Sunday, June 29, 2008

Enough, the law is the law.

This is what needs to be stopped.

Call to action, please redistribute widely.

The Stop Porn Culture Slide Show Training Program includes a script, tips for conducting the session; it also includes the power Point Visual presentation, which contains pornographic material. They are saying that this slide show falls under the preview of Fair Use.

However, as it can now be watched, downloaded, viewed, reproduced, and yes, even sold. the creators of Stop Porn Culture, or anyone and everyone else who wishes to showcase, distribute, or otherwise use the material in the slide show is in violation of Federal Law 2257.

Never mind that not a one of the performers featured in this “educational tool” were asked their opinions, or for their consent, nor were the companies that originally produced the images…but now see, there are questions of a Federal Law which applies to Pornographers, and as these people have essentially made themselves such, the law also applies to them.

Any person exhibiting pornography, even if it is free, is beholden to 2257, this includes SPC, and those who run this seminar. You will note, at the end of the presentation, there is a claim of copywrite over images already subject to copywrite, and used without permission.

You will also note, their attempts to keep this material out of the hands of minors are scant at best.

I encourage everyone to write a letter of protest the organizers of the SPC Training Program, inform anyone and everyone you know who is pondering doing one of these sessions of the lack of 2257 compliance and lack of consent on the part of the performers and owners of the images, and if necessary, alert legal authorities to the use of this slideshow where ever it may occur.

Oh, and I am curious, are people CARDED before attending one of these events? Viewing the slideshow on line? If not, then anyone and everyone involved in this program is guilty of showing pornography to minors…oddly enough, John Stagliano is in court for such things… do the same laws not apply?


If Pornographers must comply with 2257, so must their adversaries


  1. Now, you do know, Ren, that Gail Dines and her followers will probably reply that 2257 doesn't apply to their efforts, simply due to the "educational" and "ideological" value of their show in "educating" the masses about the alleged "harms" of pornography...and that the slide shows they use are not designed to sexually arouse and tittilate, like the original content they abuse.

    And, have you heard about the recent new appendage to 2257, called 2257A (which was added by Congress through the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act signed by President (Select) Bush last year), which specifically tries to exempt mainstream Hollywood film and media from the requirements of 2257 regarding recordkeeping of all models involved in even "simulated" sexual conduct??? I'm sure that Dines and the SPC folks are already attempting to exploit that act as a defense for their slide show, too.

    Not saying that you shouldn't get after their asses for their lies and slander anyway...but it's not going to be an easy struggle.


  2. My bad....the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act was actually passed in 2006, not last year.


  3. AK- Yeah, but I am a mean, pushy, stubborn I'll keep tryin'.

  4. They'll have no luck at all with that defense.

    The materials shown in the slideshow are sexually explicit and taken f directly from pornographic videos that require full 2257 compliance. It's not a matter of some mainstream actors showing a bit of skin, or some carefully censored images used in MSM exploitation pieces as "news" to boost ratings.

    This is the real thing, including some of the hardest images to be found in commercial porn, and as such, no amount of legal sophistry, nor any attempt to legislatively exempt some mainstream programming from some tangential application of the statute can change its status.

    This material was required to meet 2257 standards at the time it was created and it still is. If they try that defense it court, they'll be looking at a stretch behind bars.

    The sooner the better.

  5. Just got back from 10 days away and saw this post, immediately went to the "Stop Porn Culture" site and wanted to check out the slide show (masochism anyone?) but found it has been temporarily taken offline.

    Perhaps Dines and crew reads this too ;)

  6. I take that back ... After poking around more I found that the powerpoint and the script for the slideshow are still listed and available under "tools for presenting the slide show." It's just the slideshow link itself that doesn't work.

  7. It's still very much available and very much non-compliant in virtually every way possible. No keeper of records is listed. No location for records inspection is listed. None of the required legal warnings against access to minors are displayed on the front page as the statute sets out in very specific terms.

    Simply hiding the download inside some equally non-compliant framework changes nothing. The show itself contains 88 non-compliant images. That's worth a maximum of 440 years behind bars under the 18 U.S.C. 2257 penalties as set forth.

  8. Your attempt to quash Stop Porn Culture's political speech has no basis in law. The 2257 regulations specifically exempt use by an educational organization. Please see the following at

    (d) Sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release refer to commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. If NoPornNorthampton posts here, then Cruella DeVille and Mr. Meek, i.e. Dines and Jensen, must be pretty scared.

    Is Stop Porn Culture actually an educational organization? Aren't educational organizations supposed to issue "educational" speech, not "political speech"?

  11. It doesn't matter if Stop Porn Culture is an educational organization in the eyes of the courts or not. 2257 excludes "noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter".

    The purpose of 2257 is to prevent the commercial production and distribution of child porn. It is not intended to muzzle anti-porn viewpoints.

    Bottom line, do you believe free speech rights should go out the window when it's porn that's being criticized? Do you really want to go down this path?

  12. Ahhhh...Adam, or whomever's representing NPNH:

    Your "free speech rights" aren't being violated in any way; because this is NOT an FREE SPEECH issue.

    This is an issue with using the images of actors and performers against their will and without their approval to misrepresent and outright slander their efforts, and with requiring the same bookkeeping requirements that those whom you want to censor are bound to uphold.

    Oh....and if the real issue of 2257 is, as you say, to "eliminate child porn", than why are artists and performers who are WELL OVER the legal age limit still required to put up their information to the government?? Why are sites which have nothing to do with "child porn" forced to undergo the "secondary producers" requirement??

    Besides, isn't simply targeting actual sexual abuse of children (most of which occurs in the home, not on the Internet, and mostly in venues where the perpetrator knows the victim) good enough for you??

    Nope, Adam..."child porn" is just a ruse you use to justify your campaign against adult consensual sexual material that you simply don't like and want to censor.

    No one -- not me, Ernest, Renegade Evolution, or Sheldon -- is muzzling your right to express your opposition to adult consensual porn. But when you attempt to use agitprop that smears and slanders those very performers, then we have the very same right to call your organization out on your efforts.

    We're not the muzzlers are.


  13. I just posted on this issue at Sex In The Public Square, based partly on my reflection on Ren and Ernest's good work and also partly on the comments of NoPornNorthampton. Trackbacks aren't working at SITPS so I thought I'd let you know about the post, which links back here a couple of times.
    Is Stop Porn Culture Violating Porn Laws?"

  14. NoPornNorthamptonJuly 15, 2008 at 8:06 AM

    You are making incompatible arguments. You claim the StopPornCulture slideshow is skewed towards "the most hard core" images, yet you also complain it reproduces too many images. StopPornCulture aims to demonstrate that these images are representative of some of the most popular, most easily accessed porn today, and that the industry is trending towards more and more abusive and misogynistic themes. These images are not just fringe tastes indulged by a few.

    How else can StopPornCulture illustrate this except by showing a large number of images from a wide variety of sources?

    Along the same lines, please see

  15. Unfortunately, I'm off line again, and using a library computer that filters out links to your site, NPNH; but if your "rebuttal" is anything like the arguments you have made previously, then it can be just as easily dispatched.

    You say that the images used by SPC reflect the majority of images most popularly found in porn; yet then you add in images from mainstream, non-explicit sources and attempt to indict them all for the crime of offense to women. You are the ones attempting to claim that these images are innately harmful; not us. Why should we bear the burden of proof for your arguments?

    However you may wish to spin yourselves, the basic fact remains that the overwhelming majority of images of adult sexual imagery available on the Internet remains basically of two subgenres: (1) hetero couples having consensual conventional sex; and (2) solo girls masturbating or engaging in sex acts with other women. To put it simply, there is NO evidence whatsoever (other than your trumped-up, cooked-up statistics, which have been proven to be completely wrong) that what you describe as "misogynistic" porn can be said to be the most "popular" form of sexual material; nor that such material in itself fosters such negative attitudes towards women any more than non-sexual imagery or traditional anti-feminist speech and imagery does.

    And once again, criticism of your methods of agitprop is not the equivalent of "muzzling" your right of free speech; it is simply attempting to apply the same standards of law on you that you would impose on producers of consensual adult speech. What's the matter, the shoe fitting a bit too snugly??

    Also, see this rebuttal here:

    The SmackDog Chronicles: Responding to NoPornNorthhampton


  16. NPNH- the slide show is unethical, it's educational value is highly debated, and it is easily viewed by minors, both on line and at the live versions of the event as well (people are not carded before entering places where it will be shown). John Stagliano is in court for the possibility a trailer for a film his company made was seen by minors. The SPC slide show has the same possibility. Equal under the law? SPC should be in court with him.

    And he even has the consent of the performers in his films, unlike SPC.

  17. And, unlike SPC, he can prove that those who appear in his work are consenting adults.

    The issue here is not, as the SPC gang would have it, one of property. I grant their claim of fair use regarding I.D. legal magazine covers and whatever else they may have shoplifted under that rhetorical fig leaf. But as soon as you show an explicit image of a sex act in public, you become legally obligated to produce proof that no minors were involved in the creation of that image, whatever your motives.

    More than one sexual predator has attempted to explain away the possession of sexually explicit materials depicting minors or those who might be construed to be minors on the grounds that said materials had been assembled for "educational" or "research" purposes. Users of that defense are quite likely to end up doing time.

    As I've said elsewhere already, I don't believe the SPC show contains images of minors, but I can't prove it and neither can those who made it. That's an important difference between what I do and what they do. It's not just a legal technicality. It's a clear moral distinction. Whatever I may think of the current interpretation of 2257, I wholly and wholeheartedly support the basic necessity of strict record keeping requirements where hardcore content is concerned. Evidently, SPC notsomuch.

    I can identify roughly half of the 88 non-compliant images in the show and can informally vouch for their legality, As to the remaining 44, for all I know they were bought in an alley in Moldova and smuggled into the U.S in a hollowed-out copy of Not For Sale, rather than being taken from licit, American-made porn as is claimed. I doubt that's what happened, but I can't know because they can't demonstrate otherwise.

    I don't give a rat's ass if they keep showing the 100+ slides in their dreary presentation that are I.D. legal to anyone and everyone they can get to sit through it until the end of the world. The legally compliant majority of its interminable running time should be more than adequate for them to make their specious case.

    I don't need for them to shut up because I don't like what they have to say, though they're over here hurling that accusation to deflect a charge that clearly and correctly worries them, but I wouldn't tolerate it for a hot second if a fellow pornographer suddenly decided that age verification wasn't anybody's business but his own and I see no reason why it should be tolerated from, or by, anyone else, whatever labored justifications are offered.

  18. First, Adam, you say:

    "Your attempt to quash Stop Porn Culture's political speech has no basis in law. The 2257 regulations specifically exempt use by an educational organization."

    But then, a bit later, you say:
    "It doesn't matter if Stop Porn Culture is an educational organization in the eyes of the courts or not."

    So, right here on the same thread, you contradict yourself! First, you say that educational organizations are exempt from 2257 regs, then you claim it doesn't matter if SPC is educational or not.

    Well, if it doesn't matter, then why mention that in the first place? Duh!

  19. Good point Sheldon. They claim the exemption under the vague definition of an educational organization, then admit they might not even qualify for that.

    And if they don't, where does that leave them? As secondary producers with no paperwork. It's mighty thin wire they're walking with those pictures, and even they seem to know it might snap if judge decides to give it a good yank.