Leggo my Porno

[viscousmemories]

So this, um, friend I have enjoys the occasional perusal of pornographic materials, which includes the periodic procurement of 'adult' DVD's. Although he hasn't actually purchased such a DVD in a long time, he does still browse the vast selection of screenshots and preview videos at adultdvdempire.com.

Or at least, he did.

When he tried to have a peek today, instead of screenshots he found a diatribe on the subject of new regulations imposed by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, expanding on U.S.C. 18 section 2257 (the federal regulation that requires porn producers to keep age verification information) to include anyone "who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction" among the "secondary producers" of porn.

In other words, it's now illegal to post pornographic images on the 'net unless you have documentation proving that the people involved in the production are of legal age. Or, as the aforementioned diatribe put it:

Recently, United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has approved changes proposed to U.S.C. 18 section 2257 requiring all companies that display explicit sexual content to obtain age verification documentation from the original producers of the work.

Originally, this documentation was only necessary for those companies that hire, pay, and film the content. This information is incredibly private, and includes personal information pertaining to the performers that could be very dangerous when in the wrong hands. Now, these documents must be disseminated to virtually every adult vendor that wishes to remain in business and out of jail.

Currently, we are diligently working to obtain, organize, and verify this information as quickly as possible as to not interrupt our service to you. Unfortunately, this will mean a temporary disruption to our web site in the following areas:

* Removal of all screen shots from our web site
* Removal of all back box art from our web site
* Removal of all explicit front box art from our web site
* Removal of all V.O.D. movies from our web site

As documentation is secured and verified we will again offer these features to you.

We at AdultDVDEmpire.com wish to convey our apologies for this inconvenience, and hope that the regulation changes are found unconstitutional as we believe them to be. This is another scheme by our government to restrict your freedom—as adults—to enjoy this form of entertainment if you so choose.

- source

According to the EFF, this expanded regulation doesn't only impact websites dedicated to selling or giving away porn online, but to anyone (even bloggers) who posts anything that might be construed as 'obscene' in the most conservative areas of the country. Find out more at the EFF website.

[Pendaric]

Your friend might be well advised to install bearshare or a similar file sharing network. I have a friend who has it and he assures me all manner of material can be downloaded...

[BracesForImpact]

Is this what it appears? A law intended to "shame" actors in pornography by dissemenating their information as widely as possible?

[Adora]

Sounds like everyone's bullshitting. On one hand, this is just whinging because they have to cut profits for a little while and do extra work, that, supposedly, if the documentation of age & ID is as rigorous as the articles linked to in the DVD article claims, shouldn't be a bloody problem. And I don't buy the "having age documentation could potentially harm actors" line. How exactly, could that happen, if the business is as legit as they are claiming it is and therefore not requiring a shake up of some kind?

On the other hand, this is going to do SFA to prevent child abuse porn, really.

[Godless Dave]

This guy is almost as bad as Ashcroft.

I admit that I do not have age verification documentation for the models used in the production of these sexually explicit images:

[D. Scarlatti]

Given Bush's demand for "strict constructionists" on the federal courts and Gonzalez's apparent divination of the term "secondary producer," which appears nowhere in the text of the statute, the brazen hypocrisy on the part of this administration is nothing short of breathtaking.