PSA from the moderator

[trysail]

Lit should either remove the ability to post pix, or fight the law in the courts. To act as censors of content that is clearly harmful to nobody is wrong. Even more wrong is to expect volunteers to carry out this practice. Volunteer mods, asked to carry out this task, should refuse.

With respect, Fflow, you apparently find it easy to spend someone else's money. Literotica doesn't belong to you and you won't be sharing the consequences or burden of litigation.

If you want Manu to pursue the avenue of civil disobedience, may I humbly suggest that your first step should be to write him a very big check to cover attorney fees and the possible loss of his business.

 

[Fflow]

I stated, several times, that the Lit owners should work with the ACLU, who would gladly cover all legal fees if a trial was necessary.

 

[umchick5]

Yah I just read the other one where he stated he was going away. I feel for him as well, he does his job well and people are gonna be mad at him, does it sparingly and some people feel picked on. I doubt anybody is going to turn in others, if someone is getting away with it, good for them, would take somebody whos jealous or has a personal grudge against them to turn them in.

I honestly think there should be at least two mods for the Am Pic forum, one to perhaps to moderate the men threads and the other for the women... or some sort of balance.... ShyGuy does an AWESOME job, but he's only one man. Plus he's got to enjoy himself too at times (I enjoy him hanging around my thread hehe)!

And as for people turning others in, I don't believe it is a nice thing to do. But there is never going to be an even balance of pictures being removed so-long as there is only one moderator. Some people get "flagged" because those are probably the more well-known threads or maybe the ones ShyGuy himself visits. Another option is for people to own up to the fact they were breaking the rules and remove the pictures themselves. That is what I did, because I knew they would be removed one way or another.

My comments were simply made in response to people wondering why some threads seemed to be taking harder hits than others as far as picture removal goes.

 

[monique1971]

I stated, several times, that the Lit owners should work with the ACLU, who would gladly cover all legal fees if a trial was necessary.

Do you know this for a fact? I wouldn't be so sure about this. The ACLU is very selective about which cases it chooses to pursue. It tries to pick winners, cases likely to result in a clear and decisive legal victory. Would Lit be that kind of test case? I don't know. I don't think it's as simple as Laurel and Manu calling up the ACLU and saying, "Hey, cover our court costs."

Lit should not be using volunteer mods to protect themselves from breaking federal law. Will they defend themselves by blaming the Mods when an image goes unnoticed, and charges are filed? Will the Mods be dragged into court to testify?

Lit should either remove the ability to post pix, or fight the law in the courts. To act as censors of content that is clearly harmful to nobody is wrong. Even more wrong is to expect volunteers to carry out this practice. Volunteer mods, asked to carry out this task, should refuse.

I'm not as convinced as you are that the practice of using volunteer mods was adopted in order to protect the site's owners from prosecution. The first paragraph in the second quoted block above rests on the premise that they are. Are you certain that this is the reasoning behind the use of volunteer mods?

I will say that I find the claims you make in the second paragraph in the second block above more persuasive. Yet realistically, I do not think that a court challenge is in the works, so it seems to me that you would have the AmPics section closed altogether in order to avoid any truck with constraint on expression. To me, the benefits of having such a section outweigh the potential costs incurred by having to post under circumstances of constraint. But that's merely my opinion.

I'll close by saying that I hope no one who's bothered to read this thread this far will mistake me for a prude or an enemy of free speech. I do not like the pic posting guidelines either. I only entered this debate because I was appalled by what I saw as the glib and oversimplified references to Nazism. Some find those references apposite; I do not and I had to explain why in order to be easy with my conscience.

 

[shy slave]

Added a question

What a thread!

Shyguy has a thankless task and in stating he is going to follow guidelines he has been credited as the same as a German during the Nazi period, then we get chapter and verse on US politics.

Not all of us live in the US, but we still accept the guidelines laid out by Lit.
Just as if you go to another country you accept their customs and actions or leave.

What Manu or Lauren choose to do about the guidelines is up to them. They may not want Lit to be made an example of. Why would they?

The ultimate redress you have against the guidelines is to stop coming here.

Shyguy, nor anyone else, is not making you stay.

Shyguy is about as far from a Nazi as you are ever likely to meet.
The Danes have an uneasy history the Germany from WW11. If I were him I would be insulted and very pissed off by such ludicrous postings.

Luckily Shyguy is a better person than I am.

As a postscript, it did amuse me that such a thing as enforcing well known guidelines could set a few of you spinning in so many directions.
Do you have the same issues when your box of breakfast cereal has written guidelines on how to open the box?

Edit to add: How on earth would the US Govt enforce actions against volunteer mods who do not live or work in the US? Considering they are not breaking any laws in relation to their own country.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

I'm choosing to follow the rules even though I don't really understand all of them. I understand some of them, but not all of them.

I also don't understand the big deal of posting a penis and vagina when you have to be at least 18-years-old to post here. Is it because the board owners don't charage us money to post and therefore the government doesn't make money from texes like Playboy, Playgirl, Penthouse, and other magazines like those do?

I also still don't quite understand this rule:

(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

I would think everyone has a different deffention of what lascivous is. Does this mean you can post the genitals and pubic area as long as it's not a close up shot or does it mean you can't post pictures of the genitals and pubic area at all?

I've already asked about it once and no one answered my question. I seriously do not know if that means you can't have close up of the genitals or no pictures of the genitals period.

And why are butts and boobs allowed to be shown but not the genitals? Is there a reason behind that?

I'm choosing to follow the rules and still post here because I've been to other boards where you can't dare have a conversation like this one.

I can see Fflow's and kittykateater's point of view on this, but at the same time I do have to give credit to ShyGuy for allowing people do disagree with what he does and it's why I don't really consider what he's doing is the same as what the soldiers and other citizens did during World War II. If you were to disagree with them you would get shot.

 

[pellso27]

bla bla bla....hurries to post more!

 

[Andante]

this isn't meant to be racist... but sometimes i just can't believe how such a leading culture as the us can be such prudish and over-regimented...

...leading who?

 

[Andante]

Well, I do have a MENTAL pic of what I'd like to be doing to your luscious ass in that hot avatar of yours, Ms Texas.....and luckily nothing Lit Nazis can do, can ever ban that mental image from my mind!

If the nazi comment is aimed at ShyGuy, for simply trying to do his job, I strongly suggest you post an unconditional apology. That is, of course, unless you're able to proove he is a member of some neo-fascist organisation. Personally, I guess the most radical you'll find about him is a membership of the Danish Cyclist Union.....

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

...leading who?

I don't think he meant leading as in leading someone. I think he meant the USA is a HIGH influence on many other countries.

 

[Matthew Craig]

OK I admit it, I've been way to lenient about letting pictures that are against the rules stay up on lit. But from now on that will be changing.

So if your have posted pictures that are against Literotica Forum Photo Posting Guidelines, there's a chance that that the pictures, or the whole thread will be removed.

I don't like doing this, and some might think me an asshole for doing it, but the fact is that the rules are here to be followed, and we can't only follow the ones we agree with.

If you want to complain to anybody, I suggest you complain to the US government

Studder much bitch?

 

[Spenser41]

OK, I am going to just throw my 2 cents in here.
One I know that Lit is free... and that it is MAINLY a erotica site which means stories.
Yet at the same time, you have links to other sites that support Lit that are all hard core porn.
From what I understand about what the gov said, it said UNDER AGE nudity. If you say NO nudity, like you are saying it, then Playboy would be in trouble which they are not and yes they do show close ups of privates. True there are a paid site, but what I do not get is that Lit is telling people to go to sponsers of Lit but are showing full nudity and full sex acts.
So please explain that to me.... it just doesn't add up some how. What I would like Lit to do, since they are saying it is the US Gov, please send a a link to that information or post that information so we can all see just what you are following. If in fact it is just the RULES of Lit.. then ok... it is your rules but I really do not think the Gov is saying as much as you are saying... because I know of many sites.. including Yahoo groups that allow full nudity and sex acts. To be honest it just doesn't line up....
Sorry but just stating the facts.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

I would also like to see the rules from the USA government. I'm still not getting that part either.

I just figure there are rules on this board weather it be Lit's rules or the government's rules and I'm choosing to follow them.

 

[Fflow]

MANU & LAUREL: COPA has been overturned in the courts!

From the ACLU's website:

Here's part of the law that lays out its specific scope, a link to the entire law, and the ruling of the judge who overturned it:

In what was codified as 47 U.S.C. 231, COPA provides that:

(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.-Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

(2) INTENTIONAL VIOLATIONS.-In addition to the penalties under paragraph (1), whoever intentionally violates such paragraph shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

(3) CIVIL PENALTY.-In addition to the penalties under paragraphs (1) and (2), whoever violates paragraph (1) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation. For purposes of this paragraph, each day of violation shall constitute a separate violation.

COPA specifically provides that a person shall be considered to make a communication for commercial purposes "only if such person is engaged in the business of making such communication." 47 U.S.C. 231(e)(2)(A). A person will be deemed to be "engaged in the business" if theperson who makes a communication, or offers to make a communication, by means of the World Wide Web, that includes any material that is harmful to minors, devotes time, attention, or labor to such activities, as a regular course of such person's trade or business, with the objective of earning a profit as a result of such activities (although it is not necessary that the person make a profit or that the making or offering to make such communications be the person's sole or principal business or source of income). A person may be considered to be engaged in the business of making, by means of the World Wide Web, communications for commercial purposes that include material that is harmful to minors, only if the person knowingly causes the material that is harmful to minors to be posted on the World Wide Web or knowingly solicits such material to be posted on the World Wide Web.

47 U.S.C. 231(e)(2)(B).

Congress defined material that is harmful to minors as:
any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that-

(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Id.at 231(e)(6). Under COPA, a minor is any person under 17 years of age. Id.at 231(e)(7).

COPA provides communicators on the Web for commercial purposes affirmative defenses to prosecution under the statute. Section 231 (c) provides that:

(c) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.-

(1) DEFENSE.-It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the defendant, in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors-

(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number;

(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or

(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology.

The disclosure of information collected in implementing the affirmative defenses is restricted in 231(d):

(d) PRIVACY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.-

(1) DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION LIMITED.-A person making a communication described in subsection (a)-

(A) shall not disclose any information collected for the purposes of restricting access to such communications to individuals 17 years of age or older without the prior written or electronic consent of-

(i) the individual concerned, if the individual is an adult; or

(ii) the individual's parent or guardian, if the individual is under 17 years of age; and

(B) shall take such actions as are necessary to prevent unauthorized access to such information by a person other than the person making such communication and the recipient of such communication.

(2) EXCEPTIONS.-A person making a communication described in subsection (a) may disclose such information if the disclosure is-

(A) necessary to make the communication or conduct a legitimate business activity related to making the communication; or

(B) made pursuant to a court order authorizing such disclosure.

The full text of the law is available online at: www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html

Here's the ruling by the Judge:

FINAL ADJUDICATION

LOWELL A. REED, JR., Sr. J. March 22, 2007

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 231 (“COPA”) and whether this court should issue a permanent injunction against its enforcement due to its alleged constitutional infirmities. COPA provides both criminal and civil penalties for transmitting sexually explicit materials and communications over the World Wide Web (“Web”) which are available to minors and harmful to them. 47 U.S.C. § 231(a). After a trial on the merits, for the reasons that follow, notwithstanding the compelling interest of Congress in protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web, I conclude today that COPA facially violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs because: (1) at least some of the plaintiffs have standing; (2) COPA is not narrowly tailored to Congress’ compelling interest; (3) defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that COPA is the least restrictive, most effective alternative in achieving the compelling interest; and (3) COPA is impermissibly vague and overbroad. As a result, I will issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of COPA.

The entire ruling, with all supporting documents, can be found here.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

Thank you for posting that!

That explains why magazines don't get in trouble. I assumed the rules that apply on this board also apply for magazines.

Isn't it the parents job to make sure their own child doesn't view what they don't want their child to see online? And isn't the reason why the password protected thing was made so that adults can view what they want online, but children are protected?

They always want to ban things for the protection of children. If the parents just read the ratings on video games, music, television, and movies then children would be protected and adults can have their freedom to watch or listen to whatever they want. Most parents are just lazy these days. I remember if my mom dídn't want me seeing anything before these ratings on television came out she just didn't let me watch it. She didn't have a fit to the Congress saying that the stuff shouldn't be shown.

I think a warning of wheater something will be too graphic is enough. In fact I support warnings. There are some things I just rather not see myself, but I don't think I should stop other people from seeing them if they want to.

 

[ShyGuy68]

If the nazi comment is aimed at ShyGuy, for simply trying to do his job, I strongly suggest you post an unconditional apology. That is, of course, unless you're able to proove he is a member of some neo-fascist organisation. Personally, I guess the most radical you'll find about him is a membership of the Danish Cyclist Union.....

To fucking funny!! lol

No I'm not the member of Danish Cyclist Union, but how about being a member of 2 sci fi can clubs, does that count?

 

[shy slave]

To fucking funny!! lol

No I'm not the member of Danish Cyclist Union, but how about being a member of 2 sci fi can clubs, does that count?

I think that counts as radical, plus a whole host of other words i would get in trouble for using towards a Dom

 

[Fflow]

No I'm not the member of Danish Cyclist Union, but how about being a member of 2 sci fi can clubs, does that count?

Whew! I hate those fuckers in the Danish Cyclist Union.

BTW,ShyGuy, I hope you understand that my comments were rhetorical in nature, and not personal. Seriously.

As for admitting to being a member of sci fi fan clubs... Well, that's just sad.

 

[ShyGuy68]

I think that counts as radical, plus a whole host of other words i would get in trouble for using towards a Dom

Are you sure you aren't in enough trouble already??

PS: click here.

 

[ShyGuy68]

As for admitting to being a member of sci fi fan clubs... Well, that's just sad.

And why is that sad?

 

[Fflow]

And why is that sad?

If you have to ask, I can't explain it.

Live long, and prosper. Dammit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a brick layer. Love is a beautiful flower that smells really bad.

Did you know that Spock's hand gesture for the "LLAP" greeting came from a Jewish blessing traditionally made by the high priests, or Cohanim?

BTW, with COPA being overturned, will the content restrictions be revised to their former glory? I sent a PM to Manu but haven't heard back from him yet. I'd really like to know how this ruling will impact Lit's policies.

thanks!

srw

 

[umchick5]

And why is that sad?

I think it's cute myself!

 

[Fflow]

I think it's cute myself!

And that's sad too.

 

[umchick5]

And that's sad too.

You're just jealous!

 

[Fflow]

You're just jealous!

Yes. Yes I am. Umchick, you are every nerd's dream girl. You like everquest, sci fi, and metal, you're sexually adventurous, photogenic, and a bit of an exhibitionist... Well, you're every GUY's dream girl, nerd or not. So yes... I admit it. Your hubby is one lucky guy and I hope that every day when he wakes up next to you he pinches himself just to make sure he's not still dreaming.

Also, ShyGuy, I'm a total dork. I am a star trek fan from way back, and there are deeper darker secrets hidden in my past (D&D) that I'll never share on the public boards...

So, I was really just kidding about the 'sad' thing.

xxoo

srw