Posted by KM: 
I dont know, its just that Im sick of seeing 10 year olds acting slutty and boys commenting with words they shouldnt even use... dear america then wonders why we have 12 yr olds getting abortion! sick. Lets think about others for once.

That's the fault of mainstream media, schools, and parents – in reverse order.

Posted by Joe K. Perez: 
I didn't bother with simulation, or simulated as a keyword,

My concern is that a simple bondage image like the one in my port could be interpreted as simulated sadistic or masochistic abuse.

Posted by theda: 

Posted by Joe K. Perez: 

Posted by marksora: 
It is all based upon what the COMMUNITY thinks is engaged, sexually, explicit, conduct.  Check your local Supreme Court ruling.

LOL. I read all kinds of stuff when I'm taking a No. 2. I don't just "sit" there, stew and ponder life's glorious mysteries.

Well, in fairness, that's because Bush isn't a member of congrss. he hasn't voted against it either. He can't.

McReynolds in 2008?

I know you meant to reply to Anthony instead of Joe, but No. 2 sometimes makes me think of Bush too...

Posted by theda: 
Well, in fairness, that's because Bush isn't a member of congrss. he hasn't voted against it either. He can't.

Therein, my point. 

Setting aside my personal views on Bush, it smacks of ignorance to blame a sitting president for legislation that was passed by Congress 15 years ago.

Posted by David Klein: 
don't blame me... i voted for Kerry...

thank you Bush Justice Department for staying off The People's backs

I was thinkin the exact same thing.

Posted by Shayuma: 

Posted by David Klein: 
don't blame me... i voted for Kerry...

thank you Bush Justice Department for staying off The People's backs

I was thinkin the exact same thing.

Why?

Posted by Hartsoe: 
Hi there!
Just wanted to add, that this law only counts for computer/server in US territory.

So if you want to be save - get a european server and feel free to post as much nudity as you want... and jumpstart european economy ;o)

Cheaper servers can be found elsehere - africa, mexico, canada, etc

the euro and pound is nasty against the dollar

Posted by KM von Seidl: 

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

How are sites like MM and OMP affected?

This is an extremely poorly written and in my mind overbroad law. 

Ditto. Its very general and can be construed and twisted to various uses.

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

Posted by Joe K. Perez: 
I didn't bother with simulation, or simulated as a keyword,

My concern is that a simple bondage image like the one in my port could be interpreted as simulated sadistic or masochistic abuse.

Thats a MAJOR concern for me too - big deal if I have a gag in ...or Im holding a riding crop...dont jail me for it just because there isnt propperly documented ID!

Posted by KM von Seidl: 
The largest initial problem will likely be the chilling effect it will have upon those not engaging in child pornography

Then the way to fight back is to not let the effect "chill" you and encourage others to do likewise. For example, I took the "must be 18 or over" disclaimer off of my gallery a few years ago, because I concluded that none of my nudes were any worse than anything else minors are exposed to in art museums. They can't touch me. Even if "they" did try anything, that's OK - I've been looking for something fun to do with the rest of my life and becoming an ACLU test case for the Supreme Court could be kinda cool.

The way to fight back against this kind of stuff is to stare blankly at "them" and say, "how does this apply to my material?" NOT to start taking defensive steps. Taking any action on their agenda gives them a degree of control over you that you do not want to give them. When you start to play their game you are implicitly admitting that they have a degree of control over you. Just laugh and walk away.

The ripple of fear is going to be pretty significant for those who are secondary providers .i.e those who manage/distribute content.

Which is exactly why we need to step on scaremongering postings where people run around going "the sky is falling the sky is falling." Keep an eye on the situation, yes, but be realistic and don't fear the idiots. They'll die of old age and a new generation (that grew up on the Internet with access to porn from age 6 on) will be taking power in aother 40-50 years. Take a chill pill, drag your feet, support the 1st amendment by forcing them to explain how their attempts to restrain your speech is justified, smile, nod, and wait them out.

mjr.

Posted by KM von Seidl: 
AND DON't FORGET, this all is just a test balloon for what DOJ really wants which is "Mandatory Data Retention," which basically means that  ALL ISPS will have to keep files on everything that people using their services are doing online--as in your emails, chatlogs, websites you visited, etc.   I'm not kidding, this was floated by the neofascists at DOJ this year

This is going to be a huge problem for them. I won't say "don't worry about it" but there are already people in the know who are moving to ensure that if the government starts collecting this kind of data, since it contains data pertaining to minors, personal details (identity theft), credit card data, etc, that the government will have to deal with all of its own regulations regarding data handling. There isn't a single branch of the DOJ that is capable of complying with audit and retention requirements for personal data - and it'd take them years to get there. What'll happen is that DOJ will collect some of this data and it'll get penetrated by hackers and flooded to the Internet. Then DOJ will be F-ed. Government computer security is a joke and before they can do anything useful with their audit/retention requirements they'll need to fix that or the first big helping of eggs is going right in their face.

Want to be a hero? Go work for DOJ. Be a mole for the resistance. Become a whistle-blower, when/if you find them doing something wrong, or mishandling citizens' data take it to Sy Hersh at the New York Times and blow the doors off 'em. What's great is that if you're a whistle-blower, they can't even fire you.

mjr.

Posted by Hartsoe: 
Just wanted to add, that this law only counts for computer/server in US territory.
So if you want to be save - get a european server and feel free to post as much nudity as you want... and jumpstart european economy ;o)

Sorry, Hartsoe - that is conspiracy.

Knowing and recognizing a law exists, to the point where you deliberately try to get around it, really, really puts you in a weak position if you ever wind up in court. It's better to tackle things head on and let 'em try their hardest.

Most photographers have heard about what happened to Jock Sturges. He was harrassed by the feds and never even charged. Lawsuits from the financial damages and reputation harm are going to make a lot of lawyers (and hopefully Jock) some big $$ by the time it's all said and done. And you can be pretty sure that some careers at FBI have been sidelined (they never fire anyone for incompetence at FBI but they reassign them to hunt for Al Quaeda in a bowling alley in Botswana or something) - folks in the DOJ are just cowardly territorial bureaucrats like most .GOVvies - they're not going to risk their careers unless they think they're going to win.

The American Way to deal with this kind of crap is to stand tall and say "BRING IT ON." And let the chips fall where they may.

mjr.

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

Posted by KM: 
I dont know, its just that Im sick of seeing 10 year olds acting slutty and boys commenting with words they shouldnt even use... dear america then wonders why we have 12 yr olds getting abortion! sick. Lets think about others for once.

That's the fault of mainstream media, schools, and parents – in reverse order.

Yes influenced, but you dont see porn in schools, media or in parents home exposed for all to see like on the internet. In fact statistics show that about 80% of teens between 10-17 from '00-'04 saw porn on the internet for the first time and more than 2/3rds of those that sneak back to look at some more images, go to the internet as the ultimate source. I lost the link to the page that had the statistics but we all know that 'porn' in anyway is way out of hand on the internet.

Posted by KM: 

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

Posted by KM: 
I dont know, its just that Im sick of seeing 10 year olds acting slutty and boys commenting with words they shouldnt even use... dear america then wonders why we have 12 yr olds getting abortion! sick. Lets think about others for once.

That's the fault of mainstream media, schools, and parents – in reverse order.

Yes influenced, but you dont see porn in schools, media or in parents home exposed for all to see like on the internet. In fact statistics show that about 80% of teens between 10-17 from '00-'04 saw porn on the internet for the first time and more than 2/3rds of those that sneak back to look at some more images, go to the internet as the ultimate source. I lost the link to the page that had the statistics but we all know that 'porn' in anyway is way out of hand on the internet.

2257 has to do with keeping kids out of being in porn not with being sure kids don't surf the net for it.  the only way to ensure that kids don't have access to sexual materials is to ban it completely, and that might be something they do in Iran but I'd rather think that we haven't reached that point yet in the US.

As far as girls acting slutty, I agree with one of the other posters that you should point your sights on mass consumerism that  targets children and adolescents.  And boys have always used bad words.  They're just different ones now then they were in the 50's 60's 70's or whatever nostalgic era you gravitate towards.

Posted by KM von Seidl: 
The term SEXUALLY EXPLICIT used in U.S.C. 2257 is actually defined in Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110, SS 2256, it reads:

2) “sexually explicit conductâ€? means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;


You can see that simulated is sufficiently actionable, and penetration is not a necessary component to bring one under scrutiny.  There are any number of artists (not pornographers) on this site who contain these sort of images and themes (lovemaking, masturbation, SM).

The SM bit means that any fetishy photo probably counts if there's any sort of ropework involved.

Posted by jmc: 
Here in the UK we had a law just passed last May2004. That no one could take or have in his possesion any photograph of a minor under the age of 18 if she was naked or topless. Now fine most will agree we have to protect minors and I do. However, the age of consent in the UK is 16. In other words  a guy can marry a girl at 16 ger her pregnant but if he takes topless pics of her on honeymoon or photographs of the birth of their child he can be charged and end up on the sex offenders list for life, and that for photographing his own wife in private. Now how is that for responsible lawnmakers!!!

hmm i am wondering, a few years back Keira Knightley was topless in a UK movie "The Hole" and she was like 15 or 16- owning that film will get ya put on the list as well?

** another thought - also those pics i  was sent by some freinds of me mooning a mess of folks when i was like 14 or so, i got those laying around somewhere, technically here in the U.S. could i go to jail for having those?

Posted by Ty Simone: 
2. Anyone that recieves the above material, and redistributes it, Whether it is online, in magazines, in movies etc... Must retain the Same Copy of that documentation. (Gone is the loop hole that allowed Mike's Fly by Night comapny to produce porn, put the disclaimer in, fold, and Bob's shop be covered because, Mike had the documentation.)

If that's the case, wouldn't that mean any adult book store or video store be required to maintain proof of age for all performers appearing in anything they stock? Seems a wee bit insane.

Unless this section is being misinterprated, that sounds like ti effects a whole lot of people.

Posted by theda: 

Posted by Ty Simone: 
2. Anyone that recieves the above material, and redistributes it, Whether it is online, in magazines, in movies etc... Must retain the Same Copy of that documentation. (Gone is the loop hole that allowed Mike's Fly by Night comapny to produce porn, put the disclaimer in, fold, and Bob's shop be covered because, Mike had the documentation.)

If that's the case, wouldn't that mean any adult book store or video store be required to maintain proof of age for all performers appearing in anything they stock? Seems a wee bit insane.

Unless this section is being misinterprated, that sounds like ti effects a whole lot of people.

The way it is worded, it would seem that way, But, A store is not a redistributor, It is a seller.
During the discussion points, That was actually brought up as a vague statement, and was amended to exclude the seller of the material, Unless they were also the producer of said Material.

To clarify it, and use the terms that were used in the law, It is "Secondary Producers" that must maintain the same record as Producers.

An Example would be if I photographed You for Hustler (not that I have a contract with Hustler or anything, It is purely an example) Not only would I have to keep the records, But In order for Hustler to then put them in their Mag, they would need a copy too. However, The store selling them does not.

Hope that clarifies it.

My apologies for the vagueness.

Posted by theda: 
It somehwat clarifies it, but I'm still unsure exacttly what qualifies as a secondary producer.

A secondary producer would be anyone that takes an original work, and then compiles it into a new work.

I will find the actual talking points for you on this, and post them.

Posted by Brent S: 
Sorry to put more bad news into this.

From what I heard being discussed is the interpretation of  the "duplicate" or "reproduce" wording. This is not only referring to downloading images to your computer but to "just" viewing the web pages !!!! 

And if the web site is out of state you are "transporting" images and that federal.

This sucks.

That sounds a wee bit insane, even for the US government. I wouldn't worry.

Posted by That Look Photo: 
The laws are there for one reason..To clean up the internet.
Mike

That's not why they were written at all.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, 2257 was written and passed around 20 years ago - before the Internet had any mass market acceptance and well before it had any images.

Posted by studio36uk: 
To cut a fine point of the law and the regulations, here, re: the recordkeeping and labelling requirements:

If you only deal with NN [non-nude] ADULT models - you are EXEMPT

If you deal in ADULT full nudity (described in 2256(2)(E) but >not< in 2257(h)(1)) however lascivious and explicit, and as I read this even with such as spreads and showing pink but without actual masturbation; toe sucking; tits out; cameltoes; nude wrestling; bloody rag; pee; shaving and showing... the lot... and it is important that some of these "acts" are not described, or even hinted at, in 2256 or 2257 but they are certainly NOT sexual intercourse; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or bestiality which are specifically listed. - you are EXEMPT

If that tongue or toy or finger doesn't "quite" touch those "lips" - you are EXEMPT

If you deal in simulated acts between ADULTS but not real ones - you are EXEMPT

IF, however, you are using a model under 18 then the full weight of section 2256 (NOT 2257) falls on you including the lascivious nudity element (2256 (3)(E))... and the fact that something is merely "simulated" will also get you busted. Since US v Knox there are SERIOUS problems even with some non-nude images of U-18's. In Knox the courts held that covered nudity (e.g. a crotch shot but with panties on - if it is of someone U-18) that would otherwise, if nude, be covered by 2256 (2)(E) is now effectively covered.


Studio36

Correct On the Non-nude Sexual images.
But that is still being decided in the courts.
Also note that simulate porn, Regardless of age, where no real person is used, is completely Immuned. (ie 100% computer graphics, like anime, which has been known to depict 14 year old girls having sex.)

Posted by GWC: 
That appears to apply to "explicit content" which is not the same as "nudity" - right??

GWC!

That is my understanding too. The new rules only pertain to hardcore content.

Posted by Marcus J. Ranum: 

Posted by Hartsoe: 
Just wanted to add, that this law only counts for computer/server in US territory.
So if you want to be save - get a european server and feel free to post as much nudity as you want... and jumpstart european economy ;o)

Sorry, Hartsoe - that is conspiracy.

Knowing and recognizing a law exists, to the point where you deliberately try to get around it, really, really puts you in a weak position if you ever wind up in court. It's better to tackle things head on and let 'em try their hardest.

Most photographers have heard about what happened to Jock Sturges. He was harrassed by the feds and never even charged. Lawsuits from the financial damages and reputation harm are going to make a lot of lawyers (and hopefully Jock) some big $$ by the time it's all said and done. And you can be pretty sure that some careers at FBI have been sidelined (they never fire anyone for incompetence at FBI but they reassign them to hunt for Al Quaeda in a bowling alley in Botswana or something) - folks in the DOJ are just cowardly territorial bureaucrats like most .GOVvies - they're not going to risk their careers unless they think they're going to win.

The American Way to deal with this kind of crap is to stand tall and say "BRING IT ON." And let the chips fall where they may.

mjr.

Your WRONG!!! They promote you first then re-assign you...lol.