by Bob Stevens
Ridiculous regulations from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has previously found to be unconstitutional, now restrict your ability to post or share photos containing adult content online.
Section 2257 of Title 18, U.S.C. , which is more often referred to as just “2257,” probably meant very little to you unless you worked in the porn business. Section 2257 basically says that producers of adult content must keep verifiable records of the age of their models which seemed reasonable enough to insure the models were not younger than 18. Fair enough.
However, the Bush Administration, apparently under pressure from the Religious Right, has changed the code to read in such an overly encompassing way that essentially anyone who has anything nude or sexually explicit on any web site needs to have several forms of verifiable proof of the age of the people in the content, and at the time the content was actually produced.
If you have ever put a picture of yourself on an escort advertising directory, a chat room profile, adult discussion board or blog, and yes, even on your own personal web site, this 2257 law applies to you.
It also applies to most personals and adult dating sites, I say most but that really applies only to adult dating sites that allows its members to post nude photos of themselves. They all are going to have to prove the age of the people in the shots, even if they are gray and shaggy haired 50-year-olds.
Of course this will be nearly impossible for the webmasters and most members. Dating sites will either lose so much business and shut down, or will close because the penalties will be to scary. The processes to manage such data will be to costly and annoying, and most dating sites will probably give up. Which is really the intentions of the government and the religious groups who feel that the porn industry is severely harming our country.
There's been a convincingly scary argument that the US Department of Justice's new 2257 regulations are less about protecting children from pornographic exploitation than (Duh!) than it is about regulating the porn businesses into a logistical unfeasibility. Based on all that you've read here it's pretty obvious that argument holds true. So the burning question in everyone's mind is, can the 2257 statute can possibly accomplish the purpose for which it is allegedly intended, which is to protect children and stop child porn, and even if it doesn't, what does that mean for the adult industry which is sure to be crippled by this legislation if it is allowed to stand?
Is it appropriate to thank God, that The Free Speech Coalition has mounted a legal defense against the new rules and will fight this until the end under our First Amendment's Right to Free Speech.
So until they prevail, this is what we all face.
New standards for "sexually explicit" content.
* An image of a hand or hands holding, touching, grabbing, gripping, spanking, pinching, or teasing the genitals, breasts, nipples, or buttocks or in any way can be interpreted as masturbation and is therefore prohibited.
* An image of a hand clearly "cupping" or covering genitals for the purposes of keeping them covered is okay.
* An image of a hand inside pants or panties is prohibited as it can imply touching one's self in a sexual way or masturbation.
* Pictures with more than one person that include nudity are prohibited.
* All adult dirty cartoons are prohibited.
* While images of a nude person on all fours is allowable, any image showing the buttocks being spread apart by a hand or hands is considered lewd and explicit, and is prohibited.
* An image of a person in a bondage or fetish wear is allowed.
* Images that depict bondage or S&M are prohibited.
* Iimages processed, altered, or enhanced, through an illustrator filter or software will be held to the same standards.
In other Government news
A new law may soon make it a felony to use misleading tactics to lure web surfers to your adult site. Gee!, another “wide open to interpretation based on one's biases or prejudices” debate to be exploited by politicians and law enforcement of what constitutes misleading.
No Confidence Vote
If our government can't stop computer hackers from infiltrating their computer systems and leaks from pouring out like an open faucet from Government Grand Jury Testimonies, how can we have any confidence in them to handle the private 2257 documentation which is the slew of supporting documents a porn actor, stripper, escort, nude model, or adult dater, must provide to show he or she is of legal age, in addition to a valid address, a legal name, and any known aliases for their real name or professional working name. Personally all this bull shit is just ripe for misuse and abuse. And who is going to answer for it when the shit hits the fan?
Just remember when it happens, you read it here folks.
Bob Stevens is the Head Talent Scout for Exotics