If I'm suddenly gone next year

[StillStunned]

It's exactly why, to go one step lower, below the radar. The site has stated that, in an email sent to folk with illustrated content in their portfolio. Text only content is inherently less threatening to the legislature than visual content.

Would a joke about the reading skills of the average lawmaker's reading abilities be out of place here?

Edit: apparently I need to work on my own reading skills.

 

[Baztrachian]

Would a joke about the reading skills of the average lawmaker's reading abilities be out of place here?

They know how to read their stock portfolio statements with all those insider trading profits the majority of them indulge in.

 

[stickygirl]

There’s more I could rant about but we have whole forum for that =>

 

[old_prof]

The states in the USA really have nothing to say about online content. This is Federal territory and the Feds get irate when the states try to intrude on this space.

One might expect that, except multiple states have managed to effectively ban certain "undesirable" online content in their state.

 

[SimonDoom]

The states in the USA really have nothing to say about online content. This is Federal territory and the Feds get irate when the states try to intrude on this space.

That's not true at all. States regulate online content all the time. If you do online business in a state, you are subject to its laws. There are some federal legal limits on the ability of a state to limit this commerce, if the regulation burdens interstate commerce, but they only go so far. As an online content provider, while the legal landscape is a bit murky, you would be wise to be cautious about whether content you provide that is directed at, or accessible to, citizens of a state might violate the laws of that state.

The current US Supreme Court definition of obscenity specifically provides that local community standards are applicable in determining whether content is obscene or not, so there's that as well. A state has substantial latitude to set its standards differently from the way other states set theirs.

 

[HeyAll]

This could be why Lit removed nudity from the site. Lit might fly below the radar of what's considered restrictable porn.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

This could be why Lit removed nudity from the site. Lit might fly below the radar of what's considered restrictable porn.

There's no "could". They said so (according to people who had images removed and got letters about it).

 

[KittyOfSteele]

We have that here. The only issue is you cant open links like pornhub. I did do the verification for one site like that and not as bad as you think.

The problem with age verification systems is that they make you more vulnerable to identity theft. There has been already plenty of leaks of people's credit cards, documents (like passports), and faces after doing age verification, and their data is already floating around in the dark web. Some of these victims are also minors who could be exploited if their data finds itself into a predator's hands. Be careful.

 

[Inkognito1]

I had to go through an age verification process for my Gmail account not long ago. They gave me the choice between submitting credit card info or doing a live selfie.

I picked the selfie option, but instead of using my actual face, I held up a photo of a random adult from an ad.

It passed.

No real ID, no credit card, no personal data handed over. Verification "complete," anonymity intact. Which just goes to show how flimsy these systems really are when it comes to both security and enforcement.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Would a joke about the reading skills of the average lawmaker's reading abilities be out of place here?

Edit: apparently I need to work on my own reading skills.

Yes it would, because seriously, it's no laughing matter.

 

[Baztrachian]

If you do online business in a state, you are subject to its laws.

I have plenty of friends in Kansas and Missouri who don't GAF what California, New York, Illinois, and etc. have to say and exactly nothing has happened to them.

 

[HeyAll]

There's no "could". They said so (according to people who had images removed and got letters about it).

That's not totally true. I also got a message about it, officially they're saying Lit should be a writing format first. Government censorship was never mentioned anywhere, as far I've seen on here.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's not true at all. States regulate online content all the time. If you do online business in a state, you are subject to its laws. There are some federal legal limits on the ability of a state to limit this commerce, if the regulation burdens interstate commerce, but they only go so far. As an online content provider, while the legal landscape is a bit murky, you would be wise to be cautious about whether content you provide that is directed at, or accessible to, citizens of a state might violate the laws of that state.

This came up in the Frank McCoy case. McCoy was running his story site from Minnesota, but the feds downloaded those stories in Georgia. McCoy was then indicted by a grand jury in Georgia, and was tried and convicted in that state. Presumably they did it that way because they felt it'd be easier to get a conviction under a Georgian interpretation of "community standards".

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/13-14350/13-14350-2015-03-12.html

(That link is to the appeal decision; the original trial was United States v. McCoy, 937 F.Supp.2d 1374 (M.D. Ga. 2013) but I don't have a good link for the judgement.)

 

[YmaOHyd]

This came up in the Frank McCoy case. McCoy was running his story site from Minnesota, but the feds downloaded those stories in Georgia. McCoy was then indicted by a grand jury in Georgia, and was tried and convicted in that state. Presumably they did it that way because they felt it'd be easier to get a conviction under a Georgian interpretation of "community standards".

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/13-14350/13-14350-2015-03-12.html

(That link is to the appeal decision; the original trial was United States v. McCoy, 937 F.Supp.2d 1374 (M.D. Ga. 2013) but I don't have a good link for the judgement.)

It was a federal case, not a Georgia case; they ran the case from Georgia because agents in that office found McCoy's stories on the computer of a person of interest in a separate child porn investigation. The same agents ran the McCoy investigation. The actual charge in McCoy was related to transportation of obscene materials; the theory of the case was that McCoy, by providing links to the work to an FBI agent directly, aided and abetted the transportation of those materials from California and Texas, where the physical servers were located, to Georgia, where they were accessed.

I think this works as a link to the original judgement.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It was a federal case, not a Georgia case; they ran the case from Georgia because agents in that office found McCoy's stories on the computer of a person of interest in a separate child porn investigation. The same agents ran the McCoy investigation. The actual charge in McCoy was related to transportation of obscene materials; the theory of the case was that McCoy, by providing links to the work to an FBI agent directly, aided and abetted the transportation of those materials from California and Texas, where the physical servers were located, to Georgia, where they were accessed.

I think this works as a link to the original judgement.

Cheers, that clarifies why it was run from Georgia in that particular case. The motivation may have been different from what I suggested, but it still had the outcome that "community standards" were being evaluated by Georgians rather than by the lights of McCoy's own state of residence/operation.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Cheers, that clarifies why it was run from Georgia in that particular case. The motivation may have been different from what I suggested, but it still had the outcome that "community standards" were being evaluated by Georgians rather than by the lights of McCoy's own state of residence/operation.

It's a federal test that was applied, and by a federal judge, since McCoy waived his right to a jury trial. Since it was CSAM material at issue, the first two prongs are almost failed automatically regardless of venue, and McCoy didn't contest them. His defense hinged almost entirely on whether his work had artistic value, the third prong of the test. (But yes, the community standards question is still live. In some ways, though, Miller is more lenient than other obscenity tests because it relies on prevailing community standards and the views of a hypothetical average person rather than the views of the hypothetically most sensitive person in that community.)

 

[alohadave]

This could be why Lit removed nudity from the site. Lit might fly below the radar of what's considered restrictable porn.

That's from a legal standpoint. There are organizations out there that will run whisper campaigns against the site's host and post pressure on them by threatening to make the host look bad in the press.

SOL had this happen twice in just a few months when a German NGO decided to target them.

 

[SimonDoom]

I have plenty of friends in Kansas and Missouri who don't GAF what California, New York, Illinois, and etc. have to say and exactly nothing has happened to them.

If they do business online and have customers in California, New York, and Illinois, then they SHOULD be concerned. They are potentially subject to those states' laws. If they sell products that customers in those states can buy, they are potentially subject to the regulations of those states if their products, or if their advertising, do not comply with those states' standards. This IS the law in the USA. Whether they care about complying with the law, or whether they are willing to take the risk, is a matter for them to judge. In some circumstances, the risk may be quite low. But there is some risk.

The same is true of speech. If as a resident of state A you defame somebody in state B online you are potentially liable to that person under state B's law. The suit might have to be brought in federal court, but state law could apply.

It's clear that this site has decided to take a cautious approach with respect to some of its content. That's a reasonable position, even if there's a lot of uncertainty about how much risk they face. There is SOME risk. I personally think the risk for this site is pretty low, but I can't say there's no risk, and neither can anyone else.

 

[jsmiam]

In the US, there’s a quite common misconception regarding who gets “credit” for age verification laws. Large swaths of people are very incorrect in who they think passes these laws.

Hint: it’s both sides of the political divide. (I’m being overly generous here.)

So if California is to be an example, Texas deserves equal attention. Anyone in their right mind wanna say Texas isn’t overwhelmingly run by an extremely conservative majority? That it’s very zealous attorney general isn’t conservative?

So do a little homework. Get a little information. Get facts tonight.