Raw DOGMA

Porn: Material which causes sexual arousal whether intentionally or not.

I am not sure how the conservative right is going to be able to make good on their promise to America to rid the Internet of porn.
Sure, they fired lawsuit after lawsuit at the porn industry in 2005, but none more so threatening than passing an amended Section 2257 to recordkeeping regulations that required anyone who posts a digital image on an internet site, to keep records documenting that every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct is over the age of 18.
While websites with such material were not required to have the records on hand, they were now required to know where those records are if one should ask, which for many sites that displayed adult purchased from a third party, was obviously impossible.
Even if the company was in business when they bought the content, if they had since gone out of business, and there was no way of contacting them, you were screwed if a law enforcement officer decided to pay you a little visit.
The amended regulations also stated that any site that provides porn on the Internet now had to have a published address and someone had to be available at that address 20 hours a week just in case a law enforcement officer wanted to gain access to those 2257 records.
What I want to know is, if the federal government was really so concerned that the performers were of age then why not keep a database?
When they get documentation that a particular piece of media is legal then they shouldn’t be concerned about it anymore.
Even if federal investigators knew the model in the pictures was over 18 because they had already received the documentation from another site that has the very same images online, I would still be breaking the law if I couldn’t produce the same documentation.
What kinda shit is that? They know that the performer in the images is of age because you have the very same images and the Federal government was provided that information from someone else already stating that it is the case.
So this was totally about making it illegal not to have records, not about preventing the exploitation of minors.
It wouldn’t have been so bad if the law would’ve said “from here forward make it so”, but it covered any sexual explicit photograph taken after 1990.
Literally over night, photographs for the past 15 years were made illegal at midnight Thursday June 23, 2005 if you didn’t know where the documentation was proving that the performer was over the age of 18.
This was definitely about shutting sites down by making unrealistic record keeping demands.
I think I am safe in assuming here that conservatives believed that by drastically reducing the amount of cheap pornography from the Internet they could drastically reduce the exposure of minors to sex.
By reducing a minor’s exposure to sex, they hope to keep their minds out of the gutter and onto more important things like Jesus and supporting the President Bush.
Well good luck.
This section is dedicated to what I call unintentional porn, “It isn’t porn, but it has the same effect.”
It isn’t even depicting actual sexual explicit conduct as the law states, but damn, does it not accomplish the same thing?
This law wasn’t about preventing the exploitation of minors in pornography it was about reducing the availability of sexually arousing material online.
This was all the brain child of Alberto Gonzales, the US Attorney General appointed by George Bush. Do you think a guy like Alberto Gonzales would be happy with pictures of actual blow jobs being replaced online with pictures of cute girls giving simulated blow jobs at bars and college parties?
I don’t think so either.
Porn by definition is material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
I am doing this to prove a point. You can find perfectly clean, unintentional sexually arousing images everywhere online that would fly beneath the radar of any definition of pornography conservatives could come up with that would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
If porn was a prescription drug, this unintentional porn is has all of the same strength but just available over the counter.
link 02/17/06
same difference

Porn star TEST HIV positive. Porn Industry Asks “How Did This Happen?”
Let’s get this straight, I like porn as much as the next guy but if all the porn performers went on strike tomorrow I would be the last person to volunteer as a scab replacement.

chainsaw boob job endorses porn star stereotype
All in the name of performance art.which really isn't art in the first place. It's just the only "art" that Germans can do besides world conquest.


Source:
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>