Wednesday, 22 June 2005

War on Porn

quote [ Any producer of any ... matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct ... shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records... ]

USC Title 18 Section 2257 requires porn producers to maintain records of the ages of every perfomer they use. Starting tomorrow any website that has explicit images is now a "secondary producer" and must maintain records.

See extended for what this means for SE.

Short story: No more porn thumbs on posts.

Long story:

Because of the new regulations SE can no longer host any explicit images on SE's server, but we can still LINK to sites that have porn. PORN POSTS WILL CONTINUE, they will just be bereft of explicit thumbnails on SE.

Because sifting through all of the old thumbs to remove the explicit ones is impractical, I am going to remove them all for the time being. They will be replaced with this beauty:



Please continue to use thumbnails on new posts, but DO NOT UPLOAD ANY EXPLICIT IMAGES. If you aren't sure if an image is safe, do not upload it to SE. Throughout the day today I will be replacing certain banners and explicit images on SE.

Q&A:

Q: This doesn't apply to forums/message boards/blogs does it? A: It applies to every web site.

Q: You aren't responsible for what other people post on SE are you? A: Yes, I am 100% responsible.

Q: Is this permanent? A: Hopefully not. If this ridiculous law is stopped then the images will be put back into place.

Q: Can I still embed explicit images in my comments? A: I don't know. Until I do know, DO NOT EMBED ANY EXPLICIT IMAGES IN COMMENTS.

Q: Why don't you wait and see if this blows over? A: In the meantime I would be vulnerable to felony prosecution.

Q: Why don't you wait until the government sends you a warning? A: There wont be any warnings. There will be suprise inspections and arrests.

Q: Why shouldn't I post what I want and say "fuck you marck!" A: You're not that much of an asshole. Also, if you're American you may be comitting a felony as well.

The Regulations

http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

Fighting Back

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

Coverage

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67869,00.html
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227697

I'd like to add, thanks to everyone for being so supportive. As frustrating as this all is, I really appreciate how well you're all taking it.
[by Saint_Marck@11:41amGMT] [+10 WTF]

Comments

ebrawer said @ 11:45am GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
First casualty in the war on pr0n: De_Wr0ng.
Rammek said @ 11:49am GMT on 22nd Jun
He might just lose his mind about this one. He has an almost irrational urge to fly in the face of anything he feels is censorship.

Also, the US gov't is regressing at such a rabid rate, black and white TV will make a comeback, I predict.
Saint_Marck said @ 11:54am GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Interesting]
As long as he uses a safe thumb I welcome De_Wrong to link to everything up to and including the World's Filthiest Ball-Draining Anal Rape Midget Fetish Bondage if he wants.
Saint_Marck said @ 11:54am GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Pregnant midgets. With herpes.
jaxtraw said @ 12:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Thanks for chasing away my artistic muse for the day with just two sentence fragments.
utah said @ 12:25pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
You should congratulate him on finding you a whole new fetishist market - how many other people are doing herpes dwarf bondage rape pr0n, apart from the Japanese?
madpride said @ 12:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
And some of you have thought I was a raging lunatic. The Bush Army of God is out of control. The Peace Movement was right, the Liberals were right, The left was right. We are all under attack. These Southern Retarded Conservative Republicans for God, KKK and Theocracy. Only 10% of the new laws are being enforced. They are stitching up all the pieces for total Theocratic take over of America. Crusades for a Digital and high teck Age. Watch the Movie Brazil and 1984 and see the US in several years.

American Teliban. American Fascists, American Torture Chambers, Conversion Camps, Galugs, Zeig Hiel Fucking Bush Jesus Christ.

Public Execution, Public Torture, Public Beatings, Witch Trails, Jail if you don't go to church or work on Sunday. God Bless American Freedom. Our way or we will shove rods up your ass, kill your kids. Biblical Justice has no limit. God is to lazy to strike people down and punish them, so he anointed his only son Jesus George Bush, to show the world his justice and mighty sword. God never intended real freedom.

The first step is the law, the next step is the jail, the next step is torture confessions and repentance then re-education or casualty of war. (dead)
strangeffect said @ 12:48pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:5 Insightful]
A. I still think you're a lunatic
B. You're not helping
nico33 said @ 1:08pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Americans need to get out more.

It's mind-boggling that he got the keys the first time.
relm said @ 1:33am GMT on 23rd Jun
The first time?!? It's absolutely fucking astounding that they gave him the keys again, after seeing what he'd done to the car the first time!
serenity said @ 2:39pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I am the original madpride fan.
EPT said @ 7:00pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers.
Saint_Marck said @ 7:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun
battery-operated sexual devices
13ullet said @ 7:59pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Trainspotting!
ckfahrenheit said @ 10:22pm GMT on 22nd Jun
"oh you're no fun anymore"
relm said @ 1:28am GMT on 23rd Jun
Choose good health, low colesterol and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest morgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends!
Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a 3-peice suite on higher purchase and a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sittin on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffin fucking junk food into your mouth.
Choose rottin away at the end of it all, pissing your last in a miserable Home, nothing more than an embarassment to the fucked up brats you've spawned to replace yourselves.
Choose your future.
Choose life.

But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life, I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons, when you've got pr0n?
relm said @ 1:30am GMT on 23rd Jun
When you're on pr0n, you've only one worry: downloading. When you're off it, you're suddenly obliged to worry about all sorts of other shit. Got no money, can't get pissed. Got money, drinkin too much. Can't get a bud, no chance of a ride. Got a bud, too much hassel.
You gotta worry about food, about bills, about some football team that never fuckin wins. About human relationships.

And all the things that really don't matter when you've got a sincere, and truthful, mastubation habit.
ebrawer said @ 11:55am GMT on 22nd Jun
Ew...
strangeffect said @ 12:20pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2 Funny]
But what about black people that already own TVs?
Tirade said @ 3:12pm GMT on 22nd Jun
He's not the only one.
Unfortunately there's not much Marck can do about it, so there's no point in getting pissed off at him.
De_Wr0ng said @ 8:30pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Wow, look ma, I'm famous. Or is that infamous?
g0dfr33 said @ 11:07pm GMT on 22nd Jun
you are one cunt flap away from being someones bitch
moriati said @ 11:47am GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Insightful]
fap fap fap fa...
manbot said @ 1:16pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Thats what they should put on SE's gravestone.
Fenny said @ 11:48am GMT on 22nd Jun
Hmm... does this explicit stuff only apply to photos, or cartoons/sketchs/hentai etc?
Rammek said @ 11:50am GMT on 22nd Jun
I think it's probably only photos, dude.
Fenny said @ 12:01pm GMT on 22nd Jun
...so far.
g0dfr33 said @ 11:07pm GMT on 22nd Jun
and yet so near
ebrawer said @ 11:50am GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Yes, the cartoonist must keep concise records of the ages of all his hentai drawings.
jaxtraw said @ 12:13pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Lucy is 27. Honest.
kobayen said @ 11:58am GMT on 22nd Jun
Only photos, I guess. How can you put an age in a cartoon?
Except when it's child porn stuff >.>
strangeffect said @ 12:15pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The cartoon character can be depicted to be underage. By that rationale, there are a lot of people out there with Simpsons-porn who don't know how much trouble they could be in.
cosmo7 said @ 12:28pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The regulation, which is a little late for April Fools, specifically refers to "actual human being[s]", so lame Leather-Bart-screwing-Santa's-Little-Helper images are probably exempt.
Kimota said @ 5:37pm GMT on 22nd Jun
pixpl... oh, wait, no, you can't-
jaxtraw said @ 12:11pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
It only applies to real people. But 3D renders can be eerily realistic these days, especially closeups of naughty bits. Anything even vaguely misconstruable as real should be avoided IMV.
Fenny said @ 12:19pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I'm just wondering if an image that was run through photoshop->sketch/pastels/artistic pen, etc, would be part of this?
Trench said @ 12:29pm GMT on 22nd Jun
photoshop>filter>blur>gausian blur @ Radius: 77.5 pixels should do it.

For reals.
thikarai said @ 1:27pm GMT on 22nd Jun
depends how much they go after the "digitally- or computer-manipulated images" part ... or if they see the exact same shot elsewhere as real people.

it'd be amazing if someone did it with an entire movie ... i'd like to see that :) real person movie made sketchy
matt said @ 1:34pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Technique: Rotoscoping
Movie: Waking Life
Movie: A Scanner Darkly

I strongly recommend Waking Life. A Scanner Darkly isn't out yet, but possibly will be quite good.
Trench said @ 1:42pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Waking Life is awesome. I own it; I'm awesome, thx.
matt said @ 1:45pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I think it was you who put me onto it :)
Trench said @ 1:56pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Oh yeeeah.

Wow, an opportunity to take credit for something and I missed it.

The sky truly *is* falling.
noiseloop said @ 11:07pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Oh aye, Waking Life is wonderful. And I feel (heh) that's quite an understatement.
eIfish said @ 3:24pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I believe even if the image was drawn from life using a pencil, the law would apply. No matter how you change the image, it doesn't make it not an 'image of an actual person'. At some point, though, it will be impossible to make out the 'actual sexually explicit conduct'.
ckfahrenheit said @ 10:24pm GMT on 22nd Jun
HR Giger wrote that he was once stopped by customs officers who thought his airbrush paintings were photographs.
moriati said @ 11:51am GMT on 22nd Jun
And there you go selected at random.
Fenny said @ 12:00pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Connection refused...
moriati said @ 12:03pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Twas up but a minute ago, it was a section 2257 compliance statement with contact details for all the people maintaining the records of model age for material on their site.

A quick check of some other sites, purely for research purposes, show a range of nothing, to 'All our models are 18' to compliance statements.

Pr0n will find a way I guess.
Fenny said @ 12:06pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Ahh, yea, I've seen some of that already.
windex said @ 11:51am GMT on 22nd Jun
Meh.

I wish GWB would spend more time fighting off the 'real' child porn without being a pain in the ass to everyone else.

The funny part is, it's really easy to hunt down a lot of those idiots, without going to great lenghts to piss off the porn industry.

Do a search on Kazza, Gnutella, whatever, for a keyword someone pointed out to me before, but which given SE's nature I am not going to share (:D), and you'll be instantly disgusted by the listing of movies with great titles such as:

"12 y/o fucks dad"
"14 y/o and 15 y/o fuck"
"8 y/o strips for grandpa"

etc. Not that I downloaded them to find out, but I really don't beleive people have a reason to be lying about it.

Why the hell dosen't the federal government go after _those_ fuckers, instead of passing laws requiring insane paperwork? They're the bottom of the barrel on P2P networks, but if you start attacking the bottom, the top will eventually collapse.
matt said @ 11:59am GMT on 22nd Jun
They probably do go after those people. This law isn't about child pornographers though. This law is about shutting down the internet porn industry. It's really hard to find any community protection intent in this law.
windex said @ 12:05pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The "official" intent is to force pornographers to provide age details about the people they are taking pictures of. This was pushed around in the House and Senate as being a wonderful method of finding easy routes of going after people pushing child porn. Most representitives and senators were coherced into voting for it on those grounds, as having their constituents hear "your senator dosen't support protecting children" does not exactally ring well.

Perfect world example of how this law is used:
Law enforcement encounters porn website.
LEO finds images that look questionable.
LEO subpoenas site.
No documentation? It's child porn! Go to jail.
Site owner goes to jail.

Real World Example:
Law enforcement encounters porn website.
Zelot christian LEO finds porn offensive.
LEO subpoenas site.
No documentation on a 10 year old gallery not related to the investigation? It's child porn! Go to jail.
Site owner goes to jail.
strangeffect said @ 12:12pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2 Funny]
I believe you mean that as in "gallery that has been around for 10 years" right?
windex said @ 12:14pm GMT on 22nd Jun
BUAHAHA. yes. :) My bad.
matt said @ 12:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
There hasn't actually been a problem with underage models/actors in mainstream porn for a long time. Even Traci Lords got in on a fake ID -- the porn industry wasn't trying to slide her through on the quiet. So they're attacking a problem in an area where it doesn't exist. They know this and they don't care, because this law isn't intended to reduce child pornography at all.
windex said @ 12:22pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You are not looking at the US legal system in the correct light.

It does not matter what the bill was intended to do. It matters what is discussed on the floor of the House and Senate as reasons. The reasons given were to protect children from being exploited. The media reports those reasons. If a senator disagrees, he or she is entirely prohibited from objecting if he or she wishes to win the next term election. End of story.
matt said @ 12:40pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Sure. I understand all that, but I don't see how it's important? The bad people here are the ones who wrote this law and had the initial war on porn intent.
windex said @ 12:48pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's impossible for laws like these NOT to pass, due to the combination of events leading to them. If a senator can make a case for outlawing toothpaste because of child endangerment, you can bet your ass toothpaste will be illegal.

The point I am trying to make is that while yes, some bad people here made some laws and got them passed, not _everyone_ in the group who 'supported' it is a bad person. The generalizations our Representitives and Senators are put through routinely as a group suck.

I just felt like I needed something to rant about anyway. :)
jaxtraw said @ 12:56pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I see your point, but one can reasonably argue that a democratic representative who supports a law which they know to be wrong is a "bad" person. Allowing the instigators to succeed in doing something bad is itself bad.

But the public are to blame too. It's reasonable to conclude that the majority of men, at least, want Pr0n to be legal. They need to say so publicly and proudly. And they need to make it clear that they won't vote for sock-puppets who take their porn away.

They won't, of course. But they should.

Anyway, it's going to get a lot worse. Once the Dominionists have control of the Supreme Court (due shortly), constitutional protection against bad laws will be removed, and instead of pettiflogging legislation like this, they'll just ban things directly.
matt said @ 12:58pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I think maybe "impossible" is too strong a word there. If enough fuss is made over how a supposedly well meaning law actually appears to not be well meaning at all and is likely to do damage then it can be safely stopped. I think the problem with this one is it slipped through on the quiet. But yeah, I get what you're saying.
Quixote said @ 6:28pm GMT on 22nd Jun
It's like asking someone if they've stopped beating their wife yet...or a priest if any the children they've molested have come forward yet.
sensibleb said @ 11:58am GMT on 22nd Jun
Solution: Move the SE server back to NZ. In fact, I think everyone should flee the sinking ship that is the USS Intarweb.
matt said @ 12:05pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Hosting is prohibitively expensive in NZ. I would be understating it to say that it would cost 10 times as much to host here.

A more practical step would be moving SE to a server in Canada or in Europe. But that doesn't solve much at all as it's Marck who's most in danger and I don't think he's quite ready to move.
sensibleb said @ 12:13pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Well, I was being a little facetious about moving back to NZ specifically, but if this bullshit law does stick I can envision a lot of sites moving their servers to Canada, Europe and other offshore locations.

But is it just a matter of where the server is physically located? Or does the registered domain holder also have to have a non-US location?
matt said @ 12:19pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I'm not sure whether the domain holder would be a prime target, but the server/site operator would be top of the list. And yes, they'd have to be offshore as well. Marck would have to ship his own arse off to Canada to be safe, even if the server were already in Canada.
strangeffect said @ 12:33pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

He can broadcast from the S.S.S.E.!

gotta credit homerize.com for having that one lying around
assbastard said @ 4:10pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
"They're broadcasting Major League Baseball with implied oral consent, not express written consent!"
explodey said @ 2:12am GMT on 23rd Jun
matt, do you actually live in NZ? I am interested in learning more about what it's like to live and work there. (I visited Tauranga, Christchurch, Otorohanga and Auckland this last Christmas)
sensibleb said @ 12:00pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:4]
I don't think this is what Al Gore had in mind when he invented the Internet. It is, however, probably what his wife had in mind.
headlessfriar said @ 12:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun
That's EXACTLY what Tipper wants. I'd forgotten about that bitch.
BigJuiceMan said @ 1:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
"PMRC suck my dick please. you can kiss my ass while you're on your knees"
-Ice T (Home Invasion)
maryyugo said @ 2:44pm GMT on 22nd Jun
that really helps. thanks so much for it.
Tentacle said @ 6:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun
it's better than bending over and getting your ass fucked by them.
Betty said @ 1:04am GMT on 23rd Jun
Manga is still ok? right?
Betty said @ 2:01am GMT on 23rd Jun
How about hosting out of Canada? The true north strong and free....
gos_jim said @ 12:02pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Informative]
I thought the section only applies to actual sexual activity, no simply explicit nudity? So that would probably mean most of De Wrong's thumbs would still be legal without keeping the IDs. However, censored sexual activity is illegal by the bill, believe it said something like "even if it is not visible", the records have to be maintained. So long as no ones' touching anyone else's or their own naughty bits, I think it's ok. But it's probably a good idea to take all of them down just to be safe for now until we hear more.
gos_jim said @ 12:04pm GMT on 22nd Jun
bleh, just woke up, pardon the typing errors.
jaxtraw said @ 12:27pm GMT on 22nd Jun
...the applicable definition is found in the United States Code: "sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person" (18 U.S.C. 2256).
gos_jim said @ 12:53pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Ahh, I missed the "lascivious exhibition".

....so.... does that mean sites that display genitals for non-pornographic purposes need to have all the ids of the "performers"? o.O
jaxtraw said @ 1:11pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Depends on what a judge thinks is "lascivious".
arzta said @ 1:15pm GMT on 22nd Jun
According to Met-Art it would appear, no. The met art server resolves to this ip address, (8.10.160.60), which to the best of my knowledge, would be Phoenix, Arizona. American enough to fit the bill. From their USC 2257 page:

The actors, models, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time of the creation of such. MET-Art hereby certifies that this website, and all graphic images associated therewith, is EXEMPT from both the recordkeeping and labeling requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257, because no images of "actual sexually explicit conduct" are contained within.
jaxtraw said @ 2:11pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Met-art stuff is very mild. They don't do any split beaver, pink or even touching pics. Also, they are very rich and can afford good lawyers.
devilsad said @ 2:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The latter being far more important than the former. "Choose from our varied range of punishments and incarceration, here at the summer sale of Justice, Inc.!"
thikarai said @ 1:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun
that "lascivious" can ... be taken to pretty big extremes. say, foot fetishist that gets off on pictures of naked feet. are they going to nail down my vacation photo album because it has a picture of another vacationer's NAKED feet in them? how about pictures of women caught in rainstorms and their blouse stick to them? a purely naturally occuring (lascivious) phenomenon?

can a bus that has a Calvin Klein ad be pulled over because it's considered lascivious, and the bus driver, as a secondary producer, does not have the proper identification! off to the courts for ya!

thikarai said @ 1:25pm GMT on 22nd Jun
my other favourite line is this one:

"Sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release refer to
commercial distribution of (materials) .... but does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations."

so ... we're going to libraries and museums for porn now? educational organizations still do charge fees for materials and courses, don't they? ... i guess it depends how much hinges on "bona fide" ...
strangeffect said @ 12:02pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

FUCK YOU MARCK!


it's what i wanted to post and you can't stop me.
rattus said @ 12:05pm GMT on 22nd Jun
hawt group puppy action.
Rammek said @ 12:06pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:4 Funny]
Those bitches are underage!!! You'll pay for this!!
f00m@nB@r said @ 12:15pm GMT on 22nd Jun
illegal pr0n! those bitches are younger than 18! even in dog years.
strangeffect said @ 12:19pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Well it's ok to have two 15 year olds in a picture b/c the combined age, I figured the whole litter must add up to...

hey where are you guys going?
eIfish said @ 5:09pm GMT on 22nd Jun
"We replaced each 15 year old with 3 five year olds, and not one of them had even heard of drugs...let alone smoked one off " Brass Eye
Morris Dancer said @ 12:13pm GMT on 22nd Jun
What's this going to do to the revenue from the banner advertisers?
Saint_Marck said @ 12:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Good question.
jaxtraw said @ 12:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Nudity seems to be okay. You need "lascivious display of genitals" before you're in trouble.
phunkeybuddha said @ 1:00pm GMT on 22nd Jun
What about the links that are SE-related? Case in point, hard's sexylosers banner link (which hasn't been updated to reflect the current comic *cough* *cough*)
Saint_Marck said @ 1:36pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The law doesn't apply to cartoons.
phunkeybuddha said @ 1:51pm GMT on 22nd Jun
*whew* At least I can still fap to that.
ckfahrenheit said @ 10:29pm GMT on 22nd Jun
tits aren't genitals, last I heard...
John Ashcroft said @ 11:38pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Yes they are! Yes they ARE! Dirty, DIRTY TITTIES. EEEEEEEEEEEEYEW!!!!
Tirade said @ 3:16pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Do you host the banners, or just link to them?
jaxtraw said @ 12:14pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Marck, I think this is a wise move. +1
strangeffect said @ 12:16pm GMT on 22nd Jun
When it comes to dealing with the government and "child pornography legistlation", you can't play it safe enough. If you're out to make a point, that's one thing. If you're just trying to keep your web site out of trouble, play by the shitty, shitty rules for now.
tiroleiro said @ 12:21pm GMT on 22nd Jun
yep. It is better to have a non thumb SE that no SE at all.

btw. I fapped to the puppies. It was kinda weird at the beggining,
but once you get to imagine the soft fur and all that cuteness,
it can be a real turn on. Try it!!
utah said @ 12:22pm GMT on 22nd Jun
As an Aussie, I say a cheery "Fuck You" to this law.

Behold! Underage man-woman nudie pr0n, sans ID:
Morris Dancer said @ 1:30pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I am so tempted to give that a -1 illegal porn.....
eIfish said @ 3:09pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The term they use is 'a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct.'. So toon pr0n is not covered (though it might be if you draw an actual person, for example George W. Bush, having, for example a large raddish shoved up his bottom).
KropperPrime said @ 12:29pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Troll]

Yes an other example of how america is so great, they need to control what their people see in lil thumbs on the internet...

You guys are no better than North Korean, just a lot more hypocrit about it.

Shame.
sensibleb said @ 12:34pm GMT on 22nd Jun
When you say "you guys", who exactly are you talking about? Because I doubt that any person reading this thread is supporting this.
KropperPrime said @ 12:36pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Flamebait]
You guys = you guys...

American peole, USA, patriots, royal eagle, big cars, pop stars, bombing innocents, that kind of people...
sensibleb said @ 12:40pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2]
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were mentally challenged.
KropperPrime said @ 12:43pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Troll]
You can always send witty comments, but I'm still right.

You, on the other hand, as an american, you can only be right if you have enough firepower to back your opinions, otherwise, it is just imperialism.

You people is so idiotic that it needs to be controlled like that, what it sees, what is says, what it buys, what it thinks.

I have my own brain and because I dont live in your farking country, I can still think and say what I want. Here, Freedom is real, not an illusion.
KropperPrime said @ 12:44pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Sorry for the very few of you who are decent people.

I know you are out there.... somewhere.
strangeffect said @ 12:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I modded troll because there's no '-1 Just plain dumb'
KropperPrime said @ 12:47pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Troll]
Yes I know, truth is often frustrating.

Troll me down.

You live in Texas ? :)
strangeffect said @ 12:53pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I live in Massachusetts you condescending ass.

And sensibleb is Canadian. Care to make any more assumptions?
wyckedfae said @ 1:05pm GMT on 22nd Jun
...all my replies to that fuckhead up above are ending up with the same mod as his/her post. What gives there?
phunkeybuddha said @ 1:12pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Any replies to a severely modded-down post automatically get downmodded. It's to reduce one's ability of trolling. If you don't have karma to burn, it could eventually lead to banned from posting IIRC.
wyckedfae said @ 1:14pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Gotcha. I guess I'll stop responding to him then. *dances*
shahmat said @ 3:12pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Interesting]
Don't worry, I just threw in a +1 Informative for everybody who got automodded down. Enjoy!
eIfish said @ 7:49pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2]
Note that it doesn't cost you karma, it's only the comment's score that is reduced.

Often, though, inflammitory remarks will get modded-down, which does cost karma. Good reason not to join in a flamewar.
matt said @ 1:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun
That's how the system works. It's designed to actually *stop* you replying to him, on the basis that it's a bad idea to continue on negative conversations. Better to just let them drop than to build them into flamewars.
maryyugo said @ 5:29pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-2]
a truly and wholly MORONIC idea
sensibleb said @ 5:48pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Funny]
I'm not going to reply to that comment because it'll... aw crap.
wyckedfae said @ 1:03pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
La la la... go fuck yourself. :-D
wyckedfae said @ 1:04pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I got moderated to a -4 in two seconds. Wow.
strangeffect said @ 1:06pm GMT on 22nd Jun
no it's b/c of the score of the comment you replied to
dualscimitars said @ 5:47pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Dude, stop the broken record.

You don't need to keep saying "filtered comment under your threshold"

Sheesh.
graham said @ 2:26pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You people is so idiotic that it needs to be controlled like that...

*snickers*
leezurd said @ 6:21pm GMT on 22nd Jun
*takes grahams snickers and runs*
eIfish said @ 8:28pm GMT on 22nd Jun
runs a Marathon?
noiseloop said @ 11:20pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Run The Place Red
Saint_Marck said @ 12:42pm GMT on 22nd Jun
It's mostly the christian dominionists and the gullible people following them.
phunkeybuddha said @ 12:55pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
It's useless to argue with people who assume. All he's doing is making an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'
Trench said @ 1:16pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
Mark, there aren't a lot of people "following them" so much as "ignoring them".

The problem isn't that everybody in the US *agrees* with this, it's just that they are so caught up in their own perfect bubble-enclosed lifestyles that they don't want to admit that there *are bad things happening here* (as well as elsewhere due to our overwhelming global dominance).

Who cares about some internet porn? Who cares about PBS? Who cares? 90% of this country is just too caught up in loving their cars, DVD players, satelite dishes (attached to trailers), and whatever else they dub 'good' in their personal world to really give a rats ass.

And, as far as where this whole "USC Title 18 Section 2257" sits in the scope of reality, really, a little perspective here, this is nothing compared to what is going on in Guantanamo and Iraq. Why is this affecting you so much? Well, because... it finally invaded your personal bubble.

Now wait, before you get pissed at that, let me say that *we are all fucking guilty of that*, inclussive of myself. In the US it has become status quo to just ignore everything until it impacts our personal bubble.

First step? Recognition. We have to recognize that we are doing it. We are ignoring everything until it fucking whacks us in-between the eyes. And, though hard to believe, recognition is the easier part.

Second step? Gets a bit muddy. We can all leave this hellhole, but that is exactly what they want us to do. Right now, the powers that be are swimming through a pool of "Get them the fuck out or throw them in jail" attitudes. We can either try to fight it, and maybe save this country, or we can run.

IMHO, I say run. It's too late, the walls are crumbling, get the fuck out. But that's just my perspective. *shrugs* We're fuggin' neighbors, dude. We're center stage in this big pile of steaming bullshit, and I *do* think it's collapsing. Wasn't joking when I said Rome is falling earlier, I really fucking believe it.

Anyway, that's my rant. Hope it was enjoyed on some level. This isn't for the 'SE audience', this is straight from me to you, man.

It's time we all wake the fuck up.
CStJH said @ 1:20pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I'd have to agree, usually the U.S. public doesn't get in arms until an issue hits close to home. In this case, for us SE peeps, it's a disruption from our normal routines or habits.

For the porn biz:

Lots of Shit.
jaxtraw said @ 1:31pm GMT on 22nd Jun
My hope is that during this term the Doms will be over-emboldened and introduce some measure that really affects every american and reveals what they really are. Military conscription, something like that.
Trench said @ 1:41pm GMT on 22nd Jun
It's a nice hope, but it's not going to happen... these people are smart, well educated, and wear their masks well. The last thing they'd ever want to do is something huge that disrupts the lives of every US citizen.

"He's a clown that sells ice cream... he can't possibly be hurting children."

Well, at least not until they have all the "baddies" out of the country or in jail. At that point the patriotic fanboys of do-good "America" will cheer on every last dig at their "freedoms".
jaxtraw said @ 2:07pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1]
Well, it was a hope not a prediction :)

Where I see a chink of light in the darnkess is that it seems to me that while Bush opponents see their enemies as "Neocons", that's too simple an analysis. There's actually IMV two distinct groups in control of the Republican party right now. One is the Straussian neocons. The other is dominionist/reconstructionist christians. They have similar short term aims and philosophies, but in the long term their goals are different.

The neocons are interested in American power. They want to create a world dominated absolutely by america, using shows of power, intimidation, and various Machieavellian tactics. They see religion as a tool to control the population, but they aren't a religious group. The Dominionists, OTOH, are a religious fundmentalist group who want to turn the US into a theocratic state- and then the rest of the world. In effect they have an identical goal to Muslim extremist fundamentalists.

The neocon and dominionist goals are IMV not compatible in the long term. The neocons don't want to live in a US run by the church- they want a church that will do their bidding to help them control the masses. The neocons are politicians and intellectuals- government insiders. THey've used the relgionists to gain votes and power, but in the process have had to assist the religionists to get *into* power. The religionists, meanwhile, have used the neocons to gain power, bribing them with the votes of their cult followers. That means that up until now, the religionists have been effectively junior partners.

That's going to change soon. The religionists won't need the neocons any more, because they'll have the power in their own hands. The turning point there will IMV be the wresting of control of the judiciary.

All this spells out to me, that a power struggle, an intense, very bitter one, is due at the top of the Republican party as the two factions vie for control. History in general would suggest that when there's a power struggle at the top, both sides can be damaged. That may be when the whole project falls apart. At the very least, it's the point when the Dominionists will show their hand, rather than being circumspect about their theocratic ideals as they have been up until now.

We live in interesting times.
lockheed1 said @ 6:27pm GMT on 22nd Jun
"... this is nothing compared to what is going on in Guantanamo and Iraq..." Yawn.
phunkeybuddha said @ 12:37pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I hope you're joking. Dubya may be the president and the representative of my country but he doesn't fucking speak for me. It's not my fault I only had one vote and I voted and I still lost. But ya, canada's startin' to look mighty fine from where I'm sitting.

and it's hypocrite

[/ spelling nazi]
madpride said @ 1:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Bush for Life: GOP introduces new bill to Congress
author: Colorado Palestine Solidarity Campaign
Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...
Republicans have officially started the the campaign to amend the Constitution by repealing the 22nd Amendment - the one that confines the President to two terms. If the Republicans hold their current strength, or increase it, in the 2006 Congressional elections, expect this measure to pass allowing Bush to remain President...

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.J.RES.24.IH: (Notice this is on the Library of Congress server, where the current Congressional record is maintained)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/319395.shtml
CStJH said @ 1:23pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You know, the less you post, the more likely people will read what you say. After the short post is when you hit them with the longer stuff.
mirror said @ 2:38pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Eerily enough, that bill was proposed by mostly Democrats.
g0dfr33 said @ 3:16pm GMT on 22nd Jun
one positive fall out is Bill Clinton getting another shot at shrub
lockheed1 said @ 6:29pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Gawd, what BS.
lockheed1 said @ 6:28pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Please... get in your car and go.
excellMint said @ 12:38pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Where can I move? UK won't like me, Canada is cool... hum...
dead_by_dawn said @ 12:39pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Is this a Joke?can any one post a link to a .gov site with LAw not a bill?
I am confused seems like a prank .
max_damage78 said @ 12:40pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Underrated]
I am SO going to wear my copy of THIS today.
Resplendent_Elk said @ 12:43pm GMT on 22nd Jun
If naughty thumbs is a price we have to pay to see the USA in smoking ruins, so be it! Bwahahaha! Then, when the time is right, I will start a Swedish SE - Sänsiblå Äräctiön - and rule you all with dirty thumbs!
Saint_Marck said @ 12:45pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
I just gotta get my ass to a sane country.
madpride said @ 1:27pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I love you Mark and Matt.

On the real front lines for Freedom, Democracy and Reason. The thumb that say's Jesusland and the whole rest of the world would fit nicely.

I hope you don't need legal support, but if you could be hosted in the Netherlands Perhaps someone would host cheap or free in effort to support Freedom. Where are the Uber Cool Activist Lawyer ultra-rich, who will host this site, as in the past, so there can remain some Freedom of Expresion?

So much for bringing Freedom to the world, more like meet our Lawyers and police. How the fuck did we become "The World Police" and World Moral Authority?
maryyugo said @ 5:41pm GMT on 22nd Jun
sure. try Iran or maybe someplace in Africa?
Saint_Marck said @ 12:44pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I've got all the thumbs out, so if you post now your thumb will not be removed (unless it is explicit)
Chicken Nuts said @ 12:44pm GMT on 22nd Jun
...

I weep.
Bill Thomas said @ 1:04pm GMT on 22nd Jun
If your nuts are weeping, you might want to see a doctor.
g0dfr33 said @ 3:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun
or a tissue paper
Trench said @ 12:45pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Mark, we haven't always seen eye-to-eye on shit, and I know I modded +1 funny earlier (out of irony, not "haha Mark's gonna be gobblin' some Bubba-cock"), but very nicely handled thusfar. Not sure at all what I'd do or how I'd behave roles reversed... although I'm pretty sure it would fall within the "I'm getting the fuck out of this hellhole country now thx" area.

Before you shut down *all* illegal activities could you pls give Trench some mescaline? Pls pls.

Danke.
Trigorin said @ 12:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Um, why has every thumb on SE gone away?
Trigorin said @ 12:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
ah, nevermind.
scarmichael said @ 12:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Hey man, porn killed my grandmother.
dead_by_dawn said @ 12:47pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Is this a Joke?can any one post a link to a .gov site with LAw not a bill?
I am confused seems like a prank ?

Why all the fakism or is this just a bullshit way to protest
matt said @ 1:04pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
It's very for real. The US porn industry is in rush mode to get all their sites in line. Some sites are closing down, more will closures will be following. Injunctions are being sought, but in the meantime the industry is in panic, large sums of money will be lost, people will go out of business, models/actors will be quitting, etc. Marck's reaction is not excessive. He is doing what he legally has to do to comply. To be completely safe he may have still more to do.

PS I believe that you personally are partly to blame for this. From memory, I believe you're a Bush supporter/voter.
jaxtraw said @ 1:10pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
One possible small silver lining in the cloud of this is that it may finally open the eyes of a few Bush voters of the non-religious-nut variety to what they've actually been voting for.
dead_by_dawn said @ 1:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Flamebait]
Good ,more people will go to strip clubs and not sit at home fapping,I DJ at a club so I will make more $$$$$.
revchoppy said @ 2:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Until the people you idolize so much shut those down too, asshole.
g0dfr33 said @ 3:20pm GMT on 22nd Jun
but by then he would be... dead by dawn, so it dont matter...
possibly the guy fron sexy loser could fwap on him at dawn
evilbastard said @ 12:54pm GMT on 22nd Jun
some additional info: fight2257.com/new-2257-regs
maryyugo said @ 12:54pm GMT on 22nd Jun
If this is real and if it gets past the courts it's the greatest law ever passed in favor of producers of original porn. they have the necessary information already on file and now, nobody can compete with them. buit it's a mighty big IF.
Fenny said @ 12:59pm GMT on 22nd Jun
nobody can compete with them: in the US
jaxtraw said @ 1:01pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Of course it's real. You think this is an Onion article?!!11!??!

This will hurt virtually everybody, barring Playboy. It means that people who make their own, original porn, can't easily market it, because they can't pass on promotional images. The overwhelming majority of the online adult industry is reliant on secondary producers, affiliates, franchisees, whatever you want to call them, as is, say, the adult DVD industry. Websites can't even safely show *DVD box covers* without 2257 records!

I can't believe you're defending this shit. This is a crusade by deranged religious cultists for fucks sake, and you a rational humanist. Or do you still contend that a religious cult that dominates your government are harmless compared to scientologists?
maryyugo said @ 1:13pm GMT on 22nd Jun
i'm not defending it -- i am trying to understand what's going on.
jaxtraw said @ 1:29pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Well you should start from the factual basis that this law is real, and it's coming into force tomorrow, not some prank, and that it will immediately criminalise large numbers of people who have done nothing wrong. Bear in mind also that it's being challenged in the courts- and that it's generally assumed that during this Bush term the judiciary will be stacked with Dominionist sympathisers.
ogdredp0ski said @ 2:53pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I think it's hilarious that everyon is throwing such a god-damned hissy fit about their precious little dirty thumbails. Honestly, I think that the good this law will cause outweighs whatever inconvienience it causes to you and other users of net porn.

And who the fuck cares if the porn industry gets knocked around because of this? It's a sick, dirty buisness that degrades women and perpetuates negative and unhealthy sexual attitudes. I hope that the porn industry does lose money because of this.
matt said @ 3:04pm GMT on 22nd Jun
This law achieves absolutely zero good. How it was before did the good. How it is now actually makes it more damaging to the models.

And no, the porn industry is not a sick, dirty business that degrades women.

Fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck

Am I going to have to spend my life as a body positive, sex positive crusader and educator? I'm so sick of seeing these fucked up perceptions being spread around.

Whoever you learnt those ideas about degradation and unhealthy sex attitudes and all that crap from, they were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. And what they taught you is stuff that does more harm to the people who are supposedly being degraded.
Fenny said @ 3:55pm GMT on 22nd Jun
sex positive crusader -> I can make you a cape and some tights if you think it will help...
matt said @ 4:08pm GMT on 22nd Jun
That sounds awfully dashing. Tight tights please!
HoZay said @ 4:22pm GMT on 22nd Jun
pics plz

oh, wait...
Fenny said @ 4:57pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I thought we'd start with some nice red tights!
Sex Positive Crusader
Resplendent_Elk said @ 7:21pm GMT on 22nd Jun
More bulge, dammit! More bulge!
maryyugo said @ 5:40pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Interesting]
unfortunately the porn industry is indeed a bunch of sick and crooked, tasteless shitheads. after all, how much skill does it take to film people fucking and sucking and they *still* do it badly. It is because most religious societies are hypocritical and negative (some fundies of all stripes fanatically so) about normal sexuality that porn is so bad. After all, what reputable person with talent wants to perform or participate in pornography? So the people who do are either clueless, addicted to substance abuse, victims of abuse, without alternative talent or skill and generally crumbums. Why else is commercial porn so boring and lacking in originality and any shred of credibility or reality?

I mean do you really appreciate good sex so little that you think it consists of people starting by the woman performing oral sex without ever kissing or even gazing at her partner and that the sex act always ends with the man ejaculating on the woman's face or boobs? Do you really believe the anus is the preferred route for heterosexual intercourse and that fists and forearms are generally considered acceptable as substitutes for penises? If you do believe those things, I don't have much to say to you.

If the society did not ostracize pornographers to the extent it does, we would have good pornography. I don't care what happens to professional porn, whether they lose money, go belly up or WTF. Unfortunately, this law HELPS pro porn makers by removing some of their competition.

But these new laws make it difficult to distribute high quality sexually oriented material, promote censorship of all sorts, and make it less likely that we will see good amateur porn so I am against them.
jaxtraw said @ 6:06pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
There's good and bad in all media. Most porn is shit, but then most TV is shit, most movies are shit, most music is shit, and so on. But yes, its ghettoisation makes that worse. IMV, if you look at the trend, it hit a high point with the classy pr0n of the 70s, sank into rubbish thereafter, but has been getting better again as it's become gradually more accepted, partly due to teh internet. The thriving market with a wide range of choice means people can shop around for the better stuff.

Part of the terror among the pr0n haters is that pr0n is becoming more mainstream. Sites like this one demonstrate that there's a whole generation out there who, glory be, think that pr0n is no big deal... and that's terrifying to the pr0n haters. Part of the purpose of this law is to shove pr0n back into its ghetto, away from the eyes of decent folk.

And I don't see why an industry should be victimised. I *do* care whether professional pr0n loses money or goes belly up, just as I'd care if governments victimised any other industry- but then I believe that a good society is a fair society.

I mean do you really appreciate good sex so little that you think it consists of people starting by the woman performing oral sex without ever kissing or even gazing at her partner and that the sex act always ends with the man ejaculating on the woman's face or boobs? Do you really believe the anus is the preferred route for heterosexual intercourse and that fists and forearms are generally considered acceptable as substitutes for penises? If you do believe those things, I don't have much to say to you

There are all types of sex and all types of porn. Some shows foreplay, some doesnt. Some shows acts like fisting, a lot doesn't. Some people like to watch anal, some people don't. That'd be because some people like anal sex, and fisting, and some don't. Sometimes sex is about a lot of foreplay, but sometimes it's frantic and fast and foreplay-free. I've had partners who liked to be ejaculated on, and others who didn't, and anyway, the pop shot is part of the pr0n vernacular (it originally began to prove that the sex was real) and is there to create a literal climax to the scene... because a guy coming inside a woman isn't very visually exciting and pr0n is all about visual excitement. Complaining that pr0n doesn't miror real life is as worthwhile as saying that opera is stupid because real people don't sing arias as they die.

There's positive pr0n about, anyway. Here's some. The girls look normal, masses of foreplay and w00t dingaling not your usual glossy-tossy crap at all.
maryyugo said @ 9:02pm GMT on 22nd Jun
yah. the girls look normal alright. it's a LESBIAN site. they should call it nodixatall.com
jaxtraw said @ 9:57pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You got a problem with lesbians?
g0dfr33 said @ 11:13pm GMT on 22nd Jun
unity in diversity - its in the constitution
matt said @ 1:51am GMT on 23rd Jun
You have a warped view of the porn industry.

"So the people who do are either clueless, addicted to substance abuse, victims of abuse, without alternative talent or skill and generally crumbums."

That, right there, is an ugly negative slur against porn stars. I strongly disagree and disapprove :P
devilsad said @ 3:14pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I guess you wouldn't mind if they made freedom something you had to buy in the mall, limited use only, property of the US Government, rescindable at any time. Cause, you know, just handing out freedom lets all kinds of bad shit happen.
ogdredp0ski said @ 3:58pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Pray tell, sir, what freedom exactly does this law hinder? The right to publish pornographic material without proof that it's legal? Oh ye gods! The skies are falling!
quaint said @ 5:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Underrated]
What the fuck?

Are you the biggest fucking twatbitch cuntshaft wankplast in Christendom?

You should NEVER have to prove that something is legal. It should ALWAYS be the responsibility of the State to prove that something is illegal.

That's possibly the most precious thing we have in Western legal systems. Sorry about the silly over-emphasis, but this is important.

prototypical said @ 10:16pm GMT on 22nd Jun
+100 Habeus Corpus and Due Process
visionaryWatch said @ 11:15pm GMT on 22nd Jun
right now it looks like

+95 bush/osame - 95 America / Constitution
devilsad said @ 7:13pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I suppose you wouldn't mind if you were required by law to submit your full name, address and SSN every time you made an asinine, overdramatic comment on an internet forum, either. And for you to have to keep copies of those details for anyone who replies to you, or face jail time.

You know, to protect the children.
Menchi said @ 3:55pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
Seriously, what the fuck are you doing at SE?
Emanon said @ 7:23pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
"you and other users of net porn."?
Because heaven knows your interests are good and wholesome.
eIfish said @ 7:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
First they came for the photograph-porn, and I did not speak up, for I preferred hentai...
g0dfr33 said @ 11:16pm GMT on 22nd Jun
bwahahahhahaha, how bad a porn post fdo you have to make so that
chop and de_wr0ng mod it -1
vahid said @ 12:56pm GMT on 22nd Jun
is it april 1st?
all of my fucking thumbs are gone? you people are cruel.
Saint_Marck said @ 12:59pm GMT on 22nd Jun
They still exist... But there wasn't time to remove only certain thumbs from the server.
Transfer said @ 6:02pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Are you going to have to go through one by one and weed out the non-compliant? Or do you have a program to search for snatch?

Will you be accepting volunteers to go through the archives and flag potentially dangerous images?
madpride said @ 6:51pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
" They still exist... But there wasn't time to remove only certain thumbs from the server."

Maybe you can make DVD's called "Sensible Erection Goes Wild." See wild horny guys and gals get crazy, fully unedited, wild zanny fun. Can be shipped anywhere accept the US, Middle East or Korea.

Hurry up and buy right now. $29.95

See how the InterNet used to be before King Bush and the world Net Nanny.
maryyugo said @ 12:58pm GMT on 22nd Jun
and of course none of this purported crap applies to providers whose ISP's and/or servers are not within the juridisction of the US which is an awful lot of them. why isn't SE's server somewhere else? the best deals are in the Orient anyway. and finally, this, like most anti-sexual prohibitions, is clearly unenforceable. the test cases may come, if it's real, but they will involve a minuscule number of providers -- there is no way the government can fund court cases against any substantial number of the millions of sites which show pictures of naked people. and then there are all the exceptions for nudists, religions, and so on. it's simply nonsense, true or not.
jaxtraw said @ 1:07pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You don't understand the law. Where the site is hosted matters not. You really think you'd be safe from the law running a kiddie porn site from the US if the server was in another country?

Enforcement doesn't matter- it's about scaring people away from the industry, primarily models and people who promote content. It's censorship by stealth. People are faced with having to maintain records for thousands of images, many of which they can't possibly get records for in retrospect, or risking a 5 year jail term. The govt. doesn't *need* mass prosecutions- just to make an example of a few people. And the fact is, it's arleady got everybody shit scared so it's working already.

This *is* real. I accept I'm being rude here, but I can only assume you take this attitude because you're trying to justify supporting a party full of insane bigots, on the basis of what that party *used* to be. Open your eyes.
maryyugo said @ 1:12pm GMT on 22nd Jun
don't be silly. child porn is illegal almost everywhere (and should be). but this new law is not true everywhere. consider this sitehttp://kodie.alanin.de/weblog/ for example. you really think it's going to change?
jaxtraw said @ 1:19pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The child porn thing was an example. The point is that if a site is in violation of US law, it matters not where it is hosted. A US citizen or business is liable under US law, end of story. The location of their servers is not the issue.

That site you've demonstrated appears to be a dutch site, presumably run by somebody dutch, so it has no bearing on the issue.

You don't seem to understand the issue here at all.

Defending an unreasonable law on the basis that you personally don't think it will be enforced is feeble.
maryyugo said @ 1:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
DEFENDING IT? Of course I am not defending it. Censorship of any sort (except at extremes like blatant child porn) is assinine and most of all FUTILE. Reread what I wrote. My point was and is that what the US does or does not legislate and can or can not enforce (the real issue here) does not control or significantly limit what you and I will be able to see on the internet. That was my point. How you can conscrew that to be defense, I have no idea.
Rammek said @ 5:33pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I think jaxtraw is getting a little emotional. That's like the 2nd time you've told him that you're not defending the law and yet he seems to think you are.

Jaxtraw!! Calm the fuck down, dude!
maryyugo said @ 5:44pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-3 Troll]
yeah you can hardly blame him-- he must be terrified that he might have to actually relate to women instead of to a little screen, some lotion and his hand.
jaxtraw said @ 6:15pm GMT on 22nd Jun
No, I'm more worried that the fucktards you voted into power are going to make it impossible for my modest little rude cartoon site to trade.

I think that insult is pretty low, FWIW. I relate to women just fine, thanks- but of course that's an accusation that is impossible to defend oneself against.

Also, I'm not circumcised so I don't need lotion.

Now, how about you explain your continued support for people who believe that women are second-class citizens who shouldn't be allowed to vote, and should stay in the home producing babies and running homeschools? Care to comment on that, or are you too busy hating arabs for being backward?
Modano said @ 10:55pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-3]
Hey, that's out of line. Rammek doesn't use lotion.
matt said @ 1:14pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Sit back and read some of the other threads where we've discussed this. You're behind on the details. Offshoring your server gives you zero extra protection. SE being moved to another country would do absolutely nothing to protect Marck.
Saint_Marck said @ 1:01pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Could someone make a porn post soon (with safe thumb?) Kind of keep the ball rolling...
Fenny said @ 1:33pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The Pr0n Must Flow.
Fu Man Chu said @ 1:08pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
Does this new law apply to pictures like these as well:



Fuckin' Neo-Con Christian Fundamentalists will make the old Nazi regime look like a bunch of fun loving hippies if we keep letting this shit happen.
madpride said @ 2:01pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Hey as long as there is no erections.

We Christian Soldiers for Christ call these pictures "Souvenirs" or "trophies" any time we rape kill or torture for GWB or Jesus, we get a little present.

God Bless America! Thank you God Bush for the pleasure of thee work, Amen
utah said @ 1:08pm GMT on 22nd Jun
On the positive side, seeing an article like "Corgan Wants to Reunite Pumpkins" with the new "Too Hardcore" thumb makes me laugh....
Saint_Marck said @ 1:09pm GMT on 22nd Jun
If I wasn't at work right now you can bet I'd be on SE putting back as many of the safe thumbs as I can.
theluckysean said @ 1:11pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I wish people in other countries could have a say in this - because ultimately you won't be "safe" here in Canada. It's going to have a ripple effect and alter how the world can see porn. This does sound like an epic battle.
Rammek said @ 5:37pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Canada is not run by, or populated with a majority of bible humping retards like the US is. I don't think a law like this will get much traction over here.
phunkeybuddha said @ 9:04pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Sadly, I was once naive enough to think such things wouldn't happen in the US either.
microbio said @ 1:15pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I was thinking of some sites that will have LOTS of trouble...

images.google.com
babelfish.altavista.com

... just to mention a couple of them...
Tsunemori said @ 1:45pm GMT on 22nd Jun
But they *catch* images from other sites... not provide them.
eIfish said @ 3:45pm GMT on 22nd Jun
a) that's *cache*
b) '
A secondary producer is any person who ... publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a ... digitally- or computer- manipulated image ... that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct ... including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
' (my emphasis, elision).

Because of the 'enters into an agreement...' clause, 'it's just a computer doing it' is not a valid defense: if you program the computer to do it, you're part of the conspiracy. If you tell someone to program the computer to do it, you're part of the conspiracy.
maryyugo said @ 1:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun
i *knew* there was a good reason to backup all my pr0n images and clips to DVD. well actually i didn't know.
g0dfr33 said @ 3:25pm GMT on 22nd Jun
go to the corner and stand there maryyugo, no pudding for you tonight...

wtf: only one dvd worth of porn from such an active member of SE???

I am working on my second 50pack of blank dvds.
thomkhat said @ 1:20pm GMT on 22nd Jun
In my opinion, folks are getting way too bent out of shape about this. Here are a few facts to consider:
1) Porn webmasters want to earn money
2) Since they don't want to close their sites, they will all be posting a link to 2257 info somewhere on their site. In fact, using an earlier reference to nastydollars, webmasters affiliated with them get the link right up in their face as soon as they log in to their account. Expect all other porn sites to do the same, if they wish to remain in business.
3) As far as this affects SE, it should be a relatively simple matter to alter the post form script to add a field for '2257 link' info to the form and the database. Any pics in the database that don't have a value in that field could be deleted, and any adult content pics would be required to have this field filled in. This is something a decent web developer should be able to do relatively quickly and painlessly.
4) There are millions of websites out there. Is the government going to be able to police every one of them for illegal content? They may make examples out of some of the bigger ones, but look at it this way...have they come after you yet for illegally downloading your (insert band here) music? No. You can't control a crowd of millions with a dozen cops.

Panic is contagious, don't be a carrier.
matt said @ 1:39pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The people who are reacting drastically to this have put a lot more thought into it than you have. They are not overreacting.

I suggest you spend more time reading about what's going on here. I haven't the time to reply to all the incorrect assumptions in your comment.
thomkhat said @ 1:48pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You are the one making assumptions. You don't know me, or the affects 2257 has on my own business. You don't have any idea how much time I have spent thinking about the ramifications, or how that time compares to others. You also have no idea how much I've read about the matter.
When it comes right down to it and your response to mine, you really don't know much at all, do you?
matt said @ 2:08pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Actually I do, because there are several provably false assumptions in your comment.
matt said @ 2:33pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
I notice you hastily changed your SE profile to remove the link to your website, right around the time you claimed I don't know anything about your business. Well I saw that site before you made that claim, so I know you're no big player in the internet world.
thomkhat said @ 2:51pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I never said I was. That site has not been updated for over 4 years, has no adult content, and has nothing to do with my business, as if that were any of your concern. All I'm saying is that when you make assumptions on someone based on nothing, you come off as stupid. That's all. But as usual, you missed my point.

By the way, the site that you say I 'hastily' removed was put up years ago for students in a class I taught as an example of using Microsoft Front Page. I have no reason to hide it, if anyone has any desire to look at the outdated POS, it's at:
http://funnysigns.tripod.com
matt said @ 3:08pm GMT on 22nd Jun
No, you missed my point. That point being that it is clear you haven't understood what's going on well enough or spent enough time interpreting it because there are false assumptions and incorrect interpretations in your comment. I didn't need any more information than what was in your comment, because your comment spoke for your understanding of the matter and showed it lacking.
thomkhat said @ 3:11pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Whatever. Enjoy your panic attack. I would suggest you get some sleep before you have a stroke.
I have no further time for you, but feel free to be sure and grab the last word.
matt said @ 3:23pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I'm not panicking. I don't have any porn content on my sites at present. I'm warning and informing. It appears those are both things that you still need, seeing as you haven't shown that you understand the law or what's going on yet.

A little hint: if you really are an affiliate of nastydollars, then you can't actually legally use any of their content on any site you create because they're not providing you with the full personal information of the models. You need photocopies. They're not going to give you those. They aren't actually complying and neither are you.
eIfish said @ 4:48pm GMT on 22nd Jun
A little hint: if you really are an affiliate of nastydollars, then you can't actually legally use any of their content on any site you create because they're not providing you with the full personal information of the models. You need photocopies.

Are you sure? I read the following:

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record- keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.


to mean that as a secondary producer, you can pass liability to the primary producer.
eIfish said @ 4:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun
My mistake. This only applies when the content is warranted to be exempt from record keeping requirements, not it is warrented that the records have been kept. Whoops.
g0dfr33 said @ 3:27pm GMT on 22nd Jun
oh man, that site has the most awful navigation ever... -1 navigation
thomkhat said @ 3:38pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Agreed. But then, it was never supposed to be for the general public.
I believe I'll remove it before I have to field comments for the next three months about how much it sucks.
Fenny said @ 3:57pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
HAHAHahahaha "Content removed due to a sudden wave of unintentional interest." Wuss.
thomkhat said @ 4:03pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Trust me, I'm doing you a favor.
It really did suck. I'm rather ashamed I left the link on my profile for so long.
De_Wr0ng said @ 1:21pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
:O
Fenny said @ 1:33pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I think i just heard De_Wr0ng's jaw hit the ground...
gizmodizmo said @ 1:24pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Next, The republicans pass a bill that only republicans can vote in the next election, and only registered republicans can look at teh hawt pr0n.
manbot said @ 1:27pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The only answer is to move SE to Sealand

http://www.sealandgov.com/

A floating former fort off the coast of England that declared itself a

And I quote;

"The Royal Family struck a deal with HavenCo Limited, and that company now leases exclusively its offices and operations centres in Sealand, where it offers, and is able to offer, unparalleled security and independence to users who wish to take advantage of its Internet colocation services
manbot said @ 1:28pm GMT on 22nd Jun
sorry, declared itself a principality.
falloutboy79 said @ 1:31pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Insightful]
I saw Satan laughing with delight The day the music died.
afakaz said @ 3:30pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I totally had that song in my head.
madpride said @ 1:38pm GMT on 22nd Jun
For freedoms sake, before the Inquasition.

KropperPrime said

Yes an other example of how america is so great, they need to control what their people see in lil thumbs on the internet... You guys are no better than North Korean, just a lot more hypocrit about it.

Shame.

You, on the other hand, as an american, you can only be right if you have enough firepower to back your opinions, otherwise, it is just imperialism.

You people is so idiotic that it needs to be controlled like that, what it sees, what is says, what it buys, what it thinks.

I have my own brain and because I dont live in your farking country, I can still think and say what I want. Here, Freedom is real, not an illusion.
KropperPrime said @ 4:51pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Muchos Gracias.

The Truth can still be seen by the eyes of the many!

Sadly, their lil inquisition took away my modding thingy.

They actually act exactly like their leaders ...

"Oh no something I dont like! Let's destroy it! Now before anyone can know that it may be right!"
phunkeybuddha said @ 8:26pm GMT on 22nd Jun
The truth?

Yes, sweeping generalizations are always the truth *roll eyes*

One fact remains - you're still an idiot.
KropperPrime said @ 12:19am GMT on 23rd Jun
Well it's not a bad generalization is the majority of the people are like that.

And that is a fact, so.
phunkeybuddha said @ 12:41am GMT on 23rd Jun
You guys are no better than North Korean, just a lot more hypocrit about it.

Shame.


How are we, the people, no better than the people of North Korea? While the leaders of both nations are despotic idiots, they don't speak for all of the citizenry. At least in the US, there's the ability to vote. Can't say the same for NK. Something tells me that English isn't your first language so you're probably not being clear on what you're saying. But in case you didn't know, sweeping generalizations are a bad thing. So what if the majority of the people are like that? It doesn't mean everyone. If you want to get your point across, point it at the people you're talking about, not 'everyone'. If you had said, 'The majority of people' instead of 'everyone', I don't think that people would be pouncing on you and starting a flame war.


You, on the other hand, as an american, you can only be right if you have enough firepower to back your opinions, otherwise, it is just imperialism.


I, as, an american, disagree with the president's tactics and political maneuvering. I don't need firepower to back my opinions. Bush does a very good job of proving himself time and again that he is an idiot. It's self-evident.


You people is so idiotic that it needs to be controlled like that, what it sees, what is says, what it buys, what it thinks.


Again, the generalization that you think that all of us, collectively desire this? You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


I have my own brain and because I dont live in your farking country, I can still think and say what I want. Here, Freedom is real, not an illusion.


Once again, you still don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I have my own brain as well but I do live in this 'farking' country and I can still think and say what I want. And I'm glad that you don't live here either since if there are more ppl like you where you come from, I pity the future of your country.
dead_by_dawn said @ 1:39pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Is this a Joke can someone point me to a dep of justice Law stating these new rules.


hook me up with a real .gov link.
dead_by_dawn said @ 1:39pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-1 Troll]
hello?
matt said @ 1:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I already replied to you above. The text of the law has been copied onto several sites, some of which are linked in this thread. You can do your own damn googling for a copy of the text on a .gov site. I don't think anyone hear should be extending you the good will of doing any leg work for you. As I said above, you personally share part of the blame for this, if I recall correctly.

"USC TITLE 18, SECTION 2257"
dead_by_dawn said @ 2:08pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Troll]
So whats the big fucking deal?


Your gonna lose add money right ?How does it personally affect you and why should anyone give a fuck?

Break it down to Red State please us knuckle dragging troglodytes dont understand your flowery English.
matt said @ 2:20pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Me? I don't run a porn site right now. I will still have to move my current business out of the US though because it's of the type where I cannot realistically police all that goes on on it, nor do I want to it to be subject to these draconian new restrictions.

But what will it mean for the internet porn industry? It will mean smaller sites will no longer be able to get porn content. It means many of those smaller sites will go out of business. It means the bigger sites will lose money, will close down or restrict affiliates schemes, will potentially lose models/actors. It means models/actors already in the business will be evaluating whether they want to stay in it due to the added risks they now have.

This law is designed to shut down or severely hinder large portions of the internet porn industry.

It will affect you and me in several ways, but most obviously in that it will be harder to obtain free porn, there'll be less of it out there, we'll see less hardcore, we'll start seeing more European porn and less American.
ogdredp0ski said @ 3:02pm GMT on 22nd Jun
And I say huzzah.
UberIcarus said @ 5:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Again, because there is no -1 Asshole.
UberIcarus said @ 5:15pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5]
Because there is no -1 Asshole.
aevil said @ 1:43pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
please please please....please accept my apology on the behalf of open minded conservatives. we are not all assholes some of us just don’t want to pay more in taxes......and watch porn.
pshaw said @ 2:09pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Good]
no, no, no. It doesn't work that way. If I voted for Kerry, full well knowing that he was a douchebag, I would take full responsibility for voting in a douchebag. On the other hand, I would do so knowing that the alternative was roughly equivalent to Satan. You can't claim that this "isn't what you wanted". You voted for him. Now you get to watch neocons take over America. Nice job.
aevil said @ 2:39pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I dident vote for Bush, i voted Libertarian thougth they could use some numbers.
Tirade said @ 3:25pm GMT on 22nd Jun
And if more of the non-psycho conservatives had made that choice, maybe we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
Saint_Marck said @ 7:53pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I voted Libertarian as well.
g0dfr33 said @ 11:20pm GMT on 22nd Jun
then stand up and take your punishment like a man
ckfahrenheit said @ 10:48pm GMT on 22nd Jun
ok, let's leave Satan out of this - Satan's all for pr0n just as much as the next SE'r (if Satan was actually an anthropomorphic entity, which it isn't)
dead_by_dawn said @ 1:44pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Troll]
Its entertaining watching you all get bent over an Op Ed story.


Is there any REAL proof GOV link or to verify?
Fenny said @ 1:47pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Just google: 2257
maryyugo said @ 1:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Informative]
i don't have time to read all this crap but a DOJ site to start with is:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/75mcrm.htm#9-75.001 or search google for site:usdoj.gov and the relevant key words
jaxtraw said @ 2:09pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Remember, when your head is buried in the sand, the most visible part of you is your arse.
hpeg said @ 2:31pm GMT on 22nd Jun
What about when your head is up your arse?
jaxtraw said @ 2:53pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:2]
Then life is like a sort of 24hour goatse.
serenity said @ 2:34pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Insightful]
I find it funny that you almost can't believe it.

"Pre-emptive" war.
Ammendment to outlaw flag burning (in news today).
The Patriot Act (I love the name).
Trying to stop same gender marriage.
Trying to stop marijuana use even for medical purposes.
Guantanamo Camp
Outlawing the press from showing dead bodies on TV (because that would change public sentiment and stop the war - don't kid yourself)
Push for creationist museums/teaching in public schools and textbooks.
Public charity funding allocated to religous institutions.
I think I see a tit on a statue at the court house. Call John Ashcroft.

Don't look for the philosophy/justification behind these acts in any book by John Locke or Rousseau.

Wake up and smell the Bible.
sacrelicious said @ 1:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
GODMUTHERFUCKINGDAMNITTOHELL!

get your swears out while you still can people, cause they'll be banning that next.


rise. up.
g0dfr33 said @ 3:34pm GMT on 22nd Jun
rise up"


get your erections out while you still can people, cause they'll be banning that next...
sacrelicious said @ 9:35pm GMT on 22nd Jun
RISE UP 4 YOUR RIGHT TO RISE UP!
childsizedhands said @ 1:48pm GMT on 22nd Jun
so this is legal, right?
sacrelicious said @ 2:03pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
stop that. we have no way of knowing if they're of age!
madpride said @ 2:06pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Yeah more Geriatric Republican Porn!

This will finally end Ageism! Can't mistake a Gannon for a 14 year old.

Did David Boren install a gay network at CIA? Is the military-homosexual complex for real?

I would like to open up consideration of the question of whether David Boren, using the influence he gained as the patron and mentor of George Tenet, was able to install a homosexual network in the CIA.

First of all, I am 100% sure that Boren is homosexual. This has been known at the gossip level around Oklahoma for more than three decades.

Boren has made a lifelong practice of setting up young men with government jobs, if they are sexually appealing to him and if they are gay or if he thinks they might be gay.

Just the fact that Boren set Tenet up on his career path, and that the two men have remained close friends since the 80s, makes me suspect that Tenet is queer.

Note: We usually wouldn't run a story like this, because a person's sex life is nobody's business, but this Gannon/Guckert with Bush stuff had to involve the Secret Service, plus the crazy Skull & Bones rumors, topped with the fact that a Repub being gay is suicide stuff, wheras Dems don't really care. That means a Repug can be blackmailed and that makes it possibly national security stuff.



leezurd said @ 3:43pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:5 Informative]
Two weeks ago, my wife and I finally ahd a day off together.

We went to Half Moon Bay.

We like the beach, and the drive down from SF is just beautiful.

Everytime we go down there, we stop at this little Baskin Robins icecream store. It's tradition.
She gets a single scoop of jamoca almond fudge, and I get a chocolate banana milkshake. Then, we go into
town, and wander through the shops for a while. A stop at You Gotta Have It (an antique store, there) is
mandatory.
When we tire of shopping for needless things, and are ready to go home, we stop at the local RiteAid.
This particular RiteAid is huge compared to our local one, and has many things we can't normally get at our RiteAid. We get things like paper towels, scented candles, dishwashing sponges, and storage containers.
Across from the RiteAid is a dollar store.

As usual, we went into the dollar store, just to see what's what in the inexpensive world.
I bought some super cheap toys and plastic piggy banks for the "kids drawer" at my work. My wife
got an actual ceramic piggy bank, some faux Tupperwear, and another candle.
At the register, we noticed they had some Beta (fighting fish) for sale. As my wife has been wanting a
fish for about 2 years, we decided to pick one out. We then paid for our goodies, and left.
After buying a large fishbowl, freezedried bloodworms, and finally placing "Fishie" (as we affectionately call him) in his new home, we noticed we had, once again, obtained a freak pet.
He watches TV. We have a little 9 inch flat panel tv in the kitchen. If it's not on, he does a little pissed off fishy dance. He flares his gills, raises his fins, and gets generally surely. But, the moment we turn it on, he sttles down and stares at it.
He's blue.
He has also blown a large group of bubbles on one side of the bowl. We found out this is what Beta's do. They make bubble nests.

Just thought you should know.
g0dfr33 said @ 11:27pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Leezurd Logs Episode 1 - The Phantom Shopping Trip [1 of 5 stars]

bad acting, almost no action for the entire movie, too much cg used on the fish, very artificial expressions of the fish when not being exposed to tv, unimaginative naming of character 'fishy'
TWO THUMBS DOWN
Class1Product said @ 8:03pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-1 Flamebait]
Shut up madpride
matt said @ 2:09pm GMT on 22nd Jun
No, without the documentation that comment is illegal. Crazy huh.
childsizedhands said @ 2:22pm GMT on 22nd Jun
even censored?

it doesn't start til midnight tonight so i think i'm alright.
matt said @ 2:40pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Marck isn't alright and neither are you, although admittedly the chances of them cracking down on one little comment (or even knowing about it) are very slim :) But yes, not safe, because it doesn't just cover what you do after the date; it covers everything that's already out there too.

And yeah I *think* even though it's censored it still counts as a no-no, because ... arr fuck, I'm getting tired, can't remember the wording. But ... yeah ... something ...
childsizedhands said @ 3:03pm GMT on 22nd Jun
it said something like "laviscious display of genitals" or something.

i figured since no genitals are shown it's alright.
matt said @ 3:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I'm sure I read something about the genitals not actually having to be seen if it's an obvious sex act or something. But I can't find it in my quick skim this time. Maybe I didn't see it after all. Dunno yet. Too tired :-/
pygmalion said @ 5:31pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Bring on the "is it an elbow or a buttcrack" websites...
Tang said @ 5:01pm GMT on 22nd Jun
should be... it's just CPR
one just is just at the wrong end.... silly billy!
Talinkor said @ 1:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Funny]
Thumb?
relm said @ 1:14am GMT on 23rd Jun
+1 Bitter
dead_by_dawn said @ 1:59pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 WTF]
I see Matts add revenues might evaporate and he may have to seek non porn related employment like 98% of the real world does.
Fenny said @ 2:03pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You are so very lost aren't you?
strangeffect said @ 2:37pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
He's so lost he couldn't find his way into that 98%. As usual with dbd, if it doesn't affect him personally, it's a big joke. Typical.
matt said @ 2:25pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
You're not firing on all cylinders are you. This post is by Marck. *Marck* owns SE, not me. But yes, Marck will likely lose ad revenue (the stuff that keeps SE alive, not Marck alive).

Have you perhaps noticed the drastic visual change he's had to make to the site too? Are you really that willing to stick your head in the sand and ignore what's happening blatantly right in front of your eyes?
Saint_Marck said @ 2:57pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I had to risk getting in trouble at work to handle this little crises, actually.
SixDW said @ 2:18pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
The only good thing about this is it's makes it easier to surf SE at work.
Pear said @ 2:19pm GMT on 22nd Jun
How about hosting the thumb images on a server outside the USA owned by someone living outside of the USA?
Pear said @ 2:44pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Okay... I've read it... I'm stupid...
kishi said @ 2:19pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You have my sympathies, man, this entire thing is fucked up. But do what you gotta do to cover your ass.
dead_by_dawn said @ 2:21pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Troll]
Break it down to Red State please us knuckle dragging troglodytes dont understand your flowery English.
dead_by_dawn said @ 2:25pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:-5 Troll]
HaHa stupid porn junkees go out and get laid
thikarai said @ 2:28pm GMT on 22nd Jun
wait, this doesn't make sense.

a) this law applies to all citizens and businesses of the US, and anyone who wishes to do commerce with the US.
b) even if you are in another country, you have a good chance of being extradited or found guilty in your own country, etc., as long as you are part of the demographic mentioned in part (a).

so if the US passes a similar law requiring, say, all females to wear dresses and skirts, etc, and all males to wear pants, no earrings, etc, as a designation of gender to protect the traditional definition of marriage, etc, etc ... under the same provisions as this Section 2257 ...

would then, the rest of the world have to go along with it?
matt said @ 2:49pm GMT on 22nd Jun
No citizens of other countries don't stand a good chance of being extradited. Extradition treaties have what's called 'double-criminality' clauses. What that means is it has to be a crime in the country you're in too before they'll send you off to the one that wants to lock you up.

That Wikipedia extradition page makes a good read.
fforw said @ 2:30pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Is it ok to have the "records of the ages of every perfomer" as digital information?

One could set up a system where the producer of images stores the information on a public server. A reference to the stored information is attached as image metadatan which thumbnailers would have to keep the same.

If asked for the records the "secondary producer" could point to the server which gives out the records to the officials. everyone is happy and even the data privacy of the performer is preserved.
jaxtraw said @ 2:55pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Informative]
No, that was a previous interpretation of the previous regs, as decided by a court case Sundance vs, oh, whoever, Google it. That was how everyone was operating- you just pointed anyone wanting 2257 records at the original producer.

The new regs were specifically written to prevent this. You *must* have copies of the records yourself,cross referenced with every image. Anything else, you're a felon.
g0dfr33 said @ 3:38pm GMT on 22nd Jun
OK, I propose a new JPG2257 format, which can let the produces embed the info as compressed metadata into the image.

lets call it the SE2257 image format
matt said @ 3:45pm GMT on 22nd Jun
So that every porn picture on the net would have the full personal details of the model(s) embedded in it? No one would ever become a porn model again! They'd all be too scared of stalkers.
eIfish said @ 4:58pm GMT on 22nd Jun
a) you can put metadata in a JPEG anyway
b) isn't that the point of this bill?
cskrat said @ 2:33pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Okay something I'm curious about.

Will this new law that requires the genuine personal information of porn actors to be copied and distributed to all secondary producers make it easier for all the perverts out there to stalk or harass the actors?

I just need to know how I should plan to use my free time next weekend.
Gyro said @ 2:35pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Let's schedule some stalker gtgs!

/who says stalkers are lonely.
g0dfr33 said @ 3:40pm GMT on 22nd Jun
the stalkers are the least of the problem,

the born again terrorists would possibly cause more harm than mere stalkers as stalkers would be breaking the law, the born again terrorists will have the law modified to what they are doing...
graham said @ 2:38pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
so due to my laziness...i didn't read all that. BUT, can thumbs include just like, tits, or a chick with man-cum on her face? or...um...yeah, what's within the law now?

IS THIS LEGAL?

( o Y o )???????????/
Gyro said @ 2:40pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Insightful]
Who said anything about censoring owls?
Hito said @ 12:27am GMT on 23rd Jun
Yeah... Who? Who?
madpride said @ 2:58pm GMT on 22nd Jun
In four more years, they will get to the written world. It will be like one big High School. We will send people by to read your Diary, and figure where you write on the web.

Article II of World Language Responsibility Act 1207:

Precisely forbids any visually suggestive use of the Alphabet.

The punishment is 1 year re-education. To be followed by 2 year suspension of use of Trusted Net, or Old Net. Prohibited from using pens, pencils, paper, brushes, fax, typewriters for 5 years.

Parody and Appropriation of Original or Derivative work forbidden by Bush II mandates is punishable by Patriot Act III to Rendition you to remote re-education center on the third offense.

Works of Fiction and Parody and Opinion are not barred from review.

Law retro-active to Year of our Lord of our Bush 2000.
Turn your self in today.

Inquasition.LordBush.gov/Language_Responsibility_ACT
mirror said @ 2:39pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Porn's gonna have to go text heavy Google style for advertising... and fight this under the interstate commerce clause.
Trench said @ 2:42pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I guess this means I finally have to come out and admit that, yes, I... Trench, am in-fact Goatse.
Tirade said @ 3:29pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
More importantly... do you have proof of your age to go with every photo of you online?
utah said @ 2:15am GMT on 23rd Jun
In this case I think we can just stare up your arse and count the rings...
Modano said @ 11:01pm GMT on 22nd Jun
pix plz kthx
mirror said @ 2:42pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Porn's going to have to go text heavy for advertisement, Google style.
Tsunemori said @ 2:48pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Just want to say, props and respect for keeping SE alive. Whatever decisions need to be made, I hope you'll have people supporting you. I love this place, it's great and I'd hate to see it die. Again, thank you for not taking the shortcut and closing the site down. But I can understand if some day, that needs to be done.
graham said @ 2:56pm GMT on 22nd Jun
doesn't bush have some sort of email addy? Why don't we all just mass mail him random goatse pics?
Trench said @ 3:10pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Because now that I've come out you need my autorization, damnit.

Besides, per his request, I've already sent him dozens, signed.
utah said @ 2:16am GMT on 23rd Jun
"Before you die, you see the Ring"
thepublicone said @ 3:00pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:3 Insightful]
This is why I'm glad I'm Canadian.

If you're American, the whole world hates you, you can't download music, you're now going to have a lot more difficulty getting porn, your leader is a crook, a religious hack, and a moron to boot, and the voice of political reason in the media is a Canadian guy on the Comedy Network.

If you're Canadian, the world thinks you're polite, you have until next spring to download music, have easy access to porn, your leader is only a crook, and the voice of political reason in the media is the entire cast of a comedy show rather than just one guy.......... but there's no hockey.

Then again, two Americans are responsible for that debacle :-)
eric4x4 said @ 5:52pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I know I'll get flamed for this....but if GWB is a moron, and he had higher scores at Harvard than Kerry did....what does that make Kerry?
dugfin said @ 6:11pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
a billionaire
revchoppy said @ 8:07pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Who cares? Who the fuck was talking about Kerry?

Oh wait, that's right, this is part of the right-wing's "look over there!" tactic.
utah said @ 11:20pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Someone on here posted a video contrasting GWB's performance in his run for governor, versus his first debate last election. I'm not saying I'd vote for him as governor, but he was well spoken. It looked to me like he'd lost serious IQ points, ala Reagan. That'd explain why he did well at Yale, but seems to misunderestimate the internets now.
relm said @ 1:03am GMT on 23rd Jun
Because CLEARLY test scores at Yale are a direct measure of a person's intelligence.
ragazze said @ 6:27pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Jon Stewart comes from my hometown in NJ if thats the comedy show you're referring too...
dook_sucks said @ 3:17pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Fittingly, skinemax ran "People vs. Larry Flint" last night. I watched it for the first time.
leezurd said @ 3:50pm GMT on 22nd Jun
~"quote [ Any producer of any ...

I think someon needs to seriously question the definition of the word produce.

Is there a lawyer in the house?
eIfish said @ 4:56pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I believe the word produce is defined in the 'primary producer'/'secondary producer' sections.
2257 said @ 8:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Farm products, especially fresh fruits and vegetables, considered as a group.
caretaker said @ 4:10pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I'm curious, after reading this from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2257,

The first part has me confused. Does this only apply to hardcopy of visual depictions? Or does this mean produced and recorded on items like camcorders, etc?

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which -
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records
pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
eIfish said @ 4:54pm GMT on 22nd Jun
This bit is weasel-words intended to extend the federal jusrisdiction as far as they can possibly stretch it.

I have a feeling, therefore, that they will argue that if there is a dust-mote in shot that has floated out an interstate shipping container, these conditions apply.
ExLife said @ 4:54pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Thoughts I Never Expected To Have, Volume 74, page 250: "Man, I miss John Ashcroft."
ExLife said @ 4:54pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Aaand let's close that tag.
fishandring said @ 5:29pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I assume you guys have read enough to see that their will likely be a temporary moratorium placed on this law tomorrow? I wouldn't go so far as to say we are overreacting b/c I like my pron. But, this likely is not going to fly.

Go to the free speech coalition to find out the details.
HoZay said @ 5:39pm GMT on 22nd Jun
This will ruin the best kind of porn - the amateur, spontaneous, self-posted and I-shot-myself anonymous pics. Can't have *any* anonymous pics, right? No way to document anonymous models.
therook said @ 5:41pm GMT on 22nd Jun
More importantly if you search for anything, or looks at your old posts, all thumbs have been replaced with the "too hardocre image", Hey Marck stop this madness, learn how to program blah blah blah. SE suck factor increasing by the second.
Saint_Marck said @ 8:19pm GMT on 22nd Jun
What would you have me do differently?
letoofdune said @ 8:22pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Give him a fucking chance, man. He's only one person - he'll get the old thumbs back up (non "offensive" ones, anyways), but he needs some time.
therook said @ 5:46pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Just a pop and chip party picture:
therook said @ 5:49pm GMT on 22nd Jun


MAN THIS IS FUN!
therook said @ 5:51pm GMT on 22nd Jun
therook said @ 5:59pm GMT on 22nd Jun
.... I'm done
pshaw said @ 6:01pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Question though- for something like Photobucket, which "hosts" images- since we have to upload an image to SE, can there be some sort of disclaimer? Otherwise someone could upload a pornographic image to photobucket and get them put away for 5 years... even though there is CLEARLY a statement on the website that says you can't do that.

Any lawyers on SE? I know you're out there... what's the legality of this?
eIfish said @ 6:33pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Informative]
Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

...

(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service; or


Photobucket are large enough that they definitely qualify for this exception. SE, I think, cannot claim that it 'reasonably cannot manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site': it's too small (there's only twenty or so thumbs per day), and (crucially) Marck reads the majority of the articles, and reads the front page often enough to see all the thumbs. He can't claim that he's unaware of them, or that the burden is unreasonable.

A photo-board like 4chan might be able to claim this exemption though, if the owner just set it up and left it; It's sufficiently large that it might not be reasonable to expect him to manage the content.

I am not a lawyer in any sense; the best I can claim is a short course in contract and liability law at university. This is , however, probably the closest you'll get to a lawyer's opinion on here: lawyers don't give their legal opinion if you're not paying them.
Tentacle said @ 6:28pm GMT on 22nd Jun
what about images of granny porn?

surely you don't need proof that they are over 18?

/sensibleflaccid.com
eIfish said @ 6:35pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You do. The bill makes no provision for the blatantly obvious.
bobinchicago said @ 6:40pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I know this sounds kind of tinfoil-hat territory, but for porn producers, this could be a boon. They've been watching their original content turn up on every free and all-access-one-low-price site for years. Now if they see their stuff turning up on one of those sites, a few quick calls and the server's down whether or not it ever goes past that. I don't like how that sounds like a conspiracy but I'm just willing to bet that just maybe the producers learn to live with it once they pick up on that angle if they haven't already. (Of course maybe Usenet and bittorrent will just keep getting more and more popular too.)

As for fighting, it's only fun if you're watching. A friend of mine ran a site parodying a certain cartoon for some years. Finally the letter came from the lawyers telling him he had to take it down. He thought about fighting, got some offers from some pretty good people to help him fight it, but eventually decided that he was running this thing off his own dime for his own entertainment, and how much fun was it going to be to go through that even if he ended up winning. (And that was a civil situation; 2257 is criminal. They don't have to be right to arrest you. They can shut you down, put you away, and give you your street clothes back years later when the last appeal's finally over.)
pshaw said @ 6:54pm GMT on 22nd Jun
yeah- I was wondering if this would be helpful to primary producers. On the other hand, someone mentioned above that it would be extremely hard to do any sort of promotion now, because even DVD box covers need to be 2257 compliant.
nip said @ 8:10pm GMT on 22nd Jun
I'm coming Canada, I'm coming!
relm said @ 1:39am GMT on 23rd Jun
Not on the face!
letoofdune said @ 8:19pm GMT on 22nd Jun
God-fucking dammit. I just took naked pictures of my 19 year old girlfriend, and I was all ready to post them to SE, but now?

...and you'll never know if I'm serious.

Seriously though, this is fucking bullshit. It's amazing that THIS is the case to make me riled up enough to actually do something about my government's actions.

This. Is. Fucking. Insane.
Catalyst Moon said @ 8:34pm GMT on 22nd Jun
So how is it SE still has banner ads with nudity on them?
Saint_Marck said @ 1:03am GMT on 23rd Jun
Because it took me all day to finish the job, what with working and eating and driving as well.
pillbox_girl said @ 8:53pm GMT on 22nd Jun
Obviously I'm a little late contributing to this discussion. To be honest, the porn aspect of this concerns me not at all. However, the free speech / common carrier / First Ammendment issues raised here concern me deeply. What we have here is plain old backdoor censorship.

I seriously think this is going to be temporary. Eventually it will go the way of the "Communications Decency Act" under Clinton. Anyone remember the Communications Decency Act?

In the meantime, I think I have a solution that will make everyone happy. At the very least, it will piss off the people who most need to be pissed off. Until this thing blows over, why dont pornographic websites just OUTSOURCE TO INDIA?

Or if not India, then to some other country beyond the jurisdiction of this ridiculously unconstitutional law.
Umbrae said @ 8:56pm GMT on 22nd Jun [Score:1 Informative]
I say we're slowly heading into a new Dark Ages.

We'll suffer, we'll bleed and all of our freedoms and interests will be stripped into a 500 year horror.

But then maybe things will get better after that.

500 FUCKING YEARS.
Hactar said @ 10:37pm GMT on 22nd Jun
You can still post pin up art still, right? Eplicit drawn pictures are not quite as good as porn, but still, they are fun.
larger2day said @ 1:34am GMT on 23rd Jun
Whoa, I feel like I am living in a South Park episode. Am I asleep?
k1w1 said @ 1:44am GMT on 23rd Jun [Score:-1 WTF]



IF EXPLICIT CONTENT (AND WE'RE MERELY TALKING ABOUT YOUR TYPICAL PORN IMAGES HERE) IS BANNED FROM OUR OWN HOMES THEREFORE ' ILLEGAL ' THEN

SEX (OR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) IS ALSO ILLEGAL, HENCE MORE SO THAN JUST LOOKING AT PICTURES

THEREFORE CHILDREN ARE ILLEGAL

THEREFORE THE ENTIRE BUSH FAMILY IS ILLEGAL

THEREFORE INDIVIDUAL BUSH FAMILY MEMBERS ARE CRIMINALS

THEREFORE IF JENNA OR BARBARA EVER GETS PREGANT, AN AUTOMATIC FELONY AND THEREFORE FELONS

THEREFORE IF GEORGE JR AND LAURA EVER TRIES TO HAVE ANY SORT OF EXPLICIT CONTACT WITH EACHOTHER UNDER THE SAC, THEY'RE ARRESTED

THEREFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ILLEGAL ILLEGITIMATE ENTITY OF THE ' FREE ' WORLD (AND I USE THAT TERM LOSELY)

THEREFORE THE ENTIRE US GOVERNMENT IS ILLEGAL

THEREFORE EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES IS ILLEGAL

THEREFORE THE LAWS ARE ILLEGAL

THEREFORE THE COURTS ARE ILLEGAL

THEREFORE WE MUST PUT EVERYONE IN JAIL

AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE BECOME INSANE!

oh say can you see............................
Brass said @ 1:45am GMT on 23rd Jun
I'm a little late to this discussion, and nothing I could say would change anyone's mind. So I'll keep it short:

It's a bullshit law. But that doesn't mean they won't try to enforce it.
Marck, you do what you need to do to keep SE legal, and to hell with anyone who thinks they deserve you putting your neck out for them.
poop23 said @ 2:08am GMT on 23rd Jun
its funny
politics isnt my thing; its a system that just seems too far gone for me to even have any constructive interest in. I just live my life one day at a time and hope gas prices dont get too high.
But goddamnit, for some reason jus having those thumbnails taken away makes me want to take to the streets and burn down city hall.
funny how we are.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.
home | home2 | Sensible Election | about | conduct | galleries | donate not logged in | log in



Members

Registered: 18828
Classifieds