http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html

this sucks dick.

please tell me I'm not the only one who's pissed off and upset about this.

"If you voted for Bush, this is your fault. If you think this country is free, you are sadly mistaken. No nation has freedom when it is run by religious zealots."

Which idiot Bush voter here said I was exaggerating about stuff like this happening when Bush gets reelected?

another step down the hill

I find it increasingly hilarious that people stand beside someone that goes against what a part is suppose to be for.
Republicans:
1) small government
2) less laws
3) lower taxes

all 3 of those things bush is pissing on like some calvin+hobbes chevy sticker.

i can't read the article...can someone c & p it please?

basically, if you have pictures of anyone in sex acts on your website, you have to have proof that they are 18+.

umm ok...well i don't wanna see kiddie porn....so whatever

no, you have to have proof that you can furnish at a moments notice, otherwise your site can get shut down and you can go to prison. have you ever photographed nude models? did you keep a record of their age and info about the date? If not, and you had the photos on the internet, you could be thrown in prison for five years.

this isn't really about porn. it's about taking away people's freedoms gradually enough that we don't notice.

The attacks continue:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote -- eight more than needed -- House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the [World] Trade Center," said Rep. Randy [Duke] Cunningham, R-California. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4 holiday"

you know I've begun to disregard anything that the house does. the house is just a GOP rubber stamp.

well.. if all the law does is prevent minors from being exploited by the pr0n industry, then I don't see what the problem is. I'm sure Joe might be upset by this, but he probably has a few underage slaves locked up in his basement already, so my guess is he's all set.

soloman said:

Current laws already protect minors just fine. If people want kiddie porn that badly this new law isn't going to stop them either.
This is a smokescreen to control any objectionable content.

ahh ok see i was not able to read the article so i made a comment based on 1 sentence
but that's scary...

just think..
http://www.metmuseum.org/
posts a photograph on their vitual portal without having proof of the models age, shutdown.
nation geographic too.

the scary thing is that under current law, the photographer/videographer needs to deal with the model release forms. under this new proposel ALL people involved will need to do this. this means sites that survive on found images will be shutdown.

hey 4 more years right, maybe Fox News will have a nice spin on this.

I heard you also can't have any art featuring humans cause then we might worship them as idols. Just plants and such are what's allowed.



why does that sound familiar?

you know, if rotten.com and other sites want away from this stupid bullshit, they can just host overseas, where our laws have no effect on the way things run...

they really didn't think this through... stupid morons

america doesn't follow overseas rules.
what would happen?
rotten.com would "move" over seas, but the people who run it would be in the USA so they would be arrested and charged here.

wait, does this mean the rev can't post pics of bands without photo releases signed? what about Carina?

what about bands that have members under 18? do they need to get parental permission and have a form signed by their parents before the rev can shoot the show?

Think about it... I smell petition...

the_reverend said:

point well taken, they could always sell the site to an overseas "company" too, rotten is quite popular everywhere

the pictures have to be of a sexual nature, I believe.

the_reverend said:

Stile Project just moved to an overseas server. This means two things:

1) The U.S just lost some business because someone had to move their server overseas

2) SP can now show beastiality.

way to go, America.

edit: just to add, the guy who runs that site lives in Canada.

guess everyone will be reformatting thier Harddrives now

Josh_Martin said:
That always happens to me also, I bet you when the Bush Empire has fully initiated a takeover people will still be in denial."I think he is doing a great job at protecting freedom." I laugh when people say shit like that while freedom is slowly decaying and they are to absorbed by what the media tells them. Remember folks,this is the same president that said a dictatorship would be easier,as long as he was the dictator. Go back to sleep America, your government is in control. I'm going to puke now.

"
edit: just to add, the guy who runs that site lives in Canada."

I was going to say that fact...

the_reverend said:Hahahaha

Consolidated\Friendly Fa$cism\15 - crusading rap guys.mp3

Putting all definitions of "fine art" aside... the only problem i see with this is the potential for someone in control to look at a piece of fine art that explores sexuality, and force it to be taken down from display until the model's age can be verified. Still, the law clearly says depictions of actual explicit sex. A picture of a naked lady is not going to be eliminated because some religious prude thinks it's naughty. I really just don't see anything wrong with recquiring more paper work from people in the porn industry that could be making money off of minors. My freedoms are definitly not trampled at all here, except maybe the freedom to get away with posting a found pic of underage sex. I understand "slippery slope" concerns. But this doesnt look like censorship or an attempt to control the internet. This is an attempt to further control child pornography in US, which is already illegal. So i gotta say this hardly worries me.

um... so what do sites that survive on found photos do?
stile project wouldn't have been able to keep stilemedia.com

soloman said:

Not just underage sex, ANY sex at all.
That's a pretty goddamn slippery slope right there.

Theoretically, you could have a picture of two people having sex who are obviously in their 80's but if you don't have written proof of that, they can throw you in jail.

well they could stop posting images of explicit sex that they can't prove aren't minors.
I've never heard of stilemedia.com. I'll check it out when i'm not at work. ;)

Josh_Martin said:

that's a good point. i feel like this won't be an issue though. But i guess from now on i'll just have to post sex pics of me and my friends when the need for explicit sex photos arises

soloman said:


It won't be an issue unless they really want you for something else and this new law gives a bullshit excuse to fuck with you.

You play in a death metal band right?
Let them get away with this shit now and how long until they're banning your shit for being offensive too? Wal Mart already forces labels to censor cds. Keep electing moron Christians to the White House and it'll be government sponsored censorship soon enough.
They start with something that nobody likes, like child porn, and slowly more and more shit gets banned.
Just watch.

soloman, here's the answer:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01...et.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-10107.htm

search for "secondary producers" and then look at your post here:
http://www.returntothepit.com/view.php?formid=18114
congrats! you just became a secondary producer of pornographic content! where is your records of the age of this naughty little nyph?

but child porn is already illegal, that's why this whole ordeal doesnt worry me sooo much. And walmart is allowed to censor what they want in their store. Don't go CD shopping at walmart unless you want the new kelly clarkson.

The government will never ban a music genre. It better not. The world needs offensive music.

child porn is illegal, you are correct...
so why the new law?

this takes "innocent until proven guilty" and turns it into "guilty until proven innocent"

It's not a law against child porn, it's a law against porn that can't show its papers. At a moment's notice. How about when the Rev gets shut down because somebody linked to a smutty pic that doesn't have a photocopy of the model release form edited into it? Welcome to Nazi Germerica, 2005.

the_reverend said:

well put

DestroyYouAlot is right... according to that law, I'm considered a secondary producer.
yeah!

more info:
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9271
http://news.com.com/Sex+sites+win+reprieve...eral+rules/2100-1030_3-5760944.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/24/us_law_2257/

"This includes online forums, adult personals sites and any other place where adult material may be published."

pornography: any act that has no artistic merit, that causes sexual thought.
last i knew, that was the supreme court's definition.

i can think of about a million ways to interpret that. How many ways do you think the government can interpret that? We're all gonna find out...

Lewis Black said:

the_reverend said:

because the government feels its not strong enough, how are you going to prove that all the girls are 18?




kinda like trying to buy cigarettes? you can be 19, you still gotta prove your over 18. with a state approved id

Horrible.

the united states government of the united states is fucked


the original visiornaries of this country are throwing up in there graves right now.

little by little this country is turned for the worst.

i dunno im c0ck3d

There is also a law that if someone is doing drugs at a show or drinking outside the venue (at one of my shows), I can be arrested for it as the event organizer.

Club insurance would not cover me from that sort of prosecution like it would if someone was injured at one of my shows.

well this new ani porn law affects the rev and myself...if someone posts p0rn on our boards..WE are responsible...

Josh Martin said:

the reverend said:

There is no good reason for this law. I hope this slow draining of freedoms can't go too far in 4 years, and I hope our next president isn't a crazed religious zealot.

Not to mention, on RttP from now on, whenever someone posts any sexual picture, Rev will most likely have to take that picture away by any means he can. Carina is faced with the same issue. This censorship law not only censors, but it forces people like Rev and Carina to censor.

This law pretty much kills the Neverending Thread of Death

I can just imagine how long it is going take to fix this type of shit when Bush's term is over.

the_reverend said:

Yeah.. I don't think that Bush is a real republican. Or any new republican for that matter.

this is the gay

They think people go onto those sites for exploitation of minors?
What a crock of shit, any sites this law should apply to (actual child porn networks) aren't going to stop doing what they are doing because theres another law pushed on them, it's not like they weren't breaking the law in the first place.