NationStates Jolt Archive

Original Boing Boing post

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html

Actual site targetted by government (more to follow, no doubt)

http://www.gapingmaw.com/

The US government has begun tackling websites that it deems to have 'unsavory' images and such.

Free speech...fun while it lasted.

What to expect from the neo-conservatives, the greatest haters of freedom in the United States. They are the new theocrats, and this is just a precedent for another powergrab.

On the upside, goatse will be gone once and for all.


Unless they like that image.

The site owners just have to make sure all actors and actresses they use are over the age of 18, not that difficult of a task if the site owners are responsible businesspersons.

On the upside, goatse will be gone once and for all.


Unless they like that image.

Nuts to that! Goatse and Lemon Party will be here forever!

They'll be havin' a fun time in the back with tubgirl till the end of time if I have anything to say about it! :)

The site owners just have to make sure all actors and actresses they use are over the age of 18, not that difficult of a task if the site owners are responsible businesspersons.

Not at all why it was shut down. There are no pics of the underaged there. It was just gross out pictures.

Here is a link to the law in question:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

Did anyone else notice that the government hasnt really shut any of those sites down?

So...banning underaged pornography (Which has always been illegal anyway) is a bad thing?

So...banning underaged pornography (Which has always been illegal anyway) is a bad thing?

*sigh*

There WAS NO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!

Please read the sites of the links I provided.

The site I linked to was a blog that was in essay format with the occasional cartoon.

*sigh*

There WAS NO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY!!

Neither was the site shut down by the government

Neither was the site shut down by the government

Content banned. As far as I can tell they just didn't have the legal stepping to seize the domain.

That is still censorship.

Content banned. As far as I can tell they just didn't have the legal stepping to seize the domain.

That is still censorship.

The content is not banned either. They just need to make sure they have information on file for all the models they use for any sexually explicit content.

The content is not banned either. They just need to make sure they have information on all the models they use for any sexually explicit content.
"Jumping through hoops".

"Jumping through hoops".

Sure, its standard practice for all types of media. Film studios need releases from every person in the film, they need permission from the government to shoot on public property, they need to keep files with information on any models involved in sexually explicit situations, they even need permission from the owner of any vehicle that happens to be in the street when they are shooting. It isnt censorship, its the way things need to be to maintain order. The restrictions on web sites so far are far less onerous than the restrictions placed on all other types of media aside from journalism. They just need to have documentation on the models they are using for sexually explicit content that shows they are adults. Its not a big deal.

"Jumping through hoops".

:eek:What? You don’t believe in protecting minors from exploitation.?

:eek:What? You don’t believe in protecting minors from exploitation.?

Everybody seems to be gleefully ignoring that when your site consists of text and drawn images there are no children involved.

The record-keeping requirements apply to ``[w]hoever produces'' the
material in question. 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture, 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.'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3).

May it be noted that just because the website is still up, does not mean that they havn't been censored. They had pictures on their website of an unknown Asian man eating a baby, now, it's gone, censored.

I believe that such material is wrong, and is inapropriate, but it's their right to post gorey pictures. May it also be noted that those pictures are sent to them. It's not like they steal a bunch of police photos of crime sites and post them on the website without consent.

Everybody seems to be gleefully ignoring that when your site consists of text and drawn images there are no children involved.

Then they removed those images to make a statement or simply out of stupidity because there is no law that prevents them from having them there.

May it be noted that just because the website is still up, does not mean that they havn't been censored. They had pictures on their website of an unknown Asian man eating a baby, now, it's gone, censored.

It wasnt censored, they removed it themselves.

I believe that such material is wrong, and is inapropriate, but it's their right to post gorey pictures.

Sure. No one is stopping them from doing that. There is no law that prevents them from doing such, and they continue to do that now and will continue for as long as they like.

I know I must have said something like this before at some point, but you've just to be the most unhip hippie I've ever run across, LazyHippies.

So unhip it's a wonder your buns don't fall off.

:eek:What? You don’t believe in protecting minors from exploitation.?

I know I do--but I think it's the responsibility of the parents, not the government to do so.

:eek:What? You don’t believe in protecting minors from exploitation.?
The current 18 U.S.C. 2257 seems to be protecting them well enough, this new one just seems to be adding unnessicary layers of paperwork to prevent the porn industry from working.

Okay, I am not going on those sites until someone tells me what they are. I don't want any nasty shocks! :)

tag

I know I do--but I think it's the responsibility of the parents, not the government to do so.

That’s all well and good, but many parents have been convicting of sexually exploiting their own children for money.

What to expect from the neo-conservatives, the greatest haters of freedom in the United States. They are the new theocrats, and this is just a precedent for another powergrab.


Exactly they're worse than the Theocrate who run Iran, because at least the Iranian government doesn't invade others under the premise of spreading freedom

It wasnt censored, they removed it themselves.





because they were threatened with 5 years in jail numbnuts

That’s all well and good, but many parents have been convicting of sexually exploiting their own children for money.

Shoot the parents that do that.

I was talking about all the FCC, movie and TV ratings, V-chip, censoring crap. All the parts that a parent is supposed to be responsible for filtering--all the actually useless laws.

Protecting a kid from the slave trade--now that's worth something.

I was talking about all the FCC, movie and TV ratings, V-chip, censoring crap. All the parts that a parent is supposed to be responsible for filtering--all the actually useless laws.

Those are far from useless. They are tools, which parents can choose to use or not. They aid parents in deciding what is appropriate for their children.

personally I beleive we should get rid of any censorship laws

look at all the crap they put on TV, such as all the anime the butcher because of censorship laws, or the TV movies.

personally, if it offends you, don't watch it and stop ruining it for the rest of us

Exactly they're worse than the Theocrate who run Iran, because at least the Iranian government doesn't invade others under the premise of spreading freedom

No, but funding rebellions in other places (Iraq) is a pasttime anyone can play at home. :D All it takes is money and desire.

Those are far from useless. They are tools, which parents can choose to use or not. They aid parents in deciding what is appropriate for their children.

"Useless" was a poor choice on my part.

The problem is, they're also interfering with everyone--not just children. I have a very big problem when the government says that the 1st amendment doesn't matter, and will censor speech and expression. It's not the government's job to determine what's best for a particular child.

And it's certainly not their job to censor speech. All this "for the children" stuff is turning the US into a nanny-state where the adults can't make choices for themselves. The government is turning into the authority--when they know less about each one of us that we, of course, do. Get voted into office, or land a government job, and suddenly, those people are more qualified and knowledgable about daily life matters in our lives than we are. How'd that happen? Did they get a brain upgrade that the plebes outside of government don't have access to?

The government is supposed to represent us, not control us. The more laws are created, the fewer freedoms and responsibility we have.

because they were threatened with 5 years in jail numbnuts
I missed the part on the site where they posted a cease and desist order from the government with a threat of 5 years in jail. Could you help me and post a link?

<snip>Free speech...fun while it lasted.
Uh huh... When THIS (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tvaradarajan/?id=110006858) starts happening, you may have a point.

NEW YORK--Oriana Fallaci faces jail. In her mid-70s, stricken with a cancer that, for the moment, permits only the consumption of liquids--so yes, we drank champagne in the course of a three-hour interview--one of the most renowned journalists of the modern era has been indicted by a judge in her native Italy under provisions of the Italian Penal Code which proscribe the "vilipendio," or "vilification," of "any religion admitted by the state."

In her case, the religion deemed vilified is Islam, and the vilification was perpetrated, apparently, in a book she wrote last year--and which has sold many more than a million copies all over Europe--called "The Force of Reason." Its astringent thesis is that the Old Continent is on the verge of becoming a dominion of Islam, and that the people of the West have surrendered themselves fecklessly to the "sons of Allah." So in a nutshell, Oriana Fallaci faces up to two years' imprisonment for her beliefs--which is one reason why she has chosen to stay put in New York. Let us give thanks for the First Amendment. <more> (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/tvaradarajan/?id=110006858)

Sure, its standard practice for all types of media. Film studios need releases from every person in the film, they need permission from the government to shoot on public property, they need to keep files with information on any models involved in sexually explicit situations, they even need permission from the owner of any vehicle that happens to be in the street when they are shooting. It isnt censorship, its the way things need to be to maintain order. The restrictions on web sites so far are far less onerous than the restrictions placed on all other types of media aside from journalism. They just need to have documentation on the models they are using for sexually explicit content that shows they are adults. Its not a big deal.

I follow your lead! *Begins goose stepping*

Uh huh... When THIS starts happening, you may have a point.

I find it particularly delicious that this women has to flee “enlightened" Europe and head to “oppressive” America to exercise her inalienable right to Freedom of Speech.

Get over it. 100% free speech is just dumb. Censorship (may not be government imposed, but society imposed) is required to keep the peace and quiet. Excessive "freedom" of speech tends to become harmful.

I find it particularly delicious that this women has to flee “enlightened" Europe and head to “oppressive” America to exercise her inalienable right to Freedom of Speech.
England won't be far behind Italy soon... :(

Get over it. 100% free speech is just dumb. Censorship (may not be government imposed, but society imposed) is required to keep the peace and quiet. Excessive "freedom" of speech tends to become harmful.

True, but if we restrict personal rights, what have we got then?

Freedom of Speech means keeping all speech free, even if it has the potential to become "harmful".

True, but if we restrict personal rights, what have we got then?

Freedom of Speech means keeping all speech free, even if it has the potential to become "harmful".

If it's going to be "harmful", it's got to go, doesn't it. It's HARMFUL! HELLO??

Freedom of Speech means keeping all speech free, even if it has the potential to become "harmful".

Yell fire in a crowded building, and let us know how that works out for you. :p

I hate the idea that we should have anything less than totally free speech. Listen: it doesn't matter what the original censorship law says is illegal. As long as there's a law in place stating that it's illegal to say certain things, we've set a precedent. And once we've set a precedent, it becomes tragically easy for any crazy wannabe dictator to grap power by simply tweaking the already-existing laws a bit.

Get over it. 100% free speech is just dumb. Censorship (may not be government imposed, but society imposed) is required to keep the peace and quiet. Excessive "freedom" of speech tends to become harmful.

Yes, slander and libel can have penalties. That's because it's lying.

But when someone is offended by art or opinions--they can't legislate things like that.

There is no inalienable right to silence, peace, quiet, or anything else of that nature. If two people argue over racism, bigotry, sexism, ageism, etc., that's all just talk and opinion. If it ever steps over the line to violence--that's exactly what happened--a line was crossed. It is no longer a speech issue, but an assault issue, where a person WILLINGLY decided to attack another. No force on the assailant's part.

No verbal expression is ever the cause of violence--only choosing not to use willpower in a socially accepted fashion is. And that's always a choice. A word can't physically cause a fist to move rapidly at another person's face--ever.

All censorship is a violation of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Get over it. 100% free speech is just dumb. Censorship (may not be government imposed, but society imposed) is required to keep the peace and quiet. Excessive "freedom" of speech tends to become harmful.
That's the kind of thought that allows people to seize total power. Give an inch, they want a mile.

Free speech is the most basic premise of the country, it is the first and strongest wall between freedom and oppression. Any hedging of the first amendment should be done away with.

-edit- yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater in itself is no problems, that's different because it is meant to cause panic and harm. That should be the illegal part, not the actual yelling of "FIRE". Just like you can think and say racist stuff, but if you actually go beating up other people than you've crossed a line.

Yes, slander and libel can have penalties. That's because it's lying.

But when someone is offended by art or opinions--they can't legislate things like that.

There is no inalienable right to silence, peace, quiet, or anything else of that nature. If two people argue over racism, bigotry, sexism, ageism, etc., that's all just talk and opinion. If it ever steps over the line to violence--that's exactly what happened--a line was crossed. It is no longer a speech issue, but an assault issue, where a person WILLINGLY decided to attack another. No force on the assailant's part.

No verbal expression is ever the cause of violence--only choosing not to use willpower in a socially accepted fashion is. And that's always a choice. A word can't physically cause a fist to move rapidly at another person's face--ever.

But speech sometimes have a far more serious consequence than just physical beating, though.

England won't be far behind Italy soon... :(

Mayhaps we won't be far behind either...

I find it particularly delicious that this women has to flee “enlightened" Europe and head to “oppressive” America to exercise her inalienable right to Freedom of Speech.

Oppressive to non-Americans maybe, but give that time.

Anyway, who started the enlightened/oppressive thing anyway?

All countries have their own problems.

But speech sometimes have a far more serious consequence than just physical beating, though.

Does it? When it's not lying? Remember, a voice doesn't actually cause physical action. Individual wills and choices do that.

Examples of your side of the argument please?

Does it? When it's not lying? Remember, a voice doesn't actually cause physical action. Individual wills and choices do that.

Examples of your side of the argument please?

Ill give an example. How about calling for a lynching? or riling up a crowd and then having them attack a group of people. Its happened before.

Ill give an example. How about calling for a lynching? or riling up a crowd and then having them attack a group of people. Its happened before.

Calling for a hanging and taking the actions to make that hanging a reality are completely different subjects. The constitution doesn't recognize stringing someone up as a right. But you certainly can express your desire to do so.

Ordering a crowd to attack someone? Each person in that crowd has a will. They have the choice to attack someone or not.

Speech doesn't MAKE someone do something. The individual makes themself do it. If I told you to kill yourself, you probably wouldn't do it, right (anyone ever use the phrase "drop dead")? There wouldn't be some mysterious force making you comply with the statement, right? It's the same thing. Words are touted as some sort of excuse for a decision made by a person.

Saying words cause someone to do something is wrong. Saying people think on words and decide to do something--that's dead on. Regardless of how short the time frame, there is processing going on in relation to the words spoken. It isn't as if a boulder were bouncing toward you, and you instinctively dive out of the way--words require processing.

From the Boing Boing link provided:


A Rotten.com spokesperson responds:

You are missing the part where "distributor" is redefined to include posting on an internet web site. Re-read the enabling regulations (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-10107.htm) more closely. Yes, it really does that. Specifically the term "secondary producer" is defined to include anyone who posts a digital image on an internet site, under 75.1 (c)(2). Secondary producers are the ones who are now being required to maintain this information. It is no over-reaction.

Calling for a hanging and taking the actions to make that hanging a reality are completely different subjects. The constitution doesn't recognize stringing someone up as a right. But you certainly can express your desire to do so.

Ordering a crowd to attack someone? Each person in that crowd has a will. They have the choice to attack someone or not.

Speech doesn't MAKE someone do something. The individual makes themself do it. If I told you to kill yourself, you probably wouldn't do it, right (anyone ever use the phrase "drop dead")? There wouldn't be some mysterious force making you comply with the statement, right? It's the same thing. Words are touted as some sort of excuse for a decision made by a person.

Saying words cause someone to do something is wrong. Saying people think on words and decide to do something--that's dead on. Regardless of how short the time frame, there is processing going on in relation to the words spoken. It isn't as if a boulder were bouncing toward you, and you instinctively dive out of the way--words require processing.


So, in other words the recent decision in Mississippi to hold the leader of the KKK who ordered the murder of black activists in the 60s accountable was a violation of his freedom of speech?

But when someone is offended by art or opinions--they can't legislate things like that.


EXACTLY!!!

If something on TV so to speak, Guns or Smoking offends you, stop watching it

I for one like seeing guns and swords, not rattles and sticks

Seriously, I saw a show where they edited someone's gun into a Rattle

now that's just stupid!!!

What to expect from the neo-conservatives, the greatest haters of freedom in the United States. They are the new theocrats, and this is just a precedent for another powergrab.

haters of freedom... but in support of the second amendment and individuals' monetary rights...

both parties support different freedoms.

So, in other words the recent decision in Mississippi to hold the leader of the KKK who ordered the murder of black activists in the 60s accountable was a violation of his freedom of speech?

Technically, yes. Those that carried out the order could have not done it.

However, he was setting up the infrastructure to help in the murders. It was beyond free speech. That's where he needs to be held accountable.

What to expect from the neo-conservatives, the greatest haters of freedom in the United States. They are the new theocrats, and this is just a precedent for another powergrab.
You see...this kind of hysterical comment just looks bad. Seriously...why must we use words like this, so totally out of proportion with reality? "The greatest haters of freedom"..."theocrats"...look...they drive me nuts too, but this kind of talk makes me laugh until I puke. Yes, this censorship is bad...deal with that in a rational manner, folks, instead of name calling for the sake of name calling.

Technically, yes. Those that carried out the order could have not done it.

However, he was setting up the infrastructure to help in the murders. It was beyond free speech. That's where he needs to be held accountable.

setting up the infrastructure? thats kind of a lame way of saying, yes but I agree with the restriction of his speech in this case. You arent helping your argument much. Either telling people to kill someone is wrong or it isnt.

setting up the infrastructure? thats kind of a lame way of saying, yes but I agree with the restriction of his speech in this case. You arent helping your argument much. Either telling people to kill someone is wrong or it isnt.

It's wrong to kill someone. He was organizing the groups to be able to actually commit the act--he wasn't just saying, "kill them" or "lynch 'em". Yeah, there is a difference.

So much for that. I guess I will have to stockpile as much porn as possible for it's banned.

Original Boing Boing post

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html

Actual site targetted by government (more to follow, no doubt)

http://www.gapingmaw.com/

The US government has begun tackling websites that it deems to have 'unsavory' images and such.

Free speech...fun while it lasted.well, that's what happens when people start defining "freedom" to mean "without responsiblity" just because the constitution says you can say anything, doesn't mean you should.