PM asshattery

[boomer177]

Thank you for posting, Bramblethorn.

First, in that, as you correctly note, it is not illegal to "host sexually explicit videos/photos of over-18s," why do Lit's Photo Posting Guidelines state, not once but twice, that it is?

With regard to the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C § 2257, the following language is representative of how comparable sites readily avoid the need to maintain such records:

"18 U.S.C. 2257 RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

"[This website] does not produce, hire, contract for, or otherwise arrange for the participation of performers engaging in sexually explicit conduct, but is a mere hosting service/distributor of photos and videos submitted by our members.

"All members who do post any visual depiction of actual or simulated sexual conduct that appears or otherwise is contained in or at this web site are certifying to us via a specific check box that the person or persons depicted in the content are over 18 at the time of the creation of the depiction.

"18 U.S.C. Section 2257 and the implementing regulations require, among other things, that you verify the age of the depicted, as well as keep records of the age verification.

"Make sure you read the US Code and regulations for details, and we advise you hire an attorney to make sure you are in compliance. If you are unsure of any of these terms, do not upload any photos and/or videos of actual or simulated sexual conduct or nudity.

"The owners and operators of this website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content contained in the Website. For the purposes of complying with a custodian of record listing, although as stated the onus is on the producer of the content to keep the required records, we can facilitate contact with the producer of the depiction via our custodian of records which is [name and address of entity owning site omitted]."

The site boasts that "3.9 million real members have posted 13.3 million home made pics & videos" since 2002.

As distinguished from postings by unreal members, apparently.

 

[Que]

Blah, blah, blah...I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the Internet...blah.

This seems really important to you. There are plenty of other places where you can wag your willy openly and admire others' penii.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Thank you for posting, Bramblethorn.

First, in that, as you correctly note, it is not illegal to "host sexually explicit videos/photos of over-18s," why do Lit's Photo Posting Guidelines state, not once but twice, that it is?

Though I already explained this, but: It's legal to publish that stuff IF you're willing to keep S2257 records. It's illegal if you're not. Since they're not keeping S2257 records, it would be illegal for them.

With regard to the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C § 2257, the following language is representative of how comparable sites readily avoid the need to maintain such records:

"18 U.S.C. 2257 RECORD-KEEPING REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

"[This website] does not produce, hire, contract for, or otherwise arrange for the participation of performers engaging in sexually explicit conduct, but is a mere hosting service/distributor of photos and videos submitted by our members.

"All members who do post any visual depiction of actual or simulated sexual conduct that appears or otherwise is contained in or at this web site are certifying to us via a specific check box that the person or persons depicted in the content are over 18 at the time of the creation of the depiction. [snip]

The fact that somebody out there's using that argument on a website does not guarantee that it'll hold up in court. Unless you can point to case law that clearly establishes this as adequate for 2257 compliance, then you're effectively asking Literotica to gamble on an untested interpretation of the law. Their lawyer may well have advised them "better not to risk it".

"18 U.S.C. Section 2257 and the implementing regulations require, among other things, that you verify the age of the depicted, as well as keep records of the age verification.

"Make sure you read the US Code and regulations for details, and we advise you hire an attorney to make sure you are in compliance. If you are unsure of any of these terms, do not upload any photos and/or videos of actual or simulated sexual conduct or nudity.

Uh huh. I would be astounded if even 1% of people using a porn hosting site are complying with those requirements, and a trial judge might well dismiss this as a fig leaf.

"The owners and operators of this website are not the primary producer (as that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content contained in the Website.

They may well believe that - or want to believe it - but that doesn't mean a judge would see it the same way.

They seem to be trying to make a distinction between "primary producers" (the person that originally takes the photo??) and their website, but 2257 doesn't make any such distinction and it's pretty clear that it does NOT just apply to original creators. Its definition of "produce" includes:

inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content,[1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct

That's pretty broad language; depending on how a judge wants to interpret "managing" it could very easily cover the owners of a hosting site.

Some site owners may have decided that they're willing to take that risk. Evidently Literotica has decided it's not an acceptable risk for them. Their site, their call.

 

[boomer177]

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomer177
First, in that, as you correctly note, it is not illegal to "host sexually explicit videos/photos of over-18s," why do Lit's Photo Posting Guidelines state, not once but twice, that it is?

I already explained this

Let's get back to Section 2257, a record-keeping rather than a substantive provision, in a moment, alright?

Do you deem it acceptable that Lit's Guidelines misrepresent that it is illegal to post visual depictions of adults in "sexually explicit" pics and gifs? The prohibitory language in the Guidelines is taken, verbatim, from 18 U.S.C. § 2256, which we agree, I think, only applies to minors under the age of 18.

 

[NippleMuncher]

With regard to . . . <Lit>

Why do you care that someone threw a tizzy because he couldn't convert anyone to his point of view, used posts that were against Lit policy, then got pissed off and left because a moderator edited said prohibited post content?

In case you hadn't noticed, Lit IS NOT a democracy, it is a privately owned site, which means the owners and their agents can do as they like. There are content laws, in addition to the policies of this site, that the tizzy thrower simply ignored when his preachings failed to convert supporters and he degraded into a hot mess.

Quite obviously, for you to pick up the torch of a failed missionary in hopes of garnering friendship and support, is a serious faux paus on your part, and you will be destined to the same demise as your predecessor. Quote all the legal jargon you like, your predecessor solidly earned his asshat status, a direction you are rapidly headed yourself.

And before you start quoting your amendment rights to free speech, we also have that same right. Don't forget, you also have the right to remain silent, if you choose to forfeit this right, then you will be at the mercy of all who do not share your point of view.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Let's get back to Section 2257, a record-keeping rather than a substantive provision, in a moment, alright?

Do you deem it acceptable that Lit's Guidelines misrepresent that it is illegal to post visual depictions of adults in "sexually explicit" pics and gifs? The prohibitory language in the Guidelines is taken, verbatim, from 18 U.S.C. § 2256, which we agree, I think, only applies to minors under the age of 18.

It's legally unsafe for a site not keeping 2257-compliant records to host such material. (Yes, some other sites do it. And some people smoke tobacco and some people shoot meth into their perineum. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.)

If you want to split hairs about the exact way in which Lit is wording their "this is not a good place for us to be legally so we're not gonna do it" notice, then sorry, but that seems like a bit of a pointless wank to me and I'm not really interested in pursuing that line of discussion further.

 

[boomer177]

Whoa, you really are too much, NippleMuncher, as with having called it "spamming the site" to have raised the issue of the need for Lit to do something substantially more than offer the "ignore" function with regard to abusive PM'ers.

If inquiring into what prompted a member--who I do not know--to leave the site upon some of his posts being deleted is "picking up [his] torch," I plead guilty.

And while you may perceive it otherwise, that Lit is privately-owned hardly constrains a member from addressing its perceived shortcomings and seeking changes. I pass on your reminder of my "right to remain silent."

You are, to use your phrase, "quite obviously" what you are. No more need be said other than that I trust your interjection will not deter Bramblethorn and others from continuing a respectful discussion of an important issue.

 

[boomer177]

I see that you posted a few minutes before me, Bramblethorn, but I am already late for an early-morning appointment. More later.

 

[Eilan]

Why do people come to sites like Lit knowing full-well what the rules are and then bitch about the rules? Just go somewhere that allows what you want.

Plus, Harold Hill won't be missed, but I'm pretty sure he's someone's alt, anyway, so he's probably still here in some capacity.

 

[chargergirl]

Whoa, you really are too much, NippleMuncher, as with having called it "spamming the site" to have raised the issue of the need for Lit to do something substantially more than offer the "ignore" function with regard to abusive PM'ers.

If inquiring into what prompted a member--who I do not know--to leave the site upon some of his posts being deleted is "picking up [his] torch," I plead guilty.

And while you may perceive it otherwise, that Lit is privately-owned hardly constrains a member from addressing its perceived shortcomings and seeking changes. I pass on your reminder of my "right to remain silent."

You are, to use your phrase, "quite obviously" what you are. No more need be said other than that I trust your interjection will not deter Bramblethorn and others from continuing a respectful discussion of an important issue.

[Spamming, bumping, posting same content to multiple locations, and screen-stretching to disrupt the forum is prohibited per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning

[Spamming, bumping, posting same content to multiple locations, and screen-stretching to disrupt the forum is prohibited per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning

Laurel seems to think you are, as she replaced all of your posts quoting HaroldHill with that warning above.

HH picked up his toys and left because I removed a post of his. He and several others were harassing an OP in Fet. Central, and unlike the GB, that's not something we tolerate in that forum. His wasn't the only post I removed, but he's the only one that went off in a huff.

So it's not some big scandalous mystery why he left.

 

[chargergirl]

Why do people come to sites like Lit knowing full-well what the rules are and then bitch about the rules? Just go somewhere that allows what you want.

I don't understand this, either. We are provided this wonderful site for free, with only a small handful of rules to follow, which isn't that hard, and yet some people still find reason to piss and moan.

Amazing.

 

[Learin]

Why do people come to sites like Lit knowing full-well what the rules are and then bitch about the rules? Just go somewhere that allows what you want.

I don't understand this, either. We are provided this wonderful site for free, with only a small handful of rules to follow, which isn't that hard, and yet some people still find reason to piss and moan.

Amazing.

Some people like to bitch and moan.

Or maybe it's for the attention.

Or both.





Either way, teh Ignore List saves me from this headache.

 

[Que]

to have raised the issue of the need for Lit to do something substantially more than offer the "ignore" function with regard to abusive PM'ers.

What more could be needed then a simple checkbox that prevents you ever seeing a PM from them again?

 

[midwestyankee]

What more could be needed then a simple checkbox that prevents you ever seeing a PM from them again?

Quite clearly, some seem to want a personal handjob by the alt of their choice whenever their feelings get hurt. I used to recommend James B for this service, but then he retired to Ted Kazinsky's old cabin and nobody has applied for the job since.

 

[Eilan]

What more could be needed then a simple checkbox that prevents you ever seeing a PM from them again?

Right? I very, very rarely get abusive PMs, but public shaming (withing the site rules, of course) and iggy work fine for me.

 

[NippleMuncher]

I pass on your reminder of my "right to remain silent."

And in doing so, you have also forfeited your right to whine when those who do not share your opinion invoke their constitutional right to free speech and hand you your well deserved asshat status and treat you accordingly. As was said before, if you find this site so wholly offensive, why are you here? If you are receiving negative feedback openly and via PM, maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't with the site or how it is moderated, maybe, just maybe, the problem resides on your side of the internet connection.

With any luck, Laurel and Chargergirl will start deleting your posts, maybe you'll follow in your friend's footsteps and play with your balls somewhere else.

 

[RjThoughts]

I don't understand this, either. We are provided this wonderful site for free, with only a small handful of rules to follow, which isn't that hard, and yet some people still find reason to piss and moan.

Amazing.

Some people are never happy.
Some people like to whine.
Some people like to test boundaries.

And some people just like to piss YOU off, Charger

 

[Bramblethorn]

HH picked up his toys and left because I removed a post of his. He and several others were harassing an OP in Fet. Central, and unlike the GB, that's not something we tolerate in that forum. His wasn't the only post I removed, but he's the only one that went off in a huff.

That does sound like ol' Harold. Never seen somebody with such a fondness for flaming OPs and then playing the victim as soon as somebody criticised his position.

 

[Eilan]

That does sound like ol' Harold. Never seen somebody with such a fondness for flaming OPs and then playing the victim as soon as somebody criticised his position.

Indeed.

 

[Que]

Some people are never happy.
Some people like to whine.
Some people like to test boundaries.

And some people just like to piss YOU off, Charger

I'm pretty sure that is impossible. I have never seen her even mildly annoyed. I wonder sometimes what it would take to squick her. She is gracious about what to me seem like the least palatable posts.

 

[boomer177]

What more could be needed then a simple checkbox that prevents you ever seeing a PM from them again?

Much. Compare what other sites do that Lit does not.

 

[boomer177]

I'm pretty sure that it is impossible to piss off Charger. I have never seen her even mildly annoyed. I wonder sometimes what it would take to squick her. She is gracious about what to me seem like the least palatable posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chargergirl
But if you are familiar with the forum guidelines then you would know that the pics you've posted in that thread were in direct violation of them, specifically rule E. Since you know about the guidelines, then I'm sure you know what rule E is all about. But then, since you know what rule E is all about, why did you post the rule breaking pics? I really want to know, and so will Laurel, the site owner. She will be the one you want to PM about this. Here's a link to her PM box: [url omitted].

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[chargergirl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by chargergirl
But if you are familiar with the forum guidelines then you would know that the pics you've posted in that thread were in direct violation of them, specifically rule E. Since you know about the guidelines, then I'm sure you know what rule E is all about. But then, since you know what rule E is all about, why did you post the rule breaking pics? I really want to know, and so will Laurel, the site owner. She will be the one you want to PM about this. Here's a link to her PM box: [url omitted].

Lol. Not even the slightest bit annoyed.

Refresh my memory, please. Was that something I posted or was that a PM?

ETA: never mind. I just looked back at four months' worth of my old posts. It was a PM.

 

[chargergirl]

To those on this thread that said such kind things about me, thank you, I really appreciate that.