Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites 359
How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.
Re:Rumors (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I, too, have heard rumors of such things... can it really be true? Is this technological wonder known as the Internet really being used as a vehicle for pornography? No hearsay, please -- does anyone here have a definite answer, from a credible source?
While it might be untrue that the Internet owes its' existence to the porn industry to the degree that is claimed, it is true from what I've read that the porn industry and the material's distributors generally are early adopters of new technologies, particularly in such relevant areas as media storage. (DVDs and such)
When you think about it, this is actually extremely logical. It follows that individuals who are broad minded in at least one category of their thinking are more likely to thus be similarly broad minded in others.
Re:Yipee! (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you for clearing that up.
hold your guns... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Misleading - is about the PERFORMERS (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm thinkin this is a good excuse to nail people for 'kiddie porn' if there's no age verification of the performers, especially in the US. Where's the 'Think of the CHILDREN' in this ruling????????????
Re:Oh dear (Score:5, Insightful)
How is masturbating and looking at pornography of consenting adults considered "perverted"? That is a very limited view given that your body is wired in such a way as to encourage you to reproduce as frequently and as often as possible. It stands to reason that people need to satisfy their natural urges somehow. It's hard getting laid; people are picky about their partners and there's this stigma attached to sex still even in our modern liberated society.
It's pretty easy to watch porn and whack off... A few people take it out on poor unsuspecting passers-by (i don't condone that kind of thing). You gotta satisfy the urges that your body has somehow. I find it somewhat offensive that you would classify the satisfying of the body's natural urges "perverted".
I never really supported the age verification because I think a person who is old enough to know to seek out the content on their own is probably old enough to make their own decisions regarding sex. A person who wants to seek out the porn will be able to find it regardless of any age verification laws in one or two countries. Not everywhere is the USA or Australia. Lots of places don't enforce similar laws.
Younger kids should be supervised by their parents. Someone else said "if you don't want your kids looking at it then try something called parenting". I couldn't agree more.
I do agree that porn isn't for everyone, and a simple banner page warning is what a great-many of the porn sites have currently anyway.
Re:Rumors (Score:3, Insightful)
VHS made made amatuer porn challenge the Film market.
MiniDV, DVD and the Internet made it even cheaper, so that anyone with some starting money could be a porn star. Now Vivid and other shops have to compete with 'watchmehavesexallday.com' etc, so of course they are going to adapt. They can't lobby or pass laws banning those smaller sites since they aren't exactly popular enough to get senators on their side (however I wonder if some of them backed the age verification requirement, knowing that the smaller sites would crumble under the paperwork).
To say they are broad visioned and open minded is a stretch, I'd just say that they are always on edge and have been fighting to be around, legally and financially, so they have to stay quick and adapt, or fold. A lot of porn distributors went out of business when Video hit, another group went out of business with Traci Lords underage porn too.
Re:Leisure Suit Larry (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't you mean a brute force solution?
Re:Leisure Suit Larry (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why do they even bother putting an age restriction on these things when all you have to do is click 'yes- I am 18!' Even a seventeen year-old could figure that out."
Re:AVS companies are still here to stay. (Score:3, Insightful)
I do know this. If you were closer to the industry you would know that the most serious and responsible adult content providers are concerned about the legality of their operation and thus engage in what they consider to be "hyper compliance"; Most of the bigger players prefer to be one step ahead of legal requirements to ensure the legal footing of their business.
2257 records for talent and age verification for visitors are related only in that both are mechanisms designed, at least on the surface, to protect minors from the harmful radiation released by nudity. Providers who are most serious about their business engage in both and won't be convinced to budge until it is practical.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Insightful)
The biochemical mechanisms that make us want to make babies actually really only make us want to have sex. Making babies is a (fortunately controllable) side effect of having sex. It's only natural to go through phases where you wish to copulate and phases where you don't.
Most religious people would argue against pornography because the very argument is driven by their desire to please $DEITY. The desire to please a "god" is larger than the desire to make babies in some people and they resist the natural urge to go forth and multiply until they are married. That's a choice some people make. I, personally, don't think it's healthy.
I ask you, do you eat? Eating is driven by desire to stay alive. I certainly eat. I don't eat constantly and I don't usually just get up and walk out of work or meetings at bad times to eat (unless I feel my blood sugar dropping too rapidly). I am controlling my desire to eat when I am hungry.
This is OT enough!
Re:Illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
If a law is unconstitutional it must be considered void. Part of the checks and balances and separation of powers is that each branch of government makes this determination independently. If Congress determines it to be unconstitutional, they can obviously repeal it. If SCOTUS determines it to be unconstitutional, the judicial branch considers it void and will not convict anyone under it. If the Office of Legal Council determines it to be unconstitutional, the the entire executive branch considers it void it will not enforce it.
Some people will argue that SCOTUS is some "final arbiter" of what is and is not Constitutional, but the founding fathers argue strongly against this view. They are only the final arbiter for their branch of government, and for the cases brought before them.
Re:Illegal? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't see it that way. First of all, simple and straight-forward cases tend to have a single opinion from the court, not three. To me, their arguments carry little weight, as the law only applies to the making recordings and images of people having sex, and the degree to which such recordings are "speech" as used in the 1st amendment is negligible.
We'll see. If other circuits do follow suit, the DOJ will certainly appeal to SCOTUS. If other circuits split, then the defendants will certainly appeal to SCOTUS.
The true goal of 2257 (Score:5, Insightful)
The nefarious legislation known as U.S.C. Title 18 Section 2257 has never been about protecting the children or battling kiddie pr0n. After all, true child pr0nographers certainly don't have their subjects sign releases anyway, nor do they advertise their wares openly on easily accessible public commercial sites. It is one of many tools of intimidation, to harass and potentially shut down perfectly legal adult sites. They were hoping some sites would simply shut down rather than put up with the burdensome recordkeeping requirements, or that sites with user-generated content would be more vigilant about self-censoring even remotely questionable content out of fear. You can keep the most detailed, pristine, organized records (as any smart adult site would do anyway), and yet fear that if even one model's paperwork is in any way hinky, a felony charge may ensue.
In general, you can safely assume that any legislation regarding adult material has this sort of ulterior motive. The powers that be have never accepted the notion that it is legal (for now, until the Roberts Court rules on the next big case) for adults to choose to view adult material depicting consenting adults engaged in adult activities. To them, all pr0n is bad, and if they could, they would outlaw all of it. Whenever "think of the children" is bandied about in these things, you can bet that they are thinking of far more than "the children" -- they are also thinking about you and me and every other potential legal peruser of naughty pics.
Re:Oh dear (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the post I responded to defined a biological purpose for sexuality. Using something for a purpose other than its intended purpose is the definition of "perversion."
It means that human sexuality has an inherent nature, and that that inherent nature involves intimacy, and that expressions of human sexuality inconsistent with intimacy are inconsistent with the essential nature of sexuality, and therefore harmful to it, and therefore a perversion of it.
No, I cannot quantify it. No, I do not lack counterexamples.
Re:Illegal? (Score:3, Insightful)