Rated X (Or however many X's you want to use), NR (Not Rated), Adults Only. That's enough.
I like my freedom of speech, including not having to rate it.
Printable View
Rated X (Or however many X's you want to use), NR (Not Rated), Adults Only. That's enough.
I like my freedom of speech, including not having to rate it.
I suppose it all makes sense to come up with a rating system...
I guess that XXX works fine for us which is how we clearly identify all of our products now...21 seems as good for most states...
I believe that the real challenge will be in getting the industry to agree - we all seem so divided on so many issues and/or, unable to follow a set of standards developed by others - so many seem determined to buck and challenge the system as it stands...
First Hi IanQuote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
dont know if you remember me
but i remember your work
so {{HUGS}}}
i have been using TV ratings on some of my sites... but i like the idea of programming the site - like the on line internet radio - to pre-roll a rating before the viewer can enter
As an owner of several adult websites and an online business, i found this forum quite interesting. But it also awakened feelings and opinions within me regarding discussions i had several months ago with a few i know in the adult business industry - to keep it short: i stated that i beleive the time is fast approaching when owners of adult businesses, gay and straight, are going to have their cozy little rug pulled out from under them by the US Government, e.g., we can no longer continue on in the "as is" mode.
And of all the comments i read in this forum, i dare say "boyfunk" is closer to reality with his comments about the Bush administration, and, about the 18 vs. 21 thing.
Personally, i am totally against any restriction, laws or regulations which say adult websites or adult businesses in general ( with the exception of places where alcohol is served ) have to prevent, limit or otherwise restrict persons 18 to 21 from entering, particpating, browsing, enjoying or otherwise being a part of those said businesses.
DJ
Looks like we've missed the boat on trying to get our own labelling system in place and the government is now going to be doing it for us :thumbsup:
Better get ready to open your wallets again for the FSC :DQuote:
Operators of commercial Web sites with sexually explicit content would have to post warning labels on each offending page or face imprisonment under a new proposal in the U.S. Senate.
Caving to earlier demands from the U.S. Department of Justice, the 24-page proposed law focuses on a medley of new penalties related to child pornography and other sexual content on the Internet. For instance, Internet service providers that fail to report to authorities any sightings of child pornography on their networks would have to cough up fines that are triple those written into current law: $150,000 for the first violation and $300,000 thereafter.
"The increase in Internet use has given sexual predators new ways to prey on children," said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, who joined eight members of his party in introducing the bill on Tuesday. "This bill, among other things, is intended to shut down these opportunities, and severely punish the degraded individuals who are involved in the sexual exploitation of our youth."
Called the Stop Adults' Facilitation of the Exploitation of Youth Act, or Internet SAFETY Act (PDF), the bill actually beefs up the Justice Department's suggested penalties for negligent Web labelers. It would impose up to 15 years in prison--an increase from the five years suggested in the original proposal--on any commercial site operator who fails to place "clearly identifiable marks or notices" prescribed by the federal government in either the site's code or on the pages themselves, according to a copy of the bill seen by CNET News.com.
The bill would also create a new crime out of "using misleading domain names to direct children to harmful material on the Internet." Conviction would carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years. A similar sentence would apply to anyone who knowingly embeds words or images in the source code of their sites with the intent of deceiving minors into viewing "harmful" content.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales originally called for the new laws while speaking at an event at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in April. He said a mandatory rating system is necessary to "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet."
At the same event, Gonzales also raised the possibility of requiring Internet service providers to retain records on their subscribers for a set period of time to aid law enforcement in investigations. The Justice Department has since held several private meetings with ISPs, as first reported by CNET News.com.
No such mandate made it into the Internet SAFETY Act, though other members of Congress have floated proposals bearing those requirements in recent months.
Criticized as ambiguous
The latest proposal drew criticism from civil liberties advocates, who said it presents enough ambiguities to prompt self-censorship of Web content.
"Whether artistic works or political commentary or any type of images that may arguably come close to this category, people may not publish them for fear of being sent to jail for 15 years," said David Greene, director of a free-speech advocacy group called The First Amendment Project.
It's equally unclear how to draw the line between "commercial" Web sites, covered by the regulations, and "noncommercial" sites, which appear to be exempt, the bill's critics said.
"They may sell T-shirts or do things that are unrelated to the image or the content that is labeled," Greene said. "When their commercial transaction doesn't relate to the image, to the sexual content, there's a great danger in these laws."
To some extent, it was the thorny issue of labeling online news sites, which sometimes feature material considered to be sexually explicit as part of their regular coverage, that caused support for an Internet self-rating system to fizzle out during the Clinton administration years. At that time, in the late-1990s, Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, proposed that misrating a Web site be made a federal crime.
The Internet SAFETY Act pulls its definition of sexually explicit material from existing federal law. It covers sexual intercourse of all types: bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.
In practice, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly. In one case, U.S. v. Knox, the Supreme Court and an appeals court ruled that the "lascivious exhibition" of the pubic area could include images of clothed people wearing bikini bathing suits, leotards and underwear. That suggests, for instance, that photos of people in leotards and bathing suits would have to be rated as sexually explicit if the commercial Web site owner wanted to avoid going to prison.
The Senate proposal grants just one reprieve: Sexual depictions that constitute a "small and insignificant part" of a large Web site do not have to be labeled.
Also problematic, they said, is that, in addition to the labeling requirement, Web site operators would have to ensure that "any matter that is initially viewable" does not contain sexually explicit content.
"What if someone deep links to an image, and someone clicks on that image, and it's the first one they see?" asked Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Has the law been violated?"
http://news.com.com/Web+labeling+man...3-6083983.html
Regards,
Lee
Lee,
I truly believe that we have more things to worry about than this proposed whatever the hell it is.
I will be perfectly honest and sincere in stating, the day a law like this passes in a country that values free speech will be the same day that I become a citizen of a country like Thailand.
At least they have plenty of cute boys, and I will live like a king.
This, as written, will be tied up in courts for years.
Are you packed yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by abostonboy
How naive can you be? The government is already wire tapping and recording phone calls illegally, collecting all sorts of information, and you don't think internet labelling is gonna pass?
Its an election year, laws like this will pass, if not now, they will next year or the next. Look at the FCC and its crack down on so called misconduct, and you think this isn't gonna happen on the internet? Its a race between Democrats and Republicans to see who can garner the votes by using their own version of 'censorship of the internet' laws...
Go look at COPA.
Everybody said the same thing about that. FEAR was running. Heads were turning. Offshore servers were the thing.
This is just a way of trying to get COPA back. IT's an AMMEDMENT AS THEY SAY.
There are WAY too many free speech issues in that. WAY TOO MANY.
That will be drug out in courts like crazy.
Look at the 2257 issue. Go read the threads from a year ago. Everybody was running scared. I will gues to say that no one will be prosecuted under that either.
You mentioned wire tapping and all that. Sure they do it, but THEY are the ones breaking the law. Not the millions of Americans making the calls.
Yes, we have a president that has vetoed less bills than any other since I can't recall because he feels he is above the law.
The minute this law goes into effect it will be challenged by the same teams that challenged COPA years ago and a Republican ran court said sorry. IT WILL BE DRUG OUT IN THE COURTS LIKE CRAZY. And remember it oesnt go directly to the highest.
The Senate proposal grants just one reprieve: Sexual depictions that constitute a "small and insignificant part" of a large Web site do not have to be labeled.
Go and buy 3,000 pages of hair loss ads (on ad sense boards) and create a site with 50 pics. I think you are exempt.
It will probably pass and then be thrown into the courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
I BELIEVE COPA passed as well.
This AMMENDMENT has many of the same issues as COPA at it's foundation.
The government wants a labeling system then does this
http://www.wired.com/news/infostruct...,68545,00.html
Makes no sense. The .xxx would be a start. At least don't discourage it.
Isn't it a label?
Keep your head in the sand, and hell guess that's why you are studying law too I guess, so you can defend yourself in court.
To begin with, while COPA and 2257 are passed legislation, and only, i repeat only if they get struck down totally are you safe from prosecution. If they DON'T get struck down, then you are in shit because you haven't complied, even while they are in litigation. So perhaps before you start screaming that they'll never pass, keep in mind that if they do pass, and if all the court challenges in the universe fail, or don't materialize as you hope, you are fried, cooked, and fricaseed.
Ignoring the ramifications isn't fear mongering, I'll leave that to the FSC and the DOJ, but ignorance of the laws won't save you. As well you have a far more conservative court today than you did when COPA came to them. There is no telling yet what they might or might not rule, and if the law is on the books and you didn't comply, well... hope you enjoy orange as the colour of your clothes.
No it isn't a label, xxx TLD is segregation. Label means to place a notice or disclaimer or such that identifies a certain criteria, XXXTLD is a separate issue and is far from being a label.Quote:
Originally Posted by abostonboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaystoryman
COPA IS NOT A LAW
"The Child Online Protection Act (COPA)[1] is a law in the United States of America, passed in 1998 with the declared purpose of protecting children from harmful sexual material on the internet. The law was blocked by the courts and has never taken effect. Because it only limited commercial speech and only affected US providers, the effect on the availability of the regulated material to minors if the law was enforced was unlikely to be significant. Several US states have since passed similar laws."
It has been blocked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_O...Protection_Act
You can NOT be prosecuted under COPA. Period. It's now 2006 - 1998. Eight years!
We can argue up and down all nite, but the point is this law IF it goes into affect will be tied up in courts for years to come.
The US is going aftered battered womans, domestic abuse, etc. There is a fear in prosecuting a 2257 case.
Yes, it's politics. The politions want to get it passed knowing damn well it will be tied up in battles for years.
The Main reasons Copa wnet back to the courts was because it was impossible to enforce and since it dint apply to foreging companies the impact it would have was minimal at best. And there was a free specch issue. This is a tamed down version of that they we as webmaster COULD actually work with If the time come.
I was always and always will be 2257 compliant. That is really not an issue. And issue for me is a violation of free speech.
And don't be shocke dif the courts rule that was bush is doing with th ewiretapping is illegal, so using that as an example make sno sense.
But then again the supreme court elect the asshole in th efirst place, and he elected suprem court justices that just love to give power to teh executive deoartment. So who knows.
And to answer your question my bf i smoving back to Thailand, so my bags are pretty much packed.
Tom, I may see you there when I get there. :)