Gay.com censored? Responds to Justice Depts. new "NO-Photos" rule

[truthpusher]

below is the Gay.com statement followed by an article
----------------------------

http://www.gay.com/help/personals_adult.html

CENSORED! BY U.S. GOVERNMENT!
Changes to our photo policy mandated by the Bush Administration
Always on the lookout for hot guys and ways to keep people from having fun, the U.S. Dept. of Justice is taking a break from prosecuting terrorists to do something it thinks is more important: restricting your right to view and share photos online.

All member photos identified as adult on our site are temporarily unavailable for public view as the result of the sudden, and unconstitutional, decision by the U.S. Dept. of Justice to place new restrictions on all Web sites around the world that do business in the United States. (I guess nobody ever told them the internet is borderless.) Gay.com thinks your adult photos should be sexy, secure and legally protected, so we've joined with other companies to seek an injunction against this ruling. We're doing everything possible to minimize its impact on you.

link: http://www.gay.com/help/personals_adult.html

----------------------------

http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=3512619

Bay Area Sites Respond to New Rules

Posted June 23, 2005 at 10:55 a.m.

SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) -- People trying to find dates on the Internet face new restrictions because of new federal enforcement of an existing law.

San Francisco based Gay.com is one of several major sites posting major new changes in the photos members can share of themselves. That follows the Bush Administration's decision to begin enforcing a new interpretation of a federal law governing explicit photos and other content online.

Under the new rules, every site must maintain records that all models are over the age of 18. That's causing problems for some community oriented web sites which allow members to post their own materials.

In their posting to members, Gay.com officials say their lawyers are fighting the new rules in court. They're urging members to contact lawmakers to try to stop enforcement of the new rules.

link: http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=3512619

[woodsprite]

1. Could the revelation of JimmyJeff have anything to do with this? n/t

[LiberteToujours]

2. I'm not sure what I think of this

I can't think of any conceivable way that dating sites (gay.com, face-pic, etc.) can enforce this short of banning all explicit content. On the other hand, underage porn is bad! Perhaps the individual users should be held legally responsible for the content that they post, and reminded that posting nude underage pictures even of _yourself_ is illegal.

[merwin]

8. It's not about that. It's about posting pictures of yourself, period.

They're saying that it's modeling. That's ridiculous.

[rocktivity]

3. Posting a photo of yourself on the web is now "modeling?"

And you HAVE to be at least 18?

:headbang:
rockantion

[LiberteToujours]

6. No, only explicit photos

[TayTay]

4. Flag Burning, Libs are wussies and banning explicit pics

hmmmm, * also just talked again about the Gay Marriage Amendment in front of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Do you think the Admin is trying to get prominent Dems to go on record as being in favor of explicit Gay-related pics, flag burning, Gay Marriage and wussiness in responding to 9/11.

Well, it beats having to talk about Iraq, right?

Diversionary tactics in full roll-out.

[drhilarius]

18. On some level I think you are right...

If dems come out against this blatantly unconstitutional crap the headline on Drudge will read "Dems come out in favor of gay porno!!!".

on edit: Finally made it out of the damn 700 club!.

[Juneboarder]

5. Long Live Fascism and the George Bush Regime! PUKE!!!

[Laughing Mirror]

7. Neo-Fascism and Neo-Puritanism as well. Unbelievable

New standards for "sexually explicit" content on Gay.com

1. An image of a hand holding or touching genitals, or appearing to grip or stimulate genitals, is considered masturbation and is prohibited.
2. An image of a hand clearly "cupping" or covering genitals for the purposes of keeping them covered is allowable.
3. An image of a hand inside pants is prohibited as it implies masturbation.
4. Pictures with more that one person that include nudity are prohibited.
5. All cartoons are prohibited.
6. While images of a nude person on all fours is allowable, an image showing the buttocks being held apart by hands is considered explicit and is prohibited.
7. In the interest of safety, images of nude children (e.g., a nude baby at the beach with her two dads) will not be allowed.
8. A clothed person posing with a pet is allowed, but a nude person with an animal is prohibited. (No more walking your dog in the nude!)
9. An image of a person in a bondage or fetish outfit is allowed (but please, no polyester!).
10. Images that depict bondage or S&M "abuse" are prohibited. (Shockingly, images from Abu Ghraib prison would be censored under the new regulations.)
11. Digital images run through an illustrator filter on software will be held to these same standards.

[1democracy]

9. The real purpose

Don't you think the real purpose is to get ready for the release of the explicit torture photos from Iraq that are due out by June 30, under Freedom of Information Act? They'll be banned, thus avoiding public outrage. Other threads have covered Sy Hirsh's talks discussing the explosive nature of some of the torture that will be reported.

[WhoWantsToBeOccupied]

11. Of course

[lostnfound]

16. Interesting idea. Is there a way to find out the source of new rules? nt

[blogslut]

20. 18 U.S.C. Section 2257

It's a law that's been in place since the early 1990's. The intent of the law is to insure that all models that pose for seuxally explicit content are over the age of 18.

What Gay.com is complaining about are the revisions to the regulations of 2257.

Before the changes, it was the photographer and the primary publisher that was responsible for the documentation of Model IDs. Now pretty much anybody that links to sexual images for commercial purposes must have Model ID info and must have it retroactive to 1995.

For the moment there is a temporary stay on enforcement of 2257. Read about it here:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49359

PS: One of the main concerns for the porn industry is not the tedious record keeping or that we'll have to dump any images we can't get 2257 info for. Our concern is that any goober with ten dollars can now buy a Model's unsanitized ID.

[lostnfound]

22. Will it only affect 'commercial purposes' photos?

Or can they use it to stop journalism?

[blogslut]

23. I would assume...

if money or the attempt to make money is involved it's commercial.

[blogslut]

25. No

You wrote:

"Don't you think the real purpose is to get ready for the release of the explicit torture photos from Iraq that are due out by June 30, under Freedom of Information Act? They'll be banned, thus avoiding public outrage. Other threads have covered Sy Hirsh's talks discussing the explosive nature of some of the torture that will be reported."

The changes were introduced in June 2004 and public comments were closed in August of 2004. That would be during Ashcroft's tenure. The new 2257 was designed to cripple the Internet porn industry.

As for the release of new Abhu Ghraib pictures. Fret not. They will get out there.

[XemaSab]

10. I like the fact that

the guidelines are themselves suggestive.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

19. Please tell me you made these up.

[Sub Atomic]

31. this just in.

Settlement reached over adult Web content
Tom Musbach, PlanetOut Network
published Thursday, June 23, 2005

The U.S. Department of Justice and the adult entertainment industry reached an agreement Thursday that gives many Internet sites more time to comply with strict federal guidelines over record-keeping on adult images.

According to the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), which represents many adult sites, the broad record-keeping law, known as 18 U.S.C. 2257, will not be fully enforced until Sept. 7.

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2005/06/23/1

[VegasWolf]

12. The Bush administration will not rest until all porn is outlawed. nt

[ekelly]

13. And yet Bush

listens to one of the filthiest songs ever: My Sharona.

[WhiteTara]

17. and he invited Mary Carey

the porn star to dinner!
:shrug:

[Melynn]

24. And his wife tells jokes about animal sex

at the White House Correspondent's dinner. Such "family values."

[Kikosexy2]

14. And they ...

wonder why we call them or compare them to Nazis...unbelievable!

[Catrina]

15. Yes,

and I do believe this WILL make the about-to-be-released abuse photos from Abu Ghraib, illegal. Especially since some of those being abused are, according to those who have seen them, children.

But, they will have to talk about that list of lies and explain why the pictures are now illegal.

[truebrit71]

21. I'm sorry but those "rules" are blatantly unconstitutional.

Period.

[siliconefreak]

26. holding out hope

I'm holding out hope that you're right. I run a site that allows people to post nude pics of themselves. If these new laws hold up, I'm f*cked.

The kicker is that even if I shut the site down right now, the new laws are retroactive, so we can be put in jail for something we did 2 years ago - before we had any inkling of what the new law would be!

I'm glad that more mainstream sites like gay.com are fighting this. If it were only porn sites that were in trouble, I could see the government easily moving toward banning all sexually-explicit entertainment.

[blogslut]

27. Free Speech Coalition

...is fighting for you. They've managed to get a temporary stay on enforcement of 2257:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49359

[siliconefreak]

29. yes

I'm a member of the FSC. They're doing excellent work.

[NYC Liberal]

28. How are they retroactive?? nt

[siliconefreak]

30. I don't know

This is what I've read.

[blogslut]

32. We have to...

catalogue Model IDs retroactively to 1995