Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law

[CptSternn]

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6063554.html

A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.

The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

...In practice, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly. In one case, U.S. v. Knox, the Supreme Court and an appeals court ruled that the "lascivious exhibition" of the pubic area could include images of clothed people wearing bikini bathing suits, leotards and underwear. That suggests, for instance, that photos of people in leotards and bathing suits would have to be rated as sexually explicit if the commercial Web site owner wanted to avoid going to prison.

*snip*

Some of this law looks good - like keeping website owners from putting in bogus metatag info to get people to their sites. However, the rest is utter shite. Also, once again, this only effects US citizens, like the online gambling laws, people in the states can go to sites outside the states to gamble, buy drugs, cuban cigars, and soon their porn.

This along with the new legislation proposed that says ISP's in the US must retain all user records and logs for 10 years.

http://news.com.com/U.S.+attorney+ge...85.html?tag=nl

The thing that really stands out it the whole 'fully clothed pictures of certain areas'. I mean, a girl in a tight t-shirt on yer site will get ye 5 years in prison. God forbid you see pictures of people in swimwear either.

In UK/Ireland we have topless people in our newspapers daily. Page 3 girls. Sometimes, fully nekkid. Also, throughout Europe we have topless beaches. Reading daily news online here or visiting one of our many beaches and posting yer pictures online would be considered 'pornographic' material under US law, and people posting such content would be criminalised.

Anyone else take issue with this 'morality' crusade? Anyone else think its just a ploy to get a better stranglehold on the average joe in america?

[Binkie]

Didn't realize you cherished your pornography so much, Sternn. Glad you guys can read newspapers with topless women in them. We have magazines for that here (better print quality), which are apporpriately covered in the stores so three year olds, nuns, and Muslims aren't in there looking at that stuff, as it's a public store.

If regulating pornography online here means fewer six year olds are going to come across beastiality or women drinking urine, awesome. But you arguing over "morality" needing to take a backseat is kinda funny - cause isn't it you that argues all the time that the Iraq was was "immoral?" Hypocrisy is slowly seeping in again to your arguements.

[Icarian Decoding]

Binkie, I must ask you this: Where do you want it to stop? If you start basing things on morals, then where does it stop? It's not the actual issue of pornography, it's the fact that the US is taking control of the internet.

[Binkie]

It's posting warning labels on sites with pornography so you don't inadvertantly stumble across a picture of two guys peeing and shitting on top of a naked woman while you're browsing the net at work (which can get your ass fired when in reality you're just looking up replacement products for your department at the request of your boss) or helping your kid look up information online for a research paper. Porn is a HUGE part of the internet, and these people find each and every way for you to stumble across their websites (while searching for innocent things like children's toys).

It's no more taking control of the internet than the MPAA is of movies by posting "R" ratings on movies with nudity and graphic violence. It's a warning for regular surfers. If you're looking up porn, all it is is another click away from seeing "girl on girl action" or whatever the hell you're looking up. If your a parent or corporate employee, it's a life-saving warning.

[|BlackOps| Mindless One]

bumpbumpbump

[Icarian Decoding]

Originally Posted by Binkie

It's posting warning labels on sites with pornography so you don't inadvertantly stumble across a picture of two guys peeing and shitting on top of a naked woman while you're browsing the net at work (which can get your ass fired when in reality you're just looking up replacement products for your department at the request of your boss) or helping your kid look up information online for a research paper. Porn is a HUGE part of the internet, and these people find each and every way for you to stumble across their websites (while searching for innocent things like children's toys).

It's no more taking control of the internet than the MPAA is of movies by posting "R" ratings on movies with nudity and graphic violence. It's a warning for regular surfers. If you're looking up porn, all it is is another click away from seeing "girl on girl action" or whatever the hell you're looking up. If your a parent or corporate employee, it's a life-saving warning.

Alright, but take a look at it this way.
When you define what something is, the discussion of said topic becomes limited to only those who can experience it. For instance, say you have a topic going on about the possible psychological and physical problems with a scat fetish. Naturally, anyone who hosted a picture, would be subject to put that on there. It may not be bad, but the potential is there. The same would go for all joke cartoons. I find some political cartoons to be humorous, if not dirty. You put labels on it, and suddenly, I can't see it, being a minor.

Now, go off on a limb here. Where does it stop? Once you start putting warning labels on there, you have to start enforcing it, otherwise it doesn't mean anything. Next thing you know, it's the complete banning of internet for minors. Then file-sharing goes down. Can you say Grokster vrs. RIAA?

[Binkie]

You can still see those cartoons as a minor. That government warning will stop you about as much as the "Click here only if you're 18 or older" message.

And the only thing the government would be enforcing out of a warning label is that pornographic websites put it up before exposing surfers to the XXX content. They're not going after minors. If they were, it'd be damn near impossible to prove anything absent a government official standing right behind you and looking at your screen as they see you physically click onto a pornographic website with clear intentions.

Otherwise a lone IP address won't tell them shit about your age or who was at the computer when they logged onto an XXX site. Not that it matters much anyways, because if they were going after minors looking up porn, it would be happening with or without these proposals being passed by lawmakers.

[Icarian Decoding]

The thing I can see it turning into though, is another Grokster V. RIAA. Say that this bill passes. That's great, it prevents people from going to pornographic without knowing. Besides they fact that they already have that, you are providing a label, and making the user completely liable so that if he goes there, he is a marked man.

Now, say this applies. Turn it to a sight like ISOHunt. ISOHunt, to my knowledge, doesn't record what you download. Now, I use Bittorrent responsibly, and I have no problem respecting artist's rights. But say the same rating system was applied to ISOHunt. Suddenly all the IPs that go to ISOHunt, are labeled. When ISOHunt gets sued, then everyone get's sued.

Say that the pornographic thing passes. The next thing you know, you create a .xxx top-level domain. This prevents minors from seeing porn, period. Given that most of the country is poor, how is this going to make it pheasable for a poor man, to access such type of information? He can't prove he's not a minor, otherwise there would be a breach that minors can go through.

Now, the cartoons I mentioned, would fall under the .xxx thing. I get warnings that say, "Caution, you must be not easily offended, yada, yada, yada". These same cartoons would be labeled as obscene and lewd as any pornography, and therefore they get labeled. This opens the entire floodgate to everyone who got offended by something. Almost everything would be banned.

[Binkie]

The thing with Grokstern is, downloading copyrighted songs for free via that service is illegal no matter what your age is. Therefore an IP address is all you need to nail someone. With porno sites, you're legal in viewing that as long as you're over 18. So just having an IP doesn't do you a whole lot. Even if a minor was on the computer looking up porn, that can't be proven by the IP, as someone else in the household (an adult) could have been using the computer at that time.

Then there's the question of what age is ripe to prosecute? Obviously the FBI isn't going to press charges against an 8 year old who was just clicking buttons. I doubt even a 10 year old, who can read the government warnings, would be prosecuted. So now you REALLY have to hunt for a small margin of IPs and you have to go a further step and prove it was a minor between the ages of 13-17 that was accessing that site. To the best of my knowledge, no minor has ever been prosecuted for surfing for porn, and I doubt you'll ever see that.

If the cartoons you look at are 18+ material, they wouldn't be sold to you in print form or video anyways. You shouldn't even have access to them without parental consent. That's how it is if you were to go into a comic book store or Best Buy and try to purchase NC-17 rated stuff. They're not going to sell it to you unless you're 17. Internet shouldn't be any different (which it is, and probably always will be).

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Didn't realize you cherished your pornography so much, Sternn. Glad you guys can read newspapers with topless women in them. We have magazines for that here (better print quality), which are apporpriately covered in the stores so three year olds, nuns, and Muslims aren't in there looking at that stuff, as it's a public store.

If regulating pornography online here means fewer six year olds are going to come across beastiality or women drinking urine, awesome. But you arguing over "morality" needing to take a backseat is kinda funny - cause isn't it you that argues all the time that the Iraq was was "immoral?" Hypocrisy is slowly seeping in again to your arguements.

How Iraq has anything to do with nekkid people and censorship is beyond me, but to the first part of yer response...

I find it ironic in a country that shows over 20+ deaths a day on standard telly has an issue with a woman showing her nipples in a magazine. Are you ashamed of yers? European beaches EVERYONE goes topless. Only in the US do women feel they must hide their topsides when nekkid. And, now the US government wants to p[ass legislation saying that people who display women topless will goto prison for 5 years unless they comply with mantory state censorship and labeling, and your defending this?

Also, note the wording. Fully clothed areas, swimsuits, lingeire, I mean, does this mean you have to be 18 to go into a Victorias Secret now? Thats some pretty racy stuff right there. You can visit the store, get the catalogue, but god-forbid you post some pictures of someone wearing their products online as you could go to prison.

I mean, I DJ alot, around the globe, many g/i and bdsm events as well. The pictures I have, even of many outfits at normal weekly goth events would defniately fall into the class of racy enough to get me arrested for having them on me site.

Thats just crazy. How many users here with posts in the User Picture Post are showing a bit of skin? Hell, this site, with links to Blue Blood and others, is going to be censored and have to include the 18+ label if the law goes through.

And you ok with that?

My question is, everytime I post a thread, showing the government taking away your rights, you always say its a good thing. Your losing your rights. Things you could do prior to bush taking office, are now deemed illegal/immoral and things only criminals do. This doesn't bother you? I mean, if yer grandparents/parents/older relatives got through life just fine looking at pictures of women in bikinis, then why do you feel the next generation needs to be 'protected' in such a way they can't make the decision for themselves and people need to spend years in prison to further this point?

I mean, things you used to be able to do, like post a picture of your significant other in a leather thong at the local goth club will be deemed PORNOGRAPHIC, and obviously, this helps further the idea that goths and the subculture is EVIL and the people involved are BAD.

This law will directly effect anyone and everyone in the goth culture, not to mention regular society. As far as you argument about it 'keeping six year olds from seeing scat', guess what? There are already clear laws about this on the books. This law goes further, as to create penalties for things DEEMED bad by the administration. I mean, if the government can interprete clothed people are pornographic merely on what they feel is wrong, then thats an issue. Where is the line? Whats next? Barring kids from dancing sugestively? Banning kids from watching people dance suggestively? Barring public displays of affection?

But hey, showing Full Metal Jacket or Halloween 4 on telly uncensored is fine as graphic depictions of violence, death, murder, and horror are not bad for kids - just exposed areola.

[Blushing Heliophobe]

I don't necessarily agree with my culture's demonization of what I consider perfectly natural human sexuality - but I think that it's a good thing that in the future I won't have to worry about my son accidently seeing mommy and daddy's 'special movies'. I don't see this as an infringement on my rights, I see it as protecting the rights of minors.

[Cambodian Breakfast]

Sternn why you are so worried about the U.S. goverment taking away our rights? Dose it effect you in anyway? Or dose it just give you somthing to bitch about?

[WolfMoon]

Binkie, I loves ya, babe!

[Binkie]

No one even brought up Iraq in this thread until you mentioned it. Don't try to tie it in - just stop.

As for the news showing 20 bodies, I'd like to know what news network. Fox, CBS, NBC, all these channels don't show dead bodies. If they do, there's always a parental advisory issued before they do. "These images are disturbing, if you have any children in the room, you may want to take them into another room." That's what commentators will always say shortly before showing any footage of a mauling, or policeman shooting an unarmed man, or bodies/body parts.

And I don't give a flying fuck about Europe's nude beaches. Big fucking whoop. Don't know if you ever got the memo, but we have them in the States too. Amazing. There are quite a few in Florida.

Ehhh... Victoria's Secret airs their walk-ons all the time on network TV. They freely send out catalogues in the mail. They have stores in malls with pictures of women in underware from their catalogue. You trying to make stuff up again is evident in your example of swimsuits. Now your arguement is just becoming stupid and desperate to make these proposed laws look absurd and you're having a tough time doing it.

And if I remember correctly, Blue Blood shows fully nude women - so yes, they'd need the warning. Maybe you missed the many posts in the whining section of members complaining about the porn ads. They're refering to the Blue Blood links.

What am I losing my right to, Sternn? My right to post porno in a public forum? I never exercised that and it's not really a right. I don't go out nude in public or show pictures of my fully nude body in public on billboards. You, on the other hand, are throwing an absolute shit fit over this - and I can see why. You're one of the few members of this board who have ever posted pictures of their genitals. Your shit is digusting, Sternn. And because the image automatically showed up on the thread, everyone had to see that shit when no one wanted to like it was a billboard in the middle of town. Had you done that outside, in really real world, your ass would have been arrested. The internet is a public forum and shouldn't be treated any different. If someone wants to see your little dick, they need to be warned before being subjected to such shit. I think anyone who knows the image I'm talking about will agree wholeheartedly.

Wolfie - You know I love you too! BTW, you owe everyone pictures here real soon.

[Cambodian Breakfast]

I think that I will have to agree with everone except Strenn. I don't want my son, he is older and born, to look at some girl peeing in a bucket. I don't think that children and certin young poeple should have access to such things.

[Icarian Decoding]

I'm not concerned about Iraq, or anything of the like, and for the extent of this bill, I am not concerned about my right to pornography being taken away.

I am simply concerned about the floodgates this will open. As soon as you allow labeling by the US Government, on websites, you shut off the capability of other websites to function from out of US Jurisdiction, on US Soil.

Say for instance "Randompornsite.co.uk", wanted to host 18+ material. If this is passed, then they couldn't host it without putting up this warning sign. They aren't in US soil, but the US can still exert an amount of control, outside of their field of law. Now, say that this law passes. Big deal. We get labels on our porno.

But wait a minute. Wouldn't this allow law makers, using the same arguement, to mark sites like ISOHunt? Even if ISOHunt moved their legal servers, to the UK, they would still have to put up numerous warnings, to be used in US Domains. Once they do this, the US can tag and monitor the sites pretty easily. Anyone who downloads anything, has their IP stored.

As soon as this happens, it allows every site to be categorized. When they do this, the US can assert control and shutdown sites they have no power on. This crushes, basically any form of free publication. It's completely indexed, and the US has control over it.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Binkie

...but you arguing over "morality" needing to take a backseat is kinda funny - cause isn't it you that argues all the time that the Iraq was was "immoral?" Hypocrisy is slowly seeping in again to your arguements.

Originally Posted by binkie

No one even brought up Iraq in this thread until you mentioned it. Don't try to tie it in - just stop.

Your words, you forget what you typed already?

Originally Posted by binkie

And I don't give a flying fuck about Europe's nude beaches. Big fucking whoop. Don't know if you ever got the memo, but we have them in the States too. Amazing. There are quite a few in Florida.

Ehhh... Victoria's Secret airs their walk-ons all the time on network TV. They freely send out catalogues in the mail. They have stores in malls with pictures of women in underware from their catalogue. You trying to make stuff up again is evident in your example of swimsuits. Now your arguement is just becoming stupid and desperate to make these proposed laws look absurd and you're having a tough time doing it.

Did you not read the article? Did you not even refer to the post? I'll put it here, again, since you never read the post your arguing for some reason..

and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

...In practice, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly. In one case, U.S. v. Knox, the Supreme Court and an appeals court ruled that the "lascivious exhibition" of the pubic area could include images of clothed people wearing bikini bathing suits, leotards and underwear. That suggests, for instance, that photos of people in leotards and bathing suits would have to be rated as sexually explicit if the commercial Web site owner wanted to avoid going to prison.


Notice the court case U.S. v. Knox and feel free to look it up. Supreme Court case that ruled 'pornography' could include swimsuits and leotards, fully clothed persons, at the will of the prosecutor.

Try actually, you know, reading the article before writing anything next time.

Thanks

[Binkie]

Oh I looked up the case, Sternn. Let me share it with you (since this will be your first time seeing it).

United States vs. Stephen A. Knox

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...ase&no=940734P

It's a child pornography case, for one. It applied to the language used in Child Pornography laws. Maybe this line needed more emphasis, "The Supreme Court allows the states and Congress greater leeway to regulate and proscribe pornography that depicts minors as distinguished from adults since the harmful effects suffered by a child are palpably more severe." Secondly, it's only dealing with video tapes, not pictures. If you had a picture, the child would need to have her legs spread and her fingers showcasing her genitals. Otherwise clothing manufacturers who sell children's bathing suits and underware would be arrested for child pornography.

"Thus, we conclude that a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" of a minor necessarily requires only that the material depict some "sexually explicit conduct" by the minor subject which appeals to the lascivious interest of the intended audience. Applying this standard in the present case, it is readily apparent that the tapes in evidence violate the statute. In several sequences, the minor subjects, clad only in very tight leotards, panties, or bathing suits, were shown specifically spreading or extending their legs to make their genital and pubic region entirely visible to the viewer. In some of these poses, the child subject was shown dancing or gyrating in a fashion indicative of adult sexual relations. Nearly all of these scenes were shot in an outdoor playground or park setting where children are normally found. Although none of these factors is alone dispositive, the totality of these factors lead us to conclude that the minor subjects were engaged in conduct--namely, the exhibition of their genitals or pubic area--which would appeal to the lascivious interest of an audience of **********."

The term, "sexually explicit, is defined in Child Pornography laws as the, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." The Supreme Court found that to mean clothed regions too. However, those laws apply only to people that are photographed/videotaped under 18. That wording isn't used in laws that apply to adults.

Hence the title of Gonzales' proposal being dubbed, "Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006."

I think what you're looking for is the "Harmful to Minors" regulations on pornography.

"The term "harmful to minors'' means any picture, image, graphic image file, or other visual depiction that --
(A) taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual acts, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value as to minors."

So no, your Victoria's Secret bullshit still doesn't fly. Please insert another quarter and try again.

[CptSternn]

Once again, your arguing points with the article. I didn't write it, nor did I cite the law behind it.

But I think the article makes a very good point. The current laws defining any pornography could easily be used, especially by a far leaning right wing administration to go after websites that display people in swimwear, if its 'displayed' in a manner they feel is 'inappropriate'.

But once again, what do we care, as only american websites would have to label themselves or face prison time. The rest of the world will go on posting our topless pictures, swimsuit clad persons, and other items the US morality police deem inappropriate and want to keep its citizens from viewing.

Once again, more americans in more american prisons for doing something thats legal around the rest of the world.

[Binkie]

You know what's funny? A law almost identical to this one was introduced by Democrats some time ago. What were you saying about right-wingers again?

Originally Posted by CptSternn

But once again, what do we care

Good question. You threw an absolute shit fit about it in this thread. Most of the American-based posters, with exception of one, who is a minor, seem to to be OK with it.

[Vorsuc]

The pictures I have, even of many outfits at normal weekly goth events would defniately fall into the class of racy enough to get me arrested for having them on me site.

You argue against this legislation on those grounds, but in the US most states have rather vague laws covering obscenity, often referring to clothing that is "bizzare and revealing" in nature. A lot of such goth/bdsm outfits are certainly revealing and do you think you'd get away with arguing in court with some 50+ conservative judge that they weren't bizzare?

Sod the pictures, current law can have you arrested for wearing the outfits.

But given the complete lack of raids on S&M clubs, one can assume the cops have better things to do than act as fashion police. I think it is a safe bet that they'll assign the same priority to that collection of goth smut of yours, so you can sleep easy.

[4mytribe]

I hate censorship and think the Government should trust its citizins to filter for themselves what they dont like or let the market come up with some software for parents. That said if I had a kid I might be more concerned.

Anyways I dont trust anyone in the Bush administration anyways and will get down and kiss the ground if we still have a country by time Bush leaves office.

[CptSternn]

Bink -

where? find me that law proposed by anyone and I'll bash it.

[Binkie]

"Communications Decency Act"

[CptSternn]

Yeah, I had a post on that as well. Censorship is censorship, no matter who propooses it.