Printable View
I'm afraid to ask...but recently we got a note from yahoo that told us to get better click ratio that we should get rid of our warning/spash page.
But I'm interested to know of anyone has legal thoughts.
The page WITH the warning www.allworlds.tv
The page WITHOUT the warning www.allworlds.tv/ppv
Unless the visitor is registered they will see only edited photos and nothing hardcore.
Give me your thoughts..and if you know any legal examples.
Steven
I would go for a warning page. The focus on the new regulations are pointing to keeping minors from accessing your site. They seem very serious about cracking down on porn that's immediately viewable to minors.
I asked this on a different forum of Chad, and basically the warning page is an industry thing it does for some sort of "hey I tried" if taken to court, but it has never been tested. Basically, it's your call. I would definately be putting some keyword text into the index page, and would even consider the warning be made up as a graphic image that the SE wouldn't read and carry that text into the SE results description, or use an I-frame approach.
I'm not so sure a warning page is ever going to save anyone in court, but I can see how they may in some cases prevent the initial steps that lead up to prosecution from ever taking place.
The FCC for instance will not fine TV stations unless they get complaints filed from viewers. Then they investigate those complaints and decide what to do next. I'm sure internet content prosecutions work much the same way. A conservative happens upon a site, and then files a complaint out of sheer horror at what they were just exposed to.
It has to start somewhere, and the warning page just may prevent that from happening.
The second best line of defense against minors accessing (behind CC required) is internet ratings. Should you find yourself in correspondence with a "concerned parent," this is a great comeback to have available. It totally puts the ball back into their court to get a filter set up. You don't need to worry about saying anything else that ruffles their feathers as I've heard some webmasters do ("Well if you were a better parent...").
I personally use ratings and no nudity in the first screenful on some of my sites. This way they can still see what the site is about and get out without being too offended, but a warning page would probably be better.
I agree...if little "Johnny" wants to see porn and goes to the cable TV and goes to the playboy channel then who is to blame? Naturally the parents for not setting the password on the remote...right!!!!!!!!!!!
But let him hit the internet and go to a porn site and who is to blame...the producers of the site!! Right???
WRONG!
The parents are to blame for allowing little "Johnny" to access those sites. Period...there is no difference. Either install software to prevent your virgin from seeing this stuff or sit with him when he is accessing the net (as you would with cable TV).
The difference is the STUPID FUCKS making the laws who have NO clue about technology and love the fact that the majority of the STUPID FUCKS who vote for them (and therefore pay them) also have no FUCKING CLUE!
Lee
actually the law very rarely thinks anything is the parents' fault.
remember in the early 90's - a 9 year old boy set his trailer on fire and his baby sister died. somehow the show beavis and butthead got a big part of the blame. never mind the fact that the parents left a 9 year old and a baby alone. never mind the fact that beavis and butthead never set anything large on fire on their show. somehow they were to blame.
in the u.s., parental responsibility is not considered part of the equation of protecting children. something has gone very wrong here, and anything we can do to keep from letting the blame land on us is a good idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiamiB
Steven:Quote:
Originally Posted by steven619
I know this is non responsive to your question, but speaking of All Worlds.tv.... I would love it more than anything to be able to link my new review of 8 Simple Rules for Doing My Son directly to the page running the movie inside the site.
I do this with Maleflixxx, AEBN and Naked Sword... having to land on the front page is a straitjacket that breaks the flow and hurts sales.
Steve
Thank you for all your input.
I agree that any steps to make sure people know they are about to see naked homosexuals is a good thing. I only started to question this when Yahoo took a look at the site and said to remove the warning page...they don't need it since it's not "pornographic"...or at least not on the main (non-login) pages. Of course...they would not by paying a fine or going to jail.
Steve has a point (no..not me..the other steve) that creating links for other sites, or promotions for one or another movie, actor, theme...causes issues if you are stopped at a warning page. Darn these "laws" that are not really laws!
I like the advice to put as many "filters" and keywords as I can so those parents that don't want their kids to search sites like mine will be blocked.
And I try to get rid of anything really porn on a page that is diplayed without signing in or signing up.
But anyone with other ideas please let me know!
Steven
While I STRONGLY believe that much of the fault lies with the parents, the truth is that kids have a way of getting around parental control. Hello -- weren't all of us kids at one point? Didn't we find ways to get into the stuff that we weren't supposed to?
I definitely agree that parents should be given the majority of the responsibilty, but it never hurts for those of us in the industry to police ourselves and not make it so easy for kids to see stuff that they shouldn't be seeing. Anything less, to me, is simply irresponsibility.
Here's my $0.02 worth:
Don't give a prosecutor a reason to target you.
My two cents -- or at my regular rate, about $6 for 2 minutes
If you have sexually explicit material on your website, make your surfers click and claim that they are legal age to view. That at least gives you some defense, albiet not great but better than NONE that you tried to keep minors out of your porn. Until there is a better way, it is also the right thing to do. Your ratios may not be as great, but the only clicks that are really important are the ones that get out their credit cards, and someone that won't click through that "I am 18" page probably won't pay for porn anyway.
Now I'm using the age verification over the JavaScript sialog.
But I thinking about the "classic" HTML warning page too.
Generally, this Is the law problem. So I mean, that everyone must consult It with own lawyer, which Is expert on the law for the same country, where are you citizen (this Is the main important thing). And next time you must little adjust this warning, to be comply with the yours customers too (USA, EU and Canada country) and with the adult standards (the best way Is label site with ICRA and SafeSurf META tags, which are detected with all children protection services, and Internet Explorer using It for the children protection too!)
A warning page does not keep minors out of your site.
Using an ISP like AOL or Earthlink with parental controls activated will keep them out.
That is the articulation of ACLU v. Ashcroft and the message that should be broadcast constantly to lawmakers and the public. :gossip:
Steve