Vivid says no to porn

[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 tony404

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.

There it is. That pretty much nails it.

[pornlaw]

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)

Well now I'm confused. I was addressing the Hirsch statement that Google and Yahoo need to do something. Thats not the end user. I never said parents shouldn't filter. I said that Hirsch wants search engines to filter cause he knows it will block a whole lotta free porn which is killing his DVD sales.

I have no problems with the end user filtering.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[TheEnforcer]

Ok, fair enough. I think you didn't realize I was really talking about what I think should be done about it. Would you still be fine with it if it made it mandatory for all adult sites to label their sites with tags that can be used by parents to block their sites? So basically porn sites have to "tag" their sites with an tag like the ICRA or soemthing similar.

[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.