Vivid says no to porn

[TheEnforcer]

Good to see a major player be proactive in this area. Free speech and keeping content out of the hands of minors is not incompatible.

[pornlaw]

"I spend more time trying to talk a new girl out of becoming a porn star as I do discussing the deal points of her contract once she's convinced me that she really does want to go down that path."

Thats interesting. He tried talking one of my clients into a multi year contract that would have paid her a paltry $42,000 for 18 sex scenes (3 anal) with numerous personal appearances.

I dont buy his "for the children" approach. Free porn on the internet -- found through Google and Yahoo is killing DVD sales, Vivid's life and blood.

Filtering can be considered censorship. Something that does not sit well with those that protect free speech.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Thats interesting. He tried talking one of my clients into a multi year contract that would have paid her a paltry $42,000 for 18 sex scenes (3 anal) with numerous personal appearances.

I dont buy his "for the children" approach. Free porn on the internet -- found through Google and Yahoo is killing DVD sales, Vivid's life and blood.

Filtering can be considered censorship. Something that does not sit well with those that protect free speech.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

I agree 100% and I find this quote the most ironic of all.
"This is not about First Amendment rights, it is about protecting children."

Is Steve about to run for public office or something?

[TheEnforcer]

Filtering doesn't have to be a bad word as long as it can be controlled by the end user and not an automatic thing that gets used no matter what. I am VERY pro 1st amendment but there should also be common sense tools that help parents that doen't cut off sites at the knees but are actually effective. Any smart businessperson doesn't want minors on their site and should welcome a way for an effective way to help parents to do that.

Reality is that we have zero sympathy from the people who make the laws and a lot of the people that elect them. Some of that is the indutry's own fault. Dismissing things like filtering all together cause you assume it's gonna be draconian does the industry no favors.

[TheEnforcer]

BTW- filtering is NOT censorship if it's not soemthing that is forced upon all with the government being the only one that chooses what adults can read or see and TAKING AWAY their right to access or see it. As long as the END USER has the choice to implemet the filter or not, and the filter NOT being teh defualt setting is critical, that is not censorship as you DO have access to the material but you just CHOOSE not to access it.

[RawAlex]

All filtering is in the end is the assumption of child rearing responsilities by the state and corporations because parents seem unable to care for or pay attention to their own children.

The internet has become many parent's new electronic babysitter, replace TV and nintendo machines as a way of making sure the little shits don't bug their parents. If parents were active participants in their children's lives and didn't let them surf the internet from behind a closed bedroom door, the idea of filtering would be unneeded.

The parents wouldn't drop their kids into the middle of an adult bookstore or a bar. Why do they think that dumping them on the internet is any different?

[CosmicTang]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

All filtering is in the end is the assumption of child rearing responsilities by the state and corporations because parents seem unable to care for or pay attention to their own children.

The internet has become many parent's new electronic babysitter, replace TV and nintendo machines as a way of making sure the little shits don't bug their parents. If parents were active participants in their children's lives and didn't let them surf the internet from behind a closed bedroom door, the idea of filtering would be unneeded.

The parents wouldn't drop their kids into the middle of an adult bookstore or a bar. Why do they think that dumping them on the internet is any different?

Agreed.

[TheEnforcer]

Because bars and adult bookstores don't let minors in in the first place and if they do they can lose their license and freedom depending on the circumstances. They have requireemnts of THE OWNERS to ave measures in place to keep the minors out and if they don't give a shit about enforcing those requirements, well, you just open an adult book store and invite minors into your establishment adns ell to them and see how long you still have your business and your freedom. Same goes with a bar.

You gave about the most piss poor examples you could because THE OWNERS have the FULL burden on them to keep minors out of their place of busines and what i am talking about is a tool that busines owners are a part of but the END USER i responsible for putting in place on their end to do the filtering.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

BTW- filtering is NOT censorship if it's not soemthing that is forced upon all with the government being the only one that chooses what adults can read or see and TAKING AWAY their right to access or see it. As long as the END USER has the choice to implemet the filter or not, and the filter NOT being teh defualt setting is critical, that is not censorship as you DO have access to the material but you just CHOOSE not to access it.

Yes, and we've had that since, what, 1995?
Big resounding, "no sale."

They will never be satisfied until they use the government power to crush our free speech.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

Yes, and we've had that since, what, 1995?
Big resounding, "no sale."

They will never be satisfied until they use the government power to crush our free speech.

LOL

We've had VOLUNTARY tags since then. Give me a break. When you want to talk reality and not use demagouge tactics let me know.