close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Internet Porn Ruling - bad news!

Discussion in 'The Richard Palmer NWS Section' started by beansbaxter, Jun 24, 2005.

  1. This is some serious shit. From my admittedly rather limited reading on the issue so far, it directly affects all of us...

    Click for Article

    Here's a few exerps:

    Another Article: **NSFW** content on this site

    So anyway, what I'm gathering at this point is:
    If John Doe wants to post some nudie pics, they themselves are required to keep records of every model depicted with proof of age, blah blah etc. You might think only the actual "producer" or creator of the porn is required to do this, but I've seen on several sites that the law included "secondary producers" which is defined as: "the term 'secondary producer' is defined to include anyone who posts a digital image on an internet site, under 75.1 (c)(2). Secondary producers are the ones who are now being required to maintain this information."

    This doesn't look good... :|
     
  2. Bad stuff for first amendment rights/free speech. Thanks republicans!!!

    On another note.... lets take a moment to look at daniel's peculiar knowledge of pornographic material, pornographic websites, and porn law....


    hmmmmm...............

    [​IMG]


    E
     

  3. Lucky

    Lucky The $75,000 Rider

    I wonder if linking pics (from the original site, not a copy) in a forum falls under publishing.

    This may be have an interesting effect on places like photobucket too...