Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
porn, sesta

Companies:
morality in media, ncse



Campaigners For SESTA See It As A First Step To Stomping Out Porn

from the good-luck-with-that dept

There are obviously a lot of mixed motivations behind the push for SESTA -- the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act -- with many of those motivations based on good intentions of actually stopping sex trafficking. Of course, we've explained in great detail how SESTA isn't likely to help at all, and is quite likely to make the problem worse. It also seems clear that many of those lining up in support of the bill see it as a wedge -- a way to slowly dismantle intermediary liability protections for platforms on the internet. And thus, some just see it as a way to attack Google and Facebook out of a general dislike for those companies -- without realizing (or without caring) just how much damage it will do to free speech online and the platforms that enable such speech. We've also been perplexed by SESTA supporters using completely bogus stats to insist the problem of sex trafficking is much larger than it truly is. As we noted, sex trafficking is both very real and an absolute tragedy for those caught up in it and their families. But we should be realistic about the actual scope of the problem -- and many SESTA supporters aren't actually able to do that.

But perhaps the motivation behind some SESTA supporters is... even more absurd. An email popped up in my inbox recently with a bunch of really strong language supporting SESTA, coming from a group calling itself the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCSE). They run the website "End Sexual Exploitation" and are strong supporters of SESTA. But what caught my eye is that the end of the email noted the true mission of NCSE isn't to end sex trafficking... but to rid the world of the "public health crisis of pornography."

You see, NCSE began its life in 1962 as Morality in Media, and was a reaction to a ridiculous moral panic over "pornographic material" being left outside of a school. NCSE appears to believe that all porn is pure evil and must be eradicated. The group has insisted that porn is a "public health crisis" and has worked to get states to declare it as such. It also posts a Dirty Dozen list of organizations that it needs to shame for "perpetuating sexual exploitation."

Want to know how totally fucked up the list is? They include the American Library Association and Amnesty International on this year's list. Really. They completely misrepresent the ALA's opposition to mandatory internet filters to claim that libraries have been turned into "a XXX space that fosters child sexual abuse." It put Amnesty on the list because Amnesty dares to call sex workers "sex workers" rather than prostitutes. They also list the Justice Department as an honorable mention for failing to enforce obscenity laws, which NCOSE wants to use to basically criminalize pornography. In other words, NCSE supports pretty blatant censorship.

Now people can certainly differ on their beliefs about prostitution and pornography, but having groups like this at the forefront of destructive, counterproductive bills like SESTA -- which will do nothing to stop actual sex trafficking, and plenty to harm free speech online -- raises some serious questions about what really are the goals of SESTA. NCSE certainly seems to think it's part of the plan to wipe out all pornography. Considering that other SESTA supporters insist (incorrectly) that SESTA won't have any impact on speech online, they might want to consider why one of their major coalition partners seems to be eagerly looking for ways to censor the internet.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 10:48am

    Obvious Truths

    If porn magically disappeared tomorrow I suppose I'd just have to find something else to jerk off to. Time to dig out those old copies of the Sears catalog.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:44am

      Re: Obvious Truths

      You know that history hasn't unfolded as it should when NCSE's list doesn't include sears.com.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 12:48pm

      Re: Obvious Truths

      Cops: Okay, sir, you're free to go.

      Moe: Good, 'cause I got a hot date tonight

      [LIE DETECTOR BEEPS - FALSE]

      Moe: A date.

      [LIE DETECTOR BEEPS - FALSE]

      Moe: Dinner with friends.

      [LIE DETECTOR BEEPS - FALSE]

      Moe: Dinner alone.

      [LIE DETECTOR BEEPS - FALSE]

      Moe: Alright. I'm gonna sit at home and ogle the ladies in the Victoria's Secret catalogue.

      [LIE DETECTOR BEEPS - FALSE]

      Moe: ... Sears catalogue.

      [LIE DETECTOR CHIMES - TRUE]

      Moe: Now, will you unhook me please? I don't deserve this kind of shabby treatment!

      [LIE DETECTOR BEEPS - FALSE]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 1:12pm

      Re: Obvious Truths

      I'd just call people to fuck more often, which would lead to me having less time to do normal, productive adult shit and sleep. So I'd probably be a little happier and a little less productive.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:44pm

        Re: Re: Obvious Truths

        If this mentality takes hold, I can only cringe at the thougjt of them trying to argue the countries sudden spike in STD infection is completely unrelated.

        And no, I am not making any particular comment on your circle of fuckbuddies. Just in general... its gonna happen.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      carlb, 3 Oct 2017 @ 6:40am

      Sears catalogue?

      At the rate things are going? You won't be able to jerk to those old copies of the Sears catalogue forever. The company under Eddie Lampert has been going down the drain for years; in Canada it's already under Companies Creditors Arrangements Act protection (CCAA is basically a Chapter 11-style insolvency) and is closing stores in droves. The last two in Toronto (+1-416) were among the most recent ten store closure announcements, and this follows a longer list earlier this year. The US parent company is as bad or worse; it's gotten to the point of "short squeeze" where would-be speculators are having problems finding enough Sears stock to borrow and sell short. It's liquidation in slow-motion.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 10:51am

    My morality is more moral than your morality

    U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1

    Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Apparently SESTA supporters that wish to end pornography are having difficulty comprehending the 1st Amendment.

    Even the Supreme Court has a better understanding.

    Different morals for different people. Some societies are not embarrassed by the sight of a female breast, but the religious fanatics in the US are. They forget that the founding fathers did not want one religion in the US, they wanted all religions to be able to flourish. Yet some keep trying to impose their standards on the rest of us.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 12:09pm

      Re: My morality is more moral than your morality

      These people are just intolerant megalomaniacs that think their way of thinking should be the only one. It's sad we still have people devolved enough to fit the typical Middle Ages dweller.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 9:14pm

        The Failed Enlightenment

        Part of the problem is that the common American student isn't required to understand the problems suffered within our society that compelled us to develop modern-era morality. Case in point, even if our kids are expected to know the bill of rights (I hope they are), they are not required to understand the circumstances that merited enshrining these specific rights into national law.

        No one seems to get the point of the fourth amendment, for example, until the police take their stuff.

        (Says one who learned about the Social Contract only after playing Rise of Nations )

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:08am

    Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

    >> having groups like this at the forefront -- That's some nice ad hom ya made up there. It's what sites "like this" use instead of reason.

    >> of destructive, counterproductive bills like SESTA -- It's not.

    >> which will do nothing to stop actual sex trafficking, -- Hmm, first, why the "actual"? 2nd, so YOU predict. 3rd, why are you supporting "imagined" or "virtual" or whatever kind of other than "actual" sex trafficking?

    >> and plenty to harm free speech online -- Your usual predictive assertion. Your accuracy for predicting disaster has to be under 1%, out of literally thousands.

    *>>> raises some serious questions about what really are the goals of SESTA. -- No, it doesn't. All the serious questions involve why mega-corporations are allowed to openly operate past the margins of civil society.


    By the way, noticed the "Funniest Of Week", so clarified for the netwits: We non-criminals don't allow KNOWN criminal bases, even if on our highways. -- Sheesh. And that empty contradiction is taken as funny here. It's why I rarely read comments, the feebleness just depresses.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 2:25pm

      Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

      You reply the comments on the wrong article while reinforcing the point against yourself. Priceless.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:04pm

        Re: Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

        That’s a self own so big it’s impossible to make fun of the rest of his blather.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:12am

    Stamping out porn?

    That will require a rather big foot. There is going to be a lot of side damage.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Max, 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:25am

      Re: Stamping out porn?

      Coincidentally, 99.9999% of all internet traffic would disappear overnight (soon replaced by crickets and tumbleweed). As Youtube the All-knowing (or Avenue Q, take your pick) taught us, "the internet is for porn"...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Toom1275 (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 1:07pm

      Re: Stamping out porn?

      Speaking of foot size and sex...

      There's that carving in the sidewalk of an ancient Roman city that seems to have been part of a sign pointing the way to the nearest brothel. The foot size was a "only bother coming here if you're old enough that your foot is big enough to fill this carving" kind of message.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 1:16pm

        Re: Re: Stamping out porn?

        [Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F) was about how the problem of ensuring marital fidelity, and the hazards of using fit men to do so.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 2:29pm

        Re: Re: Stamping out porn?

        Teen: So, guard, how much would it be so my foot fits there?
        Guard: 2.
        *Teen hands 2 gold coins to the guard*
        Guard: Oh look, that's the biggest foot I've ever seen, go ahead.
        Profit!

        Modern version

        Site: You must be over 18 to proceed.
        Teen: *clicks I am over 18* then checks his torrent client for the porn that was downloading while the page loads.
        Profit!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:21am

    Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

    @ having groups like this at the forefront -- That's some nice ad hom ya made up there. It's what sites "like this" use instead of reason.

    @ of destructive, counterproductive bills like SESTA -- It's not.

    @ which will do nothing to stop actual sex trafficking, -- Hmm, first, why the "actual"? 2nd, so YOU predict. 3rd, why are you supporting "imagined" or "virtual" or whatever kind of other than "actual" sex trafficking?

    @ and plenty to harm free speech online -- Your usual predictive assertion. Your accuracy for predicting disaster has to be under 1%, out of literally thousands.

    @ raises some serious questions about what really are the goals of SESTA. -- No, it doesn't. All the serious questions involve why mega-corporations are allowed to openly operate past the margins of civil society. Here's interesting bit on lowering "quality" and blames piracy too: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/11/why-porn-has-gotten-so-rough.html By the way, noticed made "Funniest Of Week" yet again, so clarify for netwits: We non-criminals don't allow KNOWN criminal bases, even if on our highways. -- Sheesh. And that pointless contradiction is taken as funny here. It's why I rarely read comments, the feebleness just depresses.

    After EIGHT attempts, clearly back to the bad old days for dissent here. I've noticed lack of other dissent.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:33am

      Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

      I've noticed lack of other dissent.

      Maybe that's because intelligent people wouldn't disagree with this article.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Oct 2017 @ 4:52am

        Re: Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

        We don't.

        I HATE prostitution and pornography but censorship is not the answer since these are demand-side issues; people WANT to access and act in porn and people WANT to buy and sell sex. Call me what you like but as long as you keep it out of my way I don't give a rat's as to what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors. It's none of my business.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      orbitalinsertion (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:52am

      Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

      The argument about their behaviors renders the "ad hom" not an argumentum ad hominem whatsoever. Stepping back further, the arguments have already long been made why the bill is bad. Pointing out who supports it, and why, is perfectly valid. It's good to know about all these things, not just the bill itself, as they are all about either violating the first amendment or other rights, or promoting a bad idea that won't help.

      SESTA is completely counterproductive and destructive. There, have a counterargument equal to your initial argument on that point.

      "Actual" as opposed to fining someone we don't like because they didn't remove something arbitrarily fast enough for us, while the ad will just move somewhere else, whether or not the offer involved someone trafficking another human being. (Note that the definition of "sex trafficking" changes between narrow and broad constructions depending on to whom they are trying to sell their bad idea / line of bullshit). They will stop no trafficking by doing this. On the other hand, they could easily watch for ads and go after the people posting them...

      @@ - citation needed.

      If the goal of SESTA is to reign in corporations, someone may want to introduce a valid bill on that matter and not lie about what it is for. And stop destroying the minimal regulations we did have for some of the egregious corporate behaviors, maybe.

      I frequently notice the lack of dissent of any quality myself. Well that isn't really true. Make that "completely contrarian opposition dissent". I see plenty of dissent on particulars.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 12:04pm

      Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

      @ of destructive, counterproductive bills like SESTA -- It's not.

      It is—or, rather, it will be if and when it is signed into law. The entire point of SESTA is to make websites/services legally liable for a criminal act if they so much as “know” about illegal user-generated content, even if they report that content to law enforcement. If a site like Backpage wants to decrease its potential liability, it will do one of two things: Cut off the user-generated content part of the site or refuse to even look at that content—in any context—so it cannot “know” about it. The broad wording of the bill, the conflation of opposing this bill with supporting human trafficking, and the whole “we must be seen doing something” mindset have all let to this moment. If passed, SESTA will stifle free speech and drive actual criminals further underground—all so lawmakers can have their “we thought of the children” moment for their campaigns.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 12:41pm

        Re: Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

        The proposed law is so worded that refusing to look at and moderate user content could be considered as enabling the illegal content.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 1:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

          SESTA is also worded so broadly that looking at user-generated content under any context—even to moderate it or report it to authorities—creates “knowledge” of the content and opens a site/service to legal liability.

          Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 12:07pm

      Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

      "Here's interesting bit on lowering "quality" and blames piracy too: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/03/11/why-porn-has-gotten-so-rough.html"

      You linked the Daily Beast. No seriously, it's a waste of time to come with any facts or the truth. You are immune to those.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 3 Oct 2017 @ 4:57am

        Re: Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

        Settle down, Ninja, the mainstream media doesn't know what we know about piracy, to wit, that it's not the massive problem it's portrayed to be. Besides, DIY porn is the real problem as far as I know; people like making their own so they're not buying it any more when they can be the star of the show themselves.

        I have no problem with the Daily Beast as such. To be fair there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral media platform and the Beast is a decent conservative one.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      aerinai (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 12:10pm

      Re: Assertions so silly call for quote-and-contradict:

      "@ having groups like this at the forefront -- That's some nice ad hom ya made up there. It's what sites "like this" use instead of reason."

      If you have read any SESTA coverage, his point has been made pretty loud and clear.

      Also, knowing who is backing things helps give context. For example... when the NSA was found pushing specific security standards to RSA AND THEN PAYING THEM TO MAKE A DEFAULT.... that is a pretty big neon sign of 'hey... this is probably a bad idea'. Too bad it took Snowden's leaks to expose that.


      "@ of destructive, counterproductive bills like SESTA -- It's not."

      I'm not sure how forcing every website (including this one) to monitor their site for 'possible' sex trafficking is not destructive to the economy and small business. It is, by definition counterproductive. Remember, Backpage and Craigslist do not have any 'adult' ads on their platform anymore and... newsflash... there is still sex trafficking...

      "@ raises some serious questions about what really are the goals of SESTA. -- No, it doesn't. All the serious questions involve why mega-corporations are allowed to openly operate past the margins of civil society"

      Actually, I didn't even think about the possibility to use this to curtail the adult entertainment business, but it does have some pretty big ramifications. There isn't much of a logical leap between 'sex trafficking', the act of a person being forced into a sexual act by another, and 'sex trafficking' saying that the man/woman in the film was doing it against their will which means SESTA would apply... Which, wow... talk about impossible to police. See a pornographic image on the internet? Was that person being FORCED to take that picture? Probably better use SESTA to shut it down... just in case....

      That is playing into what NCSE sees as a 'wedge'. They don't care about 'freedoms' or 'rights'... just what they think is right.... so they can be free from the 'evils' of alternative viewpoints.


      FYI: you can dissent on here and not be a jerk. I don't agree with everything on the authors say and will make my position heard in a coherent and logical way.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:25am

    This would be my shocked face if I was able to make one anymore.

    We have R's across the country trying to pass laws banning pornography, groups like this explaining how everything is porn, & somehow the belief that porn will end the world if left unstopped.

    The American people are some of the dumbest fucking people on the planet.
    Oh you molested little kids, thats okay we'll keep you in office because you promised to end abortion.
    Oh you pocketed millions in kickbacks, but you promised to protect me from having to make a homos cake so we'll keep you.
    Oh you left your wife for your assistant who was 20 years younger, we'll keep you because you promised to uphold family values.

    Porn does not cause rape. (I know shocking)
    Video games do not cause shooting sprees.
    We know for a fact that many of the champions of ending porn enjoy it themselves in private.

    Morality should not be legislated. Declaring that X causes Y, with the tiniest supporting flawed study gets them funding.

    We have some people pimping out kids, we need to stop them.
    We do not need to try and assemble a series of events that lead to this so some holier than thou person can claim this unrelated bad thing should be banned because it caused it.

    Kid gets trafficked.
    Porn didn't do it, movies didn't do it, rap music didn't do it, swear words didn't do it.
    An adult gave the kid unfettered access to the internet, did not check on what they were doing, or pay any attention to them. Adults have been trained that society has laws to protect their kids, & the village will do the work. You can be your kids friend & not their adult.

    We love slapping labels on things & declaring the issues settled.

    Backpage DID NOT CREATE PIMPING OUT LITTLE KIDS, even if they never existed you would find another company to blame for failures of parents & society.

    The biggest problem we face is those "good people" who insist their pet crusade holds the key to fixing an ill in society. It gets repeated as gospel, it gets sound bites & media time... but its not true.

    Evidence based decisions is what we need.
    We need to have data gathered by people who don't have their own motivations clouding it.

    We need to tell people just because you dislike it, doesn't mean its wrong.
    If you don't like booze, don't drink.
    Don't fight to ban booze for everyone.

    All sex workers aren't abused slaves, stop thinking they are.
    Lets accept that some people want to provide & use these services.
    Let them do what they want in the privacy of their lives.
    Why waste resources on harassing consenting adults?

    If we stopped chasing these morality panics & relied on facts we'd be better off.
    Lets learn from the history of allowing the morality police run the show & screwing everything up & try something new.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:33am

      Re:

      If we stopped chasing these morality panics & relied on facts we'd be better off.

      You'd never have left Europe.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2017 @ 1:36am

        Re: Re:

        Maybe so, but I guess it depends on what you consider a moral panic.

        Back then many that came to the colonies for religious reasons came because their ideals were suppressed. They wished to worship as they pleased and were not able to do so.

        However Many also came for the financial opportunity of lands previously unknown to europe. It was a time period of conquest, many countries and people wishing to claim what was to be had.

        Some were sent across as punishment. The land was new territory and with it came new dangers. At the time some in europe considered willingly going to the colonies a fool's errand.

        There are moral problems to be seen in all of those scenarios. That being said, the moral problems that came down the road are more likely to be seen as a moral panic. Namely the english king's refusal to follow the magna carta, something that was already law.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Oct 2017 @ 1:01pm

        Re: Re:

        It was a boring cesspool, of course I left.
        The Black Death was a blast, but after the Dark Ages and all of the effort I put into preserving knowledge & you hairless apes still learned nothing... of course I left.

        (Yes this is my new thing, I'm a sociopathic immortal watching you stupid hairless apes repeating the same mistakes over and over, hoping that a smart one might emerge again... I miss Leonardo.)

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2017 @ 6:09am

      Re:

      the dems and repubs are BOTH dying parties. The only real difference between them is who they use as their base. One (or both) of them may go the way of the whig or democratic-republican parties soon.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:51am

    Stomping out porn??? Yeah, that'll happen.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 12:05pm

    LMAO!!! No seriously. As it was said in the Bible, Mark 10:25 (pretty wisely I must add):

    "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle, than for porn and prostitution to be extinguished."

    Or something like that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 1:06pm

    They won't stop it

    They can have my pr0n when they pry it from my warm sticky fingers.

    This won't stamp out pr0n. But it will stamp out internet freedom. This slippery slope will be used to stop other things less and less objectionable until eventually it is used to shut down web sites that refuse to delete an account that called someone an orange clown.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 1:16pm

    Google must be paying you some serious coin for all this SESTA lobbying you're doing. You're registered as a lobbyist, right? How are they laundering the money this time?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 1:31pm

      Re:

      A person can despise both Google and SESTA simultaneously.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Ninja (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 2:23pm

      Re:

      The MAFIAA must be paying you some serious coin for all this SESTA lobbying you are doing... Etc etc etc.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 3:20pm

      Re:

      That's some mighty fine projection AC, why not share with the rest of us who's paying you to post here? I mean someone clearly is if it's impossible to have a position on the topic without being paid, so who's signing your checks?

      If repeating the same tired accusations are the best you've got you might as well state flat out that you don't have anything to counter the arguments presented.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:07pm

      Re:

      The RIAA must be paying you some serious coin for all this Spamming lobbying you're doing. You're registered as a lobbyist, right? How are they laundering the money this time?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 2:26pm

    bEEN IN THIS WORLD TO LONG..

    For all that is expressed in this post..

    1. this only DRIVES things under the RADAR..
    2. I would LOVE the idea that ALL text in a latter be VISIBLE/legible.. AND as with phone calls, at the TOP of the conversation of WHO THEY ARE, and WHAT THEY WANT..
    3. a DF(Dumb F##) indicator.. TRUTH in what a person is SAYING or 10 people to acknowledge WHAT a person is saying with Common Since..
    4. AND.. A stated written point of the AMOUNT of money KEPT/GIVEN for any charity or service..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 3:25pm

      Re: bEEN IN THIS WORLD TO LONG..

      Are you aware that interleaving capitalized words with properly cased words makes your post much harder to read and fails to lend emphasis as intended? I stopped halfway through it when I realized I didn't care enough to try and parse it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 3:46pm

    "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

    Purity fanatics like this really need to just disconnect from the internet, or (horror of horrors), don't go looking for porn if they find it that offensive.

    So long as the porn in question involves consenting adults(or pixels on a screen in the case of entirely fictional porn, which I'd guess they're also against given their extreme position) it's none of their damn business who makes it, who stars in it, and who watches it, and they have no right to go around demanding other people follow their sense of morality.

    Because if 'It offends me, therefore it needs to be taken down' is the route they want to take, then using a 'Turnabout is fair play' argument their calls for mass censorship offends me, and therefore their speech needs to be removed.

    Can't have anyone being offended, this is the internet after all!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:10pm

      Re: "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

      "Don't go looking"? When I first created a WYSIWYG system for in-Emacs previewing of LaTeX documents, I dubbed it Preview-LaTeX. When I first vanity-searched for it, I realized that capitalization is not part of search terms, and hyphens just represent adjacent words.

      That was ... disconcerting. These days (well, assuming that there has not been much change in recent years), the smut has been pushed astonishingly far down in the search results even without Safe Search (which can be helpful under similar circumstances, though it then only tends to cut down the smut to manageable rather than invisible amounts: definitely no "parenting" filter if you are that kind of parent).

      I consider that a feat in its own right.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:40pm

        Re: Re: "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

        Im reminded of my teenage years when my mother wanted to look up that vin deisel movie XXX online. By typing xxx.com....

        Suffice to say it was hillarious!

        Im still waiting to see what square enix does for final fantasy 30

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:52pm

        Re: Re: "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

        Am I the only one disturbed that pornography, even tame examples, face such scrutiny when im pretty sure safe search and probably a few parental filters would to jack to hide, for example, torture stills from the SAW movies?

        One is a consentual display of love, the other a psychopath brutally murdering and traumatising victems, both arguably just as fictional ._.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 3 Oct 2017 @ 6:35am

          Re: Re: Re: "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

          Consensual display of love? Uh, that's not really a fitting moniker for the typical porn flick. That's like calling geese stuffing a consensual display of culinary art. I mean, the goose swallows, right?

          It's more like a mindless sport humping and cosmetics display event designed for pushing the spectators' buttons (which actually is what cosmetics are about). It's actually quite effective at that, like old deep fry fat smell will work for letting your mouth water.

          And it does become annoying when some stupidly coined euphemism means that your actual search results will be buried underneath endless pages of copulating bodies.

          I mean, try figuring out the gender of young cats by doing image searches. Good luck finding the sex of your kittens.

          That's where "Safe Search" helps. Thanks, puritans, for this blinders-on option.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2017 @ 7:37pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

            Its a consentual display of love in the same way the SAW movies are a psychotic murder fest. Both are just dressed up plays trying to come across as something they aren't in all actuality. The difference I meant to get across is one is something just about everyone does in some capacity and the other is something that would see you in a psych ward at a max security prison, yet the latter is the one considered somehow more acceptable to exist or own.

            And maybe this is just me.... but the only time I ever really come across porn in search results is when I'm LOOKING for porn. Hell even in the example I gave of the XXX movie (The action film not a porno), I found the website in about 5 seconds after my mother let me try.

            Also, you are looking up pictures of kitten genitals and you wonder why you are getting porn ._.;;

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:13pm

      Re: "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

      It's worse than that, though. It's even *knowing* a bad thing exists that makes it worthwhile to censor.

      Because every person who played Doom became a mass shooter and every person who liked some 2D pixel art became a sex offender, of course.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 3 Oct 2017 @ 12:28pm

        Re: Re: "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

        Because every person who played Doom became a mass shooter and every person who liked some 2D pixel art became a sex offender, of course.

        I think it's more that all those persons talking about the ultimate evil and killing sprees and the best weapons aren't talking in a vacuum. They create an atmosphere making it possible for others to start thinking in those terms outside of gaming contexts.

        Countering that effect would be more the job of stigmatization rather than criminalization, but where is the fun in that?

        Also, looking for weak correlations like "several in his class played violent video games though he didn't himself" is the road to witch hunts.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2017 @ 6:16am

      Re: "I don't want to see it, and you're not allowed to either!"

      don't go looking for porn if they find it that offensive.

      But then those who want to get rid of porn would have to go and look at something else that offends their sensibilities, so that they have something to rail at society about.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    afn29129 (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:28pm

    Plain brown enevelops in the mail.

    This will only bring back the plain brown envelopes in the Mail and at the same time help the USPS pay their bills.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2017 @ 1:47pm

      Re: Plain brown enevelops in the mail.

      Either that, or the VPN business will boom, as users will use VPN to avoid ISP blocking of porn sites.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    MyNameHere (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:29pm

    In every situation (positive and negative) you will have people and groups who will try to drag the line even further. It always happens.

    Thankfully, in the US anyway, non-obscene porn is generally considered protected speech. Every attempt to shut it down or block it has ended in failure for simple first amendment issues. Even when draped in the "for the children" mantra, it fails because the courts can clearly see the problems.

    Attempts by the politicians to enforce stricter record keeping laws and make it almost impossible to run a porn business in the US failed (COPA, and COPA II).

    So yes, there will be exceptional groups who will try to turn the new law into something else. Don't let their puny voices against legal activity get in the way of dealing with the illegal activities of prostitution and pimping.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:36pm

      Re:

      Okay my first question is how the hell do you define 'non obscene porn', but I quickly realise this is the wrong question.

      The real question is who on any side of this debate do you actually trust to determine a legal definition for 'non obscene porn'

      Cause some people will let kama sutra instructional dvds at convenience stores slide, others may consider sears underwear sections of their catalogs to be showing way too much stomach and knee to be considered decent...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        MyNameHere (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 5:52pm

        Re: Re:

        The laws on obscenity and the court rulings there of are pretty much a rainbow of what ever you can imagine. The most common results can be seen in the Miller test, from Miller v. California. In that case, the concept of "community standards" was the yard stick the court went with. However, considering that the internet has pretty much demolished the concept of physical communities, it's mostly consider a non-starter.

        The most useful yardstick at the moment is Reno v. ACLU - in that case, obscenity laws written for the internet were stuck down. They were pretty light rules all considered, and the court struck them down. Nobody has even suggested to take a swing at that again, Conservative types certain fear having the court rule against any anti-obscenity law, as it would confirm the legality of the products. They much prefer the current stew of indecision.

        It should be noted that USC 18 section 2256 and 2257 apply to the production of adult material. Decent record keeping, model releases, ID copies, and the like have made it much harder for anyone underage to slip into porn. The existence of section 2257 record keeping for production of porn essentially codifies porn into law - ie, the government cannot regulate what is not legal. In regulating porn, they have also defined it as legal.

        So your basic shag film isn't going to even wiggle the needle on obscenity - it's long since been proven to be legal.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 7:31pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Okay to start, thank you for the info. Interesting.

          However... any kind of community standards test for porn would likely screw (no pun intemded) a lot of peoples innoculous fetishes. As a completely (non)random example, say I am interested in illustrations of entirely fictional characters being magically transformedbinto literal , inanimate or semi animate sex paraphinalia and used vigorously. Show me the community that would get behind that openly.

          When you have a culture tjat jas spent so long shaming creative fetishry and then turn and ask a community what tjey would consider acceptable porn, youll either need fully anonymous contributions or you are gonna get something embarassingly tame out of shame.

          Im concerned because i have literally no interest in a 'basic shag film'. Even when I was new to porn those seemed painfully boring. I am a pervert, and I waited quite a while to be able to openly partake in my cornucopia of disney inspired fetishry (totally serious), Im not abput to put up with people old enough to be my grandpa at worst, father at best watering things down because tje community might not approve of harmless creative persuits in an entirely private and very individualistic field XD

          I am certainly not trying to give a free pass to truely exploitive or rightfully illegal pornographic material but... I am not about to have 'community standards' kinkshame my harmless and victemless perversion XD

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 7:36pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Okay I missed the part about c0mmunity standards being a n0n starter. Heres hoping it stays that way.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            MyNameHere (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 11:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Community standards was, pre-internet, the way it was done. What it meant was that what might have been legal i San Francisco might not be legal in Dirt Patch, Alabama. It was not a particularly tenable standard. It goes all the way back to court judgements in California that made porn legal to start with (early 70s).

            With the internet, the problem is defining community. It's not where you live, but where you go, I guess. There have only been a very few obscenity prosecutions in the last couple of decades, and that usually involve content that most people would find offensive. The two cases I can think of involved Max Hardcore (real name Paul Little) spent 4 years in jail for his gagging / choking videos, and Rob Black (Rob Zicari) and his wife got nailed for "horror porn". Otherwise, the mainstream, middle of the road stuff has been ignored on the level of obscenity.

            The fact that straight porn is legal and acceptable in the US means that any prosecution has to be for the very edges of things, and few producers seem to make that stuff in the US. Online delivery means that most of those who do make it are generally able to avoid prosecution so far.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2017 @ 10:15pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Give it time. Here in Germany, Malibu Media has already lost copyright on their works due to obscenity. Considering how interested copyright holders are in seeing the same law internationally they could start biting off more than they can chew as more judges ask for evidence while they try and push the limits.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:30pm

    When I was 16, a priest came to my catholic high school to basically answer questions for us and ask us if we intend to continue pledging ourselves to the catholic church in adulthood.

    Being an intelligent, mature and well spoken teenage pervert, we spent about 20-ish minutes talking about how different forms of pornography apply to the churches views on coveting the form of another and their incredibly broad definition of adultery.

    As you can imagine he had a very easy time arguing the churches views on things like playboy magazine, a strip club or a sleezy movie. But this raised the question for me... what of erotic illustrations that involved no real person? What og erotic fiction? Sex dolls, wet dreams, comics, animals... I even brought up the possibility of sexual attraction to inanimate objects like cars and the like. I made it clear that I was genuinely interested on the churches stance on each thing, whether it applied to me or not.

    Of course, everything wound up being taboo in the end and I respectfully informed him I would not do well in an organization unwilling to compromise.

    BUT!

    I left that conversation with a good deal of respect for that priest. Most shocking to me in that whole conversation was when I ptrsented an argument that seemingly went along with the stated philosophy, such as a strip club effectively de-humanizing the dancers into little more tjan objects to be coveted, while still enabling access to porn, auch as fantasizing about fictional individuals, he actually STOPPED AND THOUGHT IT OVER instead of haphazardly regurgitating talking points or becoming disrespectful to my questions.

    It was honestly a fascinating discussion and I believe we both left respecting one another despite our disagreement. Hell, he basically agreed to disagree with me and complimented me for taking time to actually think the other side through.

    If a horny teenager and a chaste priest can have this discussion calmly, peacefully and respectfully... the hell is everyone elses* excuse?


    NOTE : By everyone else, I mean the political and purity pusher groups trying to take advantage of this situation to push their agenda and people furiously rushing to spew equal amounts of hostile and unconstructive vitriol from the other side.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Name, 2 Oct 2017 @ 4:47pm

    All we need now is for Tipper Gore to make a come-back and all will be pure again.

    This is all Dee Schneider's fault.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    restless94110 (profile), 2 Oct 2017 @ 5:20pm

    Trafficking is Mostly Fake News

    While I applaud the articles you have been writing against SESTA, you really need to write about the elephant in the room.

    The Puritan anti-sex people behind this act have successfully characterized prostitution as sex trafficking. Regular prostitution--practiced by women and some men voluntarily--is now called sex trafficking.

    In study after study, it has been shown that the amount of acdtual sex trafficking is extremely small. You are far, far, far more likely to be trafficked into a factory job for no pay forced to work long hours your id or passport kept in escrow, than you are to be trafficked for prostition of some kind.

    But dressing up the pig of prostituion prohibition with the lipstick of "trafficking" has fueled this movement. The attack on Backpage is nothing more than an attack on prostitutes. Kamala Harris knew that or should have and continued on.

    That people do not like prostitution is clear. That it is illegal in most parts of the United States is true. Nevertheless, it goes on and it will always go on.

    Banning Backpage or limiting the entire internet so as to get to prostitution (and porn) is not the way to deal with prostitution.

    Either is calling it sex trafficking.

    Derailing this name change campaign, might also derail the SESTA campaign, because it would at least notch down to a great degree the hysterical push to pass the measure. This fact (prostitution is not trafficking) should be a key part of all articles written about this draconian measure.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 6:14pm

    SESTA will not affect servers outside of the United States. One adult chat room I like to go to, the owner/administrator has said that that SESTA becomes law, he, and his servers, will just leave the United States, and be beyond the reach of SESTA.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 6:35pm

    Copyright advocates who see SESTA as a means to an end - namely, a blanket licence to harass websites for not taking down material they dislike - might want to be careful of what the allies they wish for. Porn has become one of the best friends of copyright enforcement because of how uncontested the cases usually are, which is how Malibu Media makes most of its money. This is also why the RIAA spoke up in defense of Perfect 10 after the latter wasted its money on lawsuits.

    If SESTA gets pushed on the moral superiority angle copyright fans might very well see one of their biggest assets chased underground.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 7:19pm

      Re:

      Adult/porn sites will just simply leave the Untied States. Sites that do not have any servers or any presence in the USA are not subject to USA laws.

      And before you say "Kim Dotcom", his mistake was that his servers were in the United States. If he had never had any servers in the United States, he would not have been subject to prosecution in America.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 7:34pm

        Re: Re:

        Considering how many years its been and he's STILL not technically subject to prosecution in the United States but that didnt stop his foreign assets being seized without hope of return... forgive me if I doubt that sentiment. n.n;;

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 7:47pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          His mistake was having servers in the United States

          That is why this one adult chat site operator is going to do it right, if he has to relocate. Both his business AND his server will relocate outside of the United States, where he will be beyond the reach of US laws.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Oct 2017 @ 9:36pm

        Re: Re:

        Sure, they _could_ leave the United States - but that won't help empires like Malibu Media, and if prudes demand that ISPs block pornography sites because possibly pirate links are under SESTA, what's going to stop them? The RIAA is then going to lose their biggest ally in modern copyright enforcement after helping them shoot themselves in the foot if SESTA goes through.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 3 Oct 2017 @ 4:30pm

    Those supporters need to take a sesta ("nap" in Portuguese).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.