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?

Enough.

If Pornographers must comply with 2257, so must their adversaries

Gail Dines, her porn training, and me...

right here.

The Conviction of Max Hardcore: Repercussions For The Rest of Adult??

As everyone now knows, Max Hardcore (nee' Paul Little) was convicted of all charges stemming from his obscenity trial early last week in Florida; though the circumstances of his conviction have been controversial from the very beginning to the bitter end.

Though some would state the fact that the nature of MH's particular....ummmm, style of content regarding his view of women made him an easy target for the Justice Department porn censors; it is still unknown what ramifications his conviction (and the subsequent appeals) will have for the broad diaspora of the adult sex industry. As Ren Ev commented on in one of her latest appearances on Blog Talk Radio's XXBN show hosted by Jill Brenneman (yes, that was a program plug for our blog hostess); the fact that the conviction occured in South Florida where there happens to be a growing subculture of porn (albeit mostly of the tamer kind) would seem to be more surprising than a conviction in, say, Utah.

Nevertheless, the successful conviction of Max Hardcore may egg those elements of the Justice Department's "Adult Obscenity" division to push the envelope in other cases against porn producers, including the current case against John Stagliano and Evil Angel Productions now ongoing. It may be their one last attempt to do their damage before an Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress totally shuts their syndicate down. (Presuming, of course, that a McCain administration would continue the same policies.)

I have a few words on this..but first, I'd rather hear from the experts...as in, you the reader. What's your take on the conviction, the appeals; the repercussions for the rest of the industry??

Tech Difficulties Solved...For Now

Well....I've been given at least a reprieve from the Grim Reaper of Financial Death; I was able to get enough financial relief to at least pay my rent and cable/Internet for the month. So, I am back online at home away from the library censors.

I'm not completely home free, and I may face the same situation this time next month...but at least I'm in much better shape than I was a week ago.

So, for the moment, I'm back and ready for some major catch-up. Thanks to everyone here for your kind words of encouragement and support.

More Technical Difficulties..UPDATED

Just to let you all know why I haven't been posting lately...

Once again, I have been knocked off line by some personal financial issues that I will have to deal with. It may take some time for me to get back on line; until then I'm dependent on my local library for Internet access...as in, one hour a day and censored access. (I'm surprised that I can even access this blog.)

I will ultimately resolve this and get back online, but it may be a while. But, I'll be fine.


UPDATE: Well...it's gotten a bit worse for me now...details just posted at my blog here.

When "Free Internet" Isn't Exactly Free

This is a proposal that sounds excellent in some parts, but is just plain horrid in others.

Quoting from RawStory.com:

FCC proposes free Internet... as long as it's censored
05/29/2008 @ 7:47 pm


By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators are considering auctioning a piece of the airwaves to buyers willing to provide free broadband Internet service without pornography.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing to auction an unused piece of 25 megahertz wireless spectrum, with the condition that the winning bidder offer free Internet access and filter out obscene content on part of those airwaves, a spokesman for the FCC said on Thursday.

"We're hoping there will be increased interest in the proposal; and because this will provide wireless broadband services to more Americans, it is certainly something we want to see," said FCC spokesman Rob Kenny.

Under Martin's proposal, the winner would be allowed to use the rest of the airwaves for commercial services.

The plan would address criticism from some consumer advocates, who say the government has not done enough to get broadband service into more households. It also could win praise from anti-obscenity watchdog groups.

"I think there are a number of features of the plan that would be attractive to various constituencies," said Stifel Nicolaus analyst Blair Levin.

But the plan got a lukewarm response from existing wireless carriers. The industry's chief trade group, called CTIA, said auction provisions such as the free-service requirement were too rigid.

"CTIA supports flexible auction rules that allow any and all entities to participate," the group said in a statement.

The winning bidder also would have to build out the system to serve 50 percent of the U.S. population within four years and 95 percent within 10 years.

Further details of the plan have yet to be worked out, but Martin's plan is expected to come up at the FCC's next meeting on June 12.

Martin's proposal is similar to a plan put forth previously by a start-up company called M2Z. Under that plan, which was not approved by the FCC, M2Z would have been given the spectrum at no up-front cost. It would have provided free service, generating revenue partly through advertising.

The 25 MHz spectrum at issue is not viewed as highly attractive to wireless carriers, unlike the 700 MHz spectrum auctioned by the FCC earlier this year. There has been little previous interest in it, aside from the M2Z proposal.

Now, being the house populist Leftist on the panel here, I'm pretty much in full support of providing anything that would open up Internet access to communities that are economically lacking.

The problem is: why does it have to be censored??

Don't end users already have means to filter out "objectionable" content at their end through filtering software, rating systems, and the like?? Why is there such a need to have the government (even through a private proxy) do the censoring for them??

Or is this just a ploy by the Bush FCC to win back both Christian Rightists (who would love to impose their biases on working and poor folk, and right-wing populists (who would love the idea of having a free public space to vent their spleen against the usual "liberal" enemies)??

And...would the "censorship" be limited mainly to sexual imagery or actions (similar to the filters used by public libraries to block out "pornography", which also end up blocking out lots and lots of other information that rightists might not think that the public should see)??

If this is what they mean by "free Internet"; then no thanks, I'd rather pay for mine. Remove those content restrictions and allow for a truly free Internet spectrum (but with reduced speed from the paid providers); though, and you may have something.

Yet another bad law

In yet more censorship news, Indiana recently passed a law that, as of July 1, requires all newly licensed businesses in that state to register with the state if they sell sexually explicit material. To make matters worse, "sexually explicit material" is being defined by the notoriously broad/vague "harmful to minors" standard.

Coverage from the Indianapolis Star here, here, and here.

Thankfully, the law's sheer breadth has rapidly gotten everyone from the ACLU, to the Indianapolis Museum of Art, to the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and American Bookseller's Association up against it. The flip side is that for some in the "great middle", the law's overbreadth is the only problem they have with it, with a recent Indianapolis Star editorial opposing the law conceding that it is in "a good cause". -- Sigh --

More analysis here from usual suspect Violet Blue, sex-poz blog Gloria's Oversexed Mind (this blog is new to me, but looks quite good), and from Indiana liberal political blogger Michael Wallack.

Defend Our Porn vs. Free Speech Coalition???

Interesting blog entry by Audacia Ray over at her Village Voice sex blog Naked City on the apparent rumblings over the Free Speech Coalition's alleged ineffectiveness (with more trenchant criticism an example linked here, and why John Stagliano saw fit to form his own organization in response.

Maybe this is just the usual gossip and rivalries...or maybe it's something more substansial??

Update: More like the usual gossip and rivalries: thanks to Ernest and Chris Hall for setting me straight on Mike South and his hidden agendas. Serves me right for not checking my sources....a big damn FAIL for me on this one. Ugh.

This is all mine...

but I'd like to share it with Nina if she's watching :)

nina.com Back Up!

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.