PSA from the moderator

[ShyGuy68]

I got a PM from Laurel today about the rules:

Thanks for the PM. Our rules are not affected by COPA, but by of the recent revisions to 2257 law, among other things:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=227697

 

[Crazy_Jezabel]

I got a PM from Laurel today about the rules:

Oh! Maybe a few questions will be answered now.

I'm going to read the link sometime tonight. Maybe I'll get unconfused about some things. Maybe it'll finally asnwer my question of what exactly they mean by "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.".

I don't know if it'll clear my confusion of other things though.

 

[AboutFace]

That didn't quite cover it, but what it does seem to point to is that there isn't enough vigilance with the removal of pictures. The word "scour" is used. That doesn't imply just some. That would mean any and all in every thread. Any left at all would cause trouble.

I'm all for following the rules, when they are fairly enforced for everyone. (yes - and with the size of this forum, that would be a huge task. Maybe another moderator or two added for this forum to make it a bit easier on everyone?) With this phrase "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person", a very large portion of the avatars are against the rules and have a much higher chance of being seen than stuck in a thread somewhere. I would be very concerned about those being seen, and getting slapped for that.

 

[blackieone]

well,now that the situation is not clear,and my questions weren't answered after 3 weeks,after hatching my thread deleting almost any of the supposedely offensive pics-an huge task,being 56 pages of attachments reduced to about 15-what's the situation?Many people have had a warning and didn't give a damn about it.

To add more fun,there were some pics i did post ages ago in a thread and it wasn't possible to delete them.I still can see them,but i cannot delete them,there's no way to do it.Now what about that?

I agree that Shyguy can't do all of it alone.If the owners of the site have to follow the law,they should have someome else helping him,out of respect for him and the posters who did cope with the rules.

It's also very ironic that in a an adult site where you HAVE to be registered to watch the pics there should be rules like that,when the net is full of EVERY kind of porn, just one click away.
And reading-let's say- an extreme S&M story shoudn't be more dangerous than just watching someone's crotch?

 

[Fflow]

You make interesting points. FYI, I sent an email to the Free Speech Coalition, one of the groups that is challenging the legal scope of this law in the courts. They typically represent the interests of the adult video industry, but also speak for other entities as well. I still think that the ACLU should be involved, if they're not already. I intend to pursue this further, and find out just how restrictive the law is, and how it is being enforced. As I learn anything new, I'll post it here.

Peace.

 

[swingsncarousels]

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.

Could it be, that in order to be shielded from these silly laws, the site has to appear to be complying. That is, by publishing a set of rules, it is seen to be complyoing, but then comes the matter of policing.

If the principles never removed a pic it could be claimed that they weren't really trying, but if they do pull the odd pic now and then, or older ones, this argument wouldn't fly.

The owners could just fall back on the true point that with such a huge site it is physically impossible to do more than what they are doing.

Although a lot of threads have been seriously mutilated, from what I've seen so far, they tend to be older ones, and I'm inclined to think therefore that the "pic nazi" is actually just a feint to keep the legal lynchmob off our backs.

The protest button is also an indication of compliance, but IMO anyone who pushes it shouldn't be here anyway. It's a sex site, dammit!

Any thoughts on this?

swingsn..

 

[swingsncarousels]

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.

OK, - so after reading through this thread, and seeing the many disparate views, one thing is nevertheless clear.

If the "rules" are to protect the principals of this site from prosecution, given that the law concerned has been overturned, why are the "rules" still being applied?

Something seems to be very non-kosher here, and I'm starting to get worried.

I had planned on submitting the story of my raunchy 35 year marriage this weekend, but as this story has a major emotional significance to me in memory of my dear horny wife, I am not about to cast pearls before swine.

I think I would prefer to see this matter resolved first. The question in the back of my mind is - is there a hidden agenda here? I just recently took my leave from a site that definitely had one, and if there is one here too, I want none of it. If not, then I hope to see this furore settled soon.

And until then I think I will hold my story in reserve and watch from the sidelines.

swingsn..

 

[swingsncarousels]

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?

But how can "harm to minors" affect a site whose members have to be over 18 anyway?

The only weakness I can see is that the principals do not ask for proof of age.

I would never give out my C/C details to anyone for this purpose, but if a site wants bona fide proof of age there are plenty of other identifiers, like a scan of a birth certificate, passport or drivers licence.

I personally would not object to scanning one of these for the purpose. So why doesn't the site just ask for a proof of age at registration and then dump these silly damned rules?

And anyway, it seems the primary reason for the rules, has been overturned by the courts anyway! So something doesn't add up....

swingsn..

 

[Fflow]

There are two basic issues here. The "Final adjudication" that I posted related to another foolishly restrictive law that was overturned, but it was not the law under which the Lit folks are operating. The law they're concerned about created a legal requirement for any pornographic or obscene image to have a legal document associated with it as proof of the model's age at the time the photo was taken. This was to prevent the dissemination of child pornography, not to protect children from viewing adult content.

So, having an age check on the site does not exempt them from this. If Lit wants to, they can post hard core pornographic images as long as they provide a legal paper trail that documents the model's age. Image vendors, and there are many, now provide this documentations to sites who use their images.

Lastly, because digital documents are so easily created and modified, a scan of a birth certificate, drivers license, or any other physical document would not provide much value. A credit card, by its very nature, defines a verifiable legal relationship between the card holder and the credit provider. This is far different than a scanned piece of paper.

I hope that helps.

 

[swingsncarousels]

There are two basic issues here. The "Final adjudication" that I posted related to another foolishly restrictive law that was overturned, but it was not the law under which the Lit folks are operating. The law they're concerned about created a legal requirement for any pornographic or obscene image to have a legal document associated with it as proof of the model's age at the time the photo was taken. This was to prevent the dissemination of child pornography, not to protect children from viewing adult content.

OK - so I take it that what you are saying, is that the site should be expunging all images that do not carry such documentation. But surely images of oneself are effectively documented by that very fact!

Also after a tour through "sex stories" sites via Google, this seems to be the only site doing a panic and blowing pics away!

I still don't get it, and I don't think I'm Robinsion Crusoe...

Swingsn..

 

[RawHumor]

But surely images of oneself are effectively documented by that very fact!

By what logic?

 

[AboutFace]

This is an issue that bothers me quite a bit. Images that are links are removed - but there are many many avatars and sig pics that are in clear violation of the law AND the rules of the site. Those things can be seen at any click of any thread whereas one must make an effort to click on an image link.

Also - go down the threads in the pic forum. There are SO many pics that are grossly in violation of the rules, but borderline pics are removed first. Look at the index in some of the ladies threads. When there are ones that say "Pussy" or "Wet Pussy"....and they aren't meaning their cat. Those pictures remain, though, in abundance. It is very confusing, to say the least. If all the threads can't be modded, then it may signify the need for a bigger mod staff. If pics are going to be deleted, it should be fair across the board.

If it is the law that is being enforced, then a "well, I tried... by deleting a couple of pics". That wouldn't hold up. Following the letter of the law means just that. Follow it completely or at least fairly. That would go for avatars, signatures and attachments.

 

[monique1971]

OK - so I take it that what you are saying, is that the site should be expunging all images that do not carry such documentation. But surely images of oneself are effectively documented by that very fact!

No one here has any proof that a particular picture is, in fact, a picture of the person who claims it as his or her own (much less of the age of the picture's subject).

 

[swingsncarousels]

No one here has any proof that a particular picture is, in fact, a picture of the person who claims it as his or her own (much less of the age of the picture's subject).

And I fail to see how any "document" can provide it. Sure, before a pic is submitted to a publisher one could swear out an affidavit, maybe even countersigned by the model, but forgery and falsehood abound.

And if it is a pic of oneself, what earthly use is an affidavit swearing that I gave myself permission to photograph myself as a consenting adult?

The whole thing sounds utterly daft to me...

swingsn..

 

[monique1971]

And I fail to see how any "document" can provide it. Sure, before a pic is submitted to a publisher one could swear out an affidavit, maybe even countersigned by the model, but forgery and falsehood abound.

And if it is a pic of oneself, what earthly use is an affidavit swearing that I gave myself permission to photograph myself as a consenting adult?

The whole thing sounds utterly daft to me...

swingsn..

That's the point. As there is no way to verify the identity of given subjects, potentially offending pictures* must be removed.

I'm not saying that the rule is applied consistently or fairly. Perhaps it's not. That's a separate issue. This particular point seems clear enough to me.


---

*Note: I mean "offending the law," not "offensive of one's sensibilities")

 

[Fflow]

AboutFace, you seem to have summed up these issues quite well. If the Lit owners were genuinely concerned about enforcing the law, they'd eliminate images all together because they cannot guarantee that an offending image won't slip through. If they were to do this, however, there would be a mass exodus from the boards to other sites that operate outside the US, and our Draconian laws. This has already happened, and continues to, evidenced by Lit's staff programmers adding a feature that blocks one specific URL, Call dash Kelly dot com. here's a proper link: www.**********.com

If we really want to address this issue in a substantive way we need to start communicating with our elected representatives in Washington, and explain to them how this law is violating our civil liberties. Because we cherish our anonymity, we are often unwilling to stand up and say "I want to post graphic sexual pix of myself for everyone to see, and I shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to do it." We should also communicate this to the ACLU and the Free Speech Coalition (dot org).

I bet that, if we rallied enough attractive women who post online, we might be able to get a congressional hearing!

So, the only fault I see for Lit is that they're doing a half-assed job of monitoring the images. It feels unfair, and it is. There are clearly some serious oversight problems that have yet to be resolved, and I don't see them getting resolved anytime soon. Does that make them bad? I don't think so. Lit has provided them with some income, I'm sure, via ads but I don't think it pays for them anything close to a full time salary. As far as I can tell, Lit has always been a labor of love and, at least in part, a community of sorts.

 

[AboutFace]

You understand then. It just seems haphazard, and I don't quite get it. If the law were being enforced, then all of the avatars and sig pics should be the first to be modded instead of attached pics. Some of them are so blatantly against the rules, that it isn't even amusing. Granted - it doesnt' bother ME.... but if those type of pics are against the rules - then they should be the first to go. They do slap you in the face the moment you open just about any thread.

Basically - if the "law" ever came after anyone... the defense of "I tried" will not hold up at all. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

I don't mind upholding the rules - even if they make no sense. What really bothers me is that it is extraorinarily subjective. Is the only way to get around that to do "bad post reports" on all of the photos that are against the rules? Will that be listened to ... or would we be labeled as trouble makers for only upholding the rules as stated?

If the rules are to be upheld, for REAL..... then we need at least 2 more on the mod staff. One person just isn't nearly enough.

 

[Fflow]

Agreed! The mod "staff" consisted of one volunteer. I believe this is problematic for a number of reasons. As I understand it, there is no systematic methodology, nor any kind of accountability.

As for the AV issue, my only guess is that there's no simple administrative tool to manage them. Rather than take the time to create one, they simply ignore this part of the problem.

 

[swingsncarousels]

Is the only way to get around that to do "bad post reports" on all of the photos that are against the rules?

for mine, the bad post button is just window dressing, and anyone who actually pushes it belongs in a nunnery....

Vote with your finger. Don't push it. There are far better things for fingers to do.....



swingsn..

 

[Fflow]

Or you could report offending posts to the Department of Justice.

 

[Phoenix555]

Ok, I'm among those whose pics have been taken off recently and I damn want to point out two things:

1. the whole issue is handled in such a bad manner, that one can only laugh about it! Why don't the site owners take the site down for a few days and do a real editing of ALL pics against the rules.....as long as there's still 5 of them they didn't do anything, but it's not about five of them....at the same time 3 of my pics are taken off there's still 99% of them which are against rules.
So what is all that big talk about rules for????

2. This is an adult site with zero chances to control the age of the viewers, so also without any chance to 'protect' minors from the content. I personally don't beleive the site owners should be worried about that anyways....I'm a parent too and as a parent I'm aware I have to do something to protect my child from internet trash. For that we have all sort of filter options and we can limit a child's access to the internet. Doesn't take one to be Einstein to get to know how, i hope.

So there....hope the bigguns can tell their viewpoint to this....

 

[Fflow]

I agree with you about your first point, but the 2nd is actually mistaken. The law that the Lit folks are concerned about does not attempt to protect minors from viewing adult material. The law requires that every posted picture have an associated legal document that afirms the model's age, thus preventing the proliferation of child porn. This law arose after the supreme court, in their wisdom, said that the mere appearance or seeming of an underage image does not constitute proof that the model was in fact under age. Once this ruling came down, much to the ire of law makers in washington, they came up with this law which has proved to be burdonsome to folks like us who simply want to share pix of themselves. So, Lit folks are under no obligation to attempt to prevent minors from accessing the site. They are, however, required to have direct access to legal documentation for any model that appears in 'obscene' images.

 

[Phoenix555]

I agree with you about your first point, but the 2nd is actually mistaken. The law that the Lit folks are concerned about does not attempt to protect minors from viewing adult material. The law requires that every posted picture have an associated legal document that afirms the model's age, thus preventing the proliferation of child porn. This law arose after the supreme court, in their wisdom, said that the mere appearance or seeming of an underage image does not constitute proof that the model was in fact under age. Once this ruling came down, much to the ire of law makers in washington, they came up with this law which has proved to be burdonsome to folks like us who simply want to share pix of themselves. So, Lit folks are under no obligation to attempt to prevent minors from accessing the site. They are, however, required to have direct access to legal documentation for any model that appears in 'obscene' images.

Thanks for your reply......what I don't understand and probably a lot of other folks neither is, how can this rule be followed in praxis??? Can't believe we're expected to send scanned passports somewhere...

Browsing pics on LIT one get's absolutely confused about obscenity.....so it's obscene to post a poppy flower on your pussy, but it's not obscene to post pics of penetration, cunningulus, buttfuck, blowjobs etc?

 

[george55]

Inquiring

Has anyone commented that we do not have a listed mod. any longer.....I've seen that Shy is still here.............

 

[RawHumor]

Has anyone commented that we do not have a listed mod. any longer.....I've seen that Shy is still here.............

Hmmmm... good catch. That's interesting.