# Please explain the new Porn Laws **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 23, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591 "2005-06-23T21:06:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![KGS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/90ced4/32.png) [@KGS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KGS)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/21 "2005-06-24T07:07:58Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Its intention is to stop child pornography… How do you figure that?? Kiddy porn is so far underground these days, I can’t see any one of those sickos deciding to stop distributing his filthy pics because of that law. The _real_ objective, of course, is to compile a national database of adult pornographers and pornographic actors, so when the Religious Right finally does get its way, they know exactly who to line up against the wall. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/22 "2005-06-24T07:31:32Z")
But the original regulation has been massively changed. The changes are what we are talking about. The modifications are troubling. [Here’s an article](http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227704) with a bit more detail on why the new regs are particularly crappy for webmasters. Anyone who decides to buy content gets the home address and real name of their favorite porn star. And because the law specificly forbids using a third party site to hold the actor’s personal data. Every cam whore has to post her home address because it is her place of business and necessarily the place where her personal info is located. Kiddie porn guys don’t distribute thier crap through the normal channels. They don’t have hours of business or even set business locations. They probably know where to get fake IDs if they were ever in a position to need them. I still don’t understand what exactly this law does to stop kiddie porn. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/23 "2005-06-24T11:50:14Z")
> [@Pullet](#): > > It only went into effect today. I know of two websites that have shut down because of it and a third that moved out of the country. Of course, it could only move out of the country because the owner was not an American citizen. If he had been, it wouldn’t have mattered where he moved his servers to. > > Granted, 3 websites, so far, ain’t all that much. It remains to be seen what will happen, but it doesn’t look good to me. > > This law is requiring jail time for poor record keeping. Any poor record keeping. I could see punishing some webmaster for posting kiddie porn, whittingly or no, but just any old porn? And with jail time? Seems like a waste of prison space. > > But whatever. We won’t know what will happen until it happens. Y’all can keep making fun of me for being cautious. I came here looking for additional help understanding this issue. Now I understand it and why it hasn’t made a bigger stink on national news. Thanks. In the last few weeks the House and the Senate has been dealing with such laws as, a resolution apologizing for the fact that they didn’t pass anti-lynching laws sixty years ago. And a law making it illegal to burn the flag. I believe they might not be worried about the most effective use of their time, or jail space, or anything so long as they can claim they’ve been enforcing morality. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/24 "2005-06-24T11:52:04Z")
> [@Pullet](#): > > But the original regulation has been massively changed. The changes are what we are talking about. The modifications are troubling. > > [Here’s an article](http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227704) with a bit more detail on why the new regs are particularly crappy for webmasters. Anyone who decides to buy content gets the home address and real name of their favorite porn star. And because the law specificly forbids using a third party site to hold the actor’s personal data. Every cam whore has to post her home address because it is her place of business and necessarily the place where her personal info is located. > > Kiddie porn guys don’t distribute thier crap through the normal channels. They don’t have hours of business or even set business locations. They probably know where to get fake IDs if they were ever in a position to need them. I still don’t understand what exactly this law does to stop kiddie porn. Clearly, it has nothing to do with kiddie porn, and everything to do with censoring the Internet, a goal they’ve had for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/25 "2005-06-24T12:15:39Z")
> [@Scott Plaid](#): > > I recall seeing some mainstream porn mags from the 70s in a now closed antique shop in Fells’ Point. It contained a fictional story involving a grown man, and a sixteen year old. As I recall, things were a little looser back then. True, it is fiction, but perhaps if they can outlaw all mags from that era, due to a lack of finding model releases form that period, they can erase signs of a different sexual era in America. I would not put it above the current government. This was a text story, or a story told with - or spiced up with - photos? The former is completely legal now. You may write and publish a story about sex between a sixteen year old, fourteen-year old, and nine-year-old, and receive only well-deserved contempt. The latter is legal - although a precarious situation - if the “sixteen year old” model was over eighteen. (There may be some nuance to this that I’m not aware of, so please remember that this is not legal advice). ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/26 "2005-06-24T12:27:03Z")
You seem to misunderstand my point. I am not asking for clarification of a law, but instead asking about the intent of the new law. I am fully aware of the legality of stories Not that it has any point on the issue, but the story was illustrated by drawings, also perfectly legal. You seem to be missing my point, however, which is that the story was (from my last post) all “due to a lack of finding model releases form that period,” and that “they can erase signs of a different sexual era in America. I would not put it above the current government.” So, they story is just one symptom of a different era of sexual norms. If, the company want to re-release the mag, perhaps on the net, the fact that it would be hard for the publisher to find data on an over 18 model unconnected with the story, but elsewhere in the same issue, they would have problems doing so. I believe that is one possibly ramification of the new law. However, as I look over this thread, I believe **KGS** and **Evil Captor** have hit the nail on the head. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/27 "2005-06-24T17:09:48Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > Clearly, it has nothing to do with kiddie porn, and everything to do with censoring the Internet, a goal they’ve had for decades. This is what I suspected, but I thought I’d come here, to this forum of truth and information, before I flew off the handle. You know, didn’t want to freak out unnecessarily. Thanks for helping me understand this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/28 "2005-06-24T21:20:58Z")
Evil Captor is precisely right. I do believe that the Free Speech Coalition has it held up for at least another month now. How this affects regular folks is that on an adults-only BBS where people post photos of themselves engaging in sex acts with other consenting adults for solely pleasure reasons (no profit motive), then that poster has to have all kinds of complicated, professional type records of all participants and open up there doors to Feds if they ask to check their records or face time. This puts a damper on posting anything done with more than two people that don’t live in the same premises. Or the reposting with permission that is popular on such adult BBS (e.g., Redclouds). And still even with a consenting, long term, couples of legal age, your still open to prosecution for not minding your Ps and Qs. Post a picture a ménage à trois and not have a copy of the obviously adult third participant’s driver’s license, and you do hard time. Someone asks if you saved a pic series of them polishing their husband’s knob because they’ve lost their photos, you post it; you do hard time. Someone asks you to “post on” (use your imagination) a photo of theirs that they’ve posted; you do it; you do hard time. Etc. And this is all concerns grown, consenting adults largely without a profit motive. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/29 "2005-06-24T23:05:58Z")
I don’t really have anything to add to the actual legal discussion, but I did want to mention that this: > [@askeptic](#): > > I think you are doing a chicken little about this. in a reply to a post by a Doper named **Pullet** , is either the cleverest zing I’ve ever seen on this board (if done on purpose) or an extremely funny chance juxtaposition (if it was unintentional). ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/30 "2005-06-25T01:15:03Z")
If I recall correctly (which indeed I may not) one of Ashcroft’s stated missions when Bush II was elected was to attack the pornography industry. I believe I read a rather lengthy artice about this coming attack in Hustler circa 2000, early 2001. If not for 9/11 this could have come about much sooner. For all the reactionary statements that could be made, I doubt any of the current members of the Justice Department would bat an eye at an accusation that they would like to see all porographic materal subjugated and the producers and stars of such prosicuted for the crime of titilating these control freaks. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/31 "2005-06-25T03:18:23Z")
Look for a well-publicized prosecution of anywhere from one to a dozen websites, probably small websites that don’t have the resources to defend themselves properly. Look for the ACLU legal team to defend one of the webmasters on a pro bono basis. The other webmasters’ prosecutions will have stays on them pending the outcome of the one that the ACLU picks out to defend, which will go to the Supreme Court. IANAL and I’m not too familiar with the details of this bill, but if it is indeed retroactive to 1995 it is blatantly unconstitutional. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but breaking a law that does not as yet exist IS an excuse. It stinks of “bills of attainder.” I think the Supremes will have to throw it out. Even they would have a hard time finding legal cover for upholding a law this vague. Even without the retroactive element, there’s something fiishy about the “secondary producer” definition. I suspect the courts will have trouble with that. You see now why the Pubbies want to stack the Court so badly. I remember during the runup to the 2004 election I was predicting a new censorship regime under the Pubbies. Some conservative members of this board said no such thing would ever happen. What fools they were, and are. ---
**Author:** ![Pullet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Pullet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pullet)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/32 "2005-06-25T06:01:50Z")
Makes me so sad. This plus the Anti Flag-Burning amendment and the Emminent Domain thing in Connecticut just disgust me. On the plus side, the economy of Canada should soon be booming with new residents. ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/33 "2005-06-25T13:23:16Z")
Republicans certainly deserve bashing on this one. But I’ve got to point out that the Dims had their own retroactive law that banned gun ownership for those convicted of misdemeanor Domestic Violence violations. And that the Emminent Domain law was supported by the Liberal Judges on the Supreme Court. Canada also has a ‘Hate Speech’ law that flys in the face of “Freedom of Speech” as well. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/34 "2005-06-25T20:05:53Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > Republicans certainly deserve bashing on this one. But I’ve got to point out that the Dims had their own retroactive law that banned gun ownership for those convicted of misdemeanor Domestic Violence violations. And that the Emminent Domain law was supported by the Liberal Judges on the Supreme Court. Canada also has a ‘Hate Speech’ law that flys in the face of “Freedom of Speech” as well. The whole concept of “hate speech” laws is constitutionally suspect. A wise man once said that if Freedom of Speech doesn’t protect your right to say unpopular things, then Freedom of Speech doesn’t exist. I suspect that the new porn law will eventually be declared unconstitutional, like that earlier law that tried to ban “fake” kiddie porn, but was declared to be overbroad. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2005, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591/35 "2005-06-25T22:03:53Z")
> [@Unregistered Bull](#): > > Republicans certainly deserve bashing on this one. But I’ve got to point out that the Dims had their own retroactive law that banned gun ownership for those convicted of misdemeanor Domestic Violence violations. And that the Emminent Domain law was supported by the Liberal Judges on the Supreme Court. Canada also has a ‘Hate Speech’ law that flys in the face of “Freedom of Speech” as well. Republicans don’t just deserving bashing on this one. They deserve bashing because, historically, the Republicans are the party of censorship. Historically, over the last 50 years, a vote for the Republicans is a vote for censorship. From Nixon’s Commission on Pornography (which, ironically, concluded that porn was not harmful, so Nixon ignored the results) to Reagan Attorney General Meese’s Commission on Pornography which co-opted Andrea Dworkin and other pro-censorship feminists into its censorship drive, to the present drive to create de facto censorship via burdensome and intrusive record-keeping requirements, the Republican Party has consistently and wholeheartedly sought to control what Americans can know, a profoundly anti-democratic activity. Not that the Dems have been the selfless defenders of Americans’ right to free speech (well, compared to the Republicans they are, but that’s not saying a hell of a lot). Bill Clinton, who’s been described as the best Republican President America ever had, signed the Communications Decency Act into law. It was supported by many Democrats. And Censorin’ Joe Lieberman was one of the chief among them. But don’t go trying to make the case that there’s any kind of equivalence to be had between Dems and Pubbies on censorship issues – the Dems are clearly less likely to censor than the Pubbies. The difference is best illustrated by Joe Lieberman. On censorship issues, he stands out like a sore thumb among the Dems. Among the Pubbies, he’d be just another face in the crowd. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/please-explain-the-new-porn-laws/309591.md?page=1)