New Child Porn Bill Announced - GoFuckYourself.com

Gemini · 05-01-2002, 05:14 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/01/as...orn/index.html

Ride 'em Johnny!

wannabeapornstar · 05-01-2002, 05:16 PM

nice 404 from CNN

MetaformX · 05-01-2002, 05:19 PM

replace the xxxx with "xxxxx"
the board will not allow the name a s h c r o f t , which is in this url

MetaformX · 05-01-2002, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MetaformX
replace the xxxx with "xxxxx"
the board will not allow the name a s h c r o f t , which is in this url

errr
replace the xxxx with the word "c r o f t"

Gemini · 05-01-2002, 05:24 PM

Well darn it! Works one time and not the next.

Gemini · 05-01-2002, 05:27 PM

From Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Attorney General John Ashxxxxx and several lawmakers announced proposed legislation Wednesday they said was aimed at protecting preteens left vulnerable by a Supreme Court ruling striking down a federal law banning "virtual" child pornography.

In an April 16 decision, the high court said "virtual" child pornography that appears to involve -- but does not actually include -- identifiable juveniles is entitled to free speech protection.

"Tragically, this decision of the court to reverse Congress' prohibition of 'virtual' child pornography has left law enforcement at an extreme disadvantage in the campaign against all child pornography," Ashxxxxx said at a Wednesday news conference.

LEGAL RESOURCES

Latest Legal News

Law Library

FindLaw Consumer Center Select a topicBankruptcyDiscriminationDivorceEstate PlanningLandlord-TenantPersonal InjuryTaxes

"To avoid conviction, defendants frequently raise the theoretical possibility that rapidly advancing computer imaging technology was involved in the production of the materials rather than children."

Virtual child pornography often features technologically altered photos or shows people who merely appear to be minors. In some instances, very young-looking adults who appear to be minors are depicted in sexually explicit materials.

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 made it illegal to possess or distribute any visual depiction that "appears to be" or "conveys the impression" of a child engaging in a sexually explicit act.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said the law was too broad in that it banned sexual material involving older teens that had artistic and literary value. The court cited recent award-winning films, literature and art over the centuries -- including Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" -- which it said would be banned under the provisions struck down.

After a series of meetings Tuesday, the Justice Department and key members of Congress reached agreement on a bill they said they believe will protect children and satisfy the high court. The legislation was introduced as a House bill overnight, and lawmakers at the news conference vowed to move it quickly.

The House Judiciary Committee's crime subcommittee was holding a hearing Wednesday afternoon to consider the draft legislation.

Ashxxxxx said the bill would:

Tighten definitions of child pornography and assure that prosecutions are not barred because of the possibility that the material was created through computer imaging. It would also safeguard the First Amendment, assuring freedom of speech, he said.

Prohibit production, distribution and possession of visual depictions, real or virtual, of prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

Prohibit offers to sell or provide, and efforts to obtain, child pornography, regardless of whether depictions are actually provided or received.

Establish a database identifying child pornography produced with children.

"The Department of Justice will continue to use every available resource to prosecute child pornography cases," Ashxxxxx said.

Several of the bill's sponsors were at the briefing, including House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas; Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the crime subcommittee's chairman; Rep. Mark Foley, R-Florida; and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama.

Thx to CNN for this article.

Brad Mitchell · 05-01-2002, 05:38 PM

The biggest problem I see with that is this:

"Prohibit offers to sell or provide, and efforts to obtain, child pornography, regardless of whether depictions are actually provided or received. "

So if I link to a teen site with obviously legal content of girls 18+ but have a text link that says "Click here for teens fucking!" that would be illegal because of "whether depictions are actually provided or received. " - obviously there would be nothing illegal received by going to that site but I'm wondering how they're going to draw the line on how we describe our advertisements.

I mean, some of the stuff is obvious - words like lolita, preteen, etc but what about general references? If we said those words were prohibited that would absolutely be censorship.

Brad

Gemini · 05-01-2002, 06:01 PM

They have a long way to go on these laws... And we understand the need for them obviously but they do need to make sure the do it the right way or they'll get turned over again and again. Speed with OUR government means inaccuracies.

Speeding up the investigations that they get from solid sources like real adult webmasters might be a better thing for them to use while making sure the laws are better written.

Lens go to DC and explain what is what! And take some other large webmasters. Give them the real info they need and not what the churchlady thinks is right.

Forkbeard · 05-01-2002, 06:53 PM

Several of the provisions, as described on CNN, are directly at odds with the Supreme Court's recent decision. Assxxxxx and crew are lying, with full knowledge and intent to deceive, when they say otherwise.

The purpose of this bill is to provide several more years of chilling effect. They know it's unconstitutional, but by passing another unconstitutional law they buy themselves four or five more years in which adult materials providers will generally choose to self-censor.

Put another way, it's a not-very-subtle way of telling the United States Supreme Court to go fuck itself.

"Rule of law? Not in this administration...."

eroswebmaster · 05-01-2002, 07:10 PM

You know assxxxxx oughta get together with School House Rock and do a remake of the "I'm Just A Bill" cartoon.

I could just see this little rolled up paper with a ribbon around it walking around calling himself...."Child Porn Bill." singing....
I'm just a Bill...yeah I'm only a bill and I'm sitting here on capitol hill...
Don't remember the rest of it....but you get the gist ;)

05-01-2002, 05:14 PM	#1
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	New Child Porn Bill Announced http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/05/01/as...orn/index.html Ride 'em Johnny! Last edited by Gemini; 05-01-2002 at 05:25 PM..

05-01-2002, 05:16 PM	#2
wannabeapornstar Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 766	nice 404 from CNN __________________ <a href="http://www1.bestpornhost.com"><font color="Orange" face=tahoma size=+1><b>BestPornHost.com</b></font></a> - Get listed on thehun with us. ICQ \| # 153855685

05-01-2002, 05:19 PM	#3
MetaformX Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 6,704	replace the xxxx with "xxxxx" the board will not allow the name a s h c r o f t , which is in this url __________________

05-01-2002, 05:38 PM	#7
Brad Mitchell Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Southfield, MI Posts: 9,812	The biggest problem I see with that is this: "Prohibit offers to sell or provide, and efforts to obtain, child pornography, regardless of whether depictions are actually provided or received. " So if I link to a teen site with obviously legal content of girls 18+ but have a text link that says "Click here for teens fucking!" that would be illegal because of "whether depictions are actually provided or received. " - obviously there would be nothing illegal received by going to that site but I'm wondering how they're going to draw the line on how we describe our advertisements. I mean, some of the stuff is obvious - words like lolita, preteen, etc but what about general references? If we said those words were prohibited that would absolutely be censorship. Brad __________________ President at MojoHost \| brad at mojohost dot com \| Skype MojoHostBrad 71 industry awards for hosting and professional excellence since 1999

05-01-2002, 07:10 PM	#10
eroswebmaster March 1st, 2003 Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seat 4 @ Venetian Poker Room Posts: 20,295	You know assxxxxx oughta get together with School House Rock and do a remake of the "I'm Just A Bill" cartoon. I could just see this little rolled up paper with a ribbon around it walking around calling himself...."Child Porn Bill." singing.... I'm just a Bill...yeah I'm only a bill and I'm sitting here on capitol hill... Don't remember the rest of it....but you get the gist ;) __________________ For rent - ICQ 127-027-910 Click here for more details

05-01-2002, 05:24 PM	#5
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	Well darn it! Works one time and not the next.

05-01-2002, 05:27 PM	#6
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	From Terry Frieden CNN Washington Bureau WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Attorney General John Ashxxxxx and several lawmakers announced proposed legislation Wednesday they said was aimed at protecting preteens left vulnerable by a Supreme Court ruling striking down a federal law banning "virtual" child pornography. In an April 16 decision, the high court said "virtual" child pornography that appears to involve -- but does not actually include -- identifiable juveniles is entitled to free speech protection. "Tragically, this decision of the court to reverse Congress' prohibition of 'virtual' child pornography has left law enforcement at an extreme disadvantage in the campaign against all child pornography," Ashxxxxx said at a Wednesday news conference. LEGAL RESOURCES Latest Legal News Law Library FindLaw Consumer Center Select a topicBankruptcyDiscriminationDivorceEstate PlanningLandlord-TenantPersonal InjuryTaxes "To avoid conviction, defendants frequently raise the theoretical possibility that rapidly advancing computer imaging technology was involved in the production of the materials rather than children." Virtual child pornography often features technologically altered photos or shows people who merely appear to be minors. In some instances, very young-looking adults who appear to be minors are depicted in sexually explicit materials. The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 made it illegal to possess or distribute any visual depiction that "appears to be" or "conveys the impression" of a child engaging in a sexually explicit act. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said the law was too broad in that it banned sexual material involving older teens that had artistic and literary value. The court cited recent award-winning films, literature and art over the centuries -- including Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" -- which it said would be banned under the provisions struck down. After a series of meetings Tuesday, the Justice Department and key members of Congress reached agreement on a bill they said they believe will protect children and satisfy the high court. The legislation was introduced as a House bill overnight, and lawmakers at the news conference vowed to move it quickly. The House Judiciary Committee's crime subcommittee was holding a hearing Wednesday afternoon to consider the draft legislation. Ashxxxxx said the bill would: Tighten definitions of child pornography and assure that prosecutions are not barred because of the possibility that the material was created through computer imaging. It would also safeguard the First Amendment, assuring freedom of speech, he said. Prohibit production, distribution and possession of visual depictions, real or virtual, of prepubescent children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Prohibit offers to sell or provide, and efforts to obtain, child pornography, regardless of whether depictions are actually provided or received. Establish a database identifying child pornography produced with children. "The Department of Justice will continue to use every available resource to prosecute child pornography cases," Ashxxxxx said. Several of the bill's sponsors were at the briefing, including House Majority Whip Tom Delay, R-Texas; Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, the crime subcommittee's chairman; Rep. Mark Foley, R-Florida; and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama. Thx to CNN for this article.

05-01-2002, 06:01 PM	#8
Gemini Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: o-HI-o Posts: 7,183	They have a long way to go on these laws... And we understand the need for them obviously but they do need to make sure the do it the right way or they'll get turned over again and again. Speed with OUR government means inaccuracies. Speeding up the investigations that they get from solid sources like real adult webmasters might be a better thing for them to use while making sure the laws are better written. Lens go to DC and explain what is what! And take some other large webmasters. Give them the real info they need and not what the churchlady thinks is right.

05-01-2002, 06:53 PM	#9
Forkbeard Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I Roam Around Posts: 2,236	Several of the provisions, as described on CNN, are directly at odds with the Supreme Court's recent decision. Assxxxxx and crew are lying, with full knowledge and intent to deceive, when they say otherwise. The purpose of this bill is to provide several more years of chilling effect. They know it's unconstitutional, but by passing another unconstitutional law they buy themselves four or five more years in which adult materials providers will generally choose to self-censor. Put another way, it's a not-very-subtle way of telling the United States Supreme Court to go fuck itself. "Rule of law? Not in this administration...."