Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law

By Declan McCullagh
Story last modified Fri Apr 21 12:04:38 PDT 2006

Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday.

A mandatory rating system will "prevent people from inadvertently stumbling across pornographic images on the Internet," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at an event in Alexandria, Va.

The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.

[break in text]

For the rating system's definition of sexually explicit material, the Bush administration proposal borrows language from existing federal law. It covers: sexual intercourse of all types; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

In practice, courts have interpreted those definitions quite broadly. In one case, U.S. v. Knox, the Supreme Court and an appeals court ruled that the "lascivious exhibition" of the pubic area could include images of clothed people wearing bikini bathing suits, leotards and underwear. That suggests, for instance, that photos of people in leotards and bathing suits would have to be rated as sexually explicit if the commercial Web site owner wanted to avoid going to prison.

Most certainly those rules would include many more possible arrangements and types of apparel - ordinary underwear; lingerie; fetish gear; ect, ect.

I find it interesting that this discussion targets the web specifically - but how long do you think it will be before it affects  print and other media as well as advertising? I will suggest that that will happen promptly as soon as the changes to 2257 and 28 CFR Part 75 become law - because those regulations DO include ALL MEDIUMS of publication.

This president, this AG and this congress will have EFFECTIVELY redefined what is "pornography" in the United States for years to come... and it will even include many, many, many clothed images.

It is difficult to know who is pulling those political chains - but that they are being pulled in some way is without any doubt.

Studio36

EAD Productions wrote:
wow, the "REAL MESS" you can see coming! This combo is not good. Everyone agrees with protecting minors and stopping child molesters but this is going in a direction towards nailing the wrong guy to the cross.

Just how the US government intends to impose those requirements on the rest of the world is still a mystery.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
There is... as you read this... a bill going through the US Congress to mandate that certain changes be made to the 18 USC ch:1 s:2257 and 28 CFR Part 75 "porn" recordkeeping requirements. Among other things being considered are: 1) to add "simulated" activity to the mix that is defined as "sexually explicit conduct"; and 2), to add what is included in 2256 E that defines the chapter, but is not currently present in the recordkeeping regulations... and 2256 E includes specifically the phrase - "lascivious exhibition" of the genitals or pubic area. Right now the thing exists in two different versions one in the House and one in the Senate... but the differences are being reconciled to formulate a single bill.

Recordkeeping and the conditions that trigger it, it is expected, will require records on EVERYONE to the same standard that would be applied to images of U-18 CHILDREN.

NOW... add to this the latest "protect the children" bleating from the US Atty General and you have a REAL mess in the making.
[long article best read in it's entirity - on line]
LINK TO FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE

Some highlights though:


Most certainly those rules would include many more possible arrangements and types of apparel - ordinary underwear; lingerie; fetish gear; ect, ect.

I find it interesting that this discussion targets the web specifically - but how long do you think it will be before it affects  print and other media as well as advertising? I will suggest that that will happen promptly as soon as the changes to 2257 and 28 CFR Part 75 become law - because those regulations DO include ALL MEDIUMS of publication.

This president, this AG and this congress will have EFFECTIVELY redefined what is "pornography" in the United States for years to come... and it will even include many, many, many clothed images.

It is difficult to know who is pulling those political chains - but that they are being pulled in some way is without any doubt.

Studio36

So I guess you're glad you live in the UK? Because the battle never ends over here. In the name of the Family, the Father and the Ghost, get that porn outta here!

DreamPretty wrote:
So I guess you're glad you live in the UK? Because the battle never ends over here. In the name of the Family, the Father and the Ghost, get that porn outta here!

Oh we have our problems too... but showing a bit of skin isn't one of them.

Studio36