Vivid says no to porn

[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.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by 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.

Absolutely. As long as it was only used by the end user.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[Toby]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

...So basically porn sites have to "tag" their sites with an tag like the ICRA or soemthing similar.

I currently employ three such tags on my sites.

1. Old School Meta rating that has been in place for years
< META NAME="rating" CONTENT="restricted" > (some use "adult" instead of "restricted", although "restricted" is more correct per W3C)
2. ICRA
3. RTA (Restricted To Adults)

I also place a very visible link on my warning pages telling parents where to go to get free software to block adult sites. http://parentalcontrolbar.org/

I have no problem with such tags becoming mandatory, although I'm sure the Internet Illiterate in Congress would attempt to come up with some completely new convoluted and uneffective tag system.

[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.