A new federal law aimed at stopping child pornography went into effect Thursday, but critics fear the changes would chill free speech.
Under the old regulations, anyone who produced sexually explicit material was required to keep records showing that the people depicted were over 18 years of age. The new regulations in 18 USC 2257 extend the record-keeping requirement to so-called “secondary producers,” or anyone who merely distributes sexually explicit materials.
According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this regulation would impose onerous requirements on online publishers, even of non-pornographic material.
It’s easy to see how quickly this requirement could stop lots of legitimate speech and expression, covering material that’s well outside the basic definitions of commercial porn. Consider the blogger who writes a post on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and wants to post some of the existing or soon to be released sexually explicit photos of prisoner abuse. . . .
For the Abu Ghraib photos, since records of the “participants” are not available (at least not outside the US military), the record-keeping requirements could not be met, and the blogger could face criminal liability for posting the images. This will unconstitutionally chill protected speech — indeed, in this example, core political speech. — EFF
[N]on-porn online publishers like PlanetOut.com, a gay website, temporarily removed all photos from its personal ads, even though it bans pictures with adult content. Sister site Gay.com, which had allowed more explicit content, dropped personal ad photos, too. — Wired News
The Free Speech Coalition, which represents many in the adult entertainment industry, has filed suit in U.S. District Court to stop enforcement of the law. The Department of Justice has agreed not to enforce the law against any FSC members or plaintiffs in the case until at least 7 September.
Okay, let’s have a short reality check here. We all know from experience that government doesn’t narrowly interpret its powers unless it has to. If this law is allowed to stand, publishers will not be able to bring you several types of important political news without moving offshore. What happens then? Does the U.S. put up a Great Firewall to keep out all the “sexually explicit” news? We should all be concerned about child pornography and should do everything we can, within reason, to put a stop to it. But this law goes far beyond that. It needs to be struck down.
And what exactly was wrong with the law the way it was? I suspect the trouble is not the lack of laws prohibiting child pornography, but the lack of enforcement of the laws we already had. This law isn’t going to catch any child pornographers. It is, however, going to threaten the livelihoods — and liberty — of many in the adult entertainment industry and many in journalism and online publishing. New York Times, are you listening?
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Bad Behavior has blocked 3590 access attempts in the last 7 days.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Jul 03, 2005
18 USC 2257 regulations drive free speech offshore - IO ERROR
Barry
Dec 12, 2005
No Comments? People should be commenting.
Why? For reason that U.S.C. 18 § 2257 and U.S.C. 18 § 1466 Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter, are being expanded now beyond just adult porn sites.
Today, Monday, December 12, 2005, tribe.net made changes to their policy on the posting of user images. The very same Sundance v. Reno decision, that exempted persons who did not directly contract with performers or models in sexually explicit material, would have protected tribe.net from fear of prosecution.
Currently the adult industry by and through its member association the Free Speech Coalition have brought the issues of § 2257 enforcement before the 10th District Court in Colorado. Suit was filed June 27, 2005, and a restarting order has been in effect barring the US DOJ from using C.F.R. 28 Part 75 in any enforcement action against its members.
However what we have seen are a spate of so called obscenity raids in the past 2 months. So, it is safe to say while the frontal assault has been held off in the federal courts the DOJ is taking a flanking action using § 1466. Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter;
(a) Whoever is engaged in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter, who knowingly receives or possesses with intent to distribute any obscene book, magazine, picture, paper, film, videotape, or phonograph or other audio recording, which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or by a fine under this title, or both.
While § 2257 issues are still before the court
We have H. R. 3726 “Pence Bill”
Latest Major Action: 9/12/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary
The attempt to add any visual, either actual or simulated, read cartoons now!, that includes mere nudity by the inclusion of -
§ 2256 (2)(A)(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person; into § 2257.
So, If I do not have ID documents on my naked lascivious cartoon I might be prosecuted?
Also changing U.S.C. 18 § 1465 “Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter” to include the word **produces**.
So, now producing ( making, manufacturing ) something even without distributing it or selling it would become a federal felony to be determined by the Miller v. California Ruling ( Community Standards Test ).
You are right, it is time to leave for an offshore safe haven. I guess that the $12 billion that Internet porn is claimed to produce need not contribute to a government or society that wants to kill it.
Who will be the next one President Bush declares war on for not being moral?
May 26, 2006
18 USC 2257 regulations drive free speech offshore - Homeland Stupidity
J La FLeur
Dec 02, 2006
Who by name please wrote this bill? and who by name sponsored this bill? I want to know who so I can call then and tell them they are asses. I do not require any self riteous holier than thou zealot to censor what I see. if they wish to shield me from moroons they should have started before Bush SR, Bush Jr, Rush Limbaugh, and lastly that cunt Marylin Musgrave came to power
Michael Hampton
Dec 02, 2006
The law was passed in 1988. But it gives the Department of Justice the power to write regulations, such as the above, on how it is to be enforced. So the person you want to complain to is Alberto Gonzales.