Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Gay.com blames Bush Administration for photo blocks.
Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion
smalltownboy
Did anyone see this on gay.com this morning?

QUOTE
CENSORED! BY US GOVERNMENT!
Changes to our photo policy mandated by the Bush Administration
Always on the lookout for hot guys and ways to keep people from having fun, the US Dept. of Justice is taking a break from prosecuting terrorists to do something they think is more important: restricting your right to view and share photos online.

All member photos identified as adult on our site are temporarily unavailable for public view, due to the sudden, and unconstitutional, decision by the US Dept. of Justice to place new restrictions on all web sites around the world that do business in the US (I guess nobody ever told them the internet is borderless). Gay.com thinks your adult photos should be sexy, secure, and legally protected, so we've joined with other companies to seek an injunction against this ruling. We're doing everything possible to minimize its impact on you.

What does this mean for you?

Your civil liberties are under attack by the US government!
All photos identified as adult will be temporarily unavailable from public view
Members will still be able to view their own adult photos and edit their profiles, but they temporarily won't be able to see anyone else's adult photos
Gay.com will begin reviewing all adult photos, and will make them available again for public viewing if they meet our new standards (see below)
About these new government regulations

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has previously found these regulations to be unconstitutional, yet the Bush Administration has chosen to pursue them anyway
The new regulations go into effect June 23, 2005
It only applies to \"sexually explicit\" content, not content that is merely \"lascivious\" (Hmmm, I don't know what explicit means, but I know it when I see it!)
See below for a detailed, and entertaining, explanation of what's \"explicit.\"
Your adult photos

The good news: most of your photos are OK (including your adult photos) and will be restored once they've been approved by Gay.com, because the dirty boys at the US government only consider certain poses and activities to be \"sexually explicit\"
The bad news: under these regulations Gay.com will no longer be able to accept or display \"sexually explicit\" photos from its members for either public or private view
New standards for \"sexually explicit\" content on Gay.com

A hand holding or touching genitals, or appearing to grip or stimulate genitals is considered masturbation and is prohibited.
A hand clearly \"cupping\" or covering genitals for the purposes of keeping them covered is allowable.
A hand inside pants is prohibited as it implies masturbation.
Pictures with more that one person that include nudity are prohibited.
All cartoons are prohibited.
While images of a nude person on all fours is allowable, an image showing the buttocks being held apart by hands would be considered explicit and prohibited.
In the interest of safety, no images of nude children (e.g. a nude baby at the beach with her two dads) will be allowed.
A clothed person posing with their pet is allowed, but a nude person with an animal is prohibited (no more walking your dog in the nude!).
An image of a person in a bondage or fetish outfit is allowed (but please, no polyester!).
Images that depict bondage or S&M \"abuse\" are prohibited (shockingly, images from Abu Ghraib prison would be censored under the new regulations)
Digital images run through an \"illustrator\" filter on software would be held to these same standards
What is Gay.com doing about the regulation?

We have joined with other companies to legally challenge its enactment
We're fighting for your civil liberties, and oppose undue government interference with individual expression
We're fighting against such regulations because we know they have a disproportionate effect on historically isolated groups, such as the LGBT community
Make your voice heard!

Contact US elected officials and the Dept. of Justice to tell them you oppose 18 U.S.C. §2257
US Dept. of Justice: www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html
US Senate: www.senate.gov
US House of Representatives: www.house.gov
Support the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its efforts to defend freedom in the digital world
www.eff.org
All the personals profiles photos are blocked???

NJ
bobby78751
I was on a site last night and the entire page was filled with text explaining that 2257 suddenly passed laws are to go into effect today and that from that moment on, the site will be unavailable until they are able to comply with the new laws. There were no citations to specific laws and I had heard nothing about this. Now, I am seeing that there is validity to their comments. This is VERY scary.
RazorbackTX
The party of less government strikes yet again.

"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children—and now, die—I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives."
bobby78751
QUOTE
RazorbackTX:
The party of less government strikes yet again.

\"Other than telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children—and now, die—I think the Republicans have done a fine job of getting government out of our personal lives.\"
And...don't forget... they can also decide if we can continue living where we do.
hockeyTom
This takes the cake. Okay all you Republicans on this site, what do you think of this? The party in power has gone way to far on this one!!!
MPetrelis
I've been bummed out all morning about how rate my schlong's web site is no longer operational, thanks to these new regs.

This may sound radical, but I think as a man way over 21, I should be able to look at other adult men and their cocks in the privacy of my own apartment on my computer, WITHOUT government interference.

What is gained by denying me the privilege of enjoying amateur men showing off their manmeat on the web?
hockeyTom
Do we know yet, if this affects all gay sites, or just a few or ??? I checked another one already, and they didn't have pics shut down.
gmginsfo
QUOTE
puckman1:
This takes the cake. Okay all you Republicans on this site, what do you think of this? The party in power has gone way to far on this one!!!
I want to know if this "blockage" is really gov't inspired, or just done by Gay.com/PlanetOut to embarrass the Bush Admin. Given PO's biased news coverage and antipathy to President Bush in the past, I can't rule that out. If it turns out to be gov't blocked, then THIS GOPer would object to it, but until that's shown to be the case, I'll reserve judgment.

Regardless, I don't for a minute buy G.c/PO's "disproportionate impact" argument, which taken to its illogical extreme could mean that just because certain people commit crimes, all criminal laws must be stricken. Arguments like that, particularly in the factual context here, cheapen and demean the Constitution that protects their being made. And no, NJ, there's nothing in there about blocking "all the personals profiles photos" - just those deemed objectionable. By whom remains to be seen.

As of this writing, this is the only remotely related report of anything akin to this mentioned elsewhere, and had nothing to do with the "guvmint."

[ June 23, 2005, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
Jim at Outsports
Found this on another site:

"NOTICE: Pending changes to US law force us to change our photo policy. No photos depicting actual sexual conduct are allowed including cum shots or any form of anal penetration. You can post as many nude photos of yourself as you want; just no sex.

Please help us by removing any sexually explicit photos you have posted."

Still trying to find relevant law references here.
Former MSU Gymnast
Authorizing Statute:

Section 2257

CFR (Implementation):

28 CFR 75
hockeyTom
What a crock of *hit. Big brother is alive and well people!
theodoresdaddy
One of my "adult" yahoo sites, they've been talking about something similar

some government entity is supposedly going to start requiring the sites to have proof that the "models" are over 18

how in the hell can you do that when some of these pics have been floating around the net for years?

and some of these are posted anonymously

is that spelled right?

but what are the closeted Republican phobes going to do if they can't get their internet porn?
smalltownboy
QUOTE
theodoresdaddy:
...but what are the closeted Republican phobes going to do if they can't get their internet porn?
Well duh...what do u think their interns are for? biggrin.gif

NJ
theodoresdaddy
hehehe
Ms. de Blazer
QUOTE
Pictures with more that one person that include nudity are prohibited.
Ah, so no more photos of Rodin's The Kiss can be viewed on line.
RazorbackTX
More here


San Francisco based Gay.com is one of several major sites posting major new changes in the photos members can share of themselves. That follows the Bush Administration's decision to begin enforcing a new interpretation of a federal law governing explicit photos and other content online.
hockeyTom
NathanJones said
QUOTE
well duh, what do you think their Interns are for?
QUOTE
So true. Just ask Mayor Jim West!!!! eek!
RazorbackTX
This could be another "working within" project for Uncle Tom's Log Cabin. A great follow up to their smashing success promoting Bush's Social Security plan.
gobar
Yes, lets leave it to the "working within" crew. Soon we'll all be sent to room 101.
fantomas
Seriously, people, is this crap for real? The party of "less government" is now moving into full Stalinistic mode if this is the case--censoring photos online. Isn't it enough that on these adult sites you're required to admit you're of age, and on the explicit ones you have to register to see the material? Don't the Justice Department officials have enough to deal with in terms of prosecuting all those "terrorists" down in Guantanamo and the other secret prisons the US is paying Halliburton and its cronies to maintain all over the world??? KOMRADE BUSH, F*CK OFF!!!

[ June 23, 2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
hockeyTom
Obviously the cronies in power have nothing better to do....how sad.
millerbeach
So tell me Log Cabin folks, is this where "inclusion wins"? I've been waiting for an answer on that one for a looooong time now. The comparisons between Bush and Hitler are not so far fetched now, are they. How will PhillyFan get by? MiMatt38, how about you? The party of inclusion? No, this is the party of Adolph Hitler.
RobertsInOkc
I believe the new regs were badly thought out and have essentially resulted in a disaster of confusion and stupdity.

For instance, if OutSports shows a banner with a guy naked on it - They have to keep documents of the model in the DAMN BANNER on file. To prove he is of age.

I don't know that Bush had anything to do with this. I do know that the Justice Department did. My hope is that it will be struck down because at this point it's just a ridiculous law and one that will really, really hurt the adult industry.

- So much for conservatives being pro-business. :confused:
RobertsInOkc
By the way - If you guys want a sounding board and someone to push around.

I voted for Bush. eek!


Twice! ohmy.gif

To be honest I did not want to vote for either. I just did not want Kerry to pull us out of Iraq. wink
RobertsInOkc
QUOTE
millerbeach:
So tell me Log Cabin folks, is this where \"inclusion wins\"? I've been waiting for an answer on that one for a looooong time now. The comparisons between Bush and Hitler are not so far fetched now, are they. How will PhillyFan get by? MiMatt38, how about you? The party of inclusion? No, this is the party of Adolph Hitler.
Don't kid yourself; Liberal democrats are no more inclusive than Republicans. The only difference is who they "include".
RobertsInOkc
biggrin.gif

In 1998, President Clinton's Department of Justice attempted to broaden the interpretation of "producers" of such material to hold culpable those who re-publish the material as well as those who create it.

It looks like the action you are so angry about, and blaming log-cabin republicans for - was started by Bill Clinton.. How ironic. rolleyes.gif
smalltownboy
This was on gay.com this morning:

QUOTE
Legal victory over government censorship!
Gay.com is back to normal — hot, fun and uncensored!

We bent over backwards to defend your right to view and share photos of guys bending over. Adult photos and Video Chat on our site are once again available for public viewing by consenting adults — thanks to an agreement that stops the U.S. Dept. of Justice from expanding restrictions on online content. The current agreement only protects plaintiffs and sites that belong to the Free Speech Coalition, of which Gay.com is a member.

There are many other web sites and companies that are NOT PROTECTED under this agreement.

We've won this battle, but the war's not over. We have joined with other companies to continue the legal fight and overturn the restrictions altogether. Since the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has already found these restrictions (18 U.S.C. §2257, for all you legal queens) to be unconstitutional, we're confident that freedom and hot gay sex will ultimately prevail over the forces of censorship and oppression. After all, the guys at the Dept. of Justice need dates, too.
NJ
bobby78751
QUOTE
RobertsInOkc:
By the way - If you guys want a sounding board and someone to push around.

I voted for Bush. eek!


Twice! ohmy.gif
MiMatt83...is that you?
gmginsfo
QUOTE
NathanJones:
This was on gay.com this morning:

QUOTE
Legal victory over government censorship!
Gay.com is back to normal — hot, fun and uncensored!

We bent over backwards to defend your right to view and share photos of guys bending over. Adult photos and Video Chat on our site are once again available for public viewing by consenting adults — thanks to an agreement that stops the U.S. Dept. of Justice from expanding restrictions on online content. The current agreement only protects plaintiffs and sites that belong to the Free Speech Coalition, of which Gay.com is a member.

There are many other web sites and companies that are NOT PROTECTED under this agreement.

We've won this battle, but the war's not over. We have joined with other companies to continue the legal fight and overturn the restrictions altogether. Since the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has already found these restrictions (18 U.S.C. §2257, for all you legal queens) to be unconstitutional, we're confident that freedom and hot gay sex will ultimately prevail over the forces of censorship and oppression. After all, the guys at the Dept. of Justice need dates, too.
NJ
This whole "issue" appeared and was "resolved" just a bit too easily for my doubt genes to handle. Apart from G.c/PO's crowing over "their" "victory," I smell a rat - and not within the Administration. I'm still waiting to see what comes out of all this.

That said, I think we should pick our battles a little more carefully. Free speech, sure, but with porn as the poster child? Hardly.

PS - Thanks for the cites, MSU! Navigating thru the CFR is one of my least favorite things!

[ June 24, 2005, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]
smalltownboy
I doubt seriously this is a "gay-cause".....afterall straight folks like their porn just as much as gay men do.....I would think sites like gay.com are big in the GAY community, but are probably no where as large and/or powerful as some of the straight web-site/publishers out there....and all those straight men arn't gonna take too kindly to their porn being wiped off their PC screens.

We're just knats on the elephant.

NJ

[ June 24, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: NathanJones ]
smalltownboy
sorry, I got some sorta error and it made a double post!

NJ

[ June 24, 2005, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: NathanJones ]
twin58
QUOTE
RobertsInOkc
In 1998,...

It looks like the action you are so angry about, and blaming log-cabin republicans for - was started by Bill Clinton..
If I'm not mistaken, bills start in Congress. It's not until they pass both houses and are signed by the president, or his veto is overridden, that they become law.

More important, do you have a link for that? I tried Googling, but the most likely links referring to legislation from 1998 concern the Child Online Protection Act, which was overturned by the U. S. Supreme Court in June, 2004.

Court Rejects [Pennsylvania] Child Porn Internet Law

QUOTE
Free-Speech Rights Violated, Judge Rules

By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 11, 2004; Page E01

A federal court yesterday struck down as unconstitutional a path-breaking Pennsylvania law designed to prevent Internet users from seeing Web sites that contain child pornography.
....

In June [2004], the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Child Online Protection Act, a 1998 law passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. That law would have outlawed adult-content Web sites if they were deemed to be harmful to minors. The court ruled 5 to 4 that the law would not sufficiently protect the rights of adults to see sexually explicit material.
Are you referring to different legislation?

Thanks.

[ June 24, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
RobertsInOkc
No, I am not Matt. My name is Robert! wink

I just did not like attacking a log cabin Republican because of the new 2257 regulations. It's also important to realize that John Kerry would not have done anything to stop it either. From what I've read this has to do with the justice department and its their law.

The 2257 regs were updated and expanded in order to "stop child porn". Of course that's not possible and the only way to stop it would be by stopping those who are NOT interested in child porn. Which is whats happening.

I don't like the new regs either! These are the kinds of laws it takes to "win the war on child porn". Everyone else will be made to suffer. :mad:
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.