Great bill, I hope it gets enforced immediately.

[Link]

You think sites like Twitter, Reddit, and Discord will bend over backward to accommodate porn? No, they'll just ban it

[Link]

It's not insider knowledge that pornography in China and North Korea is strictly prohibited so seeing that this proposed bill only seeks to regulate porn websites, thus clarifying that porn will remain legal subject to compliance, the premise of comparing the laws of the US to those in China and North Korea is patently false.

Edited by - AngryPirate on 12/19/2020 8:12:55 AM

[Link]

As I wrote elsewhere, there is a path to restrict access to non-domestic sites (not coming soon) that could further curtail things.

It pains me to see anyone here support this kind of shit.

[Link]

Venom wrote:

[Link]

PornoSmurf wrote: "100% agree with this bill. Revenge porn and porn where a guy or girl is recording without the other person's consent or knowledge of them planning to share it with THE WHOLE WORLD must be stopped. Also can you imagine taking a video of you and your girlfriend or wife or whatever and someone steals your cell phone or you lose it and they post it on pornhub or somewhere else? Great bill, I hope it gets enforced immediately."

Venom replies: "What is this nonsense? This totally violates the first amendment".

Is that not crystal clear that Venom thinks it's their "first amendment" right to upload and download non-con material?

Edited by - gooch on 12/19/2020 9:00:12 AM

[Link]

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:25:13 AM

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:26:19 AM

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:26:44 AM

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:29:12 AM

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:30:50 AM

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:31:38 AM

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:32:09 AM

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:32:58 AM

[Link]

I would hate to have a discussion where if you don't support this one plan put forth, then you're pro non-con. That's just silly.

[Link]

Edited by - Venom on 12/19/2020 9:37:44 AM

[Link]

You're sort of saying, this way or the highway.

[Link]

Hawley also referred, in a press release, to Pornhub's core business as "spreading depraved content."

His bill is co-sponsored by Senators Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.).

Hawley had announced his intention to introduce this bill via a tweet earlier this week in reaction to the New York Times editorial by Nicholas Kristof targeting Pornhub and demanding some form of state intervention against the high-profile adult platform.

Kristof tweeted his article, led by an exploitative photo of an at-risk teen in a skintight shirt, to several public officials in the U.S. and Canada.

Yesterday, Pornhub announced changes to their policies for user uploads of content.

Hawley's bill, according to the Kansas City Star, "would criminalize the knowing distribution of forced or coerced sex acts, require websites to create takedown procedures to ensure victims can promptly have their images removed and empower victims to sue websites for knowingly hosting privacy-invading images and videos."

"Sites like Pornhub routinely escape responsibility for facilitating abuse, trafficking and exploitation, making millions for themselves in the process," Hawley said in the press release touting his own bill. "Meanwhile, the victims of this abuse have little recourse against these powerful companies, who thrive on spreading depraved content. Serious criminal penalties are needed to crack down on these tech executives who think they are above the law."

Co-Sponsoring Senators Make Dubious 'Trafficking' Claim

The two GOP co-sponsoring Senators released statements backing Hawley's bill.

"In recent years, we've seen an uptick in human trafficking through pornography," said Iowa's Joni Ernst, without providing any evidence.

"Host websites that allow perpetrators to disseminate photos and video of sexual assaults or coerced sex acts on their platforms are evading the law while profiting directly from trafficking," she continued. "This bill will help empower victims of human trafficking to seek justice and put an end to the complex and heartbreaking cycle of exploitation."

Senator Tillis said, "Pornographic websites routinely post videos of women who are the victims of abuse or exploitation, and it is past time these companies are held accountable for posting this disgusting content. I am proud to co-introduce this legislation with Senator Hawley that would allow the victims of these videos to sue pornographic websites for distributing and profiting from videos that are posted without consent."

A Crusader Against the 'Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and 70s'

As XBIZ reported back in June, Hawley led a group of GOP Senators who introduced the projected "Limiting Section 230 Immunity to Good Samaritans Act."

The accompanying statement by Senator Hawley stated that "for too long, Big Tech companies like Twitter, Google and Facebook have used their power to silence political speech from conservatives without any recourse for users. Congress should act to ensure bad actors are not given a free pass to censor and silence their opponents."

While Hawley appears to be against "censorship" by online platforms shielded by Section 230, his project could gut a key protection that has shielded platforms from government intrusion and lawsuits seeking to limit free expression, including sexual expression.

There is evidence that Hawley's views on freedom of sexual expression are religiously inspired. In 2017, as Missouri's attorney general, Hawley blamed the sexual revolution of the 1960s and '70s for "human trafficking."

"We have a human trafficking crisis in our state and in this city and in our country because people are willing to purchase women, young women, and treat them like commodities," Hawley told a right-wing Kansas City evangelical group. "There is a market for it. Why is there? Because our culture has completely lost its way. The sexual revolution has led to exploitation of women on a scale that we would never have imagined, never have imagined."

[Link]

I personally have not considered alternatives, but there are aspects of this bill I find massively problem and thus would not offer my support.

What research did your government people do to reach the conclusions of this bill? Have you had a look at that?

[Link]

Now the government wants to make it harder to upload free porn. And people want to complain that this initiative will kill the industry?

Make up your mind

[Link]

As I said elsewhere, the populace currently suffers from a severe form of mental retardation.

Over and out.

[Link]

Edited by - zingerbrook on 12/19/2020 11:29:20 PM

[Link]

So I don't agree with that part of it, but I actually think the rest of the bill is a good idea. Of course, we wouldn't be in this position today if the tube sites had been more proactive about 2257 in the first place, but alas, they fucked up and now we all have to endure the consequences of their mistakes together. C'est la vie. It would be ideal if we could organize and self-regulate instead of being forced to self-regulate by legislation, but I think the industry has shown that it is not capable of doing that right now. The tubes have proven that they cannot monitor their servers for illegal content effectively, so now they must accept the consequences. It's nobody's fault but theirs. Removing the offending content after the fact is not good enough; they must have systems in place to prevent the posting of that content in the first place. Society demands it - as we are clearly seeing now - so it's not like this is my own personal edict or anything. This is the will of the people. The continued bitching and moaning about this "predicament" from tube owners is a waste of time. It will fall on deaf ears and nobody will come to their aid because a) they've made themselves no friends in this industry, b) nobody wants to be perceived as protecting child abusers / rapists / whatever else, and c) lawmakers are not going to yield until they see change that produces actual results. What we are seeing is a fundamental failing of the tube business model, which is 100% their own fault for being so short-sighted, and they do not deserve special legal protections against their own greed or stupidity. The rest of the industry has been duly following the rules this entire time. The tubes could have done the same, but they chose not to, and this is the result.

If they can adapt their business model to survive without anonymous uploads, then so be it. I have no problem with the fundamental idea of a free streaming porn service. Ad-supported revenue is still a legitimate business model. However, it must be designed in such a way that illegal content (which includes pirated scenes from pay sites, revenge porn, rape videos, child abuse content, and other things) cannot be shared and accessed so easily. Period. I've heard bitching and moaning from tube owners that their business model will not work, or at least will not be as profitable, in a verification-only environment... but come on, let's be honest, that's just too fucking bad for them, isn't it? I can't say I can spare much sympathy for their plight. Nobody told them they had to design their sites the way they did. That was their choice, it was a bad choice, and now they are seeing the consequences of it. They have to either adapt their model, pick a new one, or pack up and call it quits. Such is life.

The one thing I do understand and sympathize with, to some small degree, is that they never intended for their platforms to be used this way. I genuinely believe that to be true, if for no other reason than I need to believe it for the sake of my faith in humanity. I think the owners of these sites have been profoundly disappointed to see their platforms abused in this fashion and have done everything they can to address the problem within the framework of their existing business model. They have even made some very impressive progress, but nothing has worked. It still hasn't been good enough. That must be very frustrating for them, but that's where they are today, and now they are at the crossroads and are forced to re-evaluate how their business will work going forward. That's gotta be a tough pill to swallow, but I think it's fair to say that the tubes are now accepting that all the effort in the world would go to waste without some kind of fundamental change to their business model.

As usual, the law-abiding side of porn must suffer for the mistakes, missteps, and antics of the underground. We have complied with USC 2257 for 32 years without significant incident, so why can't the tubes do the same? *sigh* ... Just never forget what they did to this industry. They took the wheel and drove us all into a ditch.

Edited by - evilpineapples on 12/21/2020 11:53:00 AM

[Link]

The laws we already have should solve the issue if the government would just enforce them.

[Link]

From your last but one post, the one thing I disagree with is the industry's self regulation. I don't think it's incapable, I think parts of it have been unwilling to do so. I am not privy to PornHub's profit margins but I'm quite confident it could afford to pay for legal consultation on how to comply with USC 2257 to make the best effort possible to prevent revenge porn or underage material being uploaded. It's had years of opportunity to change its position and the mass deletion of non-verified uploads is entirely reactive to the pressure and scrutiny it's come under. My view is that PH had always been capable of holding itself to task but instead it chose to put make monetising content a priority and hide behind and exploit Section 230.

As you said, the consequences of PH's actions leave a rather uncertain future ahead for the rest of the porn industry that's kept its nose clean for so many years.

[Link]

But it's time to admit that, for the sake of the industry, tube sites have to die.

The whole bit about prohibiting downloads is what sticks with me. Do these idiots not realize that a prohibition on downloads of pornographic content, as phrased in this bill, is effectively a prohibition of web-hosted pornographic content, period? Every time you view any type of content on the internet, a copy of that content is cached to your local disk. It is a necessary part of displaying the content within your web browser. Do they just not understand how the Internet works (likely), or did they mean to introduce a disguised ban of all pornography on the entire Internet?

Did they also fail to consider the impact that bit will have on non-tube platforms (e.g. pay sites)? They're basically saying that nobody can download porn from the Internet, period, which seems like a bit of an overreach especially as it applies to professional studios versus tube sites. I doubt that any of these lawmakers considered those nuances, or that their intention with this bill was to effectively ban online porn, but taken literally, that's exactly what the bill would achieve. It needs to be significantly re-worded... however, the crux of (what I assume is) the bill's intent makes sense to me and seems sensible to pass into law.

But it's still unnecessary, because if the government would just enforce 2257 and/or pass an exception to the Section 230 liability protections for adult content platforms (which I believe can be inferred to exist already anyway, as I explained in my earlier post), we wouldn't need any of these other, more draconian measures.

Just do random 2257 spot checks. Keep us on our toes.

Edited by - evilpineapples on 12/21/2020 4:11:47 PM

[Link]

https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blog/2020/09/03/what-the-latest-2257-ruling-means-to-you/

[Link]

But I would not use the term "neutered" by any means. This latest decision is still quite "wiggle-roomy", and it is entirely feasible that a different court might determine (however arbitrarily) that a plaintiff in an unrelated case was not deterred from exercising his right to freedom of expression by the regulations. The U.S. court system is kinda fucked up like that. Yes, I know this decision has set a legal precedent, arguably, but that doesn't necessarily mean shit.

Anyway, to steer this thread back on topic, I think we have to let go of this idea that a hosting platform is not responsible for the content made available to its users. That may be legally true thanks to the liability protections afforded by Section 230, but it's clearly not a good idea for this industry. Just look at what's happening now. Anonymous uploads have got to stop and we have got to start voluntarily enforcing server-side record-keeping on these big platforms.

Edited by - evilpineapples on 12/22/2020 12:29:07 PM

[Link]

Edited by - philly30 on 12/22/2020 12:29:30 PM

[Link]

"This bill targets large-scale, criminal, for-profit streaming services, not good faith business disputes or noncommercial activities. Nor does it target individuals who access the pirated streams, knowingly or or unknowingly."

[Link]

Edited by - philly30 on 12/22/2020 2:21:28 PM

[Link]