Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Just when you think it can't get any worse! THIS!

  1. #1
    Slade
    Guest

    Just when you think it can't get any worse! THIS!

    WASHINGTON, DC - A new bill that targets online adult entertainment is making its way into Congress, YNOT has learned. The Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005, expected to be introduced by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) sometime in the next few days, would tax adult websites at a whopping 25% while placing new requirements for age verification on “regulated” websites and billing companies. The Act appears to have been spurred by a July report from an organization called Third Way. The Third Way report, which has not yet been released, argues that adult websites do not do enough to keep children away from adult content, and that many adult webmasters specifically target children in their marketing.

    In a discussion draft of the Act obtained by YNOT, the Bill uses the child protection angle to justify the new restrictions and the new tax. The draft claims that the bill is intended “to protect children from Internet pornography and support law enforcement and other efforts to combat Internet and pornography-related crimes against children.”

    Calls to Senator Lincoln’s office were not returned in time for this story.

    The Act would have to clear Congress and be signed by President Bush before it could become law. Legal challenges to the Act, if it were passed, are also possible.

    The Act begins by placing new age verification requirements on “regulated pornographic” websites. These requirements include using Federal Trade Commission (FTC) approved age verification software packages that check the age of visitors before they are shown adult content. The Act specifically requires that this age verification process take place prior to the visitor being shown any “pornographic material,” including materials in free areas of the website.

    There would also be new restrictions placed on payment processors and IPSPs. Under the Act, companies that process payments for adult sites “shall only process age-verified” transactions. The restrictions would apply to any “bank, credit card company, third-party merchant, Internet Payment Service Provider, or business that performs financial transactions for a regulated pornographic Web site…”

    Enforcement of the Act would be handled by the FTC.

    The Act’s definition of a “regulated pornographic website,” however, is interesting in that it relies completely on 18 U.S.C. § 2257. The Act would define a “regulated pornographic website” as “a person required to maintain documents verifying the age of persons engaged in sexually explicit conduct pursuant to section 2257(a) of title 18, United States Code.”

    Who actually falls under 2257 requirements is currently being disputed in federal court. The Free Speech Coalition has challenged 2257 and its requirements.

    In addition to enacting age verification requirements, the Act also calls for a staggering 25% tax on all sales made by sites that fall under the Act. The funds collected from this tax would then be used to fund various law enforcement initiatives, mostly aimed at protecting children from harmful online activities.

    Senator Lincoln, the expected lead sponsor of the Act, is an Honorary Senate Chair for “Third Way,” an organization that, according to its website, “develops policy and communications products to help senators and other progressive leaders better advance their values in red states and counties where progressive ideas have lost resonance.”

    Third Way this month produced a “report” on internet pornography. The report, obtained by YNOT, was titled “The Porn Standard: Children and Pornography on the Internet,” and it claims that some adult website operators purposefully market to children, and that the industry has failed to make use of existing age verification software solutions to screen out minors.

    “Parents have a responsibility to supervise their kids,” report author Shawn Barney of Third Way told YNOT, but added “[the internet] is a particularly challenging medium for parents.”

    The report’s claim that some adult sites specifically market to children seems to be based on the long-defunct per-click affiliate program model, which when used would pay affiliates based solely on the volume of traffic sent rather than sales. The Third Way report does not seem to recognize that few if any adult affiliate programs currently use a per-click payout model, and that the model was largely abandoned by the adult industry years ago.

    The professional adult internet industry has long attempted to educate lawmakers that it does not want children visiting its websites, and that it does not profit from sales of pornography to children. Sales on adult websites rely on credit cards or other online payments, which children know are easily discovered by parents. The per-click affiliate model was largely abandoned by the professional adult industry years ago precisely because it was not profitable for professional adult website operators.

    Asked if the report’s claims of adult content being marketed to children were based on anything other than the per-click or per-impression affiliate model, Barney told YNOT that it also relied on “common sense online, most people’s experience online.”

    The language of the Third Way report at times paints a fairly sinister picture of adult website operators preying on children.

    “Internet pornography has become a large and lucrative online industry, and one that is successfully reaching a child audience,” the report claims.

    “Tragically, the exploitation of children by internet pornographers in search of quick profits extends beyond just the sale of their product to minors,” the report continues. “This report details the extent to which a large and powerful internet pornography industry is influencing the lives of children today … It also reveals some of the strategies that certain internet pornographers are using to specifically target children, as well as the disturbing prevalence with which sex crimes are committed against children in the scramble to profit from the sale of pornography images on the internet.”

    YNOT asked Barney if Third Way had made any efforts to contact representatives from the adult industry while researching its report, and Barney told YNOT that it had not.

    Barney also admitted that existing age verification software solutions were not perfect options for keeping kids away from porn and could be tricked by a determined child, but added that if they were used the adult industry “could say that they didn’t have a better option.”

    Connor Young is Editor-in-Chief of YNOT.


  2. #2
    Slade
    Guest
    So..on top of the 2257 regs, they want to tax us at 25% of our income too!
    And this bill is being introduced by a DEMOCRAT at that! SHEEEET!


  3. #3
    You do realize by 'gay' I mean a man who has sex with other men?
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    New Orleans, Louisiana.
    Posts
    21,635
    Well the taxation issue wont pass IMHO, thats just not realistic.

    On the other hand, something like an 'FTC Approved' age verification method could be very interesting for the industry, it would certainly weed out a lot of people meaning we would all get a much larger chunk of the proverbial pie

    Regards,

    Lee


  4. #4
    xenigo
    Guest

    Here's what I wrote the guy who proposed this.

    Shawn Barney,
    Today I read some disturbing news that you are spreading false information about the online adult entertainment industry. One of the most disturbing parts of your report is the following. "This report details the extent to which a large and powerful internet pornography industry is influencing the lives of children today … It also reveals some of the strategies that certain internet pornographers are using to specifically target children, as well as the disturbing prevalence with which sex crimes are committed against children in the scramble to profit from the sale of pornography images on the internet."

    It is absolutely despicable that you would attempt to feed this misinformation to people that are unaware of the truth. Please understand that children do not have credit cards, and therefore children are not porn consumers. Children are not who pornographers market to.

    It has been brought to my attention that you have not made any efforts to contact representatives from the adult industry while researching the subject you are reporting, and the agenda you are attempting to have passed as law. If you had, then you would understand the objective of pornographers. You would understand that sales are a top priority, as well as keeping innocent eyes away from obscenity.

    It is clear to me that you are spreading lies and deception to people that are sensitive to the welfare of children. I believe it to be in bad faith that you seek to pass this legislation.

    Sincerely,
    Noah Couchot
    Serial Media


  5. #5
    Hot guys & hard cocks Squirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,193
    More hype from the same people in the industry as before.

    Need we point out this relies on 2257, which is currenlty in litigation.. etc. etc. I agree with Lee regarding the taxes.

    Interesting this involves Connor Young and an age verification process with the FTC... I wonder if he's in bed with them and his "age verification" script he was trying to copyright?


  6. #6
    Hot guys & hard cocks Squirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Squirt
    More hype from the same people in the industry as before.

    Need we point out this relies on 2257, which is currenlty in litigation.. etc. etc. I agree with Lee regarding the taxes.

    Interesting this involves Connor Young and an age verification process with the FTC... I wonder if he's in bed with them and his "age verification" script he was trying to copyright?
    Actually scratch the part about Connor.. wrong guy... I was thinking of Larry Walters


  7. #7
    virgin by request ;) Chilihost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    4,496
    Do these American congressmen think that the USA owns the internet? :wacko:

    cheers,
    Luke


  8. #8
    Hot guys & hard cocks Squirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,193
    Quote Originally Posted by Chilihost
    Do these American congressmen think that the USA owns the internet? :wacko:

    yes


    pathetic

    It could be worse though. Take a look at the Chinese. Also we can't hose adult here in Oz. Governments suck. You can't live with 'em and anarchy without 'em :uhoh:


  9. #9
    www.HotDesertKnights.com hdkbill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Palm Springs, CA
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Slade
    So..on top of the 2257 regs, they want to tax us at 25% of our income too!
    And this bill is being introduced by a DEMOCRAT at that! SHEEEET!
    Slade,

    Yeah...but a Democrat from Arkansas...I'm guessing their is not a lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in Arkansas.

    I'm really starting to get tired of this shit....anyone want to buy a good adult video company???? LOL

    Bill


  10. #10
    Hot guys & hard cocks Squirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,193
    I did find something interesting that happened in congress recently. Full link

    109th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. CON. RES. 52
    Expressing the sense of Congress supporting vigorous enforcement of the Federal obscenity laws.


    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    February 9, 2005
    Mr. SULLIVAN (for himself, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. PITTS, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. AKIN, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TERRY, Mr. WOLF, and Mr. GINGREY) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
    Expressing the sense of Congress supporting vigorous enforcement of the Federal obscenity laws.

    Whereas the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) held that obscene material is `unprotected by the first amendment' (413 U.S. at 23) and that obscenity laws can be enforced against `hardcore pornography' (413 U.S. at 28);

    Whereas the Miller Court stated that `to equate the free and robust exchange of ideas and political debate with commercial exploitation of obscene material demeans the grand conception of the first amendment and its high purposes in the historic struggle for freedom.' (413 U.S. at 34);

    Whereas the Supreme Court in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) recognized that there are legitimate governmental interests at stake in stemming the tide of obscene materials, which include--

    (1) protecting `the quality of life and total community environment' (413 U.S. at 58);

    (2) protecting `public safety' (413 U.S. at 58);

    (3) maintaining `a decent society' (413 U.S. at 59-60);

    (4) protecting `the social interest in order and morality' (413 U.S. at 61); and

    (5) protecting `family life' (413 U.S. at 63);

    Whereas Congress, in an effort to protect these same legitimate governmental interests, enacted legislation in 1988 to strengthen Federal obscenity laws and in 1996 to clarify that use of an interactive computer service to transport obscene materials in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce is prohibited;

    Whereas Congress acknowledges the recent efforts of the Department of Justice in bringing indictments and securing prosecutions against purveyors of obscenity in a number of Federal jurisdictions;

    Whereas the 1986 Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography found that `increasingly, the most prevalent forms of pornography' fit the description of `sexually violent material' (p. 323) and that `an enormous amount of the most sexually explicit material available' can be categorized as `degrading' to people, `most often women' (p. 331);

    Whereas the Internet has become a conduit for hardcore pornography that now reaches directly into tens of millions of American homes, where even small children can be exposed to Internet obscenity and older children can easily find it;

    Whereas a national opinion poll conducted in March 2002 by Wirthlin Worldwide marketing research company found that 81 percent of adult Americans say that `Federal laws against Internet obscenity should be vigorously enforced';

    Whereas a May 2, 2002, report from the National Academies' National Research Council stated that `aggressive enforcement of existing antiobscenity laws can help reduce children's access to certain kinds of sexually explicit material on the Internet';

    Whereas on April 16, 2002, the United States Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition invalidated a Federal law aimed at `virtual child pornography';

    Whereas vigorous enforcement of obscenity laws can help reduce the amount of `virtual child pornography' now readily available to sexual predators; and

    Whereas it continues to be the desire of the People of the United States of America and their representatives in Congress to recognize and protect the governmental interests recognized as legitimate by the United States Supreme Court in Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973): Now, therefore, be it


    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced throughout the United States.


  11. #11
    Slade
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by hdkbill
    Slade,

    Yeah...but a Democrat from Arkansas...I'm guessing their is not a lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in Arkansas.

    I'm really starting to get tired of this shit....anyone want to buy a good adult video company???? LOL

    Bill

    True..but it's the same state that gave us Clinton..the defender of SEX anytime, anywhere, with anyone!!!


  12. #12
    Fetishlady
    Guest
    that just sucks!

    i think there are lots of webmasters who will stop the government in implementing that 25%..it's crazy and too much!


  13. #13
    kcwebwerks
    Guest
    All this truly boils down to is the almighty dollar.

    This Ark senator was probably sitting in his Washington office, smoking a joint while getting a blowjob and thought, "HEY! I know how we can make money off of this 2257 thing!! (Hey honey , move your head so I can reach the phone), ring ring, Hey GW! Yeah, I was just thinking that we can start charging a tax for that smut we like to watch! OH NO, we wouldn't have to pay the tax, it would be paid by the people who make it. Yeah we can tell everyone that its a tax to help stop CP. Whatcha think? (hey bitch! watch those teeth!)" :$$$: :$$$:


  14. #14
    Hot guys & hard cocks Squirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,193
    Have you ever tried doing a search for "porn" on a news site?

    You know what you get? Child porn stories time and time again.

    Instead of spending their time making all the little guys scared, maybe the leaders, aka big money makers, in our industry should do something to change the image of porn, or at least get off their lazy asses and do some lobbying. This is why our industry is so fragmented.. a bunch of do nothing talkers out for power and money, just like politicians.


  15. #15
    Madame0120
    Guest
    By the Powers invested in me, I hereby Proclaim I will, from this day foward call myself a conduit for hardcore Smut.


    When I get smitten, I stay smut.
    Charlie McCarthy


Posting Permissions

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