The Face of Things wrote:
This bill, Title 18 Sec 2257, in it's original form probably did a lot to protect children and that's a good thing in my book.

Oh sure it did...As we all know, people who exploit children always keep meticulous records.

Whenever some "do-gooder" tries to further sanitize the world "for the kids," it just makes me despise children more than I already do...and that's a lot.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
Whenever some "do-gooder" tries to further sanitize the world "for the kids," it just makes me despise children more than I already do...and that's a lot.

LMAO!  I think mine are ok, but I don't like other people's.  But you're right about the so-called do-gooders.  More crappy legislation is passed in the name of saving children than any other excuse.

Chloe and Dad - A story of ritual anal incest (8k) 11.15.2004, [M/g, Dad/Daut, anal, crying]

These were the words six year old Chloe new so well. The child had grown up knowing of the the love her daddy had for her and she knew her place in the family was to serve him. Chloe was made to recite these exact words every night after school when she came home. Her mommy would leave for work at 4pm and return after midnight, she worked a hard shift at a nearby medical facility. Chloe could not tell a single person about the pain she went through, on the outside she was a shy but smiling young princess. She often said hello to strangers and smiled at them, she wondered how many daddy's out their loved their daughters the way she was loved.

April's Daddy (5k) 11.22.2004, [D/d, nc, extreme pedo]

April's daddy is not a gentle daddy at all. He loves to hear her whimpers and screams. Daddy thinks April's suffering is beautiful - her body is an alter for all of daddy's wicked offerings.

And some more;
http://web.archive.org/web/200411300258 … dates.html

Hoot wrote:
Teasers from two of the stories on the pay site red-rose-stories.com, before it was shut down.

Thanks for that Hoot... BUT have you seen that other book with all the murder and mayhem including patricide, infanticide; the odd bit of familial incest, fratricide, out and out murder, ect ect?

It's called the Bible!

One man's obscenity is another man's erotica, and, another's religion.

Nobody reads, like, Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream? People, animals, and hybrid people-animals cavorting about the forest? And then there is that one what has all that under-age sex... Romeo and Juliet... disgusting. We must protect those poor innocent children.

BAN IT, BAN IT, BRING THE AUTHOR TO JUSTICE. THE SICK BASTARD WHAT WROTE THAT OBSCENITY DESERVES TO HANG.

Studio36

Pat Thielen wrote:
Right; two things:
First, could someone who knows something more about this than I do take a quick look at my photos and tell if they would violate this law? I'm just curious, as nothing I have here (or on my main website) comes even close to simulating sex.

Let's analyse it Pat... as it is now and as it might be after Pence. If the law reads only "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" then no, you are safe at least in photos of unshaven females because the F genitals are mostly hidden behind the pubic hair except maybe in a shot from the back where she might be bent somewhat forward [shaven females or male nudity, shot from the front, are a completely different ballgame]... but IIRC the law actually reads [and once changed per the instant discussion about the Pence Bill which will shift it into the recordkeeping arena]: "lascivious exhibition of the genitals OR pubic "area" of any person" then yes you should be doing the 2257 recordkeeping. Just how far the pubic "area" extends might also be up for discussion. I have written a devil's advocate piece on this in the past but won't go into that here.

see: LINK TO TEXT OF THE SECTION

18 USC Part 1 Chap 110 s 2256 sets the definitions for the whole chapter INCLUDING 2257, and actually reads:

"(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Section 2257 on recordkeeping, as it is now, intentionally left this particular part out ...and it is this, exactly, that Pence wants installed into s:2257 for recordkeeping purposes. 2257 also does not incorporate "simulated" but, again, Pence wants that installed for recordkeeping purposes.

The violation, if there is one, hinges on only four factors / facts... actual sexual behaviour of some kind, or any kind, is NOT required:

* Is it an "exhibition" ?
* Is it graphic or simulated? [by 2256 definition - which now ONLY applies to images of children]
* Does it display the "genitals OR pubic area" ?
* Is it "lacivious" [generally that means does it provoke "lust" or "lustful thoughts" in the viewer?]

The last part is VERY subjective. Some describe it thus: "If it gives the judge a hard on it's lacivious"

Actually, NONE of the Pence changes means, or will men, that you can not continue what you are doing... as long as you are doing it with adults 18+; only that you must maintain certain records and comply with all parts of the 2257 recordkeeping requirements.

In effect, should the law be changed, virtually ANY full nudity in images will be dragged into the recordkeeping requirements.

Studio36

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
One of the interesting things in all this hoopla, is that DOJ has never been in the habit of enforcing the regs to begin with.  In the Free Speech Coalition action, which led to the current injunction against enforcement, they pointed out that, up to the time of the hearing, the DOJ had never even made an inspection of a producer.

One has to wonder why the regs need to be stricter, when they aren't even enforcing that which is already on the books.

We'll have to see how all of this plays out.

Bah, humbug.  Protecting kids is a good thing but there can be extremes.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
One of the interesting things in all this hoopla, is that DOJ has never been in the habit of enforcing the regs to begin with.  In the Free Speech Coalition action, which led to the current injunction against enforcement, they pointed out that, up to the time of the hearing, the DOJ had never even made an inspection of a producer.

One has to wonder why the regs need to be stricter, when they aren't even enforcing that which is already on the books.

We'll have to see how all of this plays out.

Bah, humbug.  Protecting kids is a good thing but there can be extremes.

Keep in mind that this is an election year coming up. The pieces are being positioned on the playing board to make a "sweep" and the legislators can show how they are rounding up the "pornographers" and cleaning up the Internet.

studio36uk wrote:

Pat Thielen wrote:
Right; two things:
First, could someone who knows something more about this than I do take a quick look at my photos and tell if they would violate this law? I'm just curious, as nothing I have here (or on my main website) comes even close to simulating sex.

In effect, should the law be changed, virtually ANY full nudity in images will be dragged into the recordkeeping requirements.

Actually, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" is only one of the criteria that puts the work under control of 2257.  If you read 2256, "Sexualy explicit conduct" doesn't necessarily require any nudity.  If you have a picture of someone touching themselves through heir clothes, it could be considred masterbation and would require 2257 records to be kept.

-Dave

Dave Krueger wrote:
Actually, "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" is only one of the criteria that puts the work under control of 2257.  If you read 2256, "Sexualy explicit conduct" doesn't necessarily require any nudity.  If you have a picture of someone touching themselves through heir clothes, it could be considred masterbation and would require 2257 records to be kept.

-Dave

That is absolutely correct Dave, but here I was only commenting specifically on Pat's posted pictures some of which are simply full frontal nudes but without what we might consider "overt" sexual content.

In that sense, I believe, the analysis is correct.

Studio36

Dean Solo wrote:
All this fascist shit concerns me. If you have any b**** now is the time to put them on the line. Die for your art.
(*Not funny how few do).

Yeah, right.  Not until I'm promised 71 virgins (or whatever it's up to these days).  I'm not a big believer in self-sacrifice.  A lot of people have already died for democracy.  Ok, now we have it.  But, it's also known as the tyranny of the majority.

Hoot wrote:
Teasers from two of the stories on the pay site red-rose-stories.com, before it was shut down.

Chloe and Dad - A story of ritual anal incest (8k) 11.15.2004, [M/g, Dad/Daut, anal, crying]

These were the words six year old Chloe new so well. The child had grown up knowing of the the love her daddy had for her and she knew her place in the family was to serve him. Chloe was made to recite these exact words every night after school when she came home. Her mommy would leave for work at 4pm and return after midnight, she worked a hard shift at a nearby medical facility. Chloe could not tell a single person about the pain she went through, on the outside she was a shy but smiling young princess. She often said hello to strangers and smiled at them, she wondered how many daddy's out their loved their daughters the way she was loved.

And some more;
http://web.archive.org/web/200411300258 … dates.html

Dude posting this is just wrong, its nasty, distastful inmy opinion. I am sure people on this site are aware of the problems, you dont need to provide evidence and a "Source" to info from a site that was shutdown from that info from what you stated.
Are you trying to get MM shutdown by posting the stuff here?

studio36uk wrote:

Dave Krueger wrote:
These laws probably won't touch most of us.  We're protected by shear numbers.  [/i]

----------

Don't be too sure they won't go after people selectively

I didn't say they wouldn't be going  after people selectively.  What I'm saying is that there are so many of us, that they probably will only go after a very tiny minority.  But, you're certainly correct that it will have a chillng effect and that will be the focus of court challenges. 

What I fear is that the challenges will only come from porn industry groups (ie: like the FSC) and artists won't have any respresentation at all.  I already discussed mounting a challenge to 2257 with the ACLU and they weren't sympathetic.  Basically, they didn't see it as a significant burden.

-Dave

Dave Krueger wrote:

I didn't say they wouldn't be going  after people selectively.  What I'm saying is that there are so many of us, that they probably will only go after a very tiny minority.  But, you're certainly correct that it will have a chillng effect and that will be the focus of court challenges. 

What I fear is that the challenges will only come from porn industry groups (ie: like the FSC) and artists won't have any respresentation at all.  I already discussed mounting a challenge to 2257 with the ACLU and they weren't sympathetic.  Basically, they didn't see it as a significant burden.

-Dave

You are probably right in the fact that they do not seem overly concerned because its not a significant burden....but then again they are not the ones that have to conform and provide the proof......the photogs are.
Its really not a burden as i see it, its part of a routine that is everchanging to keep my ass out of jail........thats good enough reason for me to do it.

Peter Dattolo wrote:

Hoot wrote:
Teasers from two of the stories on the pay site red-rose-stories.com, before it was shut down.

Dude posting this is just wrong, its nasty, distastful inmy opinion. I am sure people on this site are aware of the problems, you dont need to provide evidence and a "Source" to info from a site that was shutdown from that info from what you stated.
Are you trying to get MM shutdown by posting the stuff here?

LOL!  There is nothing wrong with Hoot's post and I doubt that most people on this site are familiar with the content of those kinds of sites. 

That reminds me of the torture photos they showed on the news.  Showing the torture was ok, but they blocked out the nudity.  LOL!  Foxnews and CNN does stuff that all the time. We've seen the footage and it is grusome, so we won't show you".  You won't see any footage of the caskets coming back to the US from Iraq because that might scare people. 

It's gotten to the point of being rediculous.  You see analytical discussions about the "f-word" or the "n-word" where people won't even use the real word for fear of repercusions.   

If people are only allowed access to sanitized news, then how the hell are they supposed to make informed decisions?  We are supposedly a "government of the people".  If we have to be shielded from information required to decide the issues, then let's just cancel that "government by the people".

studio36uk wrote:
Inside Germany it was a different story. Many ordinary Germans, and even the courts, in the circumstances of the time, supported the Nazi party in it's efforts just as we see, in contemporary America, with the same kind of repressive government behaviour today.

Good point.  The vast majority of people will see only one detail of this law and that's the fact that it has to do with protecting children.  Protecting children is a good thing.  No further consideration required.  These laws are not even controversial except among a small minority.

The people who are so quick to give up your rights, are your friends and neighbors.  Most people (including a lot of those you know) don't do nude photography.  What the fuck do they care what laws are past?

And it's certainly not like book burning is a new concept here.  The US has an uninterrupted history of banning books at least at the local level.

Dave Krueger wrote:

Good point.  The vast majority of people will see only one detail of this law and that's the fact that it has to do with protecting children.  Protecting children is a good thing.  No further consideration required.  These laws are not even controversial except among a small minority.

The people who are so quick to give up your rights, are your friends and neighbors.  Most people (including a lot of those you know) don't do nude photography.  What the fuck do they care what laws are past?

And it's certainly not like book burning is a new concept here.  The US has an uninterrupted history of banning books at least at the local level.

Banning books was an idea that if its not there to create the idea, the idea will not grow to a problem (my opinion at least). If people really want to read something, they will find a way.
I just do not agree with what hoot posted in regards to text and a link to subject matter from another site that was shutdown because of that subject matter. Thats what i think is wrong with it........this is that "Idea" and link is where it grows to that problem. The site was shut down for a reason.....so why does someone have text from that site that was shutdown and has a link to the same kind of material that was on the site that was shutdown because of the contents?

Just to clarify i have no idea if the site was shutdown for the contents of the site or for another reason, i am going by what hoot stated.
I dont see any reason to post it here, and post a link for it.
If the contents of the site was enough to shut it down.........so now there is a link to the same kind of contents in this forum......sounds bad to me.

Stephen Dawson wrote:
I am concerned for American artists. How can you breath?

Fortunately Canada's newly elected Conservative government has started to self destruct before they can do any significant damage.

But if you want to post your images on a US website or sell to a US company or publish with a US publisher you have to follow these rules too. I can see them even requiring it if you use a .com address for your personal site because its american .ca is canadian.

William Coleman wrote:
Here, we are starting with protecting children from pornographers, a good thing.  The administration just needs to convince the people that 2257 is necessary to achieve that end, and that those who protest are perverts, or anyway not in the mainstream.  I think that will sound reasonable to many.

And how much further till we see women dressed only in Burka's cause any part of their body showing may give men desires?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I should point something out here.  As many of you know, the Free Speech Coalition is challenging the current version of 2257 and has obtained an injunction against enforcement.  However, everyone here seems to think the law is unconstitutional.  I suggest that you read the intermediate decisions by the judge which are posted on the Free Speech Coalition website.

The coalition argued that these regulations were overbroad and were a suppression of free speech.  The government argued that this had nothing to do with speech since the government wasn't prohibitting anything.  They were merely requiring recordkeeping to ensure that there were only adults involved, i.e. protecting children.

The judge in this case largely agreed with the goverment, not the coalition.  He didn't seem moved by the burden placed on producers.  He granted the injunction on largely complex technical grounds.

Quite clearly, this was very early in the process and there is a long way to go.  The standard for granting an injunction is to show a liklihood that you will prevail.  So, at least on the grounds that the judge used,the coalition proved a liklihood.  They could still prevail on other points, but they are a long way from trial.

The bottom line though is for everyone who thinks this will be found unconstitutional in a heartbeat, at least with this judge, it isn't happening.  It may yet be found overbroad, but we have a long way to go.  There is a real possibility that the core of these regulations may eventually become enforceable.

It is now critically important to keep proper records because some day these draconion rules may indeed govern how we do business.

In the end nobody has a choice really because if it goes thru, then it does and you have to abide by those rules that are set, you will not have a choice then. If it does not go thru then you still have rules to abide by anyways that are in effect now.
This is a situation where the buyer wants to make the purchase price what they want to pay without regard to the owners requsted price. Its not a choice, when that rule/price is set then you have no choice but to abide by it, you cannot change it.

(Alan im just adding on to what you said, good comment you made)

Peter Dattolo wrote:
(Alan im just adding on to what you said, good comment you made)

And good comments they are!

studio36uk wrote:

Thanks for that Hoot... BUT have you seen that other book with all the murder and mayhem including patricide, infanticide; the odd bit of familial incest, fratricide, out and out murder, ect ect?

It's called the Bible!

One man's obscenity is another man's erotica, and, another's religion.

Nobody reads, like, Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream? People, animals, and hybrid people-animals cavorting about the forest? And then there is that one what has all that under-age sex... Romeo and Juliet... disgusting. We must protect those poor innocent children.

BAN IT, BAN IT, BRING THE AUTHOR TO JUSTICE. THE SICK BASTARD WHAT WROTE THAT OBSCENITY DESERVES TO HANG.

Studio36

I made (and make) no comment on the arrest or shutdown, for or against.

You made an issue of the Red Rose item, I went to look at what the fuss was about, and thought that people reading this might want to have some idea of the content that was considered actionable.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
In the end nobody has a choice really because if it goes thru, then it does and you have to abide by those rules that are set, you will not have a choice then. If it does not go thru then you still have rules to abide by anyways that are in effect now.
This is a situation where the buyer wants to make the purchase price what they want to pay without regard to the owners requsted price. Its not a choice, when that rule/price is set then you have no choice but to abide by it, you cannot change it.

That was about the worst analogy I've seen on this topic.  It is, by no stretch of the imagination, even vaguely similar to a buyer not wanting to pay what a seller is demanding.

It's not complicated and doesn't need an analogy to help people understand.  2257 is about one thing:  The power to prosecute people under child porn laws who have had absolutely no involvement whatsoever with child porn.  The changes to 2257 simply enlarge the number of people subject to that law.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
Dude posting this is just wrong, its nasty, distastful inmy opinion. I am sure people on this site are aware of the problems, you dont need to provide evidence and a "Source" to info from a site that was shutdown from that info from what you stated.
Are you trying to get MM shutdown by posting the stuff here?

No, even under the new laws what I posted isn't actionable. Well, no more so than something any prosecutor might decide to go after. It's up to their discretion what and who to charge.

Tyler and the mods are certainly welcome to delete my post of the material. I would have no problem with that if they think it puts MM at risk. Of course, since you reposted it by quoting me, they'd have to delete yours too.

I'm willing to bet that less than 5% of the people reading this thread are familiar with the content of the Red Rose site. I'd never seen or heard of it until this thread. Since it's no longer available through the site itself, and most people don't know how to access what was there, I thought it would be useful to show what the site was about. It is impossible to have an informed discussion on an issure without knowing the facts. Im reasonably sure that the site wasn't shut down for what I quoted above. Teasers are advertising, a small portion of the whole designed to make the interested viewer spend their money on the whole story inside the site. From the other excerpts, it appears that the webmaster was trying to do just that.

Nasty and distasteful? Obviously there are people that will defend this, and those that will pay to access it. Others will villify it. Freedom of choice.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
In the end nobody has a choice really because if it goes thru, then it does and you have to abide by those rules that are set, you will not have a choice then.

Yes, there is a choice. Hire attorneys, lobbyists, campaign to elect the people that will be more sympathetic to the preservation of our Constitutional rights. That's what happened here, and with the erosion of our other rights set forth in the Constitution and the Amendments. "We the People" have spoken. Our elected officials have done this to us. They did it because the powers that they consider important have demanded it. The way to change it is to make it an issue that is important to their reelection, and to show that there is enough support to boot them out of office if they don't. Make noise that changes public opinion. Civil disobedience has helped to reform public opinion many times.

Of course, to do that, one has to be willing to put their butt on the line and fight for their belief. Sadly, most people would rather be snug and warm than fight for the things they're bitching about losing.

Benjamin Franklin wrote:
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either

Hoot wrote:
Tyler and the mods are certainly welcome to delete my post of the material. I would have no problem with that if they think it puts MM at risk.

Tyler and the mods do not have the power to edit posts....hence why they ask instead of just doing it themselves.

Please be careful in your wording.  People running around thinking the mods have absolute control over the site has been an issue in the past...please don't make it an issue again.

Hoot wrote:
Of course, to do that, one has to be willing to put their butt on the line and fight for their belief. Sadly, most people would rather be snug and warm than fight for the things they're bitching about losing.

I for one am willing to put my butt on the line.  I had always assumed there were more people out there like me, but recent events have proven me wrong.

Hoot wrote:
I'm willing to bet that less than 5% of the people reading this thread are familiar with the content of the Red Rose site. I'd never seen or heard of it until this thread.

I'm among the 95% who had never heard of the Red Rose site until these discussions.  That's one of the unintended consequences of censorship.  You bring the "offending" material to the attention of a wider viewership.

The same thing happens if you Google section 2257, to learn about the law.  The hits you get are mostly many dozens, hundreds or thousands of the "legal" pages of porn sites:  bangbrothersonline.com, gagonmycock.com, etc., etc.  On and on.  You may not have been looking for porn, but you found it.  I wonder if that was what the administration intended.

William Coleman wrote:
bangbrothersonline.com, gagonmycock.com, etc., etc.  On and on.

LOL!

William Coleman wrote:
You may not have been looking for porn, but you found it.  I wonder if that was what the administration intended.

Actually, it's an effective way of burying any debate on the topic.  Who (aside from me, I mean) is going to check each of those links to find legitimate discussion on the pros and cons of 2257? 

James Jackson wrote:

Tyler and the mods do not have the power to edit posts....hence why they ask instead of just doing it themselves.

Please be careful in your wording.  People running around thinking the mods have absolute control over the site has been an issue in the past...please don't make it an issue again.

My apologies, I thought I read somewhere that they could delete posts. Some forums can and I guess some can't. I will be happy to edit out my post if Tyler or the mods think I should.

James Jackson wrote:

I for one am willing to put my butt on the line.  I had always assumed there were more people out there like me, but recent events have proven me wrong.

It has always, unfortunately, been true that there are a lot more people willing to complain than to do the work, or take the risk. Unfortunately, it seems like the ratio is getting worse. I guess comfort breeds complaisance.

Dave Krueger wrote:

William Coleman wrote:
bangbrothersonline.com, gagonmycock.com, etc., etc.  On and on.

LOL!


Actually, it's an effective way of burying any debate on the topic.  Who (aside from me, I mean) is going to check each of those links to find legitimate discussion on the pros and cons of 2257? 

I bookmarked gagonmycock.com for further study.  No, I didn't!

Hoot wrote:
I guess comfort breeds complaisance.

I'm not complacent.  I'm spineless.

Fighting a law that has the superficial appearance (to the masses) of protecting children doesn't even rise to the level of martyrdom.  It's more like martyrdumb.  Instead of being the lone guy standing in front of the tank, you'd the lone gnat under the treads.  You wouldn't even be mentioned during morning coffee.

The only people with the interest and clout to fight this is the porn industry.