Vivid says no to porn

[TheEnforcer]

All valid points Gonzo. Now, that said, what makes the internet any different than a bar or sex shop? All of those magazines and videos in the sex shops are covered under the 1st amendment, correct? Yes, 100%. But the owners have the burden to keep minors out? Correct? Yes, I am, 100% correct again. So, what makes the internet so unique that people can just throw anything they want on it and not have to worry about who sees it? What gives the net more rights than a sex shop? What gives soemone the right to allow anyone to waltz onto their site no matter what their age?

What I am proposing is actually LESS restictive and less of a burden on owners than what is in place in the brick and mortar world AND doesn't give parents an out as they would be responsible for using soemthing that would allow the ICRA or similar type tags to be read on their end.

While some people like to think politicians are dumb, they aren't. And they WILL find a way to make life miserable for the indutry eventually with soemthing that will stand the court challenges and I guarantee you it will be far less likeable that what I am talking about here. It will place a much higher burden on owners and let parents off the hook.

[pornlaw]

I also think that parents should be able to protect their kid while also allowing them to use the internet.

Yes, I agree and that's why there is software that PARENTS can install on their OWN computers at home.

Why do I need the government, Google or Yahoo filtering MY internet when it can be done by parents at home ? 'Cause they are lazy ? Not good enough for me.

Please address the COPA issue. Have you read the case ?

Michael

http://www.AdultBizLaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Software that is piss poor and doesn't have uniform standards and also lets webmasters totally of the hook with no responsibility at all. What makes webmasters a more special class of business operator than brick and mortar sex shops? Tell me why sex shops have to have a MUCH higher burden than a webmaster? Because with the line of thinking I've seen espoused in this thread it should also be a-ok for any minor in amercia to walk right in and look at everything in a sex shop with no burden on the owner at all. It's all the parents responsibility to make sure they don't go to that sex shop. I mean who cares if you see a kid who looks like they are underage walk into your shop it's not your responsibility at all to keep them out right? Hyperbole? A bit perhaps, but that is EXACTLY what parents and politicians hear when these lines of thought are told to them. They think all you care about is prepping future clients to buy your stuff or just wantign their money outright not caring what they think about it.

Also, COPA and what I am talking about are NOT analogous. COPA required paid access and other unreasonable things of that nature. All I'm talking about is a system similar to ICRA that webmaters have to put on their domain and requires action on the parents side to be used and made active.

[pornlaw]

Because with the line of thinking I've seen espoused in this thread it should also be a-ok for any minor in amercia to walk right in and look at everything in a sex shop with no burden on the owner at all.

Are you serious ??? How is the internet and brick and mortar any different ? Show me any criminal case where a minor sneaked into a sex shop without the owner knowing and subsequently the owner was tried and convicted of any crime ?

I am not saying it's OK to expose children to porn. What I AM saying is that in attempting to filter/censor you will lose speech that all adults have a right to view. That's the legal reasoning behind the decision in COPA, its better to let a determined 15 year old see a BJ then it is to restrict free speech.

By the way -- do you have kids ?

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Are you serious ??? How is the internet and brick and mortar any different ? Show me any criminal case where a minor sneaked into a sex shop without the owner knowing and subsequently the owner was tried and convicted of any crime ?

LOL

You've got to be kidding, right? Where did I give that analogy? I asked what would happen if sex shops took the same approach adult webmasters do. The VAST majority of webmatsers are doing practically nothing to keep minors out of their sites. How many do you think rate with places like ICRA and others like it?

I am not saying it's OK to expose children to porn. What I AM saying is that in attempting to filter/censor you will lose speech that all adults have a right to view. That's the legal reasoning behind the decision in COPA, its better to let a determined 15 year old see a BJ then it is to restrict free speech.

By the way -- do you have kids ?

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

You may think you aren't saying it but that ALL that the politicians hear with that approach. Now, COPA actually DID restrict free speech because it placed absolute barriers to entry and viewership of the material by total government fiat by both minors and adults. It basically required an undue burden and restriction to acces of the material by placing restrictions that imposed on both minors and, and unduly, adults regardless of whether they wanted to view the material or not thus placing an UP FRONT restriction that a person had NO CHOICE but to have imposed on their access to the material. That most certainly IS censorship. That is COMPLETELY different than what I am proposing as an idea. As a matter of fact I have come out very strongly against COPA in the past and remain so because of what I have stated in this post.

Ok. And for the record, no I do not have kids, but I persoanlly think that is a red herring that is brought out by people when they know they are losing the debate.

also, though it is NOT relevant to the

[tony404]

I wish it went to cc only to view porn online. Imagine the money that would be made if it could be international. Man oh Man.

[pornlaw]

I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I abhor any attempt to abridge fundamental rights. Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree.

I find any attempt, as a lawyer, to chill speech either by government or big business (another term for government today) non-negotiable.

Many do not like the Max Hardcores of the world, but I think he has a right to produce the content he sees fit, as long as it involves consenting adults.

As for access to that content, that is a parental duty, not a commercial or governmental one.

Steve Hirsch stands on the shoulders of giants. Giants that paid the price with their personal freedom, such as Reuben Sturman and Milton Luros. I hate to see someone give up even an inch of that.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com