NationStates Jolt Archive

In the US, there are new and interesting regulations concerning the display of images of "actual sexual conduct" (a term that is intentionally vague, as it may or may not cover animations). It may also cover fully clothed people who are in a picture by themselves - it all depends on the investigator.

To keep in line with the regulation, for every website under your control that has the potential to display any pictures at all (forums are a good example), you have to have the birth and identity on file for everyone in every photograph that might be examined by an investigator. Formerly a requirement for only pornographic movies, it's now a requirement for Internet photos.

Why do I know this? Because I'm a lawyer who runs a site in complete compliance with the law.

Here's an example of the notice you must put on your site (it's a good idea to put it on any site, whether you think it's porn or not - because an investigator might think the pictures of your family in their bathing suits at the beach is questionable).

All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.

All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

With respect to all visual depictions displayed on this website, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual content or otherwise, all persons in said visual depictions were at least 18 years of age when said visual depictions were created.

One of the reasons I REFUSE to be a Republican!:mad: :headbang:

In the US, there are new and interesting regulations concerning the display of images of "actual sexual conduct" (a term that is intentionally vague, as it may or may not cover animations). It may also cover fully clothed people who are in a picture by themselves - it all depends on the investigator.

To keep in line with the regulation, for every website under your control that has the potential to display any pictures at all (forums are a good example), you have to have the birth and identity on file for everyone in every photograph that might be examined by an investigator. Formerly a requirement for only pornographic movies, it's now a requirement for Internet photos.

Why do I know this? Because I'm a lawyer who runs a site in complete compliance with the law.

Here's an example of the notice you must put on your site (it's a good idea to put it on any site, whether you think it's porn or not - because an investigator might think the pictures of your family in their bathing suits at the beach is questionable).
Originally Posted by Disclaimer
All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.

All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

With respect to all visual depictions displayed on this website, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual content or otherwise, all persons in said visual depictions were at least 18 years of age when said visual depictions were created.
The last paragraph of the disclaimer - am I right in inferring that, under this law, I could be prosecuted if I were an American citizen/living in America who decided to host pictures of my kid's school play on my blog, if I did not have a disclaimer?
It's a moot point, as I'm English, living in England, never intend to move to America, don't have kids, and don't have a blog, but I'm just interested.

So you basically have to put the porno video disclaimer on virtually any website? What senseless bullshit! I thought the republicans were against needless and inconvenient government regulation.

As an example, let's say you run an Internet forum... And you have a Babe thread. And some of the pictures are a bit suggestive, but the babes are all clothed.

The pictures are posted by forum members. You're not really keeping track, other than to remove the really offensive ones.

Well, you need that disclaimer on your website (according to the law). You also need to get the birth date and identity document for everyone in every photo - and have it on file physically at a single location - just in case there's an investigation.

Makes it nearly impossible to have a forum where people can post pictures online.

The last paragraph of the disclaimer - am I right in inferring that, under this law, I could be prosecuted if I were an American citizen/living in America who decided to host pictures of my kid's school play on my blog, if I did not have a disclaimer?
It's a moot point, as I'm English, living in England, never intend to move to America, don't have kids, and don't have a blog, but I'm just interested.

As an example, let's say you take a picture of a child at the beach. Perfectly innocuous, fully clothed. But you post it on your blog.

They might contact you and want to know the age of the person in the photo. And you'll have to have an easy address on the page noting where such records are kept.

It is not up to you to interpret what is "actual" or "simulated" or "sexual". It's up to them.

So you basically have to put the porno video disclaimer on virtually any website? What senseless bullshit! I thought the republicans were against needless and inconvenient government regulation.

Yes, the same rule that applied only to porn videos in the 1980s now applies to websites with photos of people whose activity might be construed as sexual in nature (even if they are alone in the photo).

More bullshit legislation.

'morality' gone mad and senseless restrictions and regulations... what a waste of government

(while it may seem i am contradicting my usually pro-regulation approach, i can in fact understand the difference between useful regulation, and total wank)


Disclaimer: the person who wrote this post was over the age of 18 at the time of writing. all rights reserved yadda yadda yadda wank wank wank

Yes, the same rule that applied only to porn videos in the 1980s now applies to websites with photos of people whose activity might be construed as sexual in nature (even if they are alone in the photo).
Who gets to decide what constitutes a sexual photo? What if it's just a picture of a woman wearing no shoes and a bored investigator happens to have a foot fetish? Could you end up being prosecuted?

Who gets to decide what constitutes a sexual photo? What if it's just a picture of a woman wearing no shoes and a bored investigator happens to have a foot fetish? Could you end up being prosecuted?

What if you take a picture of your wife at the beach in her bathing suit, and she just happens to be scratching (a legitimate itch) in a certain private area, revealing nothing, but to an investigator, appearing as if she is engaged in "actual sexual activity".

Better have a 2257 notice on your website...

Who gets to decide what constitutes a sexual photo? What if it's just a picture of a woman wearing no shoes and a bored investigator happens to have a foot fetish? Could you end up being prosecuted?
generally government departments such as this have very firm and long-winded explainations of where, when and how their rules should be followed, so that specific situation is highly unlikely

but the question still stands: who gets to decide what constitutes a sexual photo?

An example of why more government regulation is bad. Almost always.

Disclaimer: The person who wrote this post is not over 18 and may have a different identity than he or she claims to be. He or she may also be schizophrenic, manic-depressive, or multipolar. By reading the above post you are open to criminal prosecution and federal agents may pay your dwelling a visit. We are Czardas. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated, etc.

As an example, let's say you run an Internet forum... And you have a Babe thread. And some of the pictures are a bit suggestive, but the babes are all clothed.

The pictures are posted by forum members. You're not really keeping track, other than to remove the really offensive ones.

Well, you need that disclaimer on your website (according to the law). You also need to get the birth date and identity document for everyone in every photo - and have it on file physically at a single location - just in case there's an investigation.

Makes it nearly impossible to have a forum where people can post pictures online.
Let's be blunt--the example you're talking about above is Nationstates. Now here's some questions--are servers not located in the US but accessible by people in the US controlled by this legislation? What about ISP's that don't block access to overseas servers? What if you live in the US but don't use a server located in the US--are you covered or in the clear?

but the question still stands: who gets to decide what constitutes a sexual photo?
Maybe they should just get 20 or so guys in off the street, and take a vote on how many of them would consider using the photo to jerk off over. If a majority say yes, it's a sexual photo :D

Let's be blunt--the example you're talking about above is Nationstates. Now here's some questions--are servers not located in the US but accessible by people in the US controlled by this legislation? What about ISP's that don't block access to overseas servers? What if you live in the US but don't use a server located in the US--are you covered or in the clear?

Good question.

Considering that there are reciprocal investigation agreements between the US and UK on such matters, I would probably stop allowing people to post photos or links at all.

You couldn't possibly review every photo that is posted for potential problems (relying on people to report them to moderation would not suffice), and you would have to have a physical record of the ages and identities of everyone in the photos.

Maybe they should just get 20 or so guys in off the street, and take a vote on how many of them would consider using the photo to jerk off over. If a majority say yes, it's a sexual photo :D
you know, thats actually a good idea :p

ok so the qualifier for sexual photo is: would you crank one out over it? ;)

you know, thats actually a good idea :p

ok so the qualifier for sexual photo is: would you crank one out over it? ;)

In a rough way, that's the standard in the US. There are "local" standards for what is considered "obscenity" - which is not the same thing as "actual sexual activity" or "simulated sexual activity".

I can see a misrepresented picture of people at the company picnic having a "wheelbarrow race" could be construed as "simulated sexual activity".

Good question.

Considering that there are reciprocal investigation agreements between the US and UK on such matters, I would probably stop allowing people to post photos or links at all.

You couldn't possibly review every photo that is posted for potential problems (relying on people to report them to moderation would not suffice), and you would have to have a physical record of the ages and identities of everyone in the photos.
That helps, but it doesn't get to the crux of my question. Is it the physical location of the server that opens it up to this legislation? Could you get around it by putting your server in the Bahamas? And are ISPs under any sort of injunction to deny access to servers that host photos that don't comply with this law?

That helps, but it doesn't get to the crux of my question. Is it the physical location of the server that opens it up to this legislation? Could you get around it by putting your server in the Bahamas? And are ISPs under any sort of injunction to deny access to servers that host photos that don't comply with this law?

No one knows yet - this is a new requirement as of last month.

No one knows yet - this is a new requirement as of last month.
Ah. I see.

Maybe they should just get 20 or so guys in off the street, and take a vote on how many of them would consider using the photo to jerk off over. If a majority say yes, it's a sexual photo :D
Which street? If it's Christopher street they would probably find a hardcore lesbian scene to be completely devoid of sexual content.

I can see a misrepresented picture of people at the company picnic having a "wheelbarrow race" could be construed as "simulated sexual activity".
in some places, yes... but in no place i'd like to live thats for sure :p


but back to the main issue in question: i can totally understand the need for such regulation in porn and on porn sites - soft- and hard-core - but there's a very clear and obvious distinction between porn and accidental or occasional 'simulated sexual activity' or whatever that you might possibly see on normal websites. hence taking this regulation to all such 'normal' websites is stupid :headbang:

in some places, yes... but in no place i'd like to live thats for sure :p


but back to the main issue in question: i can totally understand the need for such regulation in porn and on porn sites - soft- and hard-core - but there's a very clear and obvious distinction between porn and accidental or occasional 'simulated sexual activity' or whatever that you might possibly see on normal websites. hence taking this regulation to all such 'normal' websites is stupid :headbang:


I doubt very much that Sierra is worried about any 'normal' website he runs.

I doubt very much that Sierra is worried about any 'normal' website he runs.
I'm not the only one worried about this. There are several forums that have nothing to do with porn that I frequent that are now blocking users from posting ANY photos or links - because they don't have the time to review all the photos and get all the necessary documentation.

I doubt very much that Sierra is worried about any 'normal' website he runs.
no i guess not :p *wink wink*

So is anyone actually in favour of this legislation?

I doubt very much that Sierra is worried about any 'normal' website he runs.

i still want him to TG me the top portion of that photo he posted in the babe thread :P

i still want him to TG me the top portion of that photo he posted in the babe thread :P

You can want that all you like. Silliopolous thinks that I would be doing something wrong if I did so.

So take it up with Silliopolous. Until then, I'll hold on to the photo link.

So is anyone actually in favour of this legislation?


I'm not really against it so if someone needs to debate in favor of it...

Who is going to argue that illegal child pornography is a problem? Who is going to argue that human slave trafficking isn't a problem. Who is going to argue that illegally gained photographs of people who have not given their permission are used on the internet?

All of these things are combated with the existence of this constriction. With nothing more than reasonable professional record keep the standards of the law are maintained.

Blah blah blah, etc., etc., etc. You get the idea.

I'm not really against it so if someone needs to debate in favor of it...

Who is going to argue that illegal child pornography is a problem? Who is going to argue that human slave trafficking isn't a problem. Who is going to argue that illegally gained photographs of people who have not given their permission are used on the internet?

All of these things are combated with the existence of this constriction. With nothing more than reasonable professional record keep the standards of the law are maintained.

Blah blah blah, etc., etc., etc. You get the idea.

And already I know of two forums that have nothing to do with porn of any kind who have eliminated the ability to post links or photos. You get the idea.

And already I know of two forums that have nothing to do with porn of any kind who have eliminated the ability to post links or photos. You get the idea.


Exactly, it stops them from allowing people to post illegally gained and/or copyrighted material in the hopes of saying, "it's not our fault!" one of our unsupervised customers did it!!!!

Now the law says, it is your fault, you should have supervised them. Obey the copyright laws and age requirement laws for mature material hosted on your website or else don’t do it at all. Not a problem.

Exactly, it stops them from allowing people to post illegally gained and/or copyrighted material in the hopes of saying, "it's not our fault!" one of our unsupervised customers did it!!!!

Now the law says, it is your fault, you should have supervised them. Obey the copyright laws and age requirement laws for mature material hosted on your website or else don’t do it at all. Not a problem.

And stop legitimate, privately owned photos as well. Because the typical private person doesn't keep records like that.

I hate intentionally vague laws like these

So is anyone actually in favour of this legislation?
Enough career politicians are that it passed, a while back actually.

Maybe they should just get 20 or so guys in off the street, and take a vote on how many of them would consider using the photo to jerk off over. If a majority say yes, it's a sexual photo :D
My GOD you want us to ban ALL images????:eek:

I hate intentionally vague laws like these

So does the US Supreme Court. This law will get smacked down as unconstitutional if the government tries to prosecute anyone over clearly non-sexual photos - it just screams "overly broad". Not to mention violating the 1st Amendment in several ways.

And some of the more extreme scenarios people have posted here are just laughable. For example, even if the NS server was in the US, Max couldn't get sued over the Babe Thread. Why? Because the pictures in the Babe Thread are not on the NS server! They are linked to from the server, yes, but are actually physically located on various image hosting services over which Max has no control. The same is true for most other web forums.

Let's not panic too much. Bad legislation like this rarely survives long.

:rolleyes:

So does the US Supreme Court. This law will get smacked down as unconstitutional if the government tries to prosecute anyone over clearly non-sexual photos - it just screams "overly broad". Not to mention violating the 1st Amendment in several ways.

Actually, with the rise in conservative judges, that is rather unlikely.

This is a bit of a moot point outside the US. Certainly in any test case involving an EU-based server, the EU would laugh this out of court.

So, I wonder how many blog sites are going to die from this?

As an example, let's say you run an Internet forum... And you have a Babe thread. And some of the pictures are a bit suggestive, but the babes are all clothed.

The pictures are posted by forum members. You're not really keeping track, other than to remove the really offensive ones.

Well, you need that disclaimer on your website (according to the law). You also need to get the birth date and identity document for everyone in every photo - and have it on file physically at a single location - just in case there's an investigation.

Makes it nearly impossible to have a forum where people can post pictures online.
*seethes*

I hate america.

As an example, let's say you run an Internet forum... And you have a Babe thread. And some of the pictures are a bit suggestive, but the babes are all clothed.

The pictures are posted by forum members. You're not really keeping track, other than to remove the really offensive ones.

Well, you need that disclaimer on your website (according to the law). You also need to get the birth date and identity document for everyone in every photo - and have it on file physically at a single location - just in case there's an investigation.

Makes it nearly impossible to have a forum where people can post pictures online.
Good thing jolt is in the UK!