PSA from the moderator

[Spenser41]

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.

Thanks for posting that Fflow. I can see why the concern on the pictures... but notice this!

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-

Notice what it says... not just pictures... But articles, recordings, writings... if that is the case... then Lit is in a whole heap of trouble. That means all of the Stories need to be taken off. How many stories on there discribe a sex act... discribe body parts in detail. How many stories talk about incest and sex with older people and younger people. Sure the ages have been changed but.. a minor could always think of themselves being in that story.

So if the pics have to go... don't the stories have to go as well? And what about the Cam links? Don't think have to go? And the audio stories that go into great detail about sex acts as well as all of the sponsers of Lit that show nudity and eroitc stories and videos. If the pics have to go, don't the rest?

I am not upset or mad or anything. I am just trying to understand all of this. If the pics are a problem, it would seem, by the Fed's Laws posted here in the thread, that stories and audio and video all have to fall under the same guidelines. Or am I misunderstanding this?

 

[Fflow]

You would be absolutely right, except that the law has been overturned. If you read the FINAL ADJUDICATION at the bottom of my post, the judge says that the law was "impermissibly vague and overbroad."

Even so, I don't know how the other restricted content was allowed prior to the Judge's decision.

I've sent private messages to Manu, and emails to the main Lit email address, asking if they plan to revise or ammend the rules now that the law has been overturned. I've yet to hear back. I hope that others will ask also, and keep asking until we get an answer.

 

[Spenser41]

You would be absolutely right, except that the law has been overturned. If you read the FINAL ADJUDICATION at the bottom of my post, the judge says that the law was "impermissibly vague and overbroad."

Even so, I don't know how the other restricted content was allowed prior to the Judge's decision.

I've sent private messages to Manu, and emails to the main Lit email address, asking if they plan to revise or ammend the rules now that the law has been overturned. I've yet to hear back. I hope that others will ask also, and keep asking until we get an answer.

Fflow, Yea I did know that it had been overturned, but this whole thing got started with a statement that these rules are because of these laws. And yet the question that I have, is that not all threads get their pictures taken off. There are many that have escaped from the pulling of pics even thou those pics were very much in violation of those said rules. I have been on Lit for many years now and I have seen this.... screening of the pics now a couple of times and it is kind of strange which pics are pulled and which ones are not and who gets them pulled. My whole comment in this is I think this law thing is BS and I think pictures are pulled because someone doesn't like someone. I think it has NOTHING to do with the law or the rules, but has a lot to do with who they want on and who they do not. If it was the RULES... all of them would have been pulled or they could have just shut down the thread. AND if this was true, the writings would have been pulled. I hate to say this , but I do not believe it has anything to do with the law or rules. Hey it is their site and they could do anything they want... but... I mean please... rules or laws is crazy. Just say the truth!

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

There are many that have escaped from the pulling of pics even thou those pics were very much in violation of those said rules. I have been on Lit for many years now and I have seen this.... screening of the pics now a couple of times and it is kind of strange which pics are pulled and which ones are not and who gets them pulled. My whole comment in this is I think this law thing is BS and I think pictures are pulled because someone doesn't like someone. I think it has NOTHING to do with the law or the rules, but has a lot to do with who they want on and who they do not.

I've just recently join, so I have no idea what they did in the past.

I'm still trying to understand the rules and I have noticed that some pictures that clearly violate the rules have been kept up, but I've heard the ones that are kept are the ones that were posted before the rules were applied. Whenever I see one that is still up it usually was posted somewhere in 2002. I'm assuming that was around the time where the rules didn't apply yet.

I have also noticed some that were up where the moderator just hasn't had the chance to look at them yet. I remember one thread that violated the rules was up for about a week and then some of the pictures that violated the rules were eventually deleted. I don't know who has the power to delete pictures, but if it's only ShyGuy then I'm assuming he doesn't have the time to look at every single thread that is posted or respond to the PM's that report them right away.

I don't think the pictures are deleted based on who likes someone. It appears that some people don't like me on here and none of my pictures have been deleted by anyone except for myself. But then again as far as I know they follow the rules.

 

[RawHumor]

Three people have the power to delete threads or edit the posts in a thread in the Am Pics forum: Laurel, Manu, and ShyGuy.

I believe that ShyGuy has said that if he removes the pic, the post will show that he edited it.

Laurel and Manu are the site administrators - they have powers way above those fo ShyGuy.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

Three people have the power to delete threads or edit the posts in a thread in the Am Pics forum: Laurel, Manu, and ShyGuy.

I believe that ShyGuy has said that if he removes the pic, the post will show that he edited it.

Laurel and Manu are the site administrators - they have powers way above those fo ShyGuy.

Oh, well I'm assuming the admistrator don't have any favorite people. I would assume that they have to spend more time taking care of the board than choosing which people they like and don't like.

 

[RawHumor]

Oh, well I'm assuming the admistrator don't have any favorite people. I would assume that they have to spend more time taking care of the board than choosing which people they like and don't like.

I'm not sure how the powers are divided, exactly.

They have to maintain the story section of the site as well as the boards. I think that Manu does more of the IT type stuff and Laurel does more of the administrative duties.

I do think Laurel browses the Am Pics forum, though, as ShyGuy has told me in the past that some pics that were removed were not removed by him. That means that Laurel probably removed them.

Whether someone reported the post to her or if she just happened across the pics in question is something only she can answer.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

I'm not sure how the powers are divided, exactly.

They have to maintain the story section of the site as well as the boards. I think that Manu does more of the IT type stuff and Laurel does more of the administrative duties.

I do think Laurel browses the Am Pics forum, though, as ShyGuy has told me in the past that some pics that were removed were not removed by him. That means that Laurel probably removed them.

Whether someone reported the post to her or if she just happened across the pics in question is something only she can answer.

I've noticed that ShyGuy left a few messages in some people's post after removing pictures. I think that's nice of him.

I don't know the adminstrators so I would have no clue how they think. I'm just guessing that they don't have favors.

 

[Fflow]

ShyGuy himself has said that it is more likely that offending pix will be removed in threads that he personally likes, because he's more likely to see them. There is no systematic methodology, and he's a volunteer, so enforcement does not seem to be riddled with favoritism but, rather, with inconsistency due to poor planning and implementation.

One would think that Manu and Laurel would be highly motivated to avoid legal action and, thus, create a more comprehensive and systematic approach to dealing with offensive content. Clearly, however, that has never been the case. My feeling has been that they are far more interested in avoiding culpability than in assuming responsibility. If they were serious about enforcing the rules, they would hire someone who would go through every picture and remove each and every one that might be seen as offensive.

ShyGuy, who has direct contact with Manu and Laurel, didn't seem motivated to inquire about the change in the law, or how that would affect Lit's rules. I've sent three inquiries, but have heard nothing back. I encourage everyone to ask Manu and Laurel about the law, and the rules.

Peace.

srw

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

ShyGuy himself has said that it is more likely that offending pix will be removed in threads that he personally likes, because he's more likely to see them.

I don't really see that as favoring people though. He just happens to like certain threads just like everyone else on the board and he wants to do his job correctly. I mean if he likes that people I'm sure he doesn't want to get rid of any of their pictures.

 

[Fflow]

I don't really see that as favoring people though. He just happens to like certain threads just like everyone else on the board and he wants to do his job correctly.

That's my understanding.

 

[ShyGuy68]

I don't really see that as favoring people though. He just happens to like certain threads just like everyone else on the board and he wants to do his job correctly. I mean if he likes that people I'm sure he doesn't want to get rid of any of their pictures.

Just so you know it, I have contacted some of the posters whos threads I frequent, and asked them to go through their pictures, and remove those against the rules. I don't play favors to anybody.

But I will admit that I frequent very few threads, since I just don't have time to it anymore, which if course limits the amounts of pictures I see. So now adays it's mostly when somebody report pictures that I have a look at a thread.

The siteowners are aware of this, and I guess they are ok with it. I don't know, since I have a hard time getting in touch with them as well.

 

[RawHumor]

The siteowners are aware of this, and I guess they are ok with it. I don't know, since I have a hard time getting in touch with them as well.

I can't imagine a lot of people would want the thankless task of moderator.

If you cross-reference the people that would want to do it with the people that Laurel would trust to do it... I'd say there's a pretty small pool from which to pick.

 

[Fflow]

Which is why it isn't a good job for a volunteer.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

Just so you know it, I have contacted some of the posters whos threads I frequent, and asked them to go through their pictures, and remove those against the rules. I don't play favors to anybody.

But I will admit that I frequent very few threads, since I just don't have time to it anymore, which if course limits the amounts of pictures I see. So now adays it's mostly when somebody report pictures that I have a look at a thread.

The siteowners are aware of this, and I guess they are ok with it. I don't know, since I have a hard time getting in touch with them as well.

Well that's pretty bad when a moderator can't get in touch with the adminstrator.

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't have your job.

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

Which is why it isn't a good job for a volunteer.

So should we all pay ShyGuy? haha

 

[Fflow]

What Now?

CJ, I understand your levity but, for me, this is a serious issue. If Lit's reason for tightening the restrictions was to insure that it wouldn't fall victim to federal prosecution under the COPA law, it would have made sense to take whatever measures were necessary to insure that no offending images were ever posted and, failing that, be swift and diligent in removing any that did get posted. This includes reviewing and removing all past offensive postings. Having one volunteer in charge of this, to me, seems tragically inadequate.

Still, we're dwelling on the past, and needlessly so. These issues are all moot, now that COPA has been overturned. The real question remains: "What now?" Will these needlessly restrictive rules remain in place, or will they revise them to match the new legal requirements which, evidently, are far less restrictive? Either way, I think we, the Lit community, deserve to know what's planned, and the reasoning behind the decisions.

Also, I think it fair to observe that Manu and Laurel were upset when many long-time lit participants jumped ship to C a l l - K e l l y dot com. This can be seen clearly by the fact that they added code to filter the website's url from all public posts. For example, I'll type the website normally here: **********.com

I always thought this was super-cheesey sour grapes.

This exodus was a result of the new, more restrictive pic posting rules implemented on Lit. The other site, hosted outside the US, has no such restrictions.

Clearly, Manu and Laurel recognize the value and importance of the Lit boards generally, and the AmPic section specifically. These two features are some of Lit's most popular. I think they'd do just about anything to preserve them. Let's hope that's really true.

 

[RawHumor]

I believe that the kelly site was blocked before the exodus, by however many members.

 

[Spenser41]

Three people have the power to delete threads or edit the posts in a thread in the Am Pics forum: Laurel, Manu, and ShyGuy.

I believe that ShyGuy has said that if he removes the pic, the post will show that he edited it.

Laurel and Manu are the site administrators - they have powers way above those fo ShyGuy.

I have no problem with that Raw... not in the least. It is there site... they can do what they wish. Just saying the reasons have never been conistant. Just wishing they would say why and what are the rules and then back those rules. And I am not the only one asking, just the only one posting. And I don't even have a pic thread. Just have heard from way too many people that say they do not understand. The many of the AVs alone should be deleted if those rules are still being followed.

 

[Spenser41]

I don't really see that as favoring people though. He just happens to like certain threads just like everyone else on the board and he wants to do his job correctly. I mean if he likes that people I'm sure he doesn't want to get rid of any of their pictures.

Hon, I really didn't mean that they had their favs they kept and got rid of the others. I was just stating something. The fact it, the rules have never been enforced completely and if it were the case of doing it for the Laws sake and not getting in trouble, then it woul not just be the pic thread, as there are many broken rules in many of the threads. There is explicit sexual talk and sexual acts described in details and that is a violation of that law (even tho I know it was overturned... just making a case)... this would also apply to AVs and many of the stories on Lit would have to be edited or deleted to not violate those laws.
I am just making a point that nothing has been consisted and this has been going on for 3 years. I am not mad, upset or trying to be a problem person. Just wish guidelines would be consistant. I think Shyguy is doing a great job. Heck I think he is doing a wonderful job for not getting paid and all. And I know that the owners have lives as well and there is NO WAY to be able to stay on top of all of the posts all of the time. You would need a full time group of mods that would be paid to just sit there and monitor. That would be a crazy job. However I do know that AboutFace is a mod on some other boards and has offered to help, but she has never heard anything back from that.
No I am not putting anyone down... just saying in the three years this has been going on, there still is no consistancy in what is ok and what is not and why the rules for it.

 

[Spenser41]

Just so you know it, I have contacted some of the posters whos threads I frequent, and asked them to go through their pictures, and remove those against the rules. I don't play favors to anybody.

But I will admit that I frequent very few threads, since I just don't have time to it anymore, which if course limits the amounts of pictures I see. So now adays it's mostly when somebody report pictures that I have a look at a thread.

The siteowners are aware of this, and I guess they are ok with it. I don't know, since I have a hard time getting in touch with them as well.

Shy, you are doing a great job and my comments were not directed at you. This has been going on a long time and has nothing to do with you. If those rules are going to apply, will they also apply to the writings? What about the AVs? I know there are rules on copyrighted pictures and many of the AVs unless they are of the people themselves are going to be in trouble. Pictures of Actors, movies, cartoons, and the like.
I know this is a thankless job and you are doing the best you can.

 

[Spenser41]

Which is why it isn't a good job for a volunteer.

Fflow makes a good point. If the site is needing to do the rules because of possible legal action, it would seem, hiring someone to do this full time to make sure that all the rules are followed all the time. I guess that would mean we would have to start paying to be on Lit as it is a free site and we all know a volunteer really does not have the time to be on top of it all the time. They have their own lives to live as well as paying jobs.
Maybe retired people on Lit or people who can't work because of disabilites would be good people to use to do this. Maybe they could "pay" them with freebies. We used to do this in radio.

 

[Spenser41]

I believe that the kelly site was blocked before the exodus, by however many members.

That may be true Raw, but the point is, the reason these rules have been so shuddly followed, is why MANY of those here on Lit in the AM PIc went to Kelly.
I can also tell you those people are still or I should say most of them are still on Lit, they just don't post pics anymore.

 

[Fflow]

The reason these rules have been so shuddly followed, is why MANY of those here on Lit in the AM PIc went to Kelly.
I can also tell you those people are still or I should say most of them are still on Lit, they just don't post pics anymore.

Right! If lit were to re-revise their rules based on the change in the status of COPA, I suspect that many of the folks who went elsewhere would come back. After all, although having explicit pix is great, I have always valued the community more.

Peace.

srw

 

[RawHumor]

Right! If lit were to re-revise their rules based on the change in the status of COPA, I suspect that many of the folks who went elsewhere would come back. After all, although having explicit pix is great, I have always valued the community more.

Peace.

srw

That would be nice - for Lit to loosen their standards based on that overturning... I suspect that Laurel will be cautious about changing Lit's rule just in case the overturning is overturned.