It is currently Mon Oct 22, 2018 2:21 am

Forum Rules,TOS and Privacy Policy | By visiting this website and viewing the pages within, you accept and agree to be bound by and comply with our Rules Of Conduct, Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.


Additional Forum Rules,TOS and Privacy Policy


Please click on either selection to view: Rules Of Conduct | Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy




 Page 2 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  
Search for:
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
   
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:47 am 
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 193
Darkland -

You make a good point logically but I work in a business that is regulated by the feds - their only enforcement tool is to make an example of someone so that the others will comply (t reminds me of the Monty Python "Spanish Inquisition" sketch). The courts will not turn the law over because the Feds picked on someone out of the pack... your premise has already been tested there. The only argument to make is whether a "free site" is commercial and subject to the "interstate commerce" definition found in the law itself. Not easily defendable...

All

Before we imagine jackbooted law enforcement coming for Ish and Bill, lets remember that the law itself actually was set up with good intentions regarding child pornography quite a few years ago. But like all laws they are then abused by those in power at the time of enforcement. Adult sites have learned to live with the law - in fact some are glad it is there in order to prevent another Traci Lords scenario from occuring again.

The pics could stay on the site as long as the legal paperwork regarding models in the pics are available for review by local and US federales and that the obligatory disclaimers are posted on the web site. I sense from the postings that the for the DF (made up almost exclusively of contributed content) it would be difficult to do so - it would be a full time job just to police it.

What it does make me wonder is the fact that someone could post doll only (or Poser figure) sex pics and a bible thumping sheriff somewhere would still try and make an issue of it since as most of our dolls who "model" (and indeed the Poser program) are younger than 18 years of age. :lol:

That the site was not hit with this earlier demonstrates the difficulty to police the internet. But we are on someones radar screen now due to the success of the site - so it's best to comply with Bill's original request. I would like the forum to be around for a while - I enjoy the company and the non-sex doll pics a much as anyone. :D

Sweep

Slotdoll - great job finding the site.. Its spot on


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:53 am 
Forum Founder
Forum Founder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 12:00 am
Posts: 2396
Location: Texas
It may be that they have a specific target in mind... and this is the ammo they need. Like in New York there is a stiff jaywalking fine... they never enforce it... unless there is someone they want to give a hard time to... then they pull it out.

They probably already have targets picked out... and will go after them like a rabid pit bull. Then... it will settle down... until they have someone they specifically want to go after again.

Jerry



_____________________________
Use http://www.xe.com/ucc/ to calculate prices.

I never met a latex inflatable I didn't like...
Buy at the Doll Forum Toy Store... Give a doll a home!
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:50 am 
~ Member ~
~ Member ~
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Posts: 4321
The initial law (CPA - Reno et al.) was definitely enacted with the intention to protect children from exposure to adult materials. Part of it was struck down due to the effect that it had on adult speech.

This amendment is "suggested" to protect children from being exploited by producers as models in adult material. But if that were the case, material that is questionable but was later to be determined that only included adult models, would be cause for adjournment. But that is not the case.

By and far, the adult entertainment industry has shown over the years to be highly ethical and responsible. It is no longer the realm of sleazy producers that it once was. There is also not a problem of gross violations occurring within it.


So, what is it exactly that is taking place here? We have a law which directly effects the First Amendment without directly violating the First Amendment. A law which suggests that it protects children, but whose enforcement has nothing to do with protecting children. A population who for the most past is indifferent to (not offended by) the adult entertainment industry. And a governemnt which appears hell bent on handing out life terms for what effectively are a web page worth of paperwork violations. Effectively chasing after a "problem" which in the industry at large actually does not even exist.

I believe that the majority of people in the United States are ambivalent towards adult only, non-violent adult material. Especially when considering the size of this market, and the dollars which are spent on it annually. So, exactly "who" is this law which was initiated by Attorney General John Ashcroft, and now sign by Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, supposed to represent?

Who, exactly, is this government trying to represent here? :?



_____________________________
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs." ~Lily Tomlin
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:02 am 
~ Member ~
~ Member ~
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Posts: 4321
I would like to point out something else about the way in which this law is written. It is also intended to intemidate anyone who works as a model within the adult intertainment industry, and basically encourages harassment of the models and actors.

As written, everyone who presents the material must have full paperwork on each image or video. This includes the home address of the model or actor. So now, if joeblow wants to find out where Kobe Tai or Jenna Jamison lives, all they need to do is purchase a copy of their photos sets designed to be displayed on a web site.

How many actors or actresses will feel comfortable with the world knowing the address of their exact residence? How many morons without any sense of respect for the privacy of others will now be showing up at the doorsteps of these models? What are the chances that a disaster could result by such an actor or actresses' residential address being essencially made a public property?

This law no only attempts to regulate the First Amendment (without directly effecting it), but it effectively removes the right to privacy of the models within such material, and further places them in direct danger by providing their residential address to every nut case in the world who wants it. :?



_____________________________
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs." ~Lily Tomlin
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:11 am 
~ Member ~
~ Member ~
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Posts: 4321
Jerry wrote:
It may be that they have a specific target in mind... and this is the ammo they need. Like in New York there is a stiff jaywalking fine... they never enforce it... unless there is someone they want to give a hard time to... then they pull it out.

They probably already have targets picked out... and will go after them like a rabid pit bull. Then... it will settle down... until they have someone they specifically want to go after again.

Jerry

I agree, this may end up being how the law is enforced, but it goes against the equal protection act.

This is the kind of enforcement that occurrs under dictatorships and police states. The government would be taking an industry and demonizing it for the sake of bypassing the spirit of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I think what this comes down to is, does the United States government have a right to dictate its own definitions of morality on its citizens and industries? And if it does, then who is it that decides what is moral and what is not moral?

In this case, and based on the size of the adult entertainment market, it does not appear that the government reflects the definitions of morality as depected by the average citizen. :?



_____________________________
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs." ~Lily Tomlin
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 11:17 am 
Doll Advisor
Doll Advisor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 613
Location: The city on the edge of forever.
It's really kind of sad. Many of the doll owners have shown themselves to be very creative and now that creativity is going to be squashed like a bug.



_____________________________
http://www.dollalbum.com/gallery/leslie


I want to be the kind of person my cat thinks I am.
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:37 pm 
Doll Guru
Doll Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 5820
Location: Pine Street Inn
Though it's against TDF rules to talk about politics, it was admin who started this thread, which is inherently political. That said, I've found some quotes I thought were appropriate.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain

"In every man's heart there is a secret nerve that answers to the vibrations of beauty." - Christopher Morley

"I never cared for fashion much, amusing little seams and witty little pleats: it was the girls I liked." - David Bailey, photographer

"Trying to describe a building is like trying to describe a beautiful woman: the proper medium is a picture." - Robert A. Heinlein



_____________________________
<div>So long, and thanks for all the fish!<br>- Douglas Adams</div>
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Elvis' Reply
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:58 am 
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 159
Location: "Small town" called "Mellencamp", Pennsylvania.
The Hell with it.

I think its BULLSHIT.

This law & the marijauna laws in this country are fucked up.

( Yeah, I swore...And I spelled dope wrong, too..) I don't give a shit...

Sweeper: I LOVE Your avatar !!!!!

Elvis921...........................................................................................................................................................



_____________________________
"People know this world is a wreck, we're sick & tired of being politically correct; I see through it now, but I didn't at first, the hypocrite's made it worse and worse." John Mellencamp------"Peaceful World"
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:57 am 
Doll Advisor
Doll Advisor
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 714
Location: Southwest Michigan
I have a brother-in-law that I always thought a bit over reactive and a little anti-goventment. He is a strongly opinioned, smart guy and we had many interesting conversations. He always left me thinking he was a bit off in the head with his opinions.
Twenty-five years ago he predicted that new born babies would have a serial number tatooed on their foot or a computer chip implanted. These were going to be done "for our own protection". This hasn't happened yet, but has been brought up a number of times. I remember when you didn't need a social security number until you went to work. Now they are issued at birth. One step toward a tatooed foot? As per the computer chip, "you can have them implanted in your pets, why not your kids?" (ak: Total Recall?)
Remember this: Everytime the government gives you something, (like national security) you give up some of your rights and freedoms.
There is talk of national ID cards, for the sake of "national security". remember it's for your own protection and safety. Any officer of the "law" would be able stop you, or pull you over to check your papers without any other reason. And demand "Papers. please." If they didn't like you, "Your papers are not in order!" And off you would go, as a threat to society,into oblivian, never to be heard from again.
The American revolution (nice word for civil war) was fought for freedom from opressive laws such as seach and seizure with out regulation. Any military officer could enter and search you home without a warrent. The national security act allows that if the word terrorist is used.
Guantanimo: (sp). I never thought our own government would ever allow people anywhere in the world to be held with out trial, being charged with a crime, or even legal representation. But we are doing it right now. It makes me sick to my stomach and is a blight on our country and our government. But it's for our "own good".
Jack boots? Storm troopers? Damn right. It's just a matter of time.


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:23 am 
VENDOR
VENDOR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 3793
Ishtaria wrote:
This law no only attempts to regulate the First Amendment (without directly effecting it), but it effectively removes the right to privacy of the models within such material, and further places them in direct danger by providing their residential address to every nut case in the world who wants it. :?


This is just sick, Staline or Hitler wouldn't have done better IMHO.
So I suppose mainstream actresses that show some skin (Sharon Stone, Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry to name but a few), will have to give their residential address too, right ?

Sounds like outsourcing's gonna hit the US Sex Industry too; I heard Larry Flint was now living in Paris, got a Hustler club there and plan to create other ones in Europe. Cool for us, too bad for you !
Wasn't your government supposed to create employment (i know, they all say this, promise that, eveywhere, all the time...) ?

PS to Sweeper : Jimi Rocks 8)


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:09 am 
~ Member ~
~ Member ~
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Posts: 4321
You've highlighted my feeling exactly.

I'll tell you, I am wound up so tight about this and some of the other issues going on, that it's all I can do from going off on a long rant.

What pisses me off the most is that our media will misrepresent this, or not even cover it. There have been a lot of things going on like that which would have gotten a great deal of media play in past years. But the media has been completely silent about. :cry:



_____________________________
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs." ~Lily Tomlin
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:12 am 
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 362
Location: Arizona
What I really resent is the following - like most parents, I definitely WANT reform to protect my child from internet porn. It is way too easily available, and that's a huge problem. I can take whatever inconvenience is NECESSARY to achieve the solution. But people with a much broader agenda are hijacking this issue and burdening it with wholly unrelated anti-porn and even anti-freedom measures.

I feel like my kid is being held hostage for ransom by these people. "Acquiesce to our fascist demands or your kid gets exposed to porn." If they really cared about kids, they would be interested in focused, effective solutions to just that problem, instead of using kids as human shields in a broader attack.


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:21 am 
Senior Member
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 1:00 am
Posts: 362
Location: Arizona
Hey Bill, maybe you can keep an image of the doll album around in case times improve. It would be a shame to lose all that. Anyway, thanks Bill/Ish for all your work, sorry you have to deal with this hassle now.


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:23 am 
VENDOR
VENDOR
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 3793
hey Tromboner,
there's a few solutions to avoid porn on your computer (security levels, ad blocking, etc...), it's not that difficult and works pretty fine. I really don't see this as a problem, i don't get porn on my PC (including emails) until i really want some.


 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 1:30 pm 
~ Member ~
~ Member ~
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2001 12:00 am
Posts: 4321
tromboner wrote:
What I really resent is the following - like most parents, I definitely WANT reform to protect my child from internet porn. It is way too easily available, and that's a huge problem. I can take whatever inconvenience is NECESSARY to achieve the solution. But people with a much broader agenda are hijacking this issue and burdening it with wholly unrelated anti-porn and even anti-freedom measures.

I feel like my kid is being held hostage for ransom by these people. "Acquiesce to our fascist demands or your kid gets exposed to porn." If they really cared about kids, they would be interested in focused, effective solutions to just that problem, instead of using kids as human shields in a broader attack.

You're not the only one here with children. I have two 13 year olds who have their own computers, web sites and email accounts. I maintain their web sites and email accounts.


How do I separate them from porn?

They access the new through a hardware firewall which scans for keywords. If the keyword is found, the web site does not make it bast the firewall. It also keeps a log of web sites visited. It's cheap and (judging from log reviews) works 100% of the time.

Their email is filtered through a positive list email management program. For an email to be received, the address must be in the list. When the system first identifies a new email address, it send the sender a message stating that they must go to a specific page and enter an ID number. Once that is done, their original email is passed through, and all additional email from that address is passed.

SPAMers don't have the time to go entering codes so their email never makes it to my kids email box. It keeps logs, it works, and I have verified it by checking the logs.

This isn't rocket science, and I don't understand why you say that you've spent large amounts of money on this.


I find fundimentalism offensive, and I don't want my kids exposed to what I consider perverse viewpoints of a hateful god. But I feel that it is my business to protect them from it, not the world's.

You don't want your kids to be exposed to porn. I don't want my kids to be exposed to fundimentalism. A fundimentalists doesn't want their kids exposed to evolution. Some else doesn't want their kids exposed to guns. WHERE DOES IT STOP?

At what point do we decide that our personal issues are not the business of the world at large?



_____________________________
"Reality is a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs." ~Lily Tomlin
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 5 [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who Is Online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Chatting users:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum