Open Discussion - Porn Site Rating System

[Lee]

Okay, so after the senate hearing on porn, several of us came away with the conclusion that we need to start some kind of 'porn rating' system that we need to voluntarily start using on our websites.

That being said, the first part of setting up a rating system for adult sites is going to be defining the various types of content and, rating labels needed so, take a few moments to think about rating adult content and come up with a couple of suggestions on how we can start voluntarily rating the content we use on our sites in addition to the regular '18+' that we already use.

I think the real hardcore stuff, should be rated at 21+, facials, pissing, fisting, bdsm etc etc.

But, what other levels of rating should we have and, how do we start definig what type of adult content, gets what type of rating?

Do we need to start looking at different sub-levels of rating for stills and video content in addition to how 'extreme' the niche of our sites are?

Your thoughts on this?

Regards,

Lee

[gaystoryman]

Well frankly I think that the rating system already in place by ICRA and SAFESURF should be sufficient for use on any website. I know I have used them for years and it pretty well covers everything there is.

Each website using ICRA can set the ratings for the entire site or for selected pages which makes sense to me.

In addition, this system works with parental filter software currently in existence and unlike the age verification programs being touted elsewhere, both ICRA and SAFESURF are FREE.

It is easy to add to any webpage or site and really, I see no reason to alter the system they employ.

my pennies worth
Ian

[Lee]

Ian,

The problem is, pretty much everyone speaking at this hearing, including the senators, agreed that the exiting systems didnt work sufficiently enough.

Even the woman from AOL said they had some issues with their in-house solution.

In essence, what i think we're going to see, is a labelling system for adult sites much like movie ratings, several of the senators on the hearing said this was going to become a government mandated rating system if we [the industry] didnt start working on something ourselves.

Regards,

Lee

[gaystoryman]

I understand that Lee, but isn't the fact that most rating systems don't work simply because most parents simply don't activate it? So whether you place a 21+ or 18+ graphic on each page, that in itself won't solve any of the existing issues.

If every website rated themselves appropriately, and every computer had built in filters that were set to ON before shipping, then there really wouldn't be this whole mess now.

And let's be honest too, the rating system is a guideline even in the movies today. What prevents under 18 year olds entering the theatre and watching is someone standing there demanding ID.

In my view, if we simply put up a notice, it does nothing. We need to incorporate any rating with a viable software solution so that a kid actually has trouble accessing the site instead of just clicking the 'enter if you are old enough' type link.

I'd also say that any visual depiction of a rating would have to be on all pages.. given how not everyone enters a site or finds a site from the index page. Using something like ICRA helps provide a legit software solution to all aspects... but again, is only as good as the filter software on the computer, beginning with whether that software is enabled or not.

[Lee]

So whether you place a 21+ or 18+ graphic on each page, that in itself won't solve any of the existing issues.

The thing is, something as simple as that might acually be all that is needed, that helped the movie, music and gaming industry.

If every website rated themselves appropriately, and every computer had built in filters that were set to ON before shipping, then there really wouldn't be this whole mess now.

True enough.

And let's be honest too, the rating system is a guideline even in the movies today. What prevents under 18 year olds entering the theatre and watching is someone standing there demanding ID.

You are right, there is nothing to stop a 13yr old walking in and viewing a 18 rated movie but, at the same time, it shows due dilligence on the part of the producer by putting that rating on the movie.

In my view, if we simply put up a notice, it does nothing. We need to incorporate any rating with a viable software solution so that a kid actually has trouble accessing the site instead of just clicking the 'enter if you are old enough' type link.

To a point i agree with you again but, in practice, this simple method of placing a graphic on our product, has proven to be effective, again, take a look at the movie industry, that is ALL they did.

I'd also say that any visual depiction of a rating would have to be on all pages.. given how not everyone enters a site or finds a site from the index page. Using something like ICRA helps provide a legit software solution to all aspects... but again, is only as good as the filter software on the computer, beginning with whether that software is enabled or not.

See i dont think it would need to be on every page, just the index page, the parental ratings on movies games and such dont appear throughout the movie, game or cd so why would we need to do that on adult sites?

Its something to think about at least, especially if we could work out some kind of rating system.

Regards,

Lee

[desslock]

Remember - in the United States, the government is not in a position to mandate a ratings system. GayStoryMan aptly points out that there is currently a ratings system, so inventing yet another one watses time, and would potentially infringe on our own rights in the process.

The film movie ratings that came about in the late sixties ... the MPAA ratings system ... is a product of the industry self regulation. That was a success because if your movie were rated X, then the movie theaters simply would not play, and no one would see it. In 1979 Caligula was going to be rated X, so Bob Guccione just did not have the movie rated, and then let movie theaters who were brave enough to show it. Today he could have made such a film, and released it online... and people wouldn't have to find a movie theater to see it.

Today the Internet has totally changed the way entertainment is delivered.
The court said that the solution lays in filtering software. That's the solution.

And that's the message that should be propogated.

Steve

[Slade]

Well frankly I think that the rating system already in place by ICRA and SAFESURF should be sufficient for use on any website. I know I have used them for years and it pretty well covers everything there is.

Each website using ICRA can set the ratings for the entire site or for selected pages which makes sense to me.

In addition, this system works with parental filter software currently in existence and unlike the age verification programs being touted elsewhere, both ICRA and SAFESURF are FREE.

It is easy to add to any webpage or site and really, I see no reason to alter the system they employ.

my pennies worth
Ian

Totally agree with you.

[gaystoryman]

You are right, there is nothing to stop a 13yr old walking in and viewing a 18 rated movie but, at the same time, it shows due dilligence on the part of the producer by putting that rating on the movie.

Actually there is more protecting a movie from being seen by a 13 yr old, it is called the ticket taker at the movie theatre. They are the backstop to insure that the rating has effect.

Online there is no such person.

Also I'd say that perhaps we should be looking more towards television than the movie theatre as it is closer in approximating the problem online has in insuring who gains access or not.

Television today does have warnings throughout. After every commercial break a show repeats its adult warnings, whether it is about violence or nudity or whatever. The reason being that many access a television show after the beginning, which really is no different than an online website. People find a site not from just the index page, but from other pages that are listed either on Search Engines or link lists or wherever.

So any warning, to be effective has to be in place on more than just the index page, imho.

Software solutions have to be incorporated as well. I have used ICRA and SAFESURF for years now, because they are more effective than posting a 18 Only graphic on every page.

The real issue is that whatever system or rating that anyone comes up with, is only going to be as effective as the parents desire to use it is. I know that the simple parental controls on zonealarm and my cable provided firewall is very effective in preventing access to my site when the filters are on, thanks in large part to ICRA.

I agree more diligence is needed, but there comes a point when we can only do so much. As webmasters placing up a graphic saying 21+ isn't going to end or effect one bit the number of kids who access online porn. The true answers really lies in using the systems in place and in having parents enable those filters, not shut them off.

but just me.
Ian

[LavenderLounge]

Getting back to the original point of the thread, here are my suggestions for a self-regulating rating system.

Create standardized descriptors that groups the content of a site into a handful of categories:

Kid Friendly - generally accepted as safe for all ages.
Sex Education - clinical infomation, mostly text, with photos and diagrams of scientific nature, written by academics.
Sexual Discussion - same as above, but with open input from the public.
Artistic - images and discussion of universally accepted as artistic non-erotic nudes (i.e. Michaelangelo's David).
Health - medical data relating to health, disease, mental health, etc.
Bawdy - safe for network TV. Seven Dirty Words not allowed, but use of euphenisms and double-entendre.
Frank Discussions - non-sexual discussions of abortion, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, etc. with no profanity.
Meeting/Dating/Hookup Site -
Strong Language - use of Seven Dirty Words and more.
Partial Nudity - bare breasts, bare butts, sexual contact only implied.
Masturbation - solo only.
Non-Penetrative Sexual Contact - penetration implied but not seen.
Penetrative Sexual Contact - blatantly displayed penetration.
Extreme Sexual Variations - every kind of "legal" kink beyond Missionary Position. (This could be broken down into numerous subcategories.)

We could break it down into more or less categories, just like on TV - (TVMA, Strong Language, Violence, ect.).

A parent may allow their kids to look at "Bawdy", but filter out stronger categories.

<b>But here's the key: Create standardized code for each category that applies to our content and incorporate it into our meta tags on every page. </b> With standardized codes, not only will filtering software be more effective to keep people out, it will make it easier for adults LOOKING for porn to find what they want!

[collegeboyslive]

In essence, what i think we're going to see, is a labelling system for adult sites much like movie ratings, several of the senators on the hearing said this was going to become a government mandated rating system if we [the industry] didnt start working on something ourselves.

i wouldnt mind a govenrment mandated rating system .. IF that was all they were going to do. rate my site then I add a few lines of code to my pages for whatever filters are out there then me and uncle sam go our seperate ways.

but would they really leave it at that?

[desslock]

Bawdy - safe for network TV. Seven Dirty Words not allowed, but use of euphenisms and double-entendre.

Bawdy??? That just makes me giggle. "You are entering a BAWDY website" What is this? The Old San Francisco Steakhouse, and is a girl swinging on the swing to ring the bell? (that is a national restaurant chain right?)

I'm not sure that word is universally recognized.... of course, if you let me devise a rating system, people would have to have words like ribald on the tips of the tongues.

And on a serious side, it shows how more and more ratings categories might only confuse parents. I would appraise the Department of Homeland Security's Terror Alert levels to see if people even use it, and how they interpret its degrees of meaning.

Steve

[gaybucks_chip]

I think the real hardcore stuff, should be rated at 21+, facials, pissing, fisting, bdsm etc etc.

I'm not sure about this one, either from a constitutional perspective or a practical one.

If a person is considered an "adult" at 18, and can enter a contract, be sued, by cigarettes, be killed in war, etc., I'm not sure why an 18 year old adult should not be allowed to view protected speech.

It's also a very dangerous road to go down, because then you could conceivably open the door to a requirement that models would have to be at least 21 years old to *participate* in certain types of content production, which again, if a person is legally an adult at 18, they should be able to make the decision to participate in production of such content.

The other issue, which some will object to, is categorizing content based on some standard of what's likely to be offensive. I would argue that if there's going to be a rating system, that "gay content" should be a category, since some people are very, very offended by gay content but aren't offended by the equivalent hetero content. So, for example, you could have a site that's rated "Gay" and "Hardcore." Even here, we run the risk of setting up criteria by which some legislative body somewhere can declare that certain types of speech are permitted while other types are not... if there were some sort of safeguard that, for example, the most offensive category would still be recognized as protected speech, then I would be OK with a system for which the sole purpose is to categorize websites so that parents can choose to filter them out or something like that.

But I do think we have to be careful about opening a door to limiting free speech protections. I didn't really understand how important that is until fairly recently when I started reading about encroachments on free speech not in adult, but in things the Bush administration is doing already... and I am deeply concerned that if we're not careful, we'll find the very categories we use to establish a voluntary content rating system being extended into a means of limiting speech.

[gaystoryman]

Thinking about what Chip has said, made me wonder too what door this would open to obscentity charges... I mean if we adopt something where specific acts are for 21+ and other 18+ what is there to prevent a prosecutor from using it against anyone they bring up on obscenity charges?

Again I'd use the format that television uses. Movies and games really aren't applicable as a model simply because there is someone there to prevent their access to a minor (in the case of movies) and sale to a minor (in the case of games or cds) while television there isn't. It is aired and who watches what is beyond therir control, just as it is for an adult webmaster.

So I'd say using a similiar system where it is either PG, G, Mature or Restricted or XXX should be sufficient of a system.

[Lee]

So I'd say using a similiar system where it is either PG, G, Mature or Restricted or XXX should be sufficient of a system.

Right so, why arent we using such a system presently?

Where do we draw the definitions of what is classified as 'mature', 'restricted', or 'xxx' ?

Regards,

Lee

[gaystoryman]

Well I don't know why others aren't, but I am... I think that is what is the big problem today, the ratings are there... ICRA, SAFESURF etc. and if you were to ask say that AOL speaker, they'd more than likely tell you that they use the same criteria as ICRA for their own filters... which most software does.

The labelling takes at most 10 minutes if you do it manually. Get the label, and then upload it. As long as you remember to add one single tiny line of code into your head tag of any webpage, your entire site is labeled.

ICRA even has digitalmarc for adult images to further protect people so that if someone steals your content for their site, least your images will continue to show the filters that its adult rated.. xxx if that is the designation your stuff falls in.

In short, the system is there, just not many seem to use it for some odd reason, but you don't have to re-invent the wheel. The wheel is there just that people need to use it.