U.K. Extreme Porn Law in Effect - Sort Of

From our friends at AVN:

Report: UK Police Won't Actively Pursue 'Extreme Porn' Law

Watching violent porn does not lead to violence, opponents argue.

LONDON - Despite a newly enacted UK law cracking down on extreme porn, British police say they will not seek out owners of violent pornography unless there is "due cause".
Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was passed following British mother Liz Longhurst's three-year campaign to curb violent sex videos. Longhurst's schoolteacher daughter Jane was murdered by Graham Coutts, a man who collected extreme porn.

The law criminalizes the possession of pornographic material that depicts necrophilia, bestiality, or life-threatening or body-injuring violence. Offenders face a maximum sentence of three years in jail.

According to British news sources, the Ministry of Justice has predicted few national prosecutions and placed responsibility for enforcing the law on local police departments.

"The police will not be actively targeting members of the public but will be conducting investigations into the unlawful possession of this material where found," Britain's Association of Chief Police Officers said in a statement to the press.

A 2007 British government review of research concluded extreme pornography can be linked to violence and pro-rape attitudes among the men who view it excessively. But opponents argue that the legislation will lead only to "harmless criminals and victimless crimes."

"People who abuse may look at extreme images, but looking at the pictures doesn't make you like that," said Clair Lewis, a spokesperson for the Consenting Adult Action Network.

Lewis called Coutts' murder of Longhurst "abysmal," but added that blaming violent actions on viewing pictures from the Internet is just a murderer's or rapist's "excuse."

"If this law had been in place a few years ago, it wouldn't have saved Jane," she said. "We're fighting a really emotive battle here, but there is no evidence that this law will work."

Likewise, the British free speech and human rights group Backlash sees the law as well-meaning but misguided.

"The law is infantilizing women and sets men up as rapists and this does nothing for gender relations," said spokesperson Alex Dymock. "Some fairly innocent images are going to be liable for prosecution with this law and I don't believe it will save any lives."

From reading this, it would seem that this noxious piece of legislative pandering is more symbol than substance, but I wouldn't count on it. Bad law, once on the books, has a history of abuse. Sooner or later, somebody will end up getting busted over possession of pictures.

And at the very least, the proponents of this nonsense will be crowing about their great victory over "the pimp lobby" and will be thus encouraged to pursue the infliction of their agenda through legislative means elsewhere.

It's never reassureing when cops say: "Don't worry about this silly law. We won't really enforce it anyway."

Yeah, right.

Some Good News for a Change -COPA is History

This is it folks. A major piece of legislative bullshit dating back to the Clinton era dies at the hands of a conservative Supreme Court. Who would have thought it?

Here are the details:

WASHINGTON — A federal law intended to restrict children's access to Internet pornography died quietly Wednesday at the Supreme Court, more than 10 years after Congress overwhelmingly approved it.

The Child Online Protection Act would have barred Web sites from making harmful content available to minors over the Internet. The law had been embroiled in challenges to its constitutionality since it passed in 1998 and never took effect.

The Internet blocking law did not make it as far as a high court hearing. The justices rejected the government's final attempt to revive the law, turning away the appeal without comment.

The American Civil Liberties Union led the challenge to the law on behalf of writers, artists and health educators. "For over a decade the government has been trying to thwart freedom of speech on the Internet, and for years the courts have been finding the attempts unconstitutional," said Chris Hansen, the ACLU's lead attorney on the case. "It is not the role of the government to decide what people can see and do on the Internet. Those are personal decisions that should be made by individuals and their families."

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia earlier ruled that the law would violate the First Amendment, saying filtering technologies and other parental control tools are a less restrictive way to protect children from inappropriate content online.

The act was passed the year after the Supreme Court ruled that another law intended to protect children from explicit material online - the Communications Decency Act - was unconstitutional.

The Bush administration had fought hard to have the law take effect.

In 2006, the Justice Department subpoenaed internal files from dozens of Internet service providers and other technology firms, including AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp., Cox Communications Inc., EarthLink Inc., Symantec Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. as part of its defense of the law.

But senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. ruled in 2007 that software filters work much better than the law would. Reed also said the law failed to address threats that have emerged since it was written - including online predators on social-networking sites - because it targets only commercial Web publishers.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld Reed's ruling.

Critics also said that pornographers and others could simply base their operations offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. authorities.

In an earlier test of the law, the Supreme Court in 2004 upheld an order blocking its enforcement on the grounds that the law probably was unconstitutional. The five justices who made that ruling remain on the court.

Still, it was unusual for the court to kill a major federal law that had an administration's backing, without a hearing.

The case is Mukasey v. ACLU. 08-565.

So, one less bogus attempt to regulate speech in the name of "protecting the children" runs head-first into The Constitution and gets flattened.

Let's hope it's a real precedent and not an anomaly.

sex workers- once again, what's best for us:

As you may or not may be aware, under the auspices of a woman named Jacqui Smith, the UK is considering a law that will criminalize the purchase of sexual services, namely, men who participate in, as they call it in the UK, “kerb crawling” (street based work). As usual, the evidence Smith is basing her proposal off of is questionable, but the proposed law is there none the less.

A blogger and ally Caroline, who is in the UK, has written extensively about the downsides of this law, and what very real consequences and potential consequences it has on sex workers of all kinds within the UK, she was even given quest posts at the UK based the F-Word and a US blog, Feministe!

The responses to her posts were, how shall I say, typical, and the reaction to her stance on the matter, equally so. Both Caroline and sex workers who bothered to participate were bogged down by generally radical leaning feminists with countless issues not necessarily germane to the legal issue at hand, shouted down as “unthinking”, “idiots”, or “happy hookers”…

I have to ask, to those of you who have met me and what not, do I generally come across as Teeheeeheee I can by Prada woo-hoo happy? Do most sex workers? Umm, no. Yet this is, consistently, how any who disagree with the pervading theme of repression of sex workers are written off and thusly discounted.

But as usual, those of us who oppose Swedish-like models, even considering the troublesome evidence that has shown such models to be far from perfect and the words of actual sex workers, as is typical, we are a tiny minority who truly know nothing about our business and do not care about all the poor trafficked women and girls. Which is bullshit, and I note, these people so concerned, from feminist anti sex work people to world governments, find it far more easy to criminalize the people who buy sex and attempt to play (often unwanted) savior to the people who sell it than to actually go after criminal organizations that deal in trafficking or take on the underlying causes, such as lack of education, poverty, drug abused, and lack of other job opportunities that face people who are unwillingly involved in prostitution…but apparently that is too hard and too messy…it’s easier to play Capitan save a ho.

I’ve also noted, in this particular latest round and in countless others, the apparent need of these people to demonize any and all sex worker outreach/activist programs which do not tout a 100% exit / prohibition stance. Currently, the English Collective of Prostitutes (ECP) and International Union of Sexworkers (IUSW) are under attack by supporters of the proposed UK law. The same sorts of tactics have been used against SWOP, COYOTE, the Scarlet Alliance, and countless other Sex Worker Organizations in the past.

And while all the smoke and mud about happy hookers and how sex worker orgs don’t really care about sex workers and what about the poor trafficked women and girls (no mention of the transwomen, men and boys, for that matter) rages on one simple thing remains fact: a law which will affect countless sex workers adversely is poised to go on the books in the UK, with, best as I can tell, no input from any sex workers and no real ear to the objections of any sex workers…So once again, we have people building law and political prestige on our backs.

Now, I am not in the UK, nor are most of you, but that doesn’t mean this should not matter to us. Sex Workers in the UK are sex workers, just like us, and just as the UK looked to Sweden for inspiration, there is no guarantee where ever you are might not look to the UK for the same thing…

So yes, if you find this as annoying and patronizing and seriously ill advised as I do?

Say something, because if we don’t, nobody else will.

I’ve already said a few things…

And why yes, please feel free to redistribute at will...

And Let's Not Forget the Wonderfully Progressive Regime in China

Update: Chinese government to Web companies: No porn allowed

[CNet] In what amounts to a thinly veiled legal threat, the Chinese government has intensified its campaign against sexually explicit material online by instructing companies, including Google, to curb the availability of pornography.

Monday's announcement from a collection of seven government agencies singles out 19 sites as unlawfully providing access to "vulgar content." On the list: Google's Web search and image search, Baidu.net and the company's blogging site, and Sohu.net. (Google has denied any wrongdoing.)

The announcement from the State Council Information Office is billed as a "nationwide anti-crime" initiative, and urges the public to report illicit posts and Web sites. The state-controlled China Daily said that the companies named on the list "have been found to spread pornography and threaten youth's morals." It also warns that a regulatory crackdown may be coming.

While politically themed Internet censorship in China has received most of the attention--news sites and human rights sites are frequently restricted--the country's ruling Communist Party has long been interested in stamping out smut too. A CNET News article from as far back as 1996 said that Chinese Internet users were asked to "sign a set of rules that makes it illegal for users to produce or receive pornography."

More recently, the public security ministry said in 2007 that it would target porn, online strip shows, and even erotic stories. Some of the electronic barriers came down during the Olympics last year, only to reappear in the last few weeks.

Along the way, Chinese officials have made some bizarre statements. At an international Internet summit in Athens, a government representative told an incredulous audience: "I've heard people say that the BBC is not available in China or that it's blocked. I'm sure I don't know why people say this kind of thing. We do not have restrictions at all." (That statement would come as a surprise to Falun Gong practitioners.)

If this were simply political speech, no doubt members of the U.S. Congress would be tempted to convene ritual hearings where China, Google, and various other companies could be ceremoniously denounced in front of the cameras. But because we're talking about porn, a Senate resolution applauding China's censorial policies is probably more likely.

Gee, maybe they'll call this "The Chinese Model." Has a nice ring to it.

Holland's Banks Join the Euro Anti-Porn Front

As predicted, in the general SDP{/Labouriet panic over the evils of all aspects of the sex biz, The Netherland, long known for its laid back attitude toward sex work, is using economic means to try and strangle it. If anyone thinks this can't happen here, I have some news - it already has. The banks in Holland have admitted they are closing down all accounts for adult buisenesses - the usual nonsense about trafficking and oranized crime of course - but banks here did this quietly to a lot of Web operators over he past six years.

Yet another example of the glories of the Swedish model, econmic version, in operation. We don't make porn and other sex work illegal. Oh no, we just make it impossible for consumers to pay for it. At least over there some organized resistance exists to combat this kind of backdoor censorship, but how effective it will be is hard to say.

If it isn't, look for some sleeper anti-porners in our wonderful new presidential administration to try more of these shenanigans on this side of the Atlantic.

National Association of Dutch Sex Companies says banks no longer want to do business with them


--radionetherlands.com

In a letter to Minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin, [pictured] the National Association of Dutch Sex Companies says banks no longer want to do business with them. The letter says the banks intend to close existing accounts and refuse to open new ones. The banks involved are ABN AMRO, Fortis, ING, SNS and the Rabobank. Only the Postbank has refused to join the boycott.

The association says the banks are taking the action because they no longer want to be associated with firms that may be involved in money laundering and human trafficking. However, the association points out that the boycott also applies to companies that fully abide by the law.

The association says it does not object to companies or individuals that break the law being refused by the banks, but wants the government to ensure that bona fide firms are not subject to the boycott. It adds that if all firms are forced to open an account via a third party, this will make the activities of the sex industry less transparent, and points out that this is something the government has been working hard in recent years to avoid.

The association is a national organisation for brothels, swingers' clubs, massage parlours, erotic cafes, escort companies and SM studios.

Brits Push Back Against "Extreme Porn" Ban

Here's a bit of encouraging news from the U.K., which hasn't been exporting much of that commodity where porn is concerned lately.

Seems some of the most talented and innovative artists, writers and photographers have joined forces with the consensual BDSM community to oppose the newly inked ban on so-called "extreme porn" jammed through Parliament under relentless radfem pressure.

From The Independent:

To some people it is exactly the kind of protective legislation that Britain needs in a world where access to a vast array of pornography is available at the click of a mouse. To others, a new law banning "extreme" pornography gives the Government unprecedented powers to police bedrooms (and basements).

Critics, including at least two lords, say that legislation coming into force next month forbidding the possession of "an extreme pornographic image" will criminalise thousands of previously law-abiding people who have a harmless taste for unconventional sex.

Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 comes into force on 26 January and makes owning offending pictures a criminal offence punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. An image is deemed to be extreme if it "is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays in any way an act which threatens a person's life, or which results or appears likely to result in serious injury to someone's genitals or breasts.

The law was passed earlier this year following a mother's emotive campaign after her daughter was killed by a man who claimed he was addicted to violent porn.

Opponents have no problems with two provisions banning images of bestiality or necrophilia - both of which are already illegal to do - but fear that the other definitions are so vaguely worded that even images of consenting adults engaging in fictional violence will now be outlawed, giving Britain the toughest anti-porn laws in Europe.

Members of Britain's BDSM (bondage, domination and sado-masochism) community, as well as those in the gothic and alternative scenes, complain that they are being unfairly targeted. "I firmly agree that images of non-consensual activities which involve violence should be criminalised but this is a badly worded law that risks criminalising thousands of ordinary people," said Claire Lewis, a 35-year-old disabled rights activist from Manchester who has set up the Consenting Adult Action Network (Caan). "The Government seems to be convinced that if people like us look at pictures for too long we'll end up turning into abusers. That's outrageous."

Caan campaigners plan to burn their pornography collections outside Parliament. A second group, Backlash, is hiring lawyers from the leading human rights firm Bindmans to contest cases when they come to court.

Myles Jackman, Backlash's legal adviser, said: "Ultimately it will be up to a magistrate and a jury to decide what constitutes extreme pornography but the wording is so impossibly vague it could constitute anything. Take the phrase 'life-threatening'. There is, I understand, a genre of porn known as 'smoking pornography' which you could argue combines pornography with a potentially life threatening act."

Story continues below
Its supporters include the photographer Ben Westwood, eldest son of the fashion designer Vivienne. He fears some of his pictures, which often show images of people bound and gagged, could be outlawed in the new year. "I simply don't believe it is the Government's business to interfere in people's sexuality," he said. "What particularly offends me is that these laws were brought in without any consultation whatsoever with the people they affect. That is not a democracy."

The outlawing of extreme porn won the backing of the Home Office, under the former Home Secretary David Blunkett, after a three-year campaign by Liz Longhurst. Her daughter, Jane, was strangled by Graham Coutts in 2003. During his trial, Coutts said he had a fixation with asphyxiation porn and necrophilia. A petition started by Mrs Longhurst to outlaw violent pornography garnered 50,000 signatures.

The Bill went through the Commons unchallenged and only in the House of Lords was there any significant opposition. Baroness Miller, the Liberal Democrat peer, argued that the legislation would justify the Government "walking into people's bedrooms and turning them into criminals simply for viewing something".

The law is a significant change in direction for policing pornography in Britain because it shifts the burden of guilt from those making the pornography to those viewing it.

Enthusiasts of gothic horror and burlesque shows - which often feature pseudo-violence such as fake knives and participants covered in mock blood, say they are concerned that their artistic creativity will be stifled.

There are also concerns about how the law will be policed. Caan has taken a dossier of images to three major police forces: not one could yet say which pictures would be deemed illegal. One month ahead of the legislation being enacted, the Association of Chief Police Officers has yet to draw up any guidelines on how it is to be policed.

Yesterday, a spokeswoman from the Ministry of Justice said the new law would only be used to target the most extreme cases. "The new offence only covers the possession of images, it does not limit private sexual behaviour," she said.

It is little consolation for Westwood who has vowed to continue his erotic photography regardless: "I'm not going to stop what I do and nor should anyone else. There are already laws in place to stop people harming each other."


Best of luck to the determined advocates of freedom of expression across the pond. We could use a bit of that determination from some of our more public media figures here when it comes to defending artistic liberty.

Porn-Free Free Internet Plan Dumped By FCC; Score One For The Good Guys

A bit of good news from the FCC...it seems that we may get truly free Internet after all, without those nasty porn filters getting in the way.

The story from Ars Technica:

Kevin Martin, the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission, called Ars Technica today to let us know that he has revised his proposal to roll out a free (and smut-free) wireless broadband service. In an effort to corral more votes, Martin has already circulated a new version of the plan, one that removes the controversial smut filtering requirement.

Why the change? "I'm saying if this is a problem for people, let's take it away," Martin said. "A lot of public interest advocates have said they would support this, but we're concerned about the filter. Well, now there's an item in front of the Commissioners and it no longer has the filter. And I've already voted for it without the filter now. So it's already got one vote."

"Got anybody else?" I asked him.

"Not yet," Martin admitted with a chuckle. Then he expressed a bit of impatience with his four colleagues. "This is an item that has been pending at the Commission for several years, that the Commissioners were originally critical of not having moved forward faster," he said. "Other Commissioners said, 'We're overdue; we've got to do this.' But when an actual item is put forth where you have to make a hard decision, they say, 'Well, I'm not so sure what I want to do anymore'."

So...what happened in the intern that forced Martin to drop the porn filters?? Well, there was the strong opposition from various civil liberties and public interest groups, covalesed around the group Center for Democracy and Technology, who called the proposed porn filters a back door gateway to censorship. There was also the strong objection from existing wireless Internet providers who complained mostly about the competition that the "free but porn-free" service would bring to their own services, and about the possibility of interference with their own wireless channels. And then, there was the gripping that the auctioning off of the spectrum would have been designed as to favor one company -- M2Z Networks, whom had first offered to build the first wireless network, but without any public bidding. (Strangely enough, that brought out the ire of even conservative Republicans, who would usually be running over themselves to support a censored Internet medium, but nevertheless back the notion of "free markets" rather than government regulation setting the standard.)

The most intriguing and possibly exciting news, however, is that Martin is still proposing that a free wireless Internet service be implemented, but without the filters and with more open access/net neutrality requirements. The basic speed offered would be modest (768kbps), but under the rule proposed, the winning bidder would be forced to allow any device or application to be connected to the network, and there would be timetables for getting access available to end users (50% within 4 years; 95% by the end of the 10-year license period).

For a person like me who is tired of paying through the nose for Internet service, this is excellent news indeed. Anything that challenges the current cable/DSL/satellite monopoly and brings Internet access closer to the majority of people is a good thing. Though, I'd prefer a higher floor for basic speed (like, maybe, 2 to 3 gpbs) and stronger protections against interference and reliability of signal.

At least someone out there gets it about the First Amendment and free speech. Take that, Andy Burham, and just cram your censorship proposal right up your New Right Laborite ass. It just doesn't play here.

More Bad News for the UK and the US on Internet Censorship

Read all the way down in this interview with UK culture secretary Andy Burnham and you'll find yet another disquieting note re the potential position of the Obama administration concerning 'net censorship:

Internet sites could be given 'cinema-style age ratings', Culture Secretary says


--Daily Telegraph

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children.

Mr Burnham also uses the interview to indicate that he will allocate money raised from the BBC’s commercial activities to fund other public-service broadcasting such as Channel Four. He effectively rules out sharing the BBC licence fee between broadcasters as others have recommended.

His plans to rein in the internet, and censor some websites, are likely to trigger a major row with online advocates who ferociously guard the freedom of the world wide web.

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”

Mr Burnham reveals that he is currently considering a range of new safeguards. Initially, as with copyright violations, these could be policed by internet providers. However, new laws may be threatened if the initial approach is not successful.

“I think there is definitely a case for clearer standards online,” he said. “More ability for parents to understand if their child is on a site, what standards it is operating to. What are the protections that are in place?”

He points to the success of the 9pm television watershed at protecting children. The minister also backs a new age classification system on video games to stop children buying certain products.

Mr Burnham, himself a parent of three young children, says his goal is for internet providers to offer “child-safe” web services.

“It worries me - like anybody with children,” he says. “Leaving your child for two hours completely unregulated on the internet is not something you can do. This isn’t about turning the clock back. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways but we haven’t yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around…what can be a very, very complex and quite dangerous world.”

Mr Burnham also wants new industry-wide “take down times”. This means that if websites such as YouTube or Facebook are alerted to offensive or harmful content they will have to remove it within a specified time once it is brought to their attention.

He also says that the Government is considering changing libel laws to give people access to cheap low-cost legal recourse if they are defamed online. The legal proposals are being drawn up by the Ministry of Justice.

Mr Burnham admits that his plans may be interpreted by some as “heavy-handed” but says the new standards drive is “utterly crucial”. Mr Burnham also believes that the inauguration of Barack Obama, the President-Elect, presents an opportunity to implement the major changes necessary for the web.

“The change of administration is a big moment. We have got a real opportunity to make common cause,” he says. “The more we seek international solutions to this stuff – the UK and the US working together – the more that an international norm will set an industry norm.”

more on barely legal....

Right then, here are the Renegades Feelings on barely legal...

Oh look, that is her...at age 30. Not that you would KNOW that. Not like I did not edit it for the blog and all, but there you have a small, 30 year old (jewish) woman in pigtials and schoolgirl skirt with three men...interracial I might add.

Her pig tails are being pulled, the boys are much bigger, if not for the tattoos....gee, that 5 foot nothing girl could be....young...

I was 30 when that was filmed.

Now, no secret, I would not mind 21 and up for porn, but also. if you can die in a war for us (18),well then....but truthfully, I think a lot of barely legal has more to do with the old fantasies of fucking the prom queen or head high school cheerleader than fucking children...

And that is my 2 cents, with photos...of an of age woman, even if she might not look like it.

An Interesting Discussion on "Barely Legal" Porn

Over at Vicky Vette's MySpace blog, she's put up an entry on her personal feelings about "barely legal" porn and why she thinks that porn users should avoid it like the plague.

Vicky Vette's MySpace Blog: The Adult Industry Should Not Have "Teen" Websites

Out of respect for Vicky, I'll just ask you to link to the essay, and solicit comments.

Note that she's not calling for out and out censorship of "teen" sites; just saying that adult consumers should exercise more caution in supporting them out of concern for possibly enabling those who would target young children.

Vicky's also gone on record as supporting raising the legal age of entry into adult to 21 from 18.

In the comments section, I wrote this as my means of agreeing and disagreeing with Vicky's points:

[Posted by me (Anthony_JKenn) today @ 9:21 AM]

Interesting take on the subject, Vicky...I can agree with everything you said, but only to a point.

I'm not one for "teen porn" myself (I tend to prefer mature MILF's and Cougars who actually KNOW what the hell they are doing sexually), being that I have no intention of wanting sex with someone young enough to be my daughter. (Unless, of course, she is damn hot.) And it does kind of squick me to think that a lot of those who are into the "Barely Legal" subgenre might have at least in part some tiny level of pedophilic fantasies about banging girls that may be underage or just at the legal age. Plus, there is still a bit of the "stretching the boundaries of taboo" going on, and having "barely legal" porn does tend to stretch the boundary a great deal.

On the other hand, though, I'm not so fond of targeting "Barely Legal" porn as a cause of actual pedophilia, for the following reasons.

1) Note the phrasing of "BARELY LEGAL": meaning that she may just be over the edge of legality, the performer is certainly legal, and has the papers and 2257 compliance to prove it. Why should she be denied her legal right to earn her craft merely because some sick (as in mentally ill) 45 year old man sees her as his personal "jailbait"??

2) I'd say that the majority of the consumers of Barely Legal porn aren't older men looking for fantasies to stoke their pedophilic lusts, but young men of the same age just looking for similar type women. I'm not so sure that I'd count that as promoting kiddie porn...at least not in the traditional sense.

3) Even if there is the typical "dirty old man" using BL porn to get his peculiar rocks off, I still say that it is a suitable alternative to him actually going out and targeting REAL girls. At least, BL porn serves as a release for such fantasies....in the same way that other forms of "extreme porn" serve a similar function. Better to have him jerking off to Internet porn than to be going around real people imposing his desires on unsuspecting victims.

4) Last time I heard, it is still a crime to sexually assault and target underage girls...and this dude whom you described at the beginning is a bona fide criminal who deserves to be placed UNDER the jail....but notice that he targeted much, much younger kids than the target audience of BL porn. (The fact that he was a youth minister should raise some real flags of deep sexual repression coming back to explode on him, too.) To say that BF porn encouraged his assault on 4 year olds is a bit like saying that the Hostess company should be held liable because Harvey Milk's assassin got high on Twinkies, or that the Roman Catholic Church should be held liable because some whackjob quoted the Bible in justifying his killing spree or bombing an abortion clinic. In short, kind of a reach.

In my perfect world, porn would only be performed by mature adult women who were into it not just for the money or the fame, but specifically for the sex, and there would be no need for "barely legal" porn to survive. In the real world, however, the desire for deflowering "new meat" remains strong with a sizeable majority of men, and most of them have money to spend to purchase media that attracts that kind of fantasy. Even if tomorrow you criminalized their fantasies, they would not disappear; they would only seek less legal and safe and more perverse means to satisfy their ends...and that would be a hell of a lot more threatening to legal adult porn than any bit of "barely legal" porn out there.

Finally....while I understand exactly where you are going with this, Vicky, and do think that it would be so much better if men stuck to legitimate adult sex subjects (like, for instance, YOU...heheh), I'd be real careful at this time about calling for restrictions on what is still legal adult material. Given the forces that are in power, it is all too easy for good-hearted and well-meaning regulation to blow up and backfire and be used as a bludgeon against even legal adult material far beyond what was originally targeted. What may be used against Hustler's Barely Legal series today could well be used against MILF/Couogar porn tomorrow...and under the same justification of "protecting children" from "sexual aggression". Who's to say that some right-wing fundamentalist might find YOU to be as much a threat because of your sexual aggression?? And remember, the first letter of MILF does refer to "Mom". And even single Cougars might like to target young men.

Oh....and 18- to 21-year old young adults have as much a right to explore their sexuality as 25- or 35- year olds do; to put them down as automatically inmature and unable to make informed decisions merely because they just reached that age is a bit ageist. Perhaps porn isn't the best place for them to begin their experimentation, but that only states the need for support groups of older starlets and health and safety protections built in so that they have a safe place within the industry to avoid exploitation and abuse.

Just my own ranting and raving, Vicky....take it as you will.

The floor is open now for discussion, if you are interested.