[cashflyer]

Now the intention of this change is to prosecute those who traffic in child pornography. By mandating that each photo be documented, lawmakers hope to protect minors and cut down on an illegal multimillion dollar industry. I think this is a just cause and the intentions of the lawmakers is a pure one. I think all of us agree, child pornography is a problem and and it has to be stopped. But, as it is currently written now, there are a few huge problems with this law.

First, let's say that I want to stalk Jenna Jameson. All I have to do is start up a porn website and buy some content with her and now she's obligated to provide me with her home address. That's scary. Now further imagine that she's not rich Jenna Jameson who can afford her own bodyguards, but just a regular housewife who has made a few videos with her husband. That's even scarier because there's going to be a lot of personal information changing hands.

Secondly, the new and improved 2577 assumes that all pornography is child pornography, until proven otherwise. Stop for a second and think about that. Guilty until proven innocent. A lot of these smaller "mom and pop" porn sites buy their content from bigger providers, and a good portion of this material may have been shot two or three years ago. The actor/actresses in the material simply aren't around anymore - maybe they've moved, died, changed their names, whatever. So regardless of the fact that the adults in these photos/movies were over age 18 at the time were filmed; regardless of the fact that the photographers have a signed release from the models as required by the law at that time; this existing content will now be deemed illegal since the actors/actresses aren't available to provide the additional info required by the updated law. And thus with the stroke of a pen, probably 80% of the pornography on the internet is suddenly deemed child pornography since it can't be proven that it's not.

And it doesn't matter if the people in the photo are visibly older than 18 either. So if I have a photo of two 90 year olds having sex (I know, ewwww, but I'm trying to make a point here so bear with me), and I don't have copies of each of their photo id's and home addresses and telephone numbers, etc -- then that photo is automatically deemed child pornography. That just doesn't make sense to me. I don't understand how that helps children.

But it doesn't stop there. Take for example this site where the webmaster has put up a little quiz called, "Sex or Something Else." The object is you have to look an an individuals facial expression and guess whether they're having sex or performing some other activity. Click "sex" on the #2 picture in the top right corner. The way 2257 is currently written, this photo which depicts explicit sexual activity would be considered child pornography unless he has the docs to prove otherwise. And in case you're wondering, blurring the photos does NOT make the picture "not sexually explicit". And if this webmaster doesn't have complete documentation on all the actors; and make that documentation available for federal inspection 365 days a year, this cute little quiz is now considered a felony offense.

Do I think more needs to be done to protect children? Yes I do. But do I believe that 2257, as it's currently written, is the right way to go about it? No, I do not. I think this law has gone from one extreme to the other; from requiring almost no documentation to requiring way too much.

I know porn may not be everyone's bag, and that's okay if you're not into it. So let me draw a parallel into something that more of us do enjoy. Drinking alcohol. No wait, I'm serious, so hang with me for a minute here. Both pornography and alcohol are something you can't enjoy in the country until you've reached a certain age, so the principle of each isn't too far apart.

Imagine, a 50 year old man and his 21 year old son walk into a bar and order a round of beers. The bartender sees the father is obviously of drinking age, but asks the son for a copy of his drivers license. After verifying the son is at least 21, he pours them each a nice frosty beer which they proceed to drink. Dear old dad then orders a second round. Mr Bartender Man pours the other two beer which the men drink, pay for and leave. That's it, that's a legal drinking experience in todays day and age.

Now let's transpose 2257's requirements onto the alcohol industry and see how that would have transpired.

A 50 year old man and his 21 year old son walk into a bar and order a round of beers. The bartender asks to see each of the men's drivers licenses and then makes a photocopy of each which he puts into a filing cabinet. The two men consume the beers and ask the bartender for a second round. Again the bartender must see their id's, and make more photocopies of the two drivers licenses before he can pour them a drink. The two men drink their second round of beer and leave. The bartender's responsibility is not done there. He is now responsible for saving those four drinking records for a period of seven years. He must also be prepared for inspection by the Federal Liquor Authority and show those records on demand, 365 days a year. So that means if The Feds want to take a look at those records at 9am on Christmas morning, the bartender had better well be abe to give them access, or they're going to cart his ass off to jail.

Now would such laws probably cut down on underage drinking? Yes, yes they probably would. But how much, and at what cost? Imagine having to photo document each one of your party guests every time they consumed a beer or strawberry daiquiri the next time you throw a barbeque. Imagine that you could be imprisoned if your friend happened to mention that he had a beer at your party and you couldn't immediately provide the photo documentation proving he was over 21 at the time. That's effectively what's happening to the porn industry.

Should more be done to stop child pornography (and for that matter underage drinking)? You bet your ass. But I don't think declaring all pornography illegal until proven otherwise is the right anwer. I believe there is merit behind what lawmakers were trying to accomplish and ultimately I hope they succeed. I just don't think 2257 going to accomplish anything even remotely close to what it's supposed to. I think the only thing you're going to see are a lot of US based porn sites go offline, their web hosting services go bankrupt because of lack of business, and a lot of porn just move to offshore hosting. I think we're going to see an increase in identity theft from all these copies of people's personal information running around. And I think the real medium where most child porn is probably traded -- newsgroups and peer to peer sharing -- remain completely unaffected.

Right now the Free Speech Coalition is fighting to have an injuction put in place to block enforcement of 2257. Their argument that the law is too broad sweeping and places too much of a burden on webmasters who provide legal adult entartainment. And, I agree and support their fight. Not because I don't want child pornography stopped - because I most certainly do. Hell, I won't even post pictures of my nephew with his new ATV unless he's wearing a helmet so you can't see his face. I just think there's got to be a better way to go about it than with the current restrictions of 2257.

Consider this. A friend of mine is an Air Force pilot, father of three boys and due to his military status occasionally gets deployed for a few months at a time. So when he and his wife started their family, they also started a website which they use to share family photos both while dad is away, and with their extended families back here in the northeast. Last week he sends out an email stating he has password protected their online photo alblum. Why? Because when they looked in the server logs, they discovered a large number of people were visiting from web searches for "child in diapers," or "child in bathtub," or "naked baby" and various other f***d up searches. Now the fact that a parent has to password protect his family's photo alblum because some disturbed *******s are trying to look at pictures of his children taking a bath, just boggles my mind.

So take this example and ask yourself: What does 2257 do to protect this man's children? The answer is nothing.

Children do need better protection from online predators. But as it stands right now, USC 2257 just isn't it.




Sorry that was so long, but I have a questions to pose: How long until we, as porn consumers, are required to have documentation on all of our terrabytes of porn? Already, the feds actively search out child porn consumers - and they should. But 2257 assumes any undocumented image is child porn. What happens when they come to YOUR house, confiscate your computer, and declare that you have child porn on your computer??