Freelance | 0 Credit Cards | Secured Loans | Bad Credit Loan | Pirate Costume
Law: Porn [Archive] - ZGeek

PDA

View Full Version : Law: Porn


Reprobate
20-05-2005, 09:50 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005
WWW.USDOJ.GOV

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO R. GONZALES SIGNS RULE IMPLEMENTING PROVISIONS OF THE CHILD PROTECTION AND OBSCENITY ENFORCEMENT ACT

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales signed a final rule implementing provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, the Justice Department announced today. The rule requires producers of sexually explicit material to maintain records proving that performers in those depictions are not minors. It will be published in the Federal Register.

Minors are incapable of consenting to perform in sexually explicit depictions and are often forced to engage in sexually explicit conduct. For these reasons, visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons under the age of 18 constitute illegal child pornography. The record-keeping requirements, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2257, are crucial to preventing children from being exploited by the production of pornography. Violations of the requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for up to five years for a first offense and up to 10 years for subsequent offenses.

The rule signed today updates the section 2257 regulations and establishes a more detailed administrative inspection system designed to enable the federal government to ensure that children are not exploited in the production of pornography. For example, the rule ensures that the definition of “pornography producers” includes producers of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct published on the Internet. It also clarifies the means by which a producer must verify the identity and age of each performer and the manner in which records of these verifications must be kept. Additionally, the final rule establishes a detailed structure for conducting administrative inspections of pornography producers’ records to ensure that children are not being used as performers in sexually explicit depictions.

Although regulations implementing section 2257 were first published in 1992, the proliferation of pornography on the Internet required that the regulations be updated and strengthened. In addition, Congress recently made extensive amendments to the child exploitation statutory scheme in the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2003.

Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/May/05_ag_272.htm

Does this, or some other associated law, effect Zgeek in that it's registered members link to or upload pornographic images?

And... and this is the big bit... when members of zgeek post images of themselves (naked) on the site will there have to be age verication and performer releases sent to Pirate because the images are hosted on his site?

It's an American law yes, but last time I checked they pretty much ran the internets.

ms edeity
20-05-2005, 10:23 PM
It's an American law yes, but last time I checked they pretty much ran the internets.

Hahahahaha...(breathe) Hahahaha....International law governing the internet.
*wipes tears from eye* :rolleyes:

Serpent_Girl
20-05-2005, 10:33 PM
Fuck that!!

SOC
20-05-2005, 10:40 PM
Yeah! If underage chixors like SerpentG and ElfG wanna show us their boobies, then NO FUCKING WAY are we gonna let annoying little cunts like George W Bush* stop us.




*Yes, it's his fault. EVERYTHING we don't like about the US is his fault.

Goat Boy
20-05-2005, 10:45 PM
SOC for God.

lostreality
20-05-2005, 10:45 PM
i blame noddy.

SOC
20-05-2005, 10:52 PM
SOC for God.
I do believe THAT position (http://forums.zgeek.com/member.php?u=628) has already been filled. :(

Goat Boy
20-05-2005, 11:14 PM
I do believe THAT position (http://forums.zgeek.com/member.php?u=628) has already been filled. :(
Yeah, but who has more rep?

SOC
20-05-2005, 11:17 PM
Bishi, Sambo ... and virtually every chixor here at Zgeek.

Sagacious
20-05-2005, 11:25 PM
I do believe THAT position (http://forums.zgeek.com/member.php?u=628) has already been filled. :(
Hmmmm he don't say much (18 posts at a rate of 0.02 per day) do he?

Juice Biscuit
20-05-2005, 11:33 PM
Hmmmm he don't say much (18 posts at a rate of 0.02 per day) do he?
That's nothing.



You should see how long its been since he's added to his collection of children's fables.

The Cunt
20-05-2005, 11:34 PM
Hmmmm he don't say much (18 posts at a rate of 0.02 per day) do he?
But what he says is often profound. Though never profane.

I kinda work the opposite.

SOC
20-05-2005, 11:35 PM
Hmmmm he don't say much (18 posts at a rate of 0.02 per day) do he?No, but what he lacks in quantity he makes up for in quality - damn fine posts, each and every one of them.*



*Yes, I know I'm sucking up to God here, but I really, really wanna go to Heaven.

Sagacious
20-05-2005, 11:36 PM
That's nothing.



You should see how long its been since he's added to his collection of children's fables.
Hmmm I think he's preparing us for the cautionary tale of the beauty school student who was too dumb to realise that her Boogie Board bag was full of hash and ended up paying the penultimate price despite being thought too pretty to go to gaol for ever.

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Juice Biscuit
20-05-2005, 11:42 PM
Ha,


Shows what you fucking know.




That's not his style. Not enough sex, murder and voices from the sky to be his style.



Gonzo fables is far more his style.

excalibur
20-05-2005, 11:48 PM
Yeah, but who has more rep?
This proves geeks do not like God.

SmaSheD_CoW
21-05-2005, 01:37 AM
Does this, or some other associated law, effect Zgeek in that it's registered members link to or upload pornographic images?

And... and this is the big bit... when members of zgeek post images of themselves (naked) on the site will there have to be age verication and performer releases sent to Pirate because the images are hosted on his site?

It's an American law yes, but last time I checked they pretty much ran the internets.

Nope, because it only applies to "producers", and ZGeek falls outside that definition. Anyway, it's US law not Australian law, so ZGeek isn't affected by it.

Movius
21-05-2005, 03:20 AM
Isn't Australian law near identical in this case anyway?

SOC
21-05-2005, 04:13 AM
Anyway, it's US law not Australian law, so ZGeek isn't affected by it.
ZGeek is hosted on servers that are situated in San Francisco, which is in the United States. This may or may not affect the site. But INternet law is still very much a grey area, cos nobody owns it, even if the Americans think they do ...

dozer
21-05-2005, 04:41 AM
you can be prosecuted for possessing or taking images of an under 18 deemed 'sexy' in the uk. where servers are located and where your hard drive is located are 2 different places.

Sagacious
21-05-2005, 05:31 PM
Need to host on Danish servers cos Denmark has no actual prohibition on pornography just a requirement that the content be properly described.

When it comes to child exploitation however the Danes are very proscriptive and proactive in prosecution.

Lets not forget people that Child porn is not a pornography issue or even legitimately part of the pro/anti pornography debate it is a child exploitation/abuse issue. Simple as that.

dwarfthrower
21-05-2005, 06:02 PM
Lets not forget people that Child porn is not a pornography issue or even legitimately part of the pro/anti pornography debate it is a child exploitation/abuse issue. Simple as that.

Not quite... the law tends to muddy it a bit... especially when in most states in australia the subject of "child pornography" doesn't actually need to be a "child".

It is quite possible in most states to be prosecuted for having pictures of women who look like girls. So if you happen to be in a relationship with a physically immature 18yo the government can't touch you, but if you have newd piccies of her you could be in deep water.

The Cunt
23-05-2005, 01:50 AM
So if you happen to be in a relationship with a physically immature 18yo the government can't touch you, but if you have newd piccies of her you could be in deep water.
Though it doesn't work the other way.

Nude pics of a physically mature 16 year old will also get you trouble. Not sure where the deep water comes into it. Is that a new form of government punishment?

Reprobate
23-06-2005, 08:24 PM
Government has agreed not to enforce 2257 for 2 to 3 months (http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9236)