"Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry."

[SLUM WIZZARD]

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html
(My first On-topic topic. Woo.)
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Rotten.com: our gapingmaw.com and other sites shut in anticipation of 2257
Amended Section 2257 recordkeeping regulations go into effect at midnight tonight. The federal law requires website owners to keep records documenting, among other things, that "every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct" is over the age of 18.

In anticipation, porn sites and others that offer adult content are preparing to make their sites compliant -- or taking them offline. Today, several sites in the Rotten.com family are going dark for that reason, including ratemyboner.com (like amihotornot for amateur snapshots of a particular male anatomical part in a particular state) and gapingmaw.com (which you could call an industrial-strength grossout blog).

Section 2257 is ostensibly aimed at preventing the exploitation of minors in pornography. However, some free speech advocates argue it provides the conservative Bush administration with the power to silence other websites deemed offensive. Here's the full text of the law: Link to U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2257.

And here is the full text of the enabling regulations which are more widely contested than the US code itself: Link. The amendment was signed into law last month by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

A message on gapingmaw.com -- which wasn't a porn site, per se, but did include some sexually explicit images -- says:


CENSORED BY US GOVERNMENT 18 USC 2257

Yes, that is correct. The things that used to be here, the very funny things that you want to read, have been made retroactively illegal by the US government, in a side-handed attack on the pornography industry.

We might mention that the material here isn't even pornography as you normally think of it -- this site is just adult humor, in essay format, with some illustrations. The government is mandating that we meet certain bookkeeping requirements, ones impossible to meet for this site. Never mind that those requirements do not actually gain the public anything. This is the strongest attack on free speech since the passage of the CDA, and oddly, the media seems to have hardly noticed. The penalty for not abiding by these bookkeeping requirements is five years prison.

The regulations were promulgated by Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney General appointed by George Bush. If you voted for Bush, this is your fault. If you think this country is free, you are sadly mistaken. No nation has freedom when it is run by religious zealots.

Link to gapingmaw.com article (note: statement is actually dated tomorrow, June 23).

The adult biz advocacy group Free Speech Coalition (FSC) filed a lawsuit last week challenging 2257... (contintued on site)

I am really, really against this. I mean, it's not that I even looked at those sites much, but isn't this a violation of something?

[töm]

good.

i don't really support any censorship measures, but if i <i>had</i> to censor something, this area would probably it. it's a very scudsy and lowbrow thing. it should probably have the right to exist, but, then again, people would probably be a lot better without it.

[Liz]

If they're so stupid about pictures, they should make it illegal for minors to talk about sex online, as that could be considered pornographic.

[Linzoy]

I'm not intrested in rating boners or whatever, but this makes me unhappy. The only place you can gain attention for what you have to say instead of what media connections you have and what publishers will consider you is the internet, I don't want it taken over by the government.

[Liz]

Iodine, lemme see your nipples
quick

[implode]

there is no such thing as "exploiting minors" when it comes to the pornography industry, with the obvious exception of stealing someone's private naked pictures (which... i can't imagine you'd have in the first place if you didn't ever want to show them to anyone. unless, of course, you planned on getting fat in the near future and wanted to admire your sleek, sexy young body for what it once was... in... the... sorry, typing with one hand.) minors should be free to get naked for whomever they feel like getting naked for. the root of the problem lies in the people who Know What's Best For You and the people who call their congressmen to let them know how outraged they are that they aren't comforted by "it's illegal" whenever the thought of underaged porn is beamed into their minds by pornographic alien spacecrafts. while i don't think kerry's appointee would have enacted such a measure, i don't want to turn this into a political discussion, because we're all a bunch of fucking liberatarians and we'll scare away invader jenny.

rather, i'd like to open the forum on what, exactly, "sexually explicit content" entails. can a picture of you with your shirt off at the beach be considered "sexually explicit"? can anything that might turn on any number of our goddamned lunatic sexual deviants in this society be deemed "sexually explicit"? because, if that's the case, shouldn't we get on banning yuffie and pictures of little boys eating ice cream cones, next? "sexually explicit" is entirely too vague to be making all-inclusive laws about, wouldn't you all say?

[Davey Rootbeer]

have fun trying to enforce this us government

the internet cannot be stopped


hey, if the entire country of china could ban us.....

[implode]

silly me, i thought someone might actually know the answer to my question. you mean judge rehnquist's son doesn't post here anymore?

Title 18, United States Code, Section 2256(2), defines "sexually expicit conduct" for the purpose of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2252 and 2252A, as actual or simulated:

A. sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex,
B. bestiality,
C. masturbation,
D. sadistic or masochistic abuse, or
E. lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. so, aside from the fact that we've now established that we can convince our minors to rub their asses together without any fear of reprisal from the U.S. code sections 2252 and 2252A, we're left with a pretty reasonable definition of "sexually explicit" content. excluding, of course, the mysterious phrase "lascivious exhibition of the genitals", which, for you laymen (which until very recently included myself) means "lewd or salacious", which, for you people who do nothing but play grand theft auto all day, means "sexy."

now, what's sexy to one person could very obviously not be sexy to another, which is affirmed by the fact that there's been more than one "girl-on-horse" website since the inception of the internet. so, how exactly is "lascivious exhibition" decided upon by the people who make the rules? well, by a case-by-case basis, of course:

"Lascivious exhibition" is considered on a case-by-case basis, aggrivating factors include:
A. whether the focal point of the camera is on the child's genitalia or pubic area;
B. sexually suggestive setting;
C. child depiicted in an unnatural pose;
D. child in inappropriate attire considering age;
E. suggestion of sexual coyness;
F. depiction designed to elicit sexual response which we will now break down, step-by-alphabet.

a. it is entirely certain that any close up shot of a 9 year old boy's penis can be considered "sexually explicit", with the possible exception of medical journals and e-mails between family members about the unsuccessful circumcision and who they wouldn't recommend for their next bris.

b. unless the setting is inside a human vagina, or in front of a gangbang, i can't think of any particular setting that could be considered "sexually explicit." under the stars on a desolate hill in the countryside? inside a closed department store? the sidewalk of a gas station, splitting a pint of delicious icecream? no. there are none. not one. seriously. name one. this is a ridiculous inclusion.

c. "unnatural pose" is a bit vague, as stumbling down a hill and spraining your ankle is also brought upon by an "unnatural pose", but for the purposes of this argument, i take it to mean they are referring to "both-legs-behind-your-head" and other such poses. understandable.

d. this is really the only one that you can't make fun of, because although i consider pokemon t-shirts to be "inappropriate attire", they obviously mean "little to no attire." fine.

e. this is where it all falls apart. "sexual coyness" is a look, a wink, an intangible concept, only to be decided upon by people who are too old to be sexually aroused by anything, anymore. therefore, they must consider EVERY example of what ANYONE could consider "sexual coyness", which could include: licking a lollypop, bandaging a skinned knee, mounting a bicycle, eating an ear of corn, painting a picture... anything. we cannot go around making laws that apply to the lowest (un)common denominator of society. whether we higher common denominators agree with their observations of coyness or not is not the point: we will not ALL agree on something that is a mere concept. this is like making a law that states if a tree falls in the forest, yes, motherfuckers, it makes a sound, and any contention of otherwise will be punished by no less than five years in prison on the first offense.

f. this one is just as silly, because, like i just said, people get off on girls milking cows. they need stricter, more binding definitions for this shit, like sub-clause A on the initial "sexually explicit" definition. intercourse and masturbation is designed to elicit a sexual response. anything else could be designed to elicit ANYTHING, and if you get a sexual response out of it, it could just mean that you're a pervert.

fuckers who make the rules and their indifference at being vague. i'm gonna go milk a cow. if you want to rub yourself while daydreaming of how i might be doing so, that decision is entirely up to you, but know that my actions were not designed for you to do so.

[Forever Finite]

i don't think pornography should be banned. whether or not america wants to admit it, porn has made the headway for new mediums. including photography and moving pictures. yeah, edison, i'm winking at you.

but, when you really cinsider the impact that the internet has had on us so far, i think it isn't entirely unreasonable for the government to feel the need to do somethign about the availability of porn en masse to those of all ages with a functioning mouse-operating hand. OKAY MY RIDE IS HERE, i have to go to work for the weekend. bye everyone.
pictures of little boys eating ice cream cones
i don't know about you guys, but that sure does it for <I>me</i>.

[implode]

but, when you really cinsider the impact that the internet has had on us so far, i think it isn't entirely unreasonable for the government to feel the need to do somethign about the availability of porn en masse to those of all ages with a functioning mouse-operating hand. of course it's not unreasonable for them to feel so. it's unreasonble to actually do it. you can be in power while still feeling powerless. shit, happens to me all the time. have fun with the horses. though your desire to make money isn't designed to elicit a sexual response, i'll... well... you know where i'm going with this.

[SLUM WIZZARD]

unless the setting is inside a human vagina, or in front of a gangbang, i can't think of any particular setting that could be considered "sexually explicit." under the stars on a desolate hill in the countryside? inside a closed department store? the sidewalk of a gas station, splitting a pint of delicious icecream? no. there are none. not one. seriously. name one. this is a ridiculous inclusion
Pornography shop, nudist colony, a tree growing penises...idk.
I tried.

[Young Jeff Bridges]

porn has been around since cavemen

[töm]

if you are suggesting that that whole "caveman" thing was a good idea, then i'm kicking you out of the family.

we never bring up that we evolved from lesser primates at the dinner table, mind you.

a strip club could also be a sexually explicit location.

[Young Jeff Bridges]

strip clubs?
sexually explicit + location = strip club?
this formula doesnt make sense to the human brain
p.s. porn has been around since kind ice age kind of times
where humans were like apes and had dicks the size of legs

[implode]

a strip club could also be a sexually explicit location. okay, that one counts. if they find a strip club that doubles as the background for a coy little boy eating a icecream cone, i'll officially call that "sexually explicit" and demand the picture be removed from the internet.

[Awesome McManly]

i don't think pornography should be banned. whether or not america wants to admit it, porn has made the headway for new mediums. including photography and moving pictures. yeah, edison, i'm winking at you.

but, when you really cinsider the impact that the internet has had on us so far, i think it isn't entirely unreasonable for the government to feel the need to do somethign about the availability of porn en masse to those of all ages with a functioning mouse-operating hand. OKAY MY RIDE IS HERE, i have to go to work for the weekend. bye everyone.

i don't know about you guys, but that sure does it for <I>me</i>.

Forget Cory milking cows; Rachel the thought of your braiding horses is what I beat my meat to!

[exemplary citizen]

D. child in inappropriate attire considering age;

Dude. I could go down to any public high school and see that.

Which reminds me of the time I was escorted off campus for wearing a tanktop, by a 40 year old lady wearing a blond wig, three inch heels, and a skirt that just barely covered her goodies. Y'know. For <i>dress code violation</i>. which is okay, because i hear she was fired last year for appearing in some porno mag. i laugh.

BUT ANYWAY!

[leatherface]

I'm really starting to get sick of living in a "Father Knows Best" nation. First it was the drug laws, then it was mike diana, and now this.

If I want to sniff glue while plowing a goat and reading the word "member" and then finish my day by posting pictures of myself in women's clothes on the internet, that's my own fucking business. Get your goddamn pinnochio nose out of my business, conservative party!

[MST3Kakalina]

who cares? rotten.com sucks.


they're just bitching about their site being shut down. they didn't mention anything else in there about the bookkeeping methods that are apparently so impossible to keep. is there anything else about this act that's more...substantial?

[Vile]

Liz won't be too happy about this.

[t3]

excluding, of course, the mysterious phrase "lascivious exhibition of the genitals", which, for you laymen (which until very recently included myself) means "lewd or salacious", which, for you people who do nothing but play grand theft auto all day, means "sexy."

Actually, playing excessive GTA I think would actually improve one's odds of knowing what any of those words means. At least, if you're paying attention during any of it's many valiant attempts to keep you from giivng it to an 8 year old for it's birthday...

i don't think pornography should be banned. whether or not america wants to admit it, porn has made the headway for new mediums. including photography and moving pictures. yeah, edison, i'm winking at you.


Mmmmyep. Video games and porn are the backbone of this country! Our forefathes would be proud.

Dude. I could go down to any public high school and see that.




a strip club could also be a sexually explicit location.

Well, it seems every point I could conceivably have made has already been made. So. Who wants to get my Linux distro working for me?

[leatherface]

Well Rotten didn't get axed, just a couple of their sister sites got shut down. As long as their main site and Fetishus Maximus site is up, I'm happy.

Rotten always provides me with something to draw, laugh at, or use as a desktop image.

[implode]

who cares? rotten.com sucks.


they're just bitching about their site being shut down. they didn't mention anything else in there about the bookkeeping methods that are apparently so impossible to keep. is there anything else about this act that's more...substantial? sadly, i don't actually know anything about "rate my boner.com", but it doesn't sound like it's a pay site or anything, just a "hot or not" for wang county. now, the law reads as The statute requires the producers of such matter to ``ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer's name and date of birth,'' to ``ascertain any name, other than the performer's present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,'' and to record this
information.

...

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.'' which, if i somehow managed to read that correctly, means that simply owning a site with the potential to ever have pornographic content on it is good enough to apply to the law to you. therefore, even though we've never tolerated porn before, we need to be <i>especially</i> careful about it now, because that pic that liz posted all those months ago could very well land garf in jail now, were the cards to fall correctly.

it's really not that big of a deal, and like tom said, it'll hardly be an empty, unhospitable world without ratemyboner.com... but still. if you're voluntarily posting a picture of your OWN bone, it's a tad absurd for anyone to consider you the "victim" of anything.

[SLUM WIZZARD]

It's not that the internet is going to be a dark and lonely place without "ratemyboner.com", it's the fact that the government thinks they know what's best for us. Leatherface said it so much better than I could. Not to sound like a "omg anarchy!1 letz rebel adn fite tha system!!!" kind of person, but I think you know what I mean.

Either way, I'm sure some boner rating fanatic will get thier favorite boner-tastic site hosted in some 3rd world country within the week... creepy people and thier connections.

[töm]

if you want, rwam.com can be a makeshift ratemyboner. i can make magic happen. ;)

[exemplary citizen]

Buck the system, man. Whip it out.

[the Worms]

Keep your mind on the facts, guys: For a child in attire inappropriate to age to be included among the depictions to be censored, the child must also have a lascivious exhibition of genitals. In other words, the genitals have to be showing and the clothing obviously inappropriate.

The the definition tells me is that there are few cases in which depictions of underage nudity does not count as pornography, and I think it is pretty clear which cases those are, even if the definition is somehow inadequate. All that comes to mind for me is medical depictions (using the term "medical" loosely).

As for Bush and Kerry, I don't think I really care too much these days. Perhaps such apathy is really fatalism in disguise, in which case it is evident to me that I am thoroughly disappointed in the lack of middle ground between "conservative" and "liberal" (not to mention the glaring flaw in the assumption that our world is dichotomous, which leads to the assumption that all viable perspectives of an issue are both opposing and two in number). Matter of fact, I hate the terms ("conservative" and "liberal", that is), because both sides abuse the notion of rights and undermine it at the same time. It's time for either a new political theory that works or a reconception of the current one such that it is self-consistent. How can personal rights be coherent if the good of the society is of highest importance? How can property rights be coherent if the government has the authority to enforce a morality?

I guess I got way off track.

[exemplary citizen]

The the definition tells me is that there are few cases in which depictions of underage nudity does not count as pornography, and I think it is pretty clear which cases those are, even if the definition is somehow inadequate. All that comes to mind for me is medical depictions (using the term "medical" loosely).
Well, what about family photos of the kids as toddlers running around naked in the backyard sprinklers? Forgive me because I just woke up and can't recall the specifics, but wasn't there a fairly well-known case a while back about some parents that were artists putting pictures of their (completely non-sexualized) nude children playing together in an art show? I think those kids very nearly got put into foster care over that.

in which case it is evident to me that I am thoroughly disappointed in the lack of middle ground between "conservative" and "liberal" (not to mention the glaring flaw in the assumption that our world is dichotomous, which leads to the assumption that all viable perspectives of an issue are both opposing and two in number).

HEAR HEAR. There aren't nearly enough vocal moderates in this world. Thank you.

[the Worms]

The point remains that it is obvious when the intention is sexually explicit

[Forever Finite]

Rachel the thought of your braiding horses is what I beat my meat to!
you and the horse itself, joostin.

i'm not kidding. no less than four <I>geldings</i> whacked off in stalls next to the ones i was braiding in. it was like discovery channel horse penis extravaganza weekend . i can't handle it. all that is way too much horse for me.

[exemplary citizen]

The point remains that it is obvious when the intention is sexually explicit
"Porn: You Know It When You See It".

Finite: Hawt. What's a gelding?

[Forever Finite]

a man horse with significantly less man on him.

if you catch my drift. and i think you do.

[exemplary citizen]

:o

[Forever Finite]

ALSO, i ended the weekend on the most expensive horse i have ever braided. he's worth something like a quarter of a million. i don't even have organs that are worth half that much :(

he's a total asshole and if he still had his balls, he would probably be the biggest son of a bitch in the world. stupid stupid. stupid. money. money.

[Awesome McManly]

*sits down cross legged on the carpet*

Tell us Aunty Rachel, how do horses masturbate?

Seriously, how? Do they like, hump the hay?

[Takker]

they look at JT porn when no one else is around.

[Awesome McManly]

Pfft! Everyone does that. It's just they don't talk about it because otherwise my ego would be unstoppable.

[Forever Finite]

*sits down cross legged on the carpet*

Tell us Aunty Rachel, how do horses masturbate?

Seriously, how? Do they like, hump the hay?
it's an amusing sight. an amusing amusing sight.

they just stand there and become very very still. their face has absolutely no expression at all, but you can tell they are concentrating. and if you look down a little, you can see why.

[Liz]

Ewww
I wonder if they think about naked horsies
"Oh yeah baby, take that bridle OFF"

Guys, in health class in middle school, we had to watch a video of an erection occuring in HEATVISION. Isn't that considered erotic? Pornographic? Minors present...?

[töm]

it probably turned more people off than on, so i think it would be non-pornographic.

[Forever Finite]

Ewww
I wonder if they think about naked horsies
"Oh yeah baby, take that bridle OFF"

nothing. absolutely nothing. they think about what they are doing and that's probably the extent of their cpu availability.

[BeastDad1987]

Guys.

This is NOT COOL. Guess who else is affected by 2257? Bmezine. Since they accept photo submissions and will now be required for all submissions to include some kind of ID that will be readily available to the government or else the owners will be arrested and sent to jail, they've moved to Canada. It's a child porn law, which is fine, but it's banned a site that has nothing to do with child porn. I am pissed off.

http://www.bmezine.com/news/pubring/20050703.html