Anyone here feel best qualified to be point man with the FSC?

[RawAlex]

Bill, I think you are not far off the idea here.

As "responsible" webmasters, we need to have some basic standards and policies for dealing with the different problems and temptations of our buisness:

- Against toolbars, and programs and sites should decline or redirect to dead pages any traffic from these sources.

- Against non-CanSpam mailings. Against, declining and redirecting to dead pages any traffic from these sources

- Against scumware, malware, forced installs, etc. Same "don't accept traffic" idea.

- for educating parents and caregivers how to best handle their children's desire to be on the net

... and so on and so on. The basic idea is that if we as a group show that we are trying to self regulate and not profitting from bad business practices, then we all look better.

Alex

[MeatPounder]

Well seeing how the "lead attorney" for the FSC just happens to be the attorney for one of the most controversial sites around as far as CP, I think that the free speech coalition is most definitely the option to pursue

[Jim]

Originally Posted by MeatPounder

Well seeing how the "lead attorney" for the FSC just happens to be the attorney for one of the most controversial sites around as far as CP, I think that the free speech coalition is most definitely the option to pursue

I don't really have a problem with that. Lawyers will defend anyone weather they agree with their clients opinions or not. You see it all the time in a criminal court. Much like the ACLU...All they care about is our Civil Liberties. They have defended everyone from churches to Nazis and Skinheads. As I have said before, if you want Free Speech, you have to take the good with the bad.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph...we (Americans) are losing our civil liberties everyday. I watched Boston Legal as I do each week and a point was brought up about "Free Speech Zones". So, I had to look it up. It's a zone around the president where Free Speech does not exist. It's the reason that people who wear Anti-Bush teeshirts get arrested just for attending a speech by the president. Anyway, I seem to just be rambling.

[MeatPounder]

But what do I know?

[Bill]

I'm finding your comment a bit ambiguous. Would you elaborate?

[RawAlex]

Actually, you raise a very good point. Lawyers have all sorts of clients, but this one does make me wonder ever so slightly.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Jim, I think the question may be as political as it is legal.

Perhaps you could picture Mr Douglas sitting before a congressional panel, answering questions regarding "protecting children with 2257" or whatever, and after a couple of hours, the Senior member from where ever gets his turn to ask questions, and asks:

"Mr Douglas, in your time as a lawyer for first amendment issues, you have represented and done work for a website called Met Art, which featured nudity and sexual situations, mostly featuring models that appear to be quite young. Your opinion of the legality of that website have been in the past posted on that website directly. You indicate that all models are of age. Yet, Met-art themselves have posted a very different view of things, this taken from their website in 2002:

""None of the images on this site are illegal. This has been determined by our attorney, whose is an expert in the law pertaining to the First Amendment and images of nudity. MET contains images of nudity only. There are no images of hard-core sexual conduct, i.e., masturbation, intercourse of any type, oral-genital contact, or sadomasochism. There is no obscenity or child pornography to be found on MET. In order for an image to be obscene, it must violate contemporary community standards, appeal to a prurient interest in sex, and be devoid of any artistic, scientific, political or other social value. Nudity alone is not enough for an image to be illegal, as the Supreme Court has stated on many occasions. "Spread" shots of adult women (at least 18 years of age) are legal, as they do not violate contemporary community standards anywhere in the United States. In order for an image to be "child pornography," it must depict a person under the age of 18 (a minor) engaged in "sexually explicit conduct" (i.e., the types of hard-core conduct described above), or a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." Nudity alone is also not enough to make an image "child pornography." U.S. v. 264 Magazines (Jeunes et naturels) (Third Circuit) There are many examples of legal images of nude minors in the United States, for example, in books by Jock Sturges, David Hamilton, Sally Mann and Graham Ovenden, among others. An image of a minor depicts a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" when (1) the minor's genitals or pubic area are the focus of the image, (2) the setting of the depiction is sexually suggestive or a place where sexual activity generally takes place (like a bedroom); (3) the pose or attire of the minor is unnatural or inappropriate given the age of the minor; (4) part of the clothing of the minor is intentionally arranged so as to expose the crotch area; (5) the minor expresses a "come-on" look denoting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; or (6) the image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer. United States v. Dost. In United States v. Villard, the Third Circuit stated that "more than one factor must be present in order to establish lasciviousness." Villard and other cases suggest that whether an image is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer should be determined from the intent of the photographer, never the viewer. In those few i mages on MET which may depict models who have not yet reached the age of 18 (there are no images of children posted here), we are extremely careful not to run afoul of these guidelines. You will find that all images on MET of models who are not yet 18 are tasteful and artistic, well within the bounds of legal propriety. In conclusion, you, the viewer, can rest assured that we have carefully reviewed the photographs we are posting -- not just to keep ourselves safe under the law, but to keep you safe as well.
MET Staff"

Now, Mr Douglas, considering the type of company you keep and your apparent willingness to find legal loopholes to help keep companies like these in business, why should be take anything you say here seriously?


Think about it. Too often it isn't about right or wrong, but about the company you keep.

Alex

[Bill]

The Cyber Safety Act For Kids has made it to BoingBoing...

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/17...ber_safet.html

"Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Max Baucus, (D-MT) have proposed a bill that would require all commercial websites with material "harmful to minors" (in other words, sexually explicit content) to move to a .xxx domain within 6 months of this bill becoming law -- or face civil penalties. Under the terms of the proposed law, the US Commerce Department secretary would be required to develop a domain name for adult sites (presumably .xxx) with ICANN."

and

"Adult industry representatives say the bill if enacted would have a chilling effect on free speech. "This is constitutionally protected speech -- we're not talking about illegal content," said Tom Hymes, a spokesman for the Free Speech Coalition, the trade association representing the adult entertainment industry.

The proposal is an ineffective approach to the problem since many of the adult Web sites are based outside the country and the civil penalties would not apply to them, he said. Hymes said the companies would find ways to circumvent the new designation, including moving their operations offshore. Instead, he proposed setting up a .kids domain name for children-friendly content."

---

Two western democrats trying to out republican the rebublicans.

This is why the democratic party as a whole can say bye-bye to my donations.

Altho I will give money to one specific democratic challanger who has a decent chance of beating the asshole republican senator of my state.

[RawAlex]

Bill, as I mentioned at the zoo, congress had 160 new items on it's list on the 15th alone. The chance that this bill even makes it to a reading is fairly thin. It is written and at best introduced in order to show that they are "doin sumptin" about an issue that chruch going bible thumpers find close to their heart.

I would suspect that they are very much aware that the bill has absolutely no chance of getting passed (and reconciles with the house), and if so, they are also aware that it would likely get tied up in first amendment arguments for the next decade or so, much in the same way that Clinton era COPA laws are still circling around the bottom of the toilet bowl, but occassionally looking like they might resurface just long enough to remind us how stupid and misguided they really were.

Remember, Ashcroft actually had the balls (and brains) to push COPA back to the surpreme court to try to get another kick at the can, not to actually get it put into law, but to give the republicans another feather in their caps on the child protecting field.

It is, once again, a ploy, an attempt to both confuse the electorate and abuse the media with announcements of "potential" laws. Sadly, the media never makes it clear that these are only "stabs in the dark" with little or no potential of becoming law, but are instead reported as a sort of valium for the populace, a sedative for the collective soul.

Alex

[Bill]

Oh, I completely agree Alex, I don't really expect this particular bill to pass.

But, it's part of an ongoing assault which I think you would agree has very dangerous implications.

This is "Culture War" in action, and it's not likely to go away any time soon.

We have to be thinking long term. You've said you were considering retiring soon, which might make this less of a problem for you, but I'd like to be running my business for some time yet.

Not to mention, that this is just a part of the ongoing demolition of the U.S. constitution. That might seem like a done deal up in Canada, but down here I'd like to think we have some chance left to keep the constitution alive.

It sucks being an idealist.

[RawAlex]

Bill, I have retired from some of the parts of the business I was doing before. Newer rules have made some things less than productive. My Domain list has shrunk by 75% in 3 years. I am not retired, but I am certainly headed a different direction.

Underlying all the news releases, court challenges, laws, and "enforcement actions" going on is that there is apparently a shift in the shrillness of the extreme left on these issues, and they are winning the battle in many cases.

It isn't just porn on the net - it is everything from Janet's nipple to Roe v. Wade. They are pushing on many sides, and with the assistance of a numbnuts president and a now fairly conservative supreme court, I think they are feeling their oats and are going to push like mad in the next two years. They know all too well that they are looking at a likely shift in the house and senate next time around, and the President only has two years left... so they are bailing as fast as they can. It's working.

The FCC has leveled very large fines against CBS and others recently ( http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11847422/ ) and is moving to try to get more family oriented programming to be included in a la carte cable/sat programming choices. They have also talked about attempting to find ways to regulate cable and sat channels to be closer to the over the air rules.

It is a major, major shift, it has been coming for years, and it is actually good overall for the porn business (push us undergroun a bit, and we can charge more for the same thing, guilt tax, I guess). However, it will be painful for some people, as it will change business models and leave the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.

Alex

[Bill]

Alex, you said 'extreme left', is that what you meant?

I saw that bill as an attempt by the rural states to bully the urban states.

The us senate and electoral college overrepresents the rural states, giving them far more power to control lawmaking than their populations would ordinarily warrant.

This is a tactical advantage that the neocon movement has ruthlessly exploited, literally taking over the republican party, and fucking the traditional conservative republicans (like my father) up the ass by spending more money than ever before.

It's an attempt to bankrupt the federal government. They have explicitly stated that this is their intent - it's just that the average american can't read anymnore, so they don't know this stuff, they think this is all being done to protect them from the big bad terrorists.

---

But, to get back to the original topic, this latest bill is just a shot across the bows. Worse is coming.

[RawAlex]

Bill, the extremes are both end are getting more and more shrill, and they are clambering all over each other to take shots at the usual moral whipping boys (drugs, porn, booze, smokes, and sex in general). This attack happens to come from the democrats, but I am sure there are members of the republican party just wishing they had fired the shot first.

it won't pass, it isn't even going to get a real reading in the congress... but it is let another pointless sabre rattle in an off year election cycle.

Alex

[DJilla]

Everybody should get behind .KID TLD which IMHO is the only way to address and encompass the ENTIRE range of kid safe content and surfing zones.

Maybe we should just start talking about who's going to RUN in the next elections at FSC. They'll be here next thing you know. Continue to wait around here and see if anybody from FSC follows up on the things we've asked for and communication we've requested in these various threads. If not, we'll hammer them in the elections. Get a roster together now and we can use the boards to develop electable momentum.

Don't forget.... you have to be a MEMBER to vote!

[RawAlex]

DJilla: At the end of the day, the FSC is a global umbrella organization that by it's very nature cannot and will not represent the needs of the online world unless those needs match those of the video industry. We are still the bastard children, and we don't have the power with them to make it work out.

If I understand correctly, the elections within FSC are only for a limited number of positions, and the rest are by appointment or by "representitives from various parts of the industry". Even if the online people outnumber the video members 3 to 1, there would be no way to vote a more online friendly board.

We truly need an "online porn" organization that could work with FSC on things, but that would come to the forefront on issues directly related to the online world.

.kids is an idea I have pushed in the past, I think it is a great idea, but it also may put an unrealistic burden on content neutral sites (such as dictionary.com or whatever) to have a duplicate site because kids often access their site for information. I think that in the end both .XXX and .KIDS are misleading, because they fail to address the simple point:

The internet (like all of the world) is an adult place, and children are only safe when protected by their parents or guardians. It is a fact of the real world, and a fact of the net as well. Parents must take their responsilbities for how their children behave.

Alex

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

... We truly need an "online porn" organization that could work with FSC on things, but that would come to the forefront on issues directly related to the online world. ...

Does such an organization exist? If so let's support it. If not, then let's form one and make it work.

I think it is past time to shut up with a bunch of opinions and take some actions. How many threads have been started on this and how many retained their focus on the subject? Most often it ends up with bashing my government and my President. Yes since I am an American, Bush is my President for a few more years.

Speaking of opinions, Tommy came to the board with an ideal and some of the folks here with more opinions than assholes hijacked his thread and Tommy retrieved. I see that as a great lost to this cause - a respected member of the online community with a good ideal and because some folks had extra time on their hand he probably said 'bull shit let the sky fall."

[Surfn]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

Does such an organization exist? If so let's support it. If not, then let's form one and make it work.

I think it is past time to shut up with a bunch of opinions and take some actions. How many threads have been started on this and how many retained their focus on the subject? Most often it ends up with bashing my government and my President. Yes since I am an American, Bush is my President for a few more years.

Speaking of opinions, Tommy came to the board with an ideal and some of the folks here with more opinions than assholes hijacked his thread and Tommy retrieved. I see that as a great lost to this cause - a respected member of the online community with a good ideal and because some folks had extra time on their hand he probably said 'bull shit let the sky fall."

Good point

[DJilla]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

DJilla: At the end of the day, the FSC is a global umbrella organization that by it's very nature cannot and will not represent the needs of the online world unless those needs match those of the video industry. We are still the bastard children, and we don't have the power with them to make it work out.

If I understand correctly, the elections within FSC are only for a limited number of positions, and the rest are by appointment or by "representitives from various parts of the industry". Even if the online people outnumber the video members 3 to 1, there would be no way to vote a more online friendly board.

We truly need an "online porn" organization that could work with FSC on things, but that would come to the forefront on issues directly related to the online world.

.kids is an idea I have pushed in the past, I think it is a great idea, but it also may put an unrealistic burden on content neutral sites (such as dictionary.com or whatever) to have a duplicate site because kids often access their site for information. I think that in the end both .XXX and .KIDS are misleading, because they fail to address the simple point:

Alex

As usual I generally agree with your post. But from my perspective, I usually take the slow and plodding path towards success. Influence, control, acheievement is usualy made in increments and baby steps.
I've always found that it is easier to take over and turn around an existing entity, business, social group, etc. rather than reinvent a brand new one. FSC has done alot of the advance work and I think we could become a major factor within it over time. First step is to truly have someone on the inside. Even if he/she/they were initially ignored (which I really wonder about, maybe not) there is a path that can build with pressure. Again, I point out IMHO video stores/sales are dead, they just don't know it. Electronic delivery is inevitable and that's our domain (pun intended). We also could potentially muster a PR/news delivery system that would dwarf their current mainstream efforts. Starting a new org would be cool and why not? But again IMHO it would be way behind the curve and probably take much longer to come up to speed than we have to address the present issues. Best yet, do both.

Re: .kid, Having given this a lot of thought my strategy is first, this is something that we and the FSC can already agree on and a unifier. Second, regardless of the realities of parental responsibility, we HAVE to give parents something to work with. Third, it takes the pressure off us and puts it on filters, search, etc! Fourth, I think a .kid domain would turn out to be something truly wonderful. Finally, I don't give a whit about content neutral sites who might have to create duplicate sites. Too bad, comes with the teritory of the changing electronic frontier.

That still leaves the problem of warning pages. Naw, I can't imagine they stop anyone in their tracks with guilt or fear. But I use em and with the combo of .kid it puts the onus on "supervision" and not us.

Bottom line, I'll support everything those who are far more experienced than I say is a good idea.

[Chop Smith]

Did not want to start another thead but thought this was related to this one.

I was working on my2257records today and a light went on. Let's say that congress does pass some of the things they are considering, will it put the US adult webmasters out of business and open it wide for other webmasters in other countries.

For example, if congress requires age verification before hardcore images can be viewed the likely solution will be to have a one time charge paid with a credit card. Even, if the charge is $5 will surfers pay it to view US sites if they view UK sites free without age verification?

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

For example, if congress requires age verification before hardcore images can be viewed the likely solution will be to have a one time charge paid with a credit card. Even, if the charge is $5 will surfers pay it to view US sites if they view UK sites free without age verification?

Also remember that some First Amendment lawyers are trying to patent their own age verification system that does not require any credit card processing. It's based on the honor system which obviously is silly but if they can get it passed then they'll make a killing since they'll have the patent.

[RawAlex]

Chop, my feeling is that there is no such "just online" organization out there at this point. We have spent near 10 years as a group of rugged individualists that have little or no respect for the rules, and as a result, trying to get people together was like herding cats in a zero gravity catnip field. It was rare to find two people who could agree on anything.

Now the online industry has matured some, the more cowboy mentality people have either moved on, gone broke, or are currently facing the courts - and now many of us can agree on many subjects.

FSC is a good organization that in a sense represents all of the porn industry's interests. However, because the online people are not very organized, the video world's view of the various issues is usually what comes out on top.

I don't have an answer, but I sure do have some questions

Alex

[Chop Smith]

Damn good reply, Alex.

I was not around for the "wild west" days. I hope I am wrong but that "rugged individualists" attitude is going to be the downfall of the adult webmasters. Oh, we will blame it on the government but the real reason will be because we did not organize. And how many times have I heard that 'I don't want so and so to know what I do." This keeps many folks from wanting to be a part of an organization especially in a leadership role.

Bottom line is I don't think you will see a functioning Webmasters' Association. However, should it happen I will carry my financial share of the load. Get it organized and I will call Trent Lott and Thad Crochran and remind them of some of the good ole days went we whored around.

Listening to the news, I am not sure if much has changed since the days that my dad was a lobbist. Back then I learned that a suitcase of cash, a few whores and a camera to refresh memories when necessary would bring power plants to Mississippi.

As you, I think I know the plan of action to take and will be happy to outline it. Will my plan be the one acted on? No and yours will not be either. First we have to agree we are heading for the same goal and be prepared to accept an overall plan. Right now everyone is scattering bird shots. The goal is not defined and the leaders we need are still on the side line.

LOL, I am not even sure that this rant is in the right thread.

[RawAlex]

Chop, you have to say it right: "Excuse me sir, you are a cocksucker sir, thank you sir". The rest is fluff

Alex

[karomesis]

It is not even about right or wrong. Well maybe it is the right thing to do but the by-product is when your ass is on the carpet, you can say "I did everything in my power to let your child know that I did not want him in my site. Now go take some parenting classes"

Yes, but there are a million things which do far more damage to children than the evil and sinister world of online porn. It's similar to the drug war on cannabis, not one fatality has EVER been attributed to it, yet they put people in prison for long terms for it, some of whom won't get out of prison until cars hover like the jetsons.

Wht I was saying is that it will never be enough. Even if the industry mandates warning pages and such, what will be next? and so on.

Send Useless Warrior and me to lobby for you. We do tend to speak our minds. Once we call 535 politicians cocksuckers, you will all be out of business.

If you were actually sent to lobby what would be your first plan of action? Seriously.

Concessions? I honestly can't think of anything that has been put into place where legit online webmasters had to change their sites, including the new 2257, which is not yet a law.

I stand corrected, I guess I was wrong.

Greenguy, are you confident that if we did mandate the warning pages that it would stop them from asking for more? If so, then I think it's a great idea, and Hopefully you're right.

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by karomesis

If you were actually sent to lobby what would be your first plan of action? Seriously.

Straight up answer. I don't need money bad enough to stoop that low. I spend most of my life and three of my five years of college being prepped to be one of those 'sonsofbitches politicians' to become heir to a good ole boy position.

If the question is what would I do to fight the battle?

Determine which animal you need -donkey or elephant. Since the Republicans are in power, I would locate the lobbying firm that is headed by the most conservative Souther Baptist in Washington. It would probably be the old Haley Barber firm and since I know he still owns it, I would get Trent Lott to speak to him first. From there you just have to do what you are told. They will tell you how much it cost to trap a bill in committee or how to keep a suit off the court docket.

Could I afford to do the above. No and I have not seen the FSC's financials but I doubt they can afford it either.

BTW, has anyone ever researched the admin expenses of FSC?