On adult verification, put this baby to rest already in the USA ...

This US Appeals Court Case is FINAL all appeals exhausted WRITTEN IN STONE

Quote:

No. 07-2539 (2008) PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 07-2539 (2008) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, in his official capacity Permanent Injunction sustained ... http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/072539p.pdf Page 31; The court later explained, ?[t]he affirmative defenses cannot cure COPA?s failure to be narrowly tailored because they are effectively unavailable. Credit cards, debit accounts, adult access codes, and adult personal identification numbers do not in fact verify age. As a result, their use does not, in good faith, ?restrict [] access? by minors.? Id. at 811 (second alteration in original) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 231(c)(1)(A)). Page 33; The Government argues that the District Court erred in rejecting the limiting effect of COPA?s affirmative defenses. It contends that ?[t]he possibility that some minors may have access to credit cards merely demonstrates that no system of age verification is foolproof. It does not call into question the availability of credit card screening as an affirmative defense that tailors COPA more narrowly.? Appellant?s Br. at 37. The Government also argues that ?the court ignored testimony that minors do not have access to traditional payment cards under their own control but simply have access to cards supervised by adults.? Id. But the District Court found that even if there is parental supervision of payment card use, the supervision does not prevent access to harmful material by minors because parents ?may not be able to identify transactions on sexually explicit Web sites because the adult nature of such transactions is often not readily identifiable . . . .? Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d at 802. In any event, we conclude that the District Court correctly found that the affirmative defenses are ?effectively unavailable? because they do not actually verify age. Page 50; In addition to being more effective, it is clear that filters are less restrictive than COPA. As the Supreme Court has stated: [f]ilters are less restrictive than COPA. They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source. Under a filtering regime, adults without children may gain access to speech they have a right to see without having to identify themselves or provide their credit card information. Even adults with children may obtain access to the same speech on the same terms simply by turning off the filter on their home computers. Above all, promoting the use of filters does not condemn as criminal any category of speech, and so the potential chilling effect is eliminated, or at least much diminished. All of these things are true, moreover, regardless of how broadly or narrowly the definitions in COPA are construed ...

This whole matter of the "credit card" or other adult verification as stated above "[C]redit cards, debit accounts, adult access codes, and adult personal identification numbers do not in fact verify age. As a result, their use does not, in good faith, ?restrict [] access? by minors.? Id. at 811 (second alteration in original) (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 231(c)(1)(A)). ..." is an issue already settled in the COPA case in 2008 -- its a dead horse now and a red herring argument.

Thread: If tubes like pornhub are so great for sponsors then why are sites still closing?

Answer is: Pay Sites got out maneuvered -- content theft was taken to a new level, a perverse marketing strategy. Free download traffic was commoditized then monetized.

Stream your new content in a manner that it cannot be downloaded and consequently stolen -- don't leave the barn door open so the new horses get stolen ... The Great Wall of China was built for a reason (221-206 BC) during the Qin Dynasty. To stop the barbarians and China survived (at considerable construction costs).

If you think that the US Government will be the White Night to save the Porn Industry you are dreaming ... Best possibility is no new laws and just being left to our own 'self-regulation'. (That's a good one.)</sarcasm>.