Greenguy's Board - Text links, FSC and 2257?

Greenguy's Board (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/index.php)

- General Business Knowledge (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - Text links, FSC and 2257? (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=21552)

Text links, FSC and 2257?

Not looking to start another nightmare here but I spoke with the FSC today to make sure I was on the master list. I am. But then I asked them about linking. I asked if I placed up a banner with a boobie on the shot will I be required to give the models ID to the company doing the banner ad. Even in the banner is hosted on my server. They told me at this time I can if I want to but its not required. That the company can direct anyone to me for the required info. But I thought it was strange when the person stated to me to be carful with text links? I ask him what he was talking about cause i was not doing text links. He said well at this time the government MIGHT be taking text links from adult sites and placing them in this law. If you are promoting a site threw text links that is adult you might be required to get some documents. I asked him if he knew how the internet works and just hung up. Anyway just figured I would post this here.

I am sure that they do not have attorneys manning their phone bank. I rather get my legal advice from Cleo's bird. Well if it was a serious question, I guess I would ask Filthy Earl.

Quote:

Originally Posted by juggernaut

are you sure you dialed the right number?

Phone: 818-348-9373
Main office no? lol Filthy Earl

This text link thing came up in another post about someone's conversation with the DOJ.

Whoever thinks they can take a law that is about the documentation of models ages and somehow relate that to text links is clinically insane. |shocking|

But I wouldn't put it past the facist religo-extremists to try.

After all, the whole purpose of this excercise is to shut down porn including those who link to and promote it.

It has nothing to do with protecting youngsters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrMagoo

This text link thing came up in another post about someone's conversation with the DOJ.

I was thinking the same thing.

Mind you they were talking something similar with the patent stuff. Something about how you are contributing to the traffic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

I rather get my legal advice from Cleo's bird. Well if it was a serious question, I guess I would ask Filthy Earl.

|thumb Good on ya!
Being Filthy Earl's official legal proxy, I would like to inform you that, in Earl's learned opinion,

Quote:

Originally Posted by FILTHY EARL

...the DOJ will be able to pursue legal action against text links as soon as the government order is given to burn down our libraries. Until then, don't be afraid to tell your surfers that they should be fucking skanks in the ass behind gas stations.

In reality, text, even filthy text - is a good thing. When a censor attempts to apply the Miller test in order to judge a website for obscenity, an abundance of text may help sway the judgement away from purely obscene down to just normal nastieness. Text is an artful expression, no matter how lude, so it in effect adds balance to a site full of fuck pics. How anyone could say could legally punish you for the use of text links is beyond even my amazing levels of ignorance, which I have fought hard to attain.

When this excerpt from Bataille's The Story of the Eye is made illegal, then I'll worry.

Quote:

All at once, to everyone's horror, Simone fell upon the floor. A convulsion shook her harder and harder, her clothes were in disarray, her ass stuck in the air, as though she were having an epileptic fit. But rolling about at the foot of the boy she had undressed, she mumbled almost inarticulately: "Piss on me . . . Piss on my cunt . . ." she repeated, with a kind of thirst.

Marcelle gaped at this spectacle: she blushed again, her face was blood-red. But then she said to me, without even seeing me, that she wanted to take off her dress. I half tore it off, and hard upon it, her underwear. All she had left was her stockings and belt, and after I fingered her cunt a bit and kissed her on the mouth, she glided across the room to a large antique bridal wardrobe, where she shut herself in after whispering a few words to Simone.

She wanted to jerk off in the wardrobe and was pleading to be left in peace.

I ought to say that we were all very drunk and completely bowled over by what had been going on. The naked boy was being sucked by a girl. Simone, standing with her dress tucked up, was rubbing her bare cunt against the wardrobe, in which a girl was audibly jerking off with brutal gasps. All at once, something incredible happened, a strange swish of water, followed by a trickle and a stream from under the wardrobe door: poor Marcelle was pissing in her wardrobe while jerking off. But the explosion of totally drunken guffaws that ensued rapidly degenerated into a debauche of tumbling bodies, lofty legs and asses, wet skirts and come. Guffaws emerged like foolish and involuntary hiccups but scarcely managed to interrupt a brutal onslaught on cunts and cocks. And yet soon we could hear Marcelle dismally sobbing alone, louder and louder, in the makeshift pissoir that was now her prison.

Half an hour later, when I was less drunk, it dawned on me that I ought to let Marcelle out of her wardrobe: the unhappy girl, naked now, was in a dreadful state. She was trembling and shivering feverishly. Upon seeing me, she displayed a sickly but violent terror. After all, I was pale, smeared with blood, my clothes askew. Behind me, in unspeakable disorder, ill bodies, brazenly stripped, were sprawled about. During the orgy, shards of glass had left deep bleeding cuts in two of us. A young girl was throwing up, and all of us had exploded in such wild fits of laughter at some point or other that we had wet our clothes, an armchair, or the floor. The resulting stench of blood, sperm, urine, and vomit made me almost recoil in horror, but the inhuman shriek from Marcelle's throat was far more terrifying. I must say, however, that Simone was sleeping tranquilly by now, her belly up, her hand still on her beaver, her pacified face almost smiling.

That's just plain madness. Whatever that guy was smoking, put me down for a 1/4 lb.

The war on constitutionally protected expression continues:

|potleaf| Ok here is how text links fit in.

Round One: 2257
The seconday producer as record keeper is found valid by the courts. For those that use explicit content from sponsors for advertising must now have the documents.

Result: Sponors choose to supply the documents or not. Explicit content by those falling under the regulation declines since either the sponsors distribute the documents or as in most cases they don't, or even if they do the record keeping burden is just too much of a hassle and possible penalties too severe for secondary producers. So they use text links or softcore to promote and feel safe.

But it has been established that the documents need to be made distributable and that relying on just a statement and specifying where the documents are located is not enough.

Round Two: 2256
Under 2256 it is illegal to knowingly advertise unlawfull content. To advertise is actually part of the definition of 'producer' for that chapter.

So I use text links to advertise a sponsor. I don't use any explicit content so I can avoid the record keeping requirement of 2257. However under 2256 I can be held for knowingly advertising illegal content.

If argued that 'knowingly' also means 'should have known', then the only way I can know if the sponsors content is legal is if I have copies of the documents for all explicit content on the site, including any updates.

Since 2257 mandates the creation and distribution of those documents then I can't claim I didn't know, because now the documentation is readily available (or should be).

So I am now liable for the content on any sponsor site that I advertise even if only with a text link. If any of their content is illegal or can not be proven to be legal, then I should have know and therefore are prosecutable under 2256.

KO

|potleaf|

Couple of little things:

As we all know (and hate) certain types of ch|ld nudism is legal and accepted. It's art, you know?

HERE IS THE BIG BUT: You put those same images on a page and put "CLICK HERE TO SEE HER FUCK" then you have CP.

There ya go.

Magoo: One problem - you only get documents for content you host, not the content others host. If there is a clear 2257 disclaimer on the site, and none of the models is clearly underage, then you are working in good faith. The law does not expect more from you than normal dilligence. More importantly, I don't think a single person has even been prosecuted for accidentially linking to CP.

Alex

IMHO, there is definitely a difference between "illegal" content and content that is not properly documented. Pornography in and of itself is not, by law, illegal; thus, using text links to send traffic to a pornographic website is not illegal. Plus you do have freedom of expression in your corner.

Either way, a site that you are linking to is not your responsibility... if the owners/operators are not compliant as far as documentation, it is not a reasonable expectation under the law that every affiliate signed up to advertise that site will have knowledge of their level of compliance. 2257 applies to content residing on your server, and if you don't have the content you aren't required to have the documents.

Of course, IANAL and I do see your point... and I'm just anti-establishment enough to see outside the box and get a real good view of a realm of possibilities as far as "yeah, you did this and that's cool, but over here in THIS chapter..." However, the logical part of my brain believes the powers that be have enough on their plates without playing one regulation off of another like some twisted game of regulatory roulette. Only time will tell... |dizzy|

Ya know threads like this make my head hurt and I don't me the lil one.Gee I guess all the story sites need 2257 if thats the case.Text is text linkin to a site you should already know if its borderline or not and just not do it.I'd avoid the CJ sites they let anybody link and ya never know where the surfer will end up.

Tiny, wrong.

You cannot control what is on destination sites. You made a good faith effort, and that's it.

At worst, you need a "terms of service" that indicates that you are not responsible for the content of linked sites. You cannot have a 2257 page for content you do not control.

You are NOT the publisher of these other sites. Your responsiblitiy starts and ends on your server.

Alex