Vivid says no to porn

[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.

[gonzo]

no disrespect but I'm sitting in my accountants office showing him various parts of my business and he wanted to read this thread.

david asked me how long you've been doing this.

I had to tell him you might have lost touch with the challenges that face adult site owners these days.

with traffic now being the magic bulletin for success everyone including microsoft is in hot persuit.

imho steve hirsch is suffering from tunnel vision and looking to find a scapegoat for the decrease in dvd sales.

vivid aint at the center of the porn universe no mo.

[pornlaw]

Dismissing things like filtering all together cause you assume it's gonna be draconian does the industry no favors.

Assuming that exposure to sexual explicit images turns kids into sex maniacs and dysfunctional members of society is also somewhat draconian.

As an undergrad, I was a psyche and criminal justice double major, I researched and wrote a 185 page thesis page on the developmental occurrences in the childhood of 5 serial killers.

The mere exposure to sex was not a factor in developmental problems. What was -- watching their mothers - get sexually abused and used was.

Children have through-out time been exposed to sex and society has survived. For the most part many early homes/tee-pees/cave dwellings were 1 room dwellings. And being one room dwellings kids were exposed to their parents and other adults having sex. And we survived.

Granted Im not sure what exposure to violent pornography will do to a child and there are no studies on such, but seeing naked bodies and naked bodies in passionate embraces doesnt result in a breakdown in societal norms, customs and laws.

I say that with filtering will come censorship. Filters are not perfect. They catch all kinds of info - like teaching kids to wear condoms to avoid STDs if they are going to have sex. Perhaps a topic they might feel a little funny discussing with their moms and prefer to search Google for.

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by gonzo

no disrespect but I'm sitting in my accountants office showing him various parts of my business and he wanted to read this thread.

david asked me how long you've been doing this.

I had to tell him you might have lost touch with the challenges that face adult site owners these days.

with traffic now being the magic bulletin for success everyone including microsoft is in hot persuit.

imho steve hirsch is suffering from tunnel vision and looking to find a scapegoat for the decrease in dvd sales.

vivid aint at the center of the porn universe no mo.

Never said it was. The attitude that garnering as much traffic as you can and who cares if you keep minors out, which is exactly what I see here in this thread, is exactly the type of mentality that gives politicians even more ammo to use against the indutry.

Traffic that consists of minors is not profitable nor desireable. You lose NOTHING by keeping minors out and an END USER filter ONLY keeps away the minors and people that weren't going to come to the site anywyas o you lose NOTHING!

[tony404]

Originally Posted by 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.

well said and the internet bunch forget this.

[pushpills]

that's great, nice to read that quote about him talking people out of porn as opposed to the types who try to convince youngsters to do bukkake vids.

[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.