Plus, it sucks for producers of porn (who I often do ad and web copy for) because they have no idea what will be prosecuted.
One of my clients runs both bareback.com and Urine Nation and is constantly terrified that the feds will one day find one or the other "extreme."
If the law simply said "this is what you can not depict" it would be a different thing. But forcing people to simply guess? WTF?
Running an adult company is hard enough work already why make it harder?
Seriously, the law seems designed to trip people up. For example one thing that attracts people to keep coming back to a given site is discussion forums.
So, you need to have them. But he has to spend two hours a day going through them, because dudes like to post pictures of their boyfriends and sometimes with twinks there is no way in hell to know/verify if the dude is at least 18 - and if one of his customers posts a picture of his 17 year old boyfriend it's not the customer who could go to jail, it's my client!
WTF????
When he's on vacation I sub for him as a moderator and do you know what it's like to look at 200 pics and have to ask yourself "Is this one at least 18?" while knowing that if you make a mistake your boss could go to prison?
They're trying to legislate morality, which is such a regressive step backwards after all the hard fought battles that got us to a state of relative freedom of sexual expression.
I understand the English extreme porn law defines illegal porn as anything in which actual physical harm could result. So theoretically all bondage S&M porn can now get you a jail sentence, likewise anything including anal sex, or indeed anything including unprotected sex, which, theoretically, could result in death. I was amazed there wasn't more fuss about the law when it was passed, but it was one of those things New Labour packed into their final months in office, that didn't get time to be properly looked at and picked apart. And the tories just love the law, because it means they can lock up whichever sick deviants they like.
And yeah, if Max Hardcore went to jail for four years for making movies including freely consenting adults, then I can totally understand why your client is paranoid.
Are you not legally covered by having a disclaimer on the forum saying 'All pictures must be of adults over 18'?
So if somebody carried a grudge and wanted to cause mischief, it would be ridiculously easy for them to post pictures of an under 18 year old on your clients forum, and then inform the police?
What I find weird is that the age of consent in much of america is 16, so it's perfectly fine for these dudes to have 17 year old boyfriends and fuck their brains out, but not fine for them to post pictures of their 17 year old boyfriends.
And speaking of Max Hardcore again, apparently he was charged with producing Child Pornography, even though none of the models involved were children. Because it 'looked' like child pornography.
Which opens the door to anybody dressing up as a schoolgirl being targetted with child pornography prosecutions.
Which just makes me think about that scene in V For Vendetta, where Natalie Portman is dressed as a schoolgirl.
And I guess Leon could never have been made in todays climate.
While it's jail if a picture of a dude who is 17 is put up, his lawyers tell him the threads where guys post that that they are "Poz and looking to breed neg bottoms" is fine as are the threads about "stealthing."
Now, I don't think anything should be banned, but if you are going to ban something, serocoversion threads and stealth threads would come to mind before pictures of dudes who are old enough to legally fuck.
You mean threads of people who are HIV+ looking to deliberately infect others?
See, I would have assumed that was already illegal, didn't some guy get sent to jail recently for knowingly having unprotected sex with a girl, and giving her HIV?
Yes, but as long as you have a disclaimer saying that all forum posts are considered "fantasy" then it's fine - even if it's clear that the dudes are using it to hook up.
It's their legal problem if they get caught not the sites - as long as it involves words and not images.
A few years back, the US Government misused the Patriot Act to get a fairly notorious porn site shut down - they allegedly suggested banks not to offer services to the site, because the money going to pornographers could be used to fund terrorism overseas. Since the site was run by an American, in America, as they well knew, this was a bit stupid. And all that this does is force that kind of site to locate itself (as much as location matters, in this day and age, which for some kinds of pornography is probably a lot, I guess) overseas.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
One of my clients runs both bareback.com and Urine Nation and is constantly terrified that the feds will one day find one or the other "extreme."
If the law simply said "this is what you can not depict" it would be a different thing. But forcing people to simply guess? WTF?
Running an adult company is hard enough work already why make it harder?
Seriously, the law seems designed to trip people up. For example one thing that attracts people to keep coming back to a given site is discussion forums.
So, you need to have them. But he has to spend two hours a day going through them, because dudes like to post pictures of their boyfriends and sometimes with twinks there is no way in hell to know/verify if the dude is at least 18 - and if one of his customers posts a picture of his 17 year old boyfriend it's not the customer who could go to jail, it's my client!
WTF????
When he's on vacation I sub for him as a moderator and do you know what it's like to look at 200 pics and have to ask yourself "Is this one at least 18?" while knowing that if you make a mistake your boss could go to prison?
no subject
I understand the English extreme porn law defines illegal porn as anything in which actual physical harm could result. So theoretically all bondage S&M porn can now get you a jail sentence, likewise anything including anal sex, or indeed anything including unprotected sex, which, theoretically, could result in death. I was amazed there wasn't more fuss about the law when it was passed, but it was one of those things New Labour packed into their final months in office, that didn't get time to be properly looked at and picked apart. And the tories just love the law, because it means they can lock up whichever sick deviants they like.
And yeah, if Max Hardcore went to jail for four years for making movies including freely consenting adults, then I can totally understand why your client is paranoid.
Are you not legally covered by having a disclaimer on the forum saying 'All pictures must be of adults over 18'?
no subject
no subject
no subject
The law says he become liable if he leaves it up for more than 24 hours.
So, the result is once a day he or I have to spend two hours deleting anything questionable.
no subject
And for all the time and effort and money spent legislating and policing porn, how many people has your client ever hurt?
no subject
no subject
Which opens the door to anybody dressing up as a schoolgirl being targetted with child pornography prosecutions.
Which just makes me think about that scene in V For Vendetta, where Natalie Portman is dressed as a schoolgirl.
And I guess Leon could never have been made in todays climate.
no subject
(For American readers Leon was called The Professional in the United States.)
no subject
no subject
Google won't let you use the word "Lolita" in Google AdWords, even though its the name of a type of fashion.
no subject
no subject
While it's jail if a picture of a dude who is 17 is put up, his lawyers tell him the threads where guys post that that they are "Poz and looking to breed neg bottoms" is fine as are the threads about "stealthing."
Now, I don't think anything should be banned, but if you are going to ban something, serocoversion threads and stealth threads would come to mind before pictures of dudes who are old enough to legally fuck.
no subject
See, I would have assumed that was already illegal, didn't some guy get sent to jail recently for knowingly having unprotected sex with a girl, and giving her HIV?
no subject
It's their legal problem if they get caught not the sites - as long as it involves words and not images.
no subject
And yeah, I totally see your point. How can that be permissable, but pictures of legal-age people... not.
Just. Madness. And exactly why the state has no business legislating sexual morality.
no subject
no subject