pending legislation we should all be concerned about

[Guest]

Have a look at pending legislation that will effect anyone interesting in freedom of speech:

 

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=266185

 

I'm still trying to find out when the senate will be putting this bill up to the vote, so if anyone finds that info out, I'd greatly appreciate it. I tried to find the schedule of bills to be discussed on what days, but had no luck. It says in the article that the bill stands at number 378 on the senate's calendar, but that didn't help much. Perhaps I just missed something that another will find easily?

[Mr Barguzin]

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

 

Gee, I bet he was impressed to find his name in that story on THAT website *grin*

 

And in light of previous events, that is all I have to say on the matter.

 

At the moment WEG

[Mr Barguzin]

Theresa originally posted this in Off Topic, but given what has happened over at the Fur Fashion Guide Forum in the last 36 hours, I think it is a topic that should be seen by many more folks as it will impinge on your rights here and on other forums if it is passed.

 

Maybe now is the time for some folks to make a new stand for freedom.

 

(Yeah I know I said I'd shut up.... but hell hath no fury like a dog threatened with the removal of his bone (the one that contains marrow *sigh*)

[ReFur]

Piotr,

 

The threat is VERY real. Have you ever noticed Dragon's signature?

 

Linda

[Guest]

I spent half the morning having to edit and remove certain posts over at FFG, thanks to some idiot. The threat is real and the climate has changed fast.

[ReFur]

Eric,

 

Could you help us understand what is going on? As MODs we try very hard to enforce rules and guidelines that will keep us out of trouble.

 

Are there new rules or interpretations that we need to know as a group?

 

This hits on a topic that FrBrGr just brought up on in the MOD's forum. And, that is how wonderful the group is on following rules here. If that wasn't true, there isn't anyway that we would be able to stay up here.

 

There are a few who believe that somehow my positions here have been to dictate my "taste" or "values". I hope now these few will start to see "the big bad wolf" I have been trying to warn members about.

 

Linda

[Mr Barguzin]

*checking backside*

 

Yeppers... that's a bruise.

[Guest]

I would rather have Dragon or Cookie make a full statement on this subject matter sense they know the full depths of it.,but I will say what You have tried to bring up and enact especialy on the sc posts, was a good move.

[MrMockle]

All,

 

It might just be a little too early for me on a Sunday morning but I didn't understand this article. I'll try to look at it again later on but can someone interpret it for those of us who don't speak Legalise or for those who's first language isn't English? Specifically:

 

- What is this bill about?

- How would it affect this forum?

- How would it affect those of us outside the US?

- What should I/we do immediately (if anything) about this?

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

Here is the actual bill, but beware it is 166 pages long!

 

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h4472.pdf

 

I also found this article written by one of Dragon's attorneys {here is their site}:

 

http://www.firstamendment.com/

 

I had asked Dragon what his stance was on all the changing laws and he referred me to his legal depart:

 

http://www.firstamendment.com/articles/Nexus_Obscenity_in_the_Digital_Age_Article.pdf

 

I have not checked out what went on at the Fur Fashion Guide Forum but know that things are happening fast! I do hope that things there are alright....

 

I do keep up with these laws and how they effect US producers and secondary producers of adult material, but am not sure that our laws matter when our material is sold in other countries. Nor do our laws apply to content produced outside the US, that is why many California based porn companies bailed out of the country last year when US 2257 (The Child Protection Act) was updated and made so very dangerous. This new proposed law, HR 4472, would enhance US 2257 in dangerous ways. If passed, and it is almost a shoe-in as child protection is used over and over as the need for such a law, even though it does nothing to protect children being exploited in porn, HR 4472 would make the production of adult content illegal without proper records - before, one could make a video and not have to worry unless you were going to sell it or transport it across state lines... no more if this law passes. It also includes simulated sex, which would be in any hollywood movie or the worst b-grade soft core on cable. There is also a provision to increase seizure penalties related to said "contraband" adult material, very similar to what would happen to a drug lord when he is taken down - all proceeds from said adult film would be seized, as would anything to do with the production of said film (like computers, stock of vids for sale, items used in the video including garments, toys, and even personal items that happen to be found on the premises).

 

Let me give you a simple, realistic scenario (this is why I scrapped doing videos or any explicit photos, by the way) - If a model that was in a fetish video I made improperly filled out her model release, say with even a typo or wrong number in her phone number, that mistake could cost me my jail time and a huge fine. I would have no way of knowing all the model's info to the letter, enough to catch a mistake on her part, particularly....

 

I will refresh my mind and try to get more specific info for all here, like what sections in the proposed bill (link above) need to be read. Still, it is very hard to decide what all needs to be done to keep proper records without consulting an attorney who is very up to date with adult entertainment/free speech law. Keep ya posted as I find more links.

 

It is well past time to get outraged on this count... now please, can someone tell us what the Senate's schedule is for reviewing proposed laws? I have been trying in vain to find out when they are debating passing this HR 4472 law, and have failed so far. The Senate's website is not user friendly, go figure....

[MrMockle]

Miss Theresa,

 

I'm confused. So is this more about the keeping of records of the performers rather than the material being made/distributed?

 

I wonder when they'll start clamping down on what can be shown in music videos; kids get into MTV far before they start surfing the internet and many of the rap and rock videos are far more risque than some of the erotic TV movies.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Guest]

By the way in the proposed bill, HR 4472, the main section that applies to adult material is section VI (six). So if you look at the first link to the proposed bill, you can scroll down, I think it is in pages around 90... but it's been a while since I read it so don't quote me.

 

To answer Mr. Mockle - Yes, the bill US 2257 (already in effect) is at heart a record keeping and labeling law for the adult industry. It not only effects them though... it applies to any depiction of a sexual act (like a drawing, photographs, certainly music videos and all videos that are "explicit or obscene.", etc). Things are being deemed "contraband" and "obscene" by investigating officers; then, often the person being violated will never see their property again, and wait months or years to see a trial, if charges are pressed... that seems to be a long process! I've read a few stories of Dominatrixes who make videos being targeted first and run off into the shadows....

 

The proposed bill HR 4472 includes simulated sex, clothed "crotch shots", some nudity (if for purient value only, and once again, who decides that?), showing a male in an obviously "turgid" state, even with clothing... etc, etc. Read the proposed bill... you'll be disgusted.

 

See there is a real issue with the use of the term obscene, and who is to determine that something is obscene for everyone in this day and age of the world wide web?

 

Also, the 2257 records that must be kept are ridiculously arduous. For example: one film must have several copies of one performer's release form cross-referenced in every conceivable fashion (this is to make the Department of Justice's job oh so easy... you will have already done all the legwork for them, should they knock on your door). For example: one model's info must be in a records file pertaining to the film being produced, by title and date, but also another release must be kept in a category for any alias the model may have worked under (like assumed names, maiden names, legally changed names, etc), and more.

 

The real record keeping nightmare begins for adult web sites, particularly those with forums or web cams wherein data is constantly changing and updated all the time; webmasters are required to keep a record of each depiction of an actually explicit sex act/ or obscenity in the form of a web address, also a physical copy of the depiction must be kept, and the webmaster must be able to link to the producer's 2257 compliance statement. For those who do not know what a 2257 compliance statement would be: the producers full legal name and the address where the records are stored Must be listed on the main page of the website, on each product (like a dvd cover) and in any review, like on another website, wherein a depiction from the film is used. The big problem for people who are do-it-at-home kinda small companies or individuals is the whole disclosing your real name and address. The address where the records are maintained Must be the same as where the content is produced (so there is no using a pobox address of some other "scam" addy). This is a nightmare for privacy, because it just won't be there anymore (this is a major reason why I refuse to deal with content that must be 2257 compliant... I don't want my psycho soon-to-be-exhusband finding out my home address and knocking on my door!). Oh and the Department of Justice's stance on any possible crimes that may be committed as a result of 2257 (like stalkers and such)... they don't see that they would be any connection to releasing the producer's and the talent's (the records are public record then, remember?) real names and address for anyone to see. Gotta like them, eh!

 

By the way, you must make these records available for on the spot, unannounced inspection by the DOJ at least 20 hours per week, including saturdays (more days than the Department of Justice actually is available themselves!). And, any other felony they might happen to find on the premises, while searching everything without the need of a warrant, you will be charged with that felony.

 

So, while this may just seem like a record keeping law... it really does so much more. It's goal is, as not only I believe, to significantly wipe out the adult industry altogether. Don't believe me? I get the weekly newsletter from the Free Speech Coalition and read stories from all over the country about this law's effects. I urge everyone involved in the adult industry in any way to become a member of the Free Speech Coalition. The injunction they have in the works (being heard in Denver, Co and still not thru with) covers only members of the Coalition, and they have made a tiny bit of headway in the secondary producers issues that is significant to webmaster, etc.

 

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com

[FurLoverinFL]

Thank you, Miss T for keeping us updated! If anyone wonders why moderators remove websites from posts or delete posts entirely, let this be a lesson.

 

Whether something is "obscene" is determined by the person looking at the material. If consenting adults are fully clothed yet pictured engaging in kinky acts, could someone (particularly in the US Justice Dept - who now seems intent on being the protectors of our morals) find it "obscene"? Sure.

 

Pretty sad state of affairs we can't seem to do anything to rebuild New Orleans, but we've got plenty of resources to hunt down those in the adult industry... (I apologize for my editorializing!)

 

FLinFL

[MrMockle]

Theresa,

 

I suppose few dominatrixes or pornography producers can afford the lawyers to fight this but it might be fun to see how some of the music stars will react. Assuming they apply the law consistently (a big assumption), can we expect to see the likes of Snoop Dogg, 50-Cent, Busta Rhymes - even J-Lo or Britney Spears - up before the beak over this? Surely music and pornography are the most important things in the life of most young people so restricting them won't be welcomed by today's youth and tomorrow's voters. And of course even if the pornography industry is closed in the States, the punters will still access such material through the internet - so is the net the next target of this? And maybe it's time to start investing in companies and countries that will take up the slack as the US producers move out?

 

I presume the definition of "obscene" being used is "against the beliefs of the fundamentalist governing elite". Let's hope it's not a case of "do as we say, not as we do". Such legislation would never get passed in the UK - for one thing many of our MPs and judicary probably still visit dominatrixes and pay for other sexual services regularly.

 

On a sad note, I guess that means that the American audience might miss out on the magnificent UK comedy series "Peep Show"; some of those scenes certainly wouldn't escape the censor's cut.

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[ReFur]

There is a Fundamentalist movement going on that will take away our rights and freedoms. First they attach "labels" to what they are "going after" then "demonized" the target. The internet issue is to stop those that are trying to "sexually solicit" our children, "internet predators" and "child molesters." Hiding behind this, they go after their real target: Anything that offends them.

 

And, if our current regime creates some "security issue" connected with the "target" the regime will break our laws and our constitution which means nothing to them. They are above the law, with a "divine" mission.

 

Why did all this happen? In my opinion, it is a backlash on the culture that Hollywood and MTV has passed along to their children. Some of the backlash is truly deserved.

 

But, this is a culture that feels there is nothing wrong with our children watching how many murders a day? But, God forbid if they see a naked body or an erect penis. How is it they believe this is the ultimate decay of their children and yet murder and violence is just a none issue?

 

The piece I heard 6 months ago, or so on NPR, said that going after internet porn was going to be one of Gonzales's' MAJOR objectives. Internet porn? When we have the Middle East crusaders trying to attack us? When we are at odds with most country's in the world?: Europe over Iran, China over trade, Russia over oil pipelines, South America with their uprising against us? Mexico over their workers who our company's hire?

 

And, one of his top objectives is "internet porn?" And, why? Because they are more afraid of the Religious Right movement here than all of those issues I just listed. If they are afraid of them that much, do you think we are not at risk? The Republican Party has been taken over by those who will take away our freedoms as we know it.

 

I do not believe that those of you who live in other Countries can understand the seriousness of what is going on here. It is in someways a similar environment to the era when our government went after "Communists".

 

And, of course all of these actions are being taken to "protect our children". So, if you fight them, we know what you are. Don't we?

 

This is REAL threat to everything that we now just assume is part of a free society. What can you do? The first thing is to wake up. Be aware. The next thing is vote.

 

And, do as Miss T has been doing educate people. She has been trying since she joined us.

 

Help "Republicans" to realize their party has been hijacked by those that will destroy the very soul of what the party is suppose to represent. They don't need be concerned with "liberals". They need to fear those within that no longer feel fiscal responsibility is necessary, that big government is necessary, the government intrusion in to private lives is necessary. The Republican party believes this OK? I don't think so.

 

Linda

[FurLoverinFL]

Ah Linda, how right you are... the religious right - or as I like to think of them, the American Taliban - are hellbent on a puritanical crusade to make the rest of the country conform to their own dogmatic views.

 

Voting is part of the answer. The real solution, as I see it, is for people to take responsibility for themselves rather than looking to big brother to take care of them. If parents are so concerned about their children seeing internet porn - perhaps parents should spend time with their kids and see what they're doing online. Well, many parents are far too caught up in their own lives to take time away from work and their other pursuits to care. Then they wonder how their nice son or daughter is having explicit chats with a 50 year old guy... It must be internet porn - we have a 'good boy' or a 'good girl'... come on. We as a nation have created a void that allows these religious zealots to 'take care of us'.

 

This country has real problems and issues. Spending is out of control. People in other lands hate us - well except for those that do everything possible to come here to try to earn a dollar or two (which is far more than they'd make in their own country) and we send them back. We can't even begin to agree on solutions to those issues - so let's go after 'porn'. After all, everyone can agree that 'porn is bad' and 'hurts children' right?

 

FLinFL

[Guest]

I love it when the Republicans accuse the Democrats of big spending.

 

Historically they are the big spenders by a country mile.They just don't like the way the Demos tilt the table.

 

Morally corrupt Clinton was well on the way to a balanced budget. What ever happened to that?

 

OFF

[Guest]

A brief answer to Mr Mockle again on the "hollywood/music" industry issue. I found the section regarding this, and there is a "loophole" just for them, presumably to keep them from protesting the passage of this bill, at least that is the opinion of many FSC attorneys who have reviewed it:

 

in section 602 (pages 96-97 specifically), Strengthening 2257 (these are changes to 2257):

 

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking "which does not involve" and all that follows through "depicted" and inserting "with respect to which the Attorney General determines the record keeping requirements of this section are not needed to carry out the purposes of this chapter."

 

Now, after you gulp and say, "What?" think about it. One man, Alberto Gonzales (a man for whom I have no good regard, let's just say it nicely ), will determine if 2257 should be applied or not! This is an obvious tool to appease the only big entities who might oppose the propsed HR4472, Hollywood and the "mass media" entertainment, like music. One man bent on cleaning up the world, and he is starting the fight with the internet. 2257 was ammended last year expressly to include the internet; a whole task force is being assembled just to go after those who are non-compliant. Don't think you won't see more things on the web targeted. I know of many fetish sites/domme sites that are just gone (like mine....) because we're scared to post the wrong type of image, as there are still no good definitions to go by. These days, one can't know the film one might want to make is obscene till you've made it, had the DOJ knock your door down and destroy your life for it.

 

An example from a Free Speech weekly newsletter about a month ago: An adult shop was brought up on three counts of obscenity and closed down. When the case finally went before a jury, for them to view three videos in question and deem them obscene or not, this was the finding:

 

Apparently it is not obscene to view a rape video (this was in a mainstream porn); also not obscene was another "standard style" porn, but with golden and brown showers shown (for those innocent types - golden and brown showers are playing with pee and pooh, usually on your partner - an extreme act that I find repulsive myself and unsanitary) but that was ok by the jury; lastly, the only obscene video was one that was not porn at all, but openly stated on the cover that consensual S/M acts were included - the offending scene, you might ask? A person having their nipples pierced!!! That was obscene!!! Now, this was in a town in the west, Texas I think, but don't quote me yet. How is their definition of obscene going to apply to every town and to the world wide web? This obvious problem is not being solved, though first ammendment attnys are trying to have this point heard.

 

The big problem is this, voting won't help these issues now. 2257 is done and out there, has been since Tracy Lords invaded porn and precipitated the need for the law - it was just made worse last May of 2005. The only thing one can do is to send the Senators a message on HR4472 (there is another pending bill I will find by the end of the day which regards 2257 as well....) and tell them you want your freedom to remain intact, and for them to oppose this bill. Not that I believe it will help... the changes to 2257 were only opposed by a small handful of people voting on it, as once again children are used like the terrorist blanket to make everything "ok and acceptable to the public." I am all for protecting our kids, but let's really do it, not just prevaricate and use them to banish what is "morally corrupt" in the eyes of some....

[Guest]

Shades of another "great" Cincinnatian, Gordon H. Sherer. Committe chairman for the House Unamerican Activities Committe [HUAC]. The bossom buddy and teacher of Senator Joseph McCarthy..

 

Here we go again!!

 

OFF

[Guest]

I believe the bill is based on "The Pittsburg Inditement of Extreme associates". failed by the us gov.

One of the films was "Forced Entry" (the so caled rape film)

That got thrown out of the courts after Rob Black & Lizzy Borden fought it for a couple of years.

Im real up on this sense I know Rob & Lizzy and have friends who work for them.

I also helped in there defence fund with many other friends of theres.

There is also a documentary in the works on this case and that new proposed bill that will be very very insightful!.

[Guest]

Good job Eric, I thought it was the Extreme Associates case, but hadn't looked back thru old newsletters. The expenses to fight the gov. for a few years had to be terrible, glad that there were people to help like you. I've been wanting to do something to fund raise for this whole cause in general, and will do so when the occassion arises. I'd like to do something worthwhile but never have loot to throw... down the line a bit from now I am going to follow thru with that thought in some form or other though.

 

I would agree OFF that it is a lot like being lumped in a group, labelled as this or that and needing to be policed.

[Mr Barguzin]

I believe that there is/was a move to have all xxx sites allocated a domain name ending in .xxx so that folks would be aware of what was on the site. This motion was put to at least two meetings of government bodies from around the world or at W3 meetings (Am not too sure now as to which) but in both cases it was defeated... by at least two countries one of which was the US both times.

 

A logical attitude that seems to be at odds with the free market ideals of the US or is it that such a plan would still allow "porn" to be available much to the displeasure of a few idealogues (read puritantical fundamentalists). In the old days, if the US economy sneezed the world shivered. Nowadays it appears that if the US doesn't like a view or action, no-one else had better continue supporting said view or action.

 

Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

 

 

 

Edit: The story from SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/xxx-domain-name-rejected-again/2006/05/11/1146940653524.html

[Guest]

part of why the .xxx domain has not gone thru is that it lumps people into a clear category, and then the goal, at least of our government, was to put a 25% sin tax on such sites. that sounds fair, eh? the better option of having a .kids or some similar family oriented sector was rejected many times when brought up as an alternative. can't tax the kids, now can we?

[FurKyle]

I understand? But don't! If that makes sense.

 

On the one hand, I do know that it is important to protect children. But, the Federal Government should not be those responsible for it! I know there are quite a few people that are puting them in danger by chatting with them online. Which has been very glorified with the "stings" that local AND national news outlets have shown on their newscasts. I think that people that pry on children should be caught and reprimanded!...

 

But, that's where parents come in!!! With the predators and such out there, if I know than they should too. As far as the internet goes, parents should make it so their kids ARE'T seeing any of the "smut" on it!!! How many times I have, in my younger days, and even today, view the PMRC as a group of goodies set out to destroy the music I CHOOSE to listen to. The "PA" label got passed, whoopdie frakin' do!!! Parents still had the choice to make, until I turned of age and wanted to BUY or LISTEN to it. Nobody FORCED me to LISTEN!!! But, someone "tried" to FORCE me to NOT!!!

 

Same thing with cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs. If you are a kid or teen, you "might not/might" use them based on what a parent will tell you or what the Fed tells you. When someone comes of age, they can make that decision on THEIR OWN!!!

 

I'm not condoning any of these things, but AGREEING that every person has the right to choose how they want to be. What they want to do, and so forth...

 

The 1st Ammendment gives ALL, not just some, of us FREEDOM!!! Of Speech. Of Religion. Of Way of Life....

 

If just one freedom is taken away, then the rest may and probably will suffer in the long run.

 

I can't picture a world, errr US without MY freedom to express myself the way I want to!!!

 

Thanks and you all have great furry days, and FREE Lives!!!

 

Kyle

 

PS. Thanks Ms. T for all of the hard work, and sharing of information reguarding this topic.

 

Here's hoping the 1st stands and MEANS SOMETHING!!!!

[Guest]

One of the top 3 rules for politicians is "Whats in it for me!" and you can guess somewhere down the line the people behind this bill gets something in return. Thats the main motivation behind politicians.