say no to section 2257.

[DiamondDog]

The US federal government is proposing regulations that would effectively kill adult social-networking sites. [Just like this site!] This is being done under the guise of fighting child pornography. You have until September 10 to object to these regulations.

The Department of Justice is proposing regulations to implement a federal law designed to combat child pornography, known as Section 2257. The law was first enacted in 1998 and was amended in 2006 and significantly expanded to include regulation of the Internet.

While many of the regulations pertain to companies that produce adult entertainment magazines and videos (and are extremely burdensome), they would also affect anyone who uses an adult social-networking site. Here's how:

The regulations would require the people running a site to get and maintain personal information from every user (that means you) who posts a 'sexually explicit' photo, including your photo ID (driver's license, passport, or military ID).

The regulations would allow the Attorney General to conduct warrantless searches at will on the sites records, including your personal information.
There are few safeguards over what the FBI can do with the information it obtains.

If a site operator fails to comply with the regulations, he or she would face a prison sentence of up to 5 years.

please read more and register an email complaint with the DOJ!

http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/say_no_to_section_2257

[shameless agitator]

Just sent mine! Welcome to 1984 my friends

[darkeyes]

I do think this is a pretty insidious move and is just another example of the long arm of the law reaching out to interfere with the lives of millions of ordinary people.

The latest thing here is some old fool of a judge saying that he thinks every person who resides in this country should be put on the national DNA database, and also that every visitor should be like wise. I ave just listened to agovernment minister saying that he has always believed this to be an invaluable tool of the stae in its fight against many forms of crime and terrorism. Both Judge and Government minister couch it up in terms which are intended to salve the blow... ie.. the disproportionate nuber of ethnic minorities who are on the database and its value in fighting crime an the fact that the majority are in favour of the database and would voluntarily give a sample for testing..

The UK already has the largest DNA database in existence and while it is at present arguably intended for the use they say.. the dangers for every human being who every comes to this country and the infringement of their civil liberties is obvious. Yet another legal tentacle wiggling its way into out lives as a form of control.

Similarly any attack on social networking sights may be couched in terms which are of concern to the general public, but they are in reality meant to be used as tools of the stae to once again screw up and control our lives.

I know US law likes to wiggle into the lives of more than just its own citizens and indeed its own country, but surely it wouldnt have the ability to affect this site as agitator claims (since it originates in Canada) or would it? Who can tell. I do have little doubt the forces of law and order in every country which has members are poking around this site for any reason to discredit it or use it to discredit our kind. Who knows how many "members" are plants....

I am not paranoid about state interference as not a few have claimed down the years. I know enough about the workings of the state to know they are not there simply for our protection but our control. Put simply I hate the overbearing state which my country for one has rapidly become. Thats why I act as I do in life, and why every one of us should question every single proposition the state comes up with for the "protection" of its citizens. Having questioned, and the state being found wanting, it is our responsibility then to act in the defence of the people against the state.

[the mage]

The government and those that want to control your body and mind seem to be more afraid of freedom than they are terrorists and criminals.

fight it.

[gb11vt18]

That is just insane what is Drew and the other administrators doing about this since a large number of members are from the United States, the Internet is a place where we can all come together and this would effectively end that for many of us. I would hate to see that, this site is very clean and respectable and becasue of the age limit that it has we should be fine to operate at any level. There is no way you are going to stop underage kids from lieing to get on, but with good administratives for the site you can reduce it and allow for an adult site where the main objective is to share ideas, get information, and make friends.

[Vuarra]

Does this site even need to be included under S2257, as it's based in AB, Canada?

[Doggie_Wood]

Does this site even need to be included under S2257, as it's based in AB, Canada?

Exactly! I feel that Drew's site, being based outside the US, would not initially be affected. But Uncle Sugar has ways with "Allied" countries such as Canada and the UK, coaxing them to follow suit or lose some of the "aide" monies fron the US.

What's your take on that DD?

:doggie:

[TaylorMade]

I care deeply about the safety of children, but if this is actually on the table...all it will do is drive those who actually seek to harm children back to where they were before the internet. It won't change much.

It's hard to find ways to keep kids safe, while letting adults have their fun... this poor attempt is definitely not a good idea.

*Taylor*

[welickit]

The link above is a "pay site" that states their opinion. Why not post the actual proposed bill as opposed to opinion and speculation aimed at rallying people who get upset thinking you are quoting facts?

[spartca]

Well I have to say the internet killed real-life social networking.

Maybe it's time we all headed out to the gay bars and private clubs again anyways?

[jedinudist]

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." --Edward Abbey.

"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

[TaylorMade]

The link above is a "pay site" that states their opinion. Why not post the actual proposed bill as opposed to opinion and speculation aimed at rallying people who get upset thinking you are quoting facts?

That also is a good point. Before we start getting scared, let's get a good look at what we are getting scared of.

*Taylor*

[Doggie_Wood]

The link above is a "pay site" that states their opinion. Why not post the actual proposed bill as opposed to opinion and speculation aimed at rallying people who get upset thinking you are quoting facts?

I found this which gives a comparison of the existing and proposed changes

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

[wanderingrichard]

The US federal government is proposing regulations that would effectively kill adult social-networking sites. [Just like this site!] This is being done under the guise of fighting child pornography. You have until September 10 to object to these regulations.

The Department of Justice is proposing regulations to implement a federal law designed to combat child pornography, known as Section 2257. The law was first enacted in 1998 and was amended in 2006 and significantly expanded to include regulation of the Internet.

While many of the regulations pertain to companies that produce adult entertainment magazines and videos (and are extremely burdensome), they would also affect anyone who uses an adult social-networking site. Here's how:

The regulations would require the people running a site to get and maintain personal information from every user (that means you) who posts a 'sexually explicit' photo, including your photo ID (driver's license, passport, or military ID).

The regulations would allow the Attorney General to conduct warrantless searches at will on the sites records, including your personal information.
There are few safeguards over what the FBI can do with the information it obtains.

If a site operator fails to comply with the regulations, he or she would face a prison sentence of up to 5 years.

please read more and register an email complaint with the DOJ!

http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/say_no_to_section_2257

thanx, dude,
i've already passed this on to others i know who run social networking sites and may not have known about it.. also, sevral of those site operators are legal professionals in real life. that might add some impetus and firepower to a few protests.

odd thought just now,: does this mean AFF and it's offshoots all be done away with??:bigrin: or many of the yahoo and other online adult groups ??

[cddm50]

If you want more details about section 2257 go to this link:

http://www.xxxlaw.net/

This site has it well laid out and has links to tables that show all the proposed changes to this section as compared to the current law.

Under "Sec. 75.1 Definitions" the 'Producer' definition has me confused. Are the proposed changes below part (4) clearly defining who is NOT a primary or secondary producer? I can't decipher the legalese that well. Not fluent in Government Double tongue...

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
<see the exceptions below this section>

Would that exclude the owner/operators of Adult "social" web sites?

And under "Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records" this proposal change states:

(g) Records are not required to be maintained by either a primary producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct that consists only of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person, and contains no other sexually explicit conduct, whose original production date was prior to July 27, 2006.

So if all users of this site could "date" all the posted pics with a clearly burned date in the corner of the pic (like July 26, 2006) would this site's owner NOT have to maintain records of its users?

Once again our government is hard at work protecting us from US.

I am all for protecting our children from abuse in any form. I have kids of my own and I'd kill or sacrifice my life to protect them. But this law seems so broad that it may very well get challenged.

Wonder how many government officials will be required to submit their ID's to sites THEY belong to? Seems to me we have a LOT of kinky congressmen that can't seem to keep their johnsons in their pants or their hands out of other pages' pants. They had better work on their own personal ethics first. I have no respect for a hypocrate who claims to represent our nation's citizens, creates and passes laws, then breaks those very laws they were sworn to uphold.

HJ

[Vuarra]

Exactly! I feel that Drew's site, being based outside the US, would not initially be affected. But Uncle Sugar has ways with "Allied" countries such as Canada and the UK, coaxing them to follow suit or lose some of the "aide" monies fron the US.

What's your take on that DD?

:doggie:

Canada takes no "aide" money from the US.

As well, the Canadian Government will not simply bow down to Uncle Sam in *this* measure... Quebec will NOT allow that sort of conservatism in its libertarian society, and Quebec still rules the Canadian roost. Given that Canada is in a minority government, the current Prime Minister will not face an election over blowing GWB and his stand on morals.

[12voltman59]

Typical Bush administration BS--they also have the DOJ and FBI concentrating on shutting down access to pay-per-view adult videos at major hotel/motel chains----

You do wonder when its gonna stop with these bozos--they really do want to control our lives--so much for "getting the government off the backs of the people"--one of the supposed mainstays of classical conservativism---but then--Bush is really not conservative---I don't know what to really call him--but he and his crowd don't give a rat's ass about freedom.

I also hear reports that in the UK for certain and possibly here in the US as well--there are proposals going around that if they ever came to pass--everyone would have to provide DNA samples to the government--just of course that they have that info on file so they can more readily solve criminal and terrorism cases---so much for the presumption of innocense.

On the report that I heard on the BBC about this--in the UK--if you are going to spend more than a few days in the country---you would have to give up a DNA sample----

Adios freedom, you were good while ya lasted------hello Gulags----

[12voltman59]

Canada takes no "aide" money from the US.

As well, the Canadian Government will not simply bow down to Uncle Sam in *this* measure... Quebec will NOT allow that sort of conservatism in its libertarian society, and Quebec still rules the Canadian roost. Given that Canada is in a minority government, the current Prime Minister will not face an election over blowing GWB and his stand on morals.

This site might be from Canada-but they are sure to find ways to make it difficult for operators of such sites even if they are out of the boundaries of the US--my God--we've got to make the world safe for out little kids don't cha know----so putting freedom, due process and such in the toilet is a small price to pay for safety and security!!!! Especially when it comes to our kids!!!!

Moms and Dads all over America will rest easy knowing that the government has shut down or limited access to perverted sites such as this one---making the internet safe for little Justin and Brittini (maybe Bush's next Attorney General can pull out of thin air-a rationalization that requires that any US citizen who uses a site like this can be labled a sex offender for simply coming here)

Sounds far fetched--maybe-but so much shit has been pulled by Bush and his crowd since taking office back in 2001-that I am beginning to think that nothing is out of the bounds of possibility any longer with these bastards running things---

[spartca]

This site is mostly an innocuous forum and chat room.

I work with kids. It would be nice to be able to browse bisexual.com at work. And why not? Everyone else uses various other more vanilla social networking sites. Bisexual doesn't equal smutty necessarily.

However, there are a couple of things that make viewing bisexual.com around kids really dicey:

First of all, people have nudity in their avatars, so I never know when a cock or whatever is going to come up on my screen. That just doesn't work with kids around.

The other thing is that I'd like to be able to chat without graphic descriptions of sex acts coming up. A steady stream of cybersex text always red-flags network administrators.

So there are ways we could make it possible for people who have kids around to browse this site. Keeping the avatars and main chat room G-rated would allow us to opt out of the X-rated content, and keep big brother off our backs.

Then, when we have more privacy, we can browse profiles or chat in the bedroom, where we could expect that sort of thing to be going on. You know, kind of like in real life? When you have kids, you don't leave your Playboy magazines out on the coffee table or your bedroom door open while you're fucking. Right?

I'm not suggesting we censor ourselves, but I am suggesting we organize the X-rated material in designated areas so that those of us who are around kids can make the sane choice to keep their prying eyes away from it. Right now, there's no way to do that on bisexual.com.

What do you all think of that idea?

[spartca]

Oh yeah, and it might solve that age-old bisexual.com dispute about graphic content.

It would make it possible for those of us who are just here "for the articles" to just read the freaking articles already, and leave the cybersluts in peace.

[spartca]

Oh, and don't get me wrong, I have friends who take their kids to the nude beach. I think nudity's fine. Unfortunately, few other people do.

So until you can walk naked through your local shopping mall...

[Vuarra]

This site might be from Canada-but they are sure to find ways to make it difficult for operators of such sites even if they are out of the boundaries of the US--my God--we've got to make the world safe for out little kids don't cha know----so putting freedom, due process and such in the toilet is a small price to pay for safety and security!!!! Especially when it comes to our kids!!!!

So you're saying that it's okay for Bush to tell a soverign nation ... uh... never mind.

Don't worry... the only thing that Stephen Hair-pie has done that I have agreed with is telling Bush to leave the Canadian "North-West Passage" alone. Other than that, if he lets Bush have his way in Canada... there's enough oil in Alberta to supply China, which would pay as much as the US does.

And sorry to get this political, but I WOULD take up arms against an American Armed Forces invasion of MY country.

[wanderingrichard]

Typical Bush administration BS--they also have the DOJ and FBI concentrating on shutting down access to pay-per-view adult videos at major hotel/motel chains----

You do wonder when its gonna stop with these bozos--they really do want to control our lives--so much for "getting the government off the backs of the people"--one of the supposed mainstays of classical conservativism---but then--Bush is really not conservative---I don't know what to really call him--but he and his crowd don't give a rat's ass about freedom.

I also hear reports that in the UK for certain and possibly here in the US as well--there are proposals going around that if they ever came to pass--everyone would have to provide DNA samples to the government--just of course that they have that info on file so they can more readily solve criminal and terrorism cases---so much for the presumption of innocense.

On the report that I heard on the BBC about this--in the UK--if you are going to spend more than a few days in the country---you would have to give up a DNA sample----

Adios freedom, you were good while ya lasted------hello Gulags----

and here, we thot clinton and the V chip were the evil orwellians.....:2cents: