Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Equipment' started by djklmnop, Jun 24, 2005.
Went into effect today:
What a hassle.
Looks like they want to set up an IMDb for porn movies and actors
So, who you're gonna vote for next time round?
"I could make a good case for the idea that these regulations are designed to harass people in the adult industry. We already have tough anti-child-porn laws," said DeWitt. "I see no good reason for many of these conditions, other than imposing an unnecessary harassment for people in a business which is a stated enemy of the Bush administration."
I guess if this were REALLY true... there wouldn't be any 'kiddie porn'... just a thought. It's funny when people think it's a bad thing to have higher moral values...
Jeanette, there are fairly strong laws on the books against murder, but it still happens. I also am not sure being against pornography is actaully a case of higher values. My values are not concerned with what consenting adults do for income or pleasure as long as it doesn't harm others.
I wonder what this will do to sites that post artistic nudes, like this one. To some, and I supsect people like Ashroft given he had a nude statue covered, these are pornography. Are we going to need to submit froms to Sean if a nude is posted? If one sneaks by I would hate to see Sean become a wanted man.
Also, where did it say this went into effect today?
This legislation is aimed at the American market place. I doubt that the world market will give a damn about American legislation. Wonder how this will work out in actuality for Nigeria, Bahamas and other places?
This is proposed legislation. Wait and see what congress does with it. It should take years to argue, water down and then act on, if things go according to plan. tim
I read the proposed legislation and did not see how it effect non-sexually explicit photographers. It appears this is directed at the porn industry, not fine art nudes. Then again I'm not a lawyer.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2257
(3) the term produces means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted;
Sean would be okay if they are talking about the type of photos that get placed here.
I am a bit confused, has this legislation gone into effect, the date on the article is in August 2004 and the article claims it would go into effect right before the 2004 presidential election, so has it in fact gone into effect?
Now you need to define "non-sexually explicit"
"(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"
One word: 'unworkable'
Might be aimed to protect people, but will just make the soup thicher IMO.
aaahhh the fall of the roman empire all over again
Just the usual right wing Christian lunatics trying to make the world safer for us all.
Remember in his home state this nutball (Ashcroft) was beaten in an election by someone that had already died.
Mental illnes is a sad thing.
I think there was a thread about this back in 2004 if someone wants to search for it.
From what I understand it is currently in effect.
As someone else stated, this is aimed at pornographers who use under age actors. I don't think it will have much effect on on-line porn as most of those sites originate outside the boundries of the US.
I would be much mor concerned about yesterdays Supreme Court ruling that allows governments to sieze private property for what they can determine are economic growth interests. Goes against over 200 years of government use of iminent domain for only public work uses such as highways, schools,
military bases etc.
Now if a developer or corporation can convince a local government that your property would make a good location for a shopping mall or business park it can be condemend and siezed (with just compensation) and you have no say in the matter.
The fact is that "Higher Moral Values" cannot be legislated. My concept of "the limits of" is likely, probably different from most others.
Remember that the "terrorist states", that we are supposed to be so adamantly against, have *EXTREMELY STRICT* legal codes designed from strict religious sources. A woman showing an ankle??? Terrible!! Get the stones...!!
One question remains: WHO decides what is "pornographic"? I recall one really brittle type who decided that nudity among animals was reprehensible, and left in his will funding for an association dedicated to clothing animals. They tried, with the best of intentions -- but the records- films - made of cows wearing specially designed bras, and pants; dogs and cats in full body suits - have to be the most bizarre abuses of animals I have ever seen. The last I knew the organization ran out of funds in the middle of research aimed at trying to figure out what to do with ... FISH!!!
Do I think children should be protected from something injurious? Of course. ABSOLUTELY!! I would resent the inference that I did not. At the same time, I do not believe in avoiding all intelligence by protecting them from EVERYTHING. Morality MUST begin in the family, as the result of hard parental choices: How deeply do the parents want to isolate their children from the real world? Do we want our children to believe that babies are found in cabbage patches?
DO we want to "airbrush out" the "offensive parts" of people? Do we really want to deny their existence? - effectively creating a graphic representation advocating castration?
I've been pondering. It seems to me that the nations that were the strongest... that were growing, and thriving ... were the ones who at the time, allowed the most freedom to their citizens... and a LOT of that freedom was expressed in art.
When they restricted those freedoms - for any reason, the nation went into rapid decline.
Protect our children? Great idea. Where to start ... how about the air that we breathe? What is the status of the "Clean Air Act"? - Or how about reducing levels of toxins in drinking water - Or what about some form of National Health care for those millions who cannot afford any health care, and do not receive it - now?
No - wait -- those are too tough. Let's divert attention from them by running after those making "dirty" ( and the powers that be will define "dirty") pictures...
Hear, Hear! Good post, Ed.
Have to agree with Ed, this type of law is closing the barn door after the cow is gone. As far as the fall of the Roman Empire, it has already begun. Two warning shots were fired across the bow from China this week alone (Maytag & Unocal). They won't wage a conventional war, but an economic one.
The Supreme Court has added another nail in the coffin of property rights. It is now the decision of the municipality (with private input from a developer) with respect to condemnation of public property.
The fall of the Empire has already happened. The awareness of it is just beginning. tim
P.S. Didn't mean to hijack the thread.
From the way I read the law it is not legislating what is pornography, (except the use of children) or what children can or cannot be exposed to on the internet. It is trying to enforce current laws that prohibit the exploitation of minors used in pornography.
I don't think you can legislate morality. But taken to its logical conclusion then we should repeal all laws protecting children from such exploitation regardless of age. If anyone is in favor of that then post and defend that position.
We have laws that protect children from medicine in bottles, lead in paint, being exploited as laborers, being spanked by parents and sexual abuse by parents but when it comes to exploitation for pornography or sex we start to get all indignant because we might infringe on someone's creativity or freedom of speech.
Maybe we need to define minors in pornography by degrees. Homicides are categorized such as in-voluntary manslughter, manslaughter, and various degrees based on certain mitigating circumstances. Perhaps just pictures of a model are ok, but sexually suggestive poses a minimum offense. Then go up to penetration with another minor and then up to penetration with an adult. We could sub-categorize based on age. Using a 16 year old not quite as bad of offense as say a 9 year old.
Actually we should just get rid of such prudish laws. I am sure that all photographers have the best interest of the children in mind and pornography is really all about the art. And no artist would ever exploit a child for their own gain.
Not wanting to go too far off on a tangent but I see all this recent stuff as a result of a failed two party political system in this country.
In order for either the Republicans or the Democrats to win in any election they have to pander to the fringe extremists. The Republicans have their agenda of helping big business and in order to be elected they have to pander to right wing religious wingnuts and promote their social agendas.
For the Democrats to win the need to pander to fringe groups that embrace socialism.
It is really too bad that we don't have a Moderates Party that will easily form any majority and leave the communists and the right wingers out on the fringes where they belong.
Then the lastest screwball legislations and political appointments that we've seen lately, would not even need to be discussed.
Actually it's worse. If they had the guts to say X is bad. Y is okay then you could argue if the law was good/bad. But instead the law is open to abuse by any police officer or prosecutor who wants it.
That's supposedly an appeal court ruling. Some things stand out
"[A] photograph of a naked girl might not be lascivious (depending on the balance of the remaining Dost factors), but a photograph of a girl in a highly sexual pose dressed in hose, garters, and a bra would certainly be found to be lascivious."
Don't look. That's clearly lascivious according to the court. I wonder if the photographer took the trouble to follow the law?
The ruling also mentions a bedroom being naughty. Take the same photo in a public park no problem. Take it in a bedroom go to jail?
Nicely, succinctly put, Michael.
Ed, I know you do some very tasteful and lovely nudes. Your models are adults. I remember in the case of Jock Sturges, he did nudes of a variety of women and girls, going to a beach resort in France every summer for many years, and chronicling the maturity of these girls. It was done with the full consent of the girls and of their parents. I attended the opening of his show in San Francisco about ten years ago, for the book "The Last Day of Summer". I went around slowly looking at the faces, the beautiful bodies (the human body is the ultimate beauty!!) and by the time I got to the end, I was almost in tears. The purity and clarity of those portraits was heartbreaking. I talked with Jock for a moment, and he related in a very humble way about the FBI intrusions, the seizing of all his equipment and film. He was philosophical about it, not nearly as pissed as I might have been in same situation.
The first English settlement in what we now call America was established by Puritans, and a lot of that pious religious undercurrent remains just below the surface of our public discourse. Would that we could have the same openness and healthy outlook about nudity as the French, but I don't think it will ever happen in the US.
One last observation: nudity in American film is almost always accompanied by violence. The couple just starts to get it on, and somebody rushes in shooting, or the teenage girl takes her bra off and a monster grabs her and eats her, etc. We have no problem with utterly graphic violence, but any really sexy scene gets the film an NC17 or X rating. Without actually coming to any conclusions about this observation, just pondering it awhile can give one a powerful insight into our national psyche.
I just scanned the link on the Amirault case and from what I see the guy was in posession of child pornography which is against the law. I don't think Mr. Amirault would have found himself in that position if he had posessed adult pornographic material.
The law that started this thread deals with what a photographer is required to do. The definations used by the courts are going to be similar/same to the ones in that case.
That guy got a lower sentence because the girl was naked! Because she was outdoors!
It clear the law in no way protects fine art photographers. It certainly doesn't protect Helmut Newton or his works.
Absolutely, Jim! Now THIS ruling is just plain scary!
Well said Ed - Nicely done !! You have my vote - personal responsibility and protect those who can't protect themselves. Leave adults alone as long as they aren't offending anyone else !!
Couldna' said it better myself.
Finally found it!
From word that is going around, not only is one required to have proof of age and a federal issued identification copy, but it also has to be indexed in a particular way when the FBI requests for it. Mispellings on any documentation or improperly indexed files can get you in trouble.
Also, you would have to have a list of where the images are being used: URL, companies, addresses, etc. The site(s) using the content must have the same identification as well. This would raise a privacy issue for the models - Stalkers!
I don't think the law lends itself only to the adult industry. Just like the great debate about a parent photographing their child in their early years in the shower being considered child pornography by some, can also be debated about an artistic nude photo - it's all subjective. I think they can target anyone they want providing there is some form of nudity involved and that the model is of questionable age.