1
   

Biggest attack on free speech ever

 
 
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:27 am
This is HORRIBLE. I am extremely pissed off right now that the Bush administration is going to these levels. GTFO with your damn religion! It is not everyone's religion! Stop forcing your crap on everyone.

http://fotm.rotten.com/fotm/

Here is the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

Quote:
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which?
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct?
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer?s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer?s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.
(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.
(d)
(1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not preclude the use of such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action for a violation of this chapter or chapter 71, or for a violation of any applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false information.
(e)
(1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located.
(2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section.
(f) It shall be unlawful?
(1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
(2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of this section or any regulation promulgated under this section;
(3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; and
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which?
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.
(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.
(h) As used in this section?
(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
(2) ?identification document? has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title;
(3) the term ?produces? means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; and
(4) the term ?performer? includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.
(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 10 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,604 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:33 am
@Brent cv,
wow, i definitely agree here.

GTFO.
tumbleweed cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:05 am
@ndjs,
Isn't this a law that deals with child pornography? It seems to be aimed at websites or material that shows models portrayed in sexually explicit acts or photos.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 08:47 am
@tumbleweed cv,
tumbleweed wrote:
Isn't this a law that deals with child pornography? It seems to be aimed at websites or material that shows models portrayed in sexually explicit acts or photos.


That is what they are trying to pass it off ass. However they know damn well that passing this law would not just affect Child porn sites but the porn industry all together as they knew that there was NO WAY they could do the things that they asked them too.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 06:19 pm
@Brent cv,
We'll the government had been asking them nicely to reform the way they practice there art. They chose not to and this is what came of it. I fail to see how it is an attack on freespeech? The link that is there they sure are still able to speak there peace.
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 07:42 pm
@Drnaline,
This law dates to at least 1978 , and was updated in 1990 and 2003 , and possibly other years as well , are you just now aware of it ?

The changes were necessary so as to include "computer generated images , digital image or picture " .

I see only regulation of pornograhy in this law , not denial of freedom of speech .
0 Replies
 
STEVE cv
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Feb, 2006 11:06 pm
@Brent cv,
Sexually frustrated brent?
I agree its ridiculous how the Bush administration is attacking all civil rights.
Curmudgeon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2006 12:17 am
@STEVE cv,
STEVE wrote:

I agree its ridiculous how the Bush administration is attacking all civil rights.

Please educate me about the Administration attacking all civil rights .
STEVE cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2006 12:22 am
@Curmudgeon,
Curmudgeon wrote:
Please educate me about the Administration attacking all civil rights .

Patriot act and now this. Let me rephrase, alot of civil rights.
I understand we need to keep tabs of the terrorist, but its begining to seem like if george orwell could predict the future.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2006 07:08 am
@Brent cv,
How come the dems didn't consider George a prophet when Sklinton was in office? He was, literally spying on the public with no terrorist ties. Exactly what they are accusing W with?
0 Replies
 
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2006 04:04 pm
@Brent cv,
This is nothing more than Bush attacking the Porn industry which is a legal business in America by asking someone to do something near impossible. There were other ways to approach this but no, they took the most severe route.

Bush has a special division of the FBI just for the porn industry.

All the things wrong in this country and he attacks porn. Pathetic imo
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2006 04:06 pm
@Curmudgeon,
Curmudgeon wrote:
Please educate me about the Administration attacking all civil rights .


A lot of the Patriot act

I love my sig. Funny how the Republicans are for less Government yet since 2000 government has become more and more in our everyday lives.

The National ID card for instance is a joke
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 07:18 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
This is nothing more than Bush attacking the Porn industry which is a legal business in America by asking someone to do something near impossible. There were other ways to approach this but no, they took the most severe route.

Bush has a special division of the FBI just for the porn industry.

All the things wrong in this country and he attacks porn. Pathetic imo
It may be a legal business but showing kiddies and making money at it is very illegal. Like i said before, they were asked by congress to reform, of which they gave the big finger. Now our government gave it right back. That is the game we play.
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 07:21 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
It may be a legal business but showing kiddies and making money at it is very illegal. Like i said before, they were asked by congress to reform, of which they gave the big finger. Now our government gave it right back. That is the game we play.


Sorry but this did not stop "kiddie porn" by any extent.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 07:21 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
A lot of the Patriot act

I love my sig. Funny how the Republicans are for less Government yet since 2000 government has become more and more in our everyday lives.

The National ID card for instance is a joke
We are for less government. But that does not include all that was made by the democraps. We have not made neer as much government as they have so we have a long way to go. I would prefer to delete all of there stuff and start over but i don't think that would go over well, LOL.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 07:23 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
Sorry but this did not stop "kiddie porn" by any extent.

It did not stop regular porn either. I ran through of few of my favorite porn haunts and every thing seems the same?
Brent cv
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 07:29 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline wrote:
It did not stop regular porn either. I ran through of few of my favorite porn haunts and every thing seems the same?


because most of those websites have servers overseas Smile

rotten.com servers are located in America
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 07:31 pm
@Brent cv,
Brent wrote:
because most of those websites have servers overseas Smile

rotten.com servers are located in America

sounds like it's time for an off shore!
0 Replies
 
ndjs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 07:38 pm
@Brent cv,
Besides, rotten never had kiddie porn.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Feb, 2006 07:44 pm
@Brent cv,
There disadvantage was being american based. Kiddie porn or not the government can't discriminate with just the kiddie's. If they do it to one they must do it to all american based sites. I still do not see how it is an infringement to free speech?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Biggest attack on free speech ever
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 04:54:50