Creators of porn websites have been set free of onerous confirmation of age record keeping laws, after the Unites States Court of Appeals found that the law requiring the keeping of these records was unconstitutional.
Previously, porn websites hosted in the United States had to keep records confirming that all performers shown on their sites were of a legal age. More recently there has been some suggestion that these requirements would be extended to all sites showing porn, potentially destroying sites such as YouPorn.com and Pornotube.com (both NSFW) who rely on user generated content and therefore would not have access to records.
A majority ruling of the Appeals Court found that “the purpose, and the legislative history of the statute make clear that Congress was concerned with all child pornography and considered record keeping important in battling all of it, without respect to the creator’s motivation” in that it impedes free speech rights.
Law.com notes that “the decision is a significant First Amendment ruling that directly implicates the controversial subjects of legal adult pornography and illegal child pornography.” For anyone in a Web 2.0 related porn business, it’s simply a sign that they have a future. See our overview of porn sites in this space here.
Chalk one up for the consumer…..
This is a good decision and I hope it frees up resources to go after the actual bad guys.
If you’re going to call all sexual art ‘porn’, then this is good for porn – but the definition of what porn is or isn’t remains a highly subjective one. I’m an photographer and this ruling stops making me feel as though artists are guilty until proved innocent.
What were the requirements? As far as I know it something like a photocopied copy of the performer’s legal documents & the date the performance was done? Doesn’t sound hard to me …
so checking for id in bars/pubs also illegal?
Plalavalapa, they are talking about STORAGE of information in case the feds pay them a visit… they can (may still be asked) to verify but they just can’t keep records of it.
Jon
The internet is for porn.
nice thing I must say …sp for Web 2.0 Porn sites
Thanks for the leads on the Web 2.0 porn sites. Now I can go do some research.
Eheh as Json say: Internet is for Porn i remember. There are also yuvutu.com that are more traffic.
Internet is for porn, and that is something that will never change!
http://yakuna.com -> Best porn2.0 web site
Is this about the infamous 18 U.S.C. Section 2257? If so, could you spell it out for me? Kthxbye!
Just like rich said… is this freedom from the 2257 ?
If as others are asking, this means that 2257 is dead this will send massive shockwaves throughout the porn industry and spawn even more sites and probably move a lot back into the US that were moved or created off shore.
IMHO this is great news for the US economy and a victory for freedom from Big Brother.
Amen!
You know government doesn’t let you know this word -Steganography
I’ve been watching Paris Hilton playing wee wee on bed.
I’m glad you covered this story, but I couldn’t be more bummed to see business made easier for the sleazeballs that push that stuff. I’m no legal expert, but I hope someone can find loopholes in this ruling that will protect minors from being exploited. Porn sucks the beauty out of human intimacy and involving minors in it is just a tragedy.
I want that hood thing, seriously, does anyone know where I can find one?
With the debacle over the xxx domain extension and now this, why is a government that vers towards the Christian right continually giving out the impression that they are tolerating a porno free for all. Amazing.
It would be harder to overlook the 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 act though no doubt it is million dollar business.
No kidding… That record-keeping requirement is the reason I went into real estate instead of porn. The middle-men insisted that, along with the photo set, I provide close-up headshots of the subject plus her passport opened to the page with her photo. They wouldn’t accept any other form of ID because of “widespread counterfeiting”. It was insanely fascist and unrealistic. I mean, how many Southeast Asian girls have passports? If they had a passport, they’d be long gone. Getting girls to pose is hard enough, and the passport requirement was the nail in the coffin, so I gave up. Good thing, in retrospect, because everyone in the digital flesh trade is losing money nowadays. Anyway… so here I am reading TechCrunch instead partying with a bunch of hookers.
So when is Justin.tv going to set up its Adult site ????
So how does this actually affect the exploitation of minors and children?
Definitely good news for adult website owners. As long as it doesn’t lead to underage people getting involved in the xxx industry that is…
This clarifies some questions surrounding content purshasing etc. moving forward. Definitely a positive.
It’s right there in the 32nd admendment, “Children shall have the right to as much perversion as they can stand”, is that what the judges were reading?
http://fakestev...er.blogspot.com
Great, let’s make it even easier for kids to fake their ID and get access to smut without fear of further checkup by law enforcement. Way to go! After all, soldiers fought and died to secure our freedom so we could look at naughty bits online.
And thus the pornification of America continues…
The requirements went far beyond simply asking for photo copies of people’s ID. They required two pieces of ID, they had to be cross-indexed (imagine the complexity if you shoot a lot of content), the copies had to be crisp and easily readable (try that after a few photo copies), a notice had to be on the product including the producers office address (which for most of us is our home address), and producers had to keep regular business hours so inspections could take place (again, impossible if you work from home, especially if you have a ‘day job’ or ever want to run an errand, etc.).
Real child porn producers don’t keep this kind of information around and so many models are obviously over age, so the sole reason for this law has been to fuck with the porn industry.
Harshest of all was that the law was going to be expanded. Even if you just buy an image from someone who shot it, you were going to be required to have all this information (thus adding to the clarity of photo copy issue) AND they were demanding that it not only be kept in digital format but in print format. How many people have a warehouse at their convenience?
And keep in mind, this isn’t just about “porn.” If you shoot a nude, you’d better be prepared to have this information in order. Social networking sites were possibly going to be included, as well. It was a witch hunt, pure and simple; an attempt to appease the Far Right while appearing rational to the average person who wasn’t following the details of the law and its nearly impossible requirements.
Guys, all this does is release the actual website OWNERS, who have purchased content from a photographer, videographer etc, from having to maintain records of the models used on all content in his own office. The content producer him or herself still has to have all records pertaining to the model’s age and identity ready for inspection.
The big problem with 2257 is that any perv who obsessed on a model could simply purchase her photoset from a content provider and get her real name, real address etc., and go pay her a visit.
Duncan:
Your post may give a false sense of security to porn website operators located outside of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Note that the ruling comes from Court of Appeals for the Sixt Circuit, not the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, it may not be followed by the other circuits.
Thanks!
That’s a huge relief! Even though we aren’t a porn company per say, we do have a sexually charge atmosphere since we are in the business of free boob jobs.
I know the guy who made that cool hooded sweatshirt!
I look forward to the day when 2257 is dead and buried. As a responsible photographer I check EVERY models ID to ensure he/she is over the legal age. The laws are already in place to punish me if I make a poor judgment call.
Child pornographers trade among themselves or base themselves abroad. 2257 was just a means used by the far right to choke the adult industry plus any other works they considered to be undesirable.
Frisson
PS. Peter, you need to learn about your country’s law making process
PPS. Jared, 2257 has nothing to do with being able to view adult material
This is great news for owners of social networks like myself!
MyFreeImplants.com is not a porn site but we could have been subjected to new 2257 regulation because we have user generated content that includes partial nudity. For us to verify the age of the tens of thousands of members seeking boob jobs would be impossible.
Thank goodness the courts seem to have made the right decision regarding Porn 2.0 sites like YouPorn and http://www.PornHub.com (a new, first-rate entry into the field). These sites represent a new level of social networking and it is time that the “establishement” realizes that sex is not inherently dirty. Long live Porn 2.0
internet only for porn
thanks
Shonecity.com Shones
Thanx for admin
thanks man nice share.
thanks man n!
haha old thread got bumped.
Personally im getting sick of the porn 2.0 tube frenzy. :/
Im actually going back to sites like boobsdd.com
Just clean old boobs and no bullshit.
Owell. Interesting thread none the less.
Interesting thread none the less.
Owell. Interesting thread none the less.
ersonally im getting sick of the porn 2.0 tube frenzy
getting sick of the porn 2.0 tube frenzy
Now its time to see the reality about porn in dreams.. the meaning everthing;