Sunday, August 19, 2007's illegal...

There is an interesting topic being discussed over on Jill B's blog, and as it is a peeve subject of mine, I thought I'd bring it up here...

Why yes, it would be the use of pornographic images on anti-porn blogs, and the fact that unlike pornographers, the anti-porn folks, along with utterly ignoring the performers whose images they use, are also not at all in compliance with 2257...

Nikki Craft, Melissa Farley, so on, so forth? I seriously doubt they have the legal documentation required to be on file for the images used in their anti-porn arguments....

Curious, no?


  1. Especially with the proposed new 2257 rules coming down the pike. There's more about it at Violet Blue's blog here. (It also links to a video on the topic that's pretty informative, but that's also, shall we say, rather distracting and perhaps a bit sexist.)

    Present 2257 regs mean you can post porn as long as you also give the address where the 2257 info can be found – any porn site will have that info right on its front page.

    Upcoming 2257 regs may mean that "secondary providers" (that is, anybody who's posting porn for any reason) need to actually have in their own possession, copies of IDs and other required proofs of age.

    Anti-porn folks aren't even complying with the present more lax version, which would actually be pretty easy, since that info is given on whatever site or video they're taking the content from. There's probably no way they'll be able to comply with the more stringent version.

    I wouldn't mind seeing these idiots being held to the very stringent laws that they advocate for.

  2. That just goes to show how crap 2257 actually is... though I'm not above nailing these jerks for it :)

  3. Personally, I'm very much against even the present 2257 regs, especially pertaining to "secondary providers" having to give up intimate information about performers who are obviously over 18.

    Besides, the usual suspects will simply say that they should be exempted from the regs because they are using the images for political activism rather than mere "prurient" interest (that is, not to sexually arouse).

    As much as I love to see Nikki Craft and the crew taste their own laws, I'd rather not have that law in the first place.


  4. And here's yet another reason why 2257 should be repealed outright: now the DoJ smuthounds are talking up the option of forming a "porn registry" where performers will have to provide on their sites and directly to the DoJ's obscenity unit everything from stage names, real names, ages, professional names, and other intimate information.

    Here is a link to the New York Post article describing this proposal, reprinted through the AdultFYI site:

    NY Post: Department of Justice Wants Official List of Every Porn Star in America


  5. I'm just so fucking happy that they're devoting their time to the -important- shit, the federal DoJ, that is.