certainly here in the UK only perhaps 100 of 600 or so parliamentary constituencies (districts) have a population mix that makes for a real contest - the rest are guaranteed to return an MP from the same party every time to the House of Commons (our counterpart to the House of Representatives), and the current government appoints new members to the House of Lords (our Senate) so it's a bit like the US supreme court where the effect of past president's choices remains around for decades.
I do vote because I can and as a matter of principle - but I don't hold out much chance of changing anything by doing so. I believe now that legislators act partly on the advice of permanent government staff and partly to improve their standing in opinion polls (so their actions and statements play to the press that sets popular opinion) rather than acting on their own best judgement or according to any principles. So the only way to change anything is to get the mass media on your side. That we live in an age where the baying mob controlled by agitators in the media, rather than high principles, is what sets the agenda for our legislators, is profoundly disappointing to me, but I see no easy way out. There is much to learn from the new UK legislation which seems to be something the Home Office (UK Justice Dept.) staff always wanted but they were given the chance by the mother of a girl who was unfortunate enough to date a necropheliac who was also into breath play web sites a couple of years ago. What happened to her daughter was tragic but has undoubtedly been used by those seeking to legislate against the BDSM community as a whole. She started a media campaign and we now have this law which potentially criminalises most depictions of non-trivial BDSM.
There is a Government petition web site in the UK and a petition against this part of the Criminal Justice Bill was started about 6 months ago. As far as we know about 1800 people including me registered - compared with 50,000 plus UK members of one large BDSM contact site - so most UK BDSMers are too scared to protest. I guess if I get a visit from the police on Tuesday we know why Wink This should be compared with around 1.5 million supporting a petition against large scale road pricing (tolls) as a substitute for annual car licenses. So long as people's involvement in democracy is driven by self-interest rather than belief in higher principles such as the right of individuals to live as they wish so long as it harms no one else, things are not going to get better.
Dear All
The text of the new UK law on possession of extreme pornographic images has now been published at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/07130.43-46.html#j 400
In case it subsequently moves or disappears I have pasted the full text below.
I understand that it will have its 2nd reading and be voted on on the 23rd July as part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill - which is certain to pass as a whole, so I expect that unless there are any late amendments this is the text that will become law. I'll have a quick check of the images posted to this forum prior to then as a precaution and if any give me concern I will write to whoever posted them proposing a course of action. I don't think there will be many that need to be removed or censored, however.
There is some commentary from the main campaign group opposed to this part of the act at:
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/
The consequences for webmasters outside the UK who wish to protect their subscribers over here and the consequences for former members of 'hard' bdsm sites who live in the UK and have retained images remain to be fully worked out. The requirement for prosecutions to be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions (similar level to US Attorney General) suggests the act will not be frequently used, but the precedent when a similar law against under-age images was introduced is that everyone with credit-card records linked to a suspect site was investigated. So I don't know what will actually happen and intend to be careful in what I keep and what I allow to be kept on this server, in order to be sure that it remains operational.
Regards
Iain
==== Begin Copied Text =====
Part 6
Criminal law
Pornography etc.
Possession of extreme pornographic images
(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of an extreme pornographic Image.
(2) An “extreme pornographic image” is an image which is both—
(a) pornographic, and
(b) an extreme image.
(3) An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Part 6 — Criminal law
(4) Where an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image appears to have been so produced is to be determined by reference to—
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.
(5) So, for example, where—
(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and
(b) it appears that the series of images as a whole was not produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal, the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.
(6) An “extreme image” is an image of any of the following—
(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.
(7) In this section “image” means—
(a) a moving or still image (produced by any means); or
(b) data (stored by any means) which is capable of conversion into an image within paragraph (a).
(8) In this section references to a part of the body include references to a part surgically constructed (in particular through gender reassignment surgery).
(9) Proceedings for an offence under this section may not be instituted—
(a) in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions; or
(b) in Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
Exclusion of classified films etc.
(1) Section 64 does not apply to excluded images.
(2) An “excluded image” is an image which forms part of a series of images contained in a recording of the whole or part of a classified work.
(3) But such an image is not an “excluded image” if—
(a) it is contained in a recording of an extract from a classified work, and
(b) it appears that the image was extracted (whether with or without other images) solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.
(4) Where an extracted image is one of a series of images contained in the recording, the question whether the image appears to have been extracted as mentioned in subsection (3)(b) is to be determined by reference to—
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
Part 6 — Criminal law
(a) the image itself, and
(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images; and section 64(5) applies in connection with determining that question as it applies in connection with determining whether an image is pornographic.
(5) In determining for the purposes of this section whether a recording is a recording of the whole or part of a classified work, any alteration attributable to—
(a) a defect caused for technical reasons or by inadvertence on the part of any person, or
(b) the inclusion in the recording of any extraneous material (such as advertisements), is to be disregarded.
(6) Nothing in this section is to be taken as affecting any duty of a designated authority to have regard to section 64 (along with other enactments creating criminal offences) in determining whether a video work is suitable for a classification certificate to be issued in respect of it.
In this section—
“classified work” means (subject to subsection (8)) a video work in respect of which a classification certificate has been issued by a designated authority (whether before or after the commencement of this section);
“classification certificate” and “video work” have the same meanings as in the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c. 39);
“designated authority” means an authority which has been designated by the Secretary of State under section 4 of that Act;
“extract” includes an extract consisting of a single image;
“image” and “pornographic” have the same meanings as in section 64;
“recording” means any disc, tape or other device capable of storing data electronically and from which images may be produced (by any means).
(8) Section 22(3) of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (effect of alterations) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that Act.
Defence
(1) Where a person is charged with an offence under section 64, it is a defence for the person to prove any of the matters mentioned in subsection (2).
(2) The matters are—
(a) that the person had a legitimate reason for being in possession of the image concerned;
(b) that the person had not seen the image concerned and did not know, nor had any cause to suspect, it to be an extreme pornographic image;
(c) that the person—
(i) was sent the image concerned without any prior request having been made by or on behalf of the person, and
(ii) did not keep it for an unreasonable time.
(3) In this section “extreme pornographic image” and “image” have the same
meanings as in section 64.
==== End Copied Text ======
Also relevant are the notes at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/130/en/07130x-f.htm#in dex_link_104
The question that often comes to my mind is this:
Why do they even care?
It is not easy to answer. My gut feeling on most of the politicians who claim to be religious and morally directed is that they are neither. They seem to recognize the issue of "family values" as a hot-button issue that may cause people to come out and vote for them. The problem with this sort of thing is that people can be so easily manipulated by television and print media now as to be made to completely waste their democratic right to vote. They are given, in most cases, only two choices, both of whom represent the interests of the elite and do not seem to respond to the real-world needs of ordinary people. People know this, deep down inside, but they still respond to the enormous overwhelming amount of misinformation that is out there, and behave irrationally and emotionally when it comes to casting their vote (the only vestige of what was formerly known as democracy in this country).
We do not live in a democracy at all, we live in a republic. The difference is that we get to vote on who gets to make the laws, but we do not get to vote on the laws themselves. Anyone with a bit of logic can see how easily corruptible that sort of system is. When those who make and enforce the law represent the elite, and come at the public from only two sides, the public has no power to effect meaningful change in their lives, especially when voting for either party results in a similar system.
I propose no change, no revolution, no revamping of the system. Personally I do not think that such a system can be changed to be fair to the people, so long as it remains easy to be a professional politician, and so long as professional politicians reap larger rewards for doing wrong than for doing right.
The major sticking point, however, is that those who are directly responsible for the current "war on porn" have not been elected to their positions, but have been appointed by elected officials. So consider this:
Can we really call ourselves a free society? How does one define freedom? It seems to me that the percentage of citizens who have never and will never commit a crime is so low as to be near zero. This is not to say that most people are bad, most people are good in fact. However, most people drive too fast, or talk on a cell phone while driving, or have a garage sale and do not report the income to the IRS, or download some song or picture off of the internet which is copyright protected, or have sex in ways that are considered illegal by local ordinance. The list can go on for a long time. Why? Because there seems to be some enticement, some inducement for those who have the power to make laws and control people, to continue doing so and increase their power. Ayn Rand once said (in a novel) that a government's ability to control people was in direct proportion to it's ability to crack down on perceived criminals. If we are to assume that this is correct, then it is obvious that the first and best way to consolidate and increase power would be to systematically criminalize as many forms of behavior as possible. This way, there will always be an undercurrent of fear among the governed. A fear of the government. A feeling of "separateness" rather than the government and the governed being formed from the same people, or at least by consent (to paraphrase some important old American documents).
Who benefits? Obviously in a society where perception is everything, the elite will benefit greatly from this sort of system, since the elite are not just represented by the highest echelons of government, they are the same people.
This is, of course, just a thought experiment. I cannot prove any of these assertions beyond all doubt, but I can state that this idea has at least not been disproved so far.
First,thank you IainM for posting the new laws!!
It is a big help to better understand what can happen.
Second,Jazz,I would only change one statement you made.
I would use self-appointed instead
Overall,a great buch of posts!!
Post a Comment