im in ur internets, pwning your myspace

[metaphorge]

This sucks a whole lot. Let's make Section 2257 not happen.

"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.
* For more detailed information on Sec. 2257, go to http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/misc/2257_fact_sheet.pdf.

Obviously, none of this has anything to do with child pornography. Instead, it is a blatant attempt to end the ability of consenting adults to use adult social-networking sites to meet other people for sex. Obviously, if these regulations go into effect, they will kill this industry."

Can you say "chilling effect" boys and girls? I am very tired of the refrain of "Let's protect the children!" being constantly used to slowly strip us of fundamental rights and freedoms.

Comments

[t3knomanser.livejournal.com]

"How can you defend pedophiles!?!?!?!!!111one1"

[angeliccelestia.livejournal.com]

I agree. The whole "ZOMG d00d!! letz prutekt da chyldrun!!1!!" thing is fucking old. If folks wish to "protect the children", why don't they start in their own home?

[ladylynx.livejournal.com]

I'll have to disagree with you.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Care to elaborate? Why should I be inconvenienced because parents neglect their children?

[ladylynx.livejournal.com]

But is your inconvenience such a big inconvenience? I mean, nothing on the internet is truly private to begin with. I would rather know for a fact the government has an eye on my online conduct than to make it easier for makers/viewers of child pornography. In the end, I don't think that the FBI is going to want to spend that much time looking at my provocative photos when they have enough to do.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

The problem is that the requirements are so over-the-top that service providers will simply ban ANY provocative photos instead of trying to comply. Besides, people who traffic in child pornography simply don't post them on public places, anyway; they circulate them in secret. Zero benefit... unless your agenda is promoting sexual repression in general.

[ladylynx.livejournal.com]

There are no secrets on the internet. And if these photos are posted in even Yahoo, I think it would be a problem. It wouldn't be particularly wise to host these things on a private server if 5 years in prison was a consequence.

My agenda? My agenda is that I don't care enough about people's sex lives to really think that much about silly things like sexual freedom. What people do in their bedroom is their own business. But once it is on the net, it is not a private matter. If you're going to post nude photos, have the cajones to own up to it.

Also, I don't think social networking sites will close down. They make too much money.

[ladylynx.livejournal.com]

Nothing is private

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

That is not the issue. The issue is, why create a new regulation to cut down on the distribution of child porn if it will do nothing to cut down on the distribution of child porn?

[ladylynx.livejournal.com]

"it will do nothing to cut down on the distribution of child porn?"

I disagree.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

If you disagree, care to explain how this will limit the distribution of child porn?

[ladylynx.livejournal.com]

Not really.

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

None of this response makes any sense whatsoever. How is keeping tabs on who posts photos on public services going to reduce child porn on the net if child porn on the net is never posted on public services?

[warpanda.livejournal.com]

Well, if you don't care about sexual freedom, that's fine for you. But, what about those who do care?

I don't feel the government has a right to add additional regulation to sites that are doing legal activities, and protecting users. If this passes, those companies that are based in America will shit down, but they will increase elsewhere.

If I join a private site, used by adults, there should be no reason I have to provide my drivers license to post a picture, especially if I have signed up using a credit card, which would have my name/address.

[ladylynx.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm going to continue to disagree with you. You can try to beat into me why you believe what you believe, but I wholly disagree. Good day.

[warpanda.livejournal.com]

Can I ask how you believe this legislature will cut down on the distribution of child porn?

I'm actually not trying to beat anything into anyone, but I'm more then open to alternate arguments for something.

[roisnoir.livejournal.com]

I see this as chilling more than just the producers - if a model's legal name must be released.. it's not all that hard to track someone down if that information is available.

This is a boon for stalkers.
As well as the people who believe that those who chose to express themselves by way of adult entertainment are evilevilevil and need to go away because smut offends their delicate sensibilities.

I"m all for record keeping, and making certain that underage people don't get to perform, but the legit companies have been doing THAT for ages. They don't want trouble. (Trouble interferes with the bottom line. They don't need a loftier goal.)

The people doing the illegal stuff.. will keep doing the illegal stuff. The latest update to 2257 once again merely punishes the people who play by the rules.

The last big update to 2257 was incredibly painful at work, though my head for trivia, and ability to identify models we shot once four years ago by a single bodypart came in pretty handy.

[twopiearr.livejournal.com]

ob.disclaimer: 2257 laws suck, everyone should have the right to do what they like with their own body, etc etc.

that said: the ability to meet fuckbuddies over MySpace is a "fundamental right"?

that's the kind of rhetoric that makes the right froth at the mouth to pass shit like this, you realize?

[ladylynx.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm moderate and I know it makes me go "Bwuh?" I'd like to see a little better from both sides.