Vivid says no to porn

[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

[tony404]

Originally Posted by 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

That sounds great but since as a industry we have a not my problem I can do whatever I want attitude and practice very little responsibility as a whole. Especially with everyone going tube crazy. Im thinking us getting policed is coming and people will have the balls to cry why are they picking on us.
The giants fought for our right to sell and produce, not to stick it in people's faces. Bricks and mortar has survived because it wasnt in peoples faces and kids were kept out.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by 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.

I couldn't agree more. I 100% agree with you about Max. He's a very nice guy from my experience meeting and talkign with him the last two years at the florida show.

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

No, actually what you are asking for are less responsibility than brick and mortar stores have. You want a special class of people who have more rights than another. When you go to court and try and argue that a sex shop owner in the brick and mortar worls has no responsibility to keep minors out THEN you will be fighting for what you are talking about there. Because as it stands right now webmasters have no responsibility to keep minors out and you want to keep it that way. Sorry, but that's not how the world has worked before the internet and the mere existance of the internet doesn't change that. You also ignored the differences I pointed out in what I am proposing and what COPA is.

Tell me EXACTLY what the problem is with what I propose. Where is the DENIAL BY THE GOVERNMENT to access porn for adults. It's an END USER (aka private citizen) aying hey, I don't want my kid looking at that and you doing your part, just like rbick and mortars do, in helping to keep minors out. Hell what I am proposing STILL has even LESS of a burden on webamsters than brick and mortar stores. But yet you still complain.