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.

It's Official: TPoP and SPC Slide Show Violate 2257

So, by various subtrefuges and transparent rationalizations the creators of these "mocumentaries" have attempted to worm out from under the record keeping requirements to which all producers of sexually explicit materials are subject under federal statuate 18 U.S.C. 2257. They've babbled on about fair use and offered the extremely peculiar defense that the porn images stolen for their horror shows is presumed to be compliant because porn producers have financial incentives to obey the law and therefore whatever content is stolen from them and recycled to slander them is also compliant.

Well, the latest "clarification" of 2257, whle murky as ever on many points, is pretty clear when it comes to the so-called documentary use of sexually explicit images, and any exemptions from 2257 claimed as fair use or under whatever other guise.

Here's what the Department of Justice has to say on this particular subject, word for word:

"Several commenters ask the Department to exclude news and documentary programming from the definition of 'producer'," the DOJ reports. "The comments claim that producers of that programming use footage provided by others under the fair use doctrine. The comments posit that if a producer includes news and documentary producers, then such producers either will lose the ability to obtain footage depicting any adult sexual conduct, or will be forced to make payments to the original producer notwithstanding the fair use doctrine. The Department declines to adopt this comment. The First Amendment does not permit even a bona fide reporter to trade in child pornography in order to create a work of journalism."

Are you paying attention Professor Sun, Mr. Wosnitzer, Dr. Jensen and Dr. Dines? You better be, because that's you all the feds are talking about, and they're not buying your lame excuses for ducking 2257 compliance any more than I do. You better get those records, cut that footage, pull these products from distribution or be ready for a knock on the door at some point during regular business hours.

It's a rare day indeed when I agree with the D.O.J. but in this matter we're very much on the same page, and when the F.S.C.'s lawsuit is finally negotiated to a settlement, as I believe it will be in the first few months of the new administration, I'm quite sure we'll still be in accord on this particular topic.

His Vorpal Sword Rakes New 2257 Rules

In case you haven't heard (and you probably haven't due to all the fire being thrown over those OTHER set of regulations that the Bushies just released concerning the "conscience" rights of fundie health care workers to deny reproductive and sexual health services based upon their religious "objections"), the Bushies have also managed to release finally their revisions of the 2257 regulations regarding age notification of persons performing in sexually oriented media.

Needless to say, from a sexually progressive standpoint, these new rules are, if anything, worse than the original....and serve the basic purpose of essentually using paperwork to drive the porn industry out of existence.

I'm sure that there will be more info out on the reaction to these new rules (and I'm guessing that Ernest will have a word or ten thousand to say on this, too....but I discovered this morning an online essay posted to a blog called his vorpal sword that pretty much nails the motivations behind both the 2257 and the "medical conscience" regulations to the point: as the latest bomb in the antisex/morality wars.

It's such an awesome essay that to merely quote snippets would do it no justice...so I'll just offer the link and ask you to go there and read it for yourself.

his vorpal sword: Death-O-Rama, or, Porn Free

The essayist even mines the recent passing of the original "Deep Throat", the Linda Lovelace movie of the same name, Traci Lords, and the passing of Bettie Page, and some history of the Sex Wars. All in all, a complete and thorough dissection of the antisex morality.

Breaking Update: Louisa Turk/Crystal Gunns "Retires" From School Aide Position

A follow up to a previous story here:

Looks like the porn witch hunters have claimed another scalp. From X-Biz.com:

Crystal Gunns Resigns From Teaching Position

VINELAND, N.J. — Offering no more than a one-line resignation, Louisa Tuck, aka Crystal Gunns, has left her job as a teacher's aide at a New Jersey elementary school.

The 32-year-old Tuck wrote in her letter that she was leaving D'Ippolito Elementary School "in good standing," though she made no mention of the controversy that surrounded her "outing" as a former adult film performer.

After leaving the industry, Tuck took the teacher's aide job, working in the school's cafeteria and helping out on the playground. Vineland School spokesperson John Sbrana said that he found out about Tuck's past because of complaints from parents – parents who are apparently fans of Tuck's past work.

"This isn't the kind of information that you come across accidentally," Sbrana said. "You'd have to go quite out of your way to find out."

When word first broke about Tuck's work in adult, the school and school board took no action, because as Sbrana said, "She has not done anything wrong. She has not committed any crime. She's entitled to her privacy like anyone else. There is no action against her."

Vineland School District Superintendent Charles Ottinger agreed. In a statement released in November, he said, "It's one thing if it's an illegal activity, because that would come up in the check. There is no way for us to know if a person is involved in these types of activities."

But despite those sentiments from the school and school board, Tuck's story spread through hundreds of news outlets, even though Tuck limited her public statements on the matter. Tuck's attorney, Jeff DiLazzero, hasn't commented, either.

Tuck's resignation will not be official until the local board of education approves it. Their next meeting is set for Jan. 21. Until then, Tuck could still change her mind and keep her job, because no one has asked her to leave it.

Oh, but of course, there's no action against her...because the very idea is to so shame her for being such a evil slut and outing her publically for an activity that harms no one but just might challenge some people's ideas about women from....THAT profession. No, so much better to simply undercut her with rumors and misstatements about how she might infect the poor impressionable students with....her breasts?!?!?!

We might as well just have every former porn starlet just wear a scarlet "P" on their chests, then, shall we?? The better to keep them away from any position where they can corrupt impressionable children who might be strayed from the proper and prudish path.

Of course, the school will be without a capable teacher's aide who probably was loved and respected by children and staff alike....but 'ya gotta break some eggs, you know.

So much for the alleged "mainstreaming" of porn....

Update: "Free But Porn-Free" Wireless Internet Plan Stalled By FCC

Well, well, well....seems like it's not only pornhounds like us who are questioning that plan to offer free but censored wireless broadband Internet.

The proposal was scheduled to be debated and possibly approved by the FCC at a hearing on December 18th...but due to increased opposition, it's now been pushed back to after the inauguration, at least/

The story from the online Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin on Friday evening canceled next week's meeting at which the commission was scheduled to vote on a free Internet plan, after receiving a letter from key U.S. lawmakers asking him to hold off.

Sen. John Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.), and Rep. Henry Waxman, (D-Calif.), who will chair the Senate and House committees overseeing the FCC next year, earlier Friday sent a letter to Mr. Martin asking him to cease actions on controversial policy proposals.

Mr. Martin had proposed that the FCC vote Dec. 18 on rules for a sale of valuable airwaves that would have required the winning bidders to offer free Internet access to 95% of the country.

That item is opposed by the White House. Bush administration officials disapprove of spectrum auctions that impose conditions on the owners. Other critics have raised questions about whether the plan will work, noting that only one business thus far, M2Z Networks Inc., has offered a business model that includes free Internet.

Under Mr. Martin's plan, the free Internet proposal would have been smut-free, including a filter for pornography. Adults over 18 would have been able to opt out. Civil rights groups had raised questions about that idea, worrying about whether it would interfere with users' privacy and free speech.

Mr. Martin also wanted the commission to vote next week on a plan opposed by the cable industry that would have strengthened TV networks in negotiations about how they are carried by cable providers.

Both of Mr. Martin's proposals, if approved by the full commission, almost certainly would have been challenged, either in court or through the FCC's internal review process.

"We received the letter from Senator Rockefeller and Congressman Waxman today and spoke with other offices," said FCC Spokesman Robert Kenny. "In light of the letter, it does not appear that there is consensus to move forward and the agenda meeting has been canceled."

Mr. Kenny added that noncontroversial items on the agenda could still be approved by the commissioners on the five-member body without a meeting. For example, Martin had included changes to emergency 911 call rules and satellite interference rules on the meeting agenda.

What is particularly interesting is the opposition from the Bush White House....one would think that the Religious Right faithful (aka "the Base" of the GOP) would love the idea of imposing a porn-free Internet on the poor and working stiffs (no pun intended)....but on the other hand, the more "libertarian" and capitalistic wing probably wouldn't be so fond of having a government sanctioned "free" spectrum directly competing with their proprietary companies.

The letter from Rep. Waxman and Sen. Rockefeller is just as interesting, since there was some interest in the original proposal from some prominent Democrats...but I guess that the combination of opposition from the major wireless providers and the civil libertarian groups was just too much.

Either way, I see it as a net gain...perhaps after Obama is sworn in, cooler heads will prevail and we can work on an alternative that offers increased and improved Internet access to those not currently affording it, but without the content restrictions imposed from above. (Filters and other means of addressing inappropriate and objectionable content imposed by end-users on their own computers and by parents on their own children, of course, get absolutely no opposition from me or any other fair-minded progressive.)

Passing of a Pornographic Priestess

Bettie Page (1923–2008)

Bettie Page Memorial site
LA Times obit
Susie Bright comments

And going back to one of the original questions of this blog – "Why pro-porn?"

Because sometimes, just sometimes, it creates icons like this, that's why.