! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL !'s topics - tribe.net

Lawyer Petition to Defend Habeas Corpus

evilgrrl — Fri, 18 May 2007 04:42:48 GMT

Are you a lawyer?

As a member of the legal community, you have the opportunity to join former Attorneys General Janet Reno and Nicholas Katzenbach, and thousands of other lawyers to restore habeas corpus.

Reposted from: actforchange@workingassets.com

Last year Mr. Bush convinced the Republican-controlled Congress to eliminate the fundamental right of habeas corpus for many prisoners. This right allows a prisoner to demand a hearing before a judge. And rest assured that prisoner abuse is going on.

After all, this is the same Administration that administered Abu Gharib, sent CIA prisoners to other countries for torture, spied on Americans without court approval, and fired U.S. Attorneys who refused to suppress the minority vote. It is literally now up to George Bush to imprison anyone he wants -- indefinitely.

The Bush Administration simply cannot be trusted, and the ancient right of habeas corpus is often the only barrier to even worse abuse.

Restoring habeas corpus in Big Jeopardy

Essentially every major newspaper and legal organization across the country supports the restoration of habeas corpus. But so far, our representatives in Congress are afraid to even bring it up for a vote.

Right now the Senate leadership is deciding whether to vote on legislation introduced by Sen. Leahy, a former prosecutor and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's support is crucial to ensure that the Senate restores habeas corpus. We need your help.

Are you a lawyer?

As a member of the legal community, you have the opportunity to join former Attorneys General Janet Reno and Nicholas Katzenbach, and thousands of other lawyers, law student, law professors, law school deans, retired judges, retired prosecutors and retired public defenders to restore habeas corpus by clicking the following link and signing the petition:

http://www.lawyersforhabeas.com

Those who sign the petition will be invited to lawyers-only meetings with critical senators or their staffs in two weeks.

Can you tell any lawyers you know about the petition to restore habeas corpus? It is critical that members of the legal community deliver a powerful message to Congress about the importance of restoring habeas corpus, and we can't spread the word without your help. We need to spread the word about this petition to every member of the legal community in California.

http://www.workingassets.com/lawyersforhabeas/taf.aspx

Please share this message with anyone you know in California who cares about restoring habeas corpus.

Thank you for working to build a better world.

Will Easton, Manager
ActForChange.com/Working Assets

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

Federal Judge Blocks Online Pornography Law

evilgrrl — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:11:54 GMT

Federal Judge Blocks Online Pornography Law

By IAN URBINA
Published: March 22, 2007

A federal judge in Philadelphia struck down a 1998 law today that made it a crime for Web sites to allow children to access material deemed "harmful."

The ruling, which will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, represents a second major setback in federal efforts to control Internet pornography, after a similar law was struck down by the high court in 1997.

Senior Judge Lowell Reed Jr. of the Federal District Court ruled that
the law was ineffective, overly broad and at odds with free speech
rights. He added that there are far less restrictive methods,
including software filters, that parents can use to control their
children's Internet use.

"Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another
attempt to protect our children from harmful material," Judge Reed
wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that "perhaps we do the
minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which
they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of
their protection."

The law never took effect because of an injunction, which was upheld
by the United States Supreme Court in 2004.

Civil libertarians applauded Judge Reed's decision as a victory for
free speech and creativity on the Internet.

"If this law had gone into effect, it would have resulted into
dumbing down of the Internet," said Chris Hansen, a lawyer for the
American Civil Liberties Union. "All Internet would have had to be
brought down to a level that is acceptable to a 6-year-old and that
would have had a devastating effect on the kind of interactions that
take place on the Internet."

But others were disappointed.

"It's a very frustrating decision. We have an epidemic problem of
kids accessing pornographic material online," said Donna Rice Hughes,
president of Enough is Enough, a nonprofit group that works to
protect children from pornography and online
predators. "Pornographers continue to get a free pass on the Internet
from our federal courts, and efforts by Congress keep getting
trumped."

Charles Miller, a spokesman for the United States attorney's office,
said the department was reviewing the 84-page opinion and deciding
whether to appeal.

Under the law, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act, commercial Web
publishers would have been required to request credit card
information or other proof of age from Web site users to prevent
children from viewing material deemed "harmful to minors"
by "contemporary community standards." Penalties included a $50,000
fine and up to six months in prison.

Congress first tried to regulate online pornography in 1996 with the
Communications Decency Act, but that law that was struck down by the
Supreme Court the following year. In drafting the 1998 law, which was
signed by President Bill Clinton, lawmakers hoped to pass
constitutional muster, narrowing its aim by focusing on commercial
Web sites and defining objectionable material as obscene or that
which offends "contemporary community standards."

In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries
receiving certain federal money to use software filters. The high
court upheld that law in 2003.

Lawrence Lessig, a constitutional law professor at Stanford
University, said the case decided today indicates the shifting
stances that civil libertarians have taken regarding controls placed
on the Internet.

"Civil libertarians have long had a `love-hate' relationship with
filters," he said, adding that while the A.C.L.U. argued in this case
that filters are preferable, the organization has also voiced
concerns about them.

"People buy filters worried about pornography, but then they see they
can also block sports, politics and lots of other things, so they
block those, too," Professor Lessig said. "The result is to reinforce
this infrastructure of filters." That, he said, may lead to "less
free speech than we would have if the government could only get it
right in their approach to limiting pornography. "

Mr. Hansen said that his organization has only opposed the mandatory
use of filters, not filters themselves.

In arguing on behalf of the 2000 law, Justice Department lawyers
defended the use of filters. But in the case decided by Judge Reed,
who was appointed to the federal bench in 1988 by President Ronald
Reagan, Justice Department lawyers highlighted the inadequacies of
filters.

Sexual health sites, the online magazine Salon.com and other Web
publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, said the law
would have a chilling effect on free speech.

"We know from experience that putting up any barrier in front of your
content, whether its an advertisement or a subscription wall or
anything that delays someone's access, has a big impact on traffic,"
said Joan Walsh, editor of Salon.com.

In a post-trial brief, Peter D. Keisler, a government lawyer, argued
that depending solely on filters was insufficient. "It is not
reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the
burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their
children, rather than the government's addressing the problem at its
source," he wrote.

The Associated Press contributed reporting for this article.

http://www.nytimes. com/2007/ 03/22/us/ 22cnd-porn. html?
_r=1&hp&oref= slogin

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

If you liked 2257, you will LOVE this........!

polybi — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 19:11:59 GMT

« To my friends... | main
If you liked 2257, you'll LOVE This! Wed, December 13, 2006 - 11:04 AM

This is SERIOUS SHIT, people. It could affect things like Yahoo Groups, among other things. And I personally am sick of seeing all "sex offenders" lumped into one category. A prostitute, two age peer teen lovers, gays, strippers who give lap dances where it's illegal, people busted for oral sex where it's illegal, people busted for SM activity -- all of these are being put into the same hamper as child molestors and rapists. I personally think that's wrong. There's a lot wrong with these proposed laws, actually -- and none of them kept Republican Rep. Mark Foley from hot chatting underage pages right in the middle of Congress...
-- Darklady
============ ========= ======

www.ynot.com/modules.php name=News& file=news_ article&sid= 20722&mode= thread&order= 0&thold=0

Senator Proposes Mandatory "Obscenity" Reporting for Blogs, Mailing Lists, and Beyond
by Darklady

WASHINGTON, DC -- Webmasters and web denizens who thought things got confusing and paranoid after the government strengthened and began enforcing its 2257 regulations may look back on those days with fondness if Sen. John McCain (AZ-R) gets his way. Legislation drafted and presented by McCain would require that commercial websites, as well as personal blogs, mailing lists, and more, conform to federal obscenity reporting guidelines or face fines of up to $300,000.

Fear of such a possible development was likely behind the massive policy changes that community building websites such as Tribe.net underwent earlier in 2006 and, given some of the bill's requirements, such fear may not have been misplaced. McCain's proposal, emotionally named the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act," affects, among other things, any internet presence that offers user profiles by forcing them to delete pages belonging to sex offenders, apparently with no consideration given to what their offense was or whether they have served their time. According to McCain during a speech on the Senate floor, these changes are necessary because "technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography. "

No mention was made about those offenders whose crimes involved adults or mutually consensual, but illegal, activity. Additionally, the proposed law mandates that any form of suspected "obscenity" or child pornography be reported to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with that information being forwarded to the appropriate legal authorities. Webmasters would be required to retain any "information relating to the facts or circumstances" for a minimum of six months. Those who report suspected criminal activity would be immune from civil or criminal liability under the proposed law, so long as they followed the specified procedures precisely. Internet Service Providers are already required by law to report suspected child porn or obscenity, but McCain increases penalties and expands regulation to not only commercial web presences but to individual bloggers or those who provide bulletin board discussion areas and user forums on their websites.

The Electronic Freedom Foundation was quick to condemn the proposal, with attorney Kevin Bankston stating that he was "concerned that there is a slipper slope here," according to News.com. "Once you start creating categories of industries that must report suspicious or criminal behavior, when does it stop?" he asked. While the answer to Bankston's question is unknown, what is known is that McCain's proposal would mandate reports from any content hosting service, any website with a message board, any social-networking site, any email service, any instant-messaging service, any chat room, any domain name registration service, any internet search service, any electronic communication service, and any image or video-sharing service.

An anonymous McCain aid stated that any site or service that "you'd have to join up or become a member of to use" regardless of free or pay status would fall under the proposed law's jurisdiction. This includes, but certainly is not restricted to, so-called "social-networking" sites such as MySpace, LiveJournal, Friendster, as well as other membership sites including Amazon.com, Slashdot.com, Gamespot.com, CNET.com, MP3.com, and any other site that allows public profiles.

Although some, including Kate Dean of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association says that the organizations membership appreciates McCain's work to make reporting procedures more clear, others believe that the involvement of private individuals will make things more complex, in part because what constitutes child pornography is not entirely certain. The recent indictment of Alabaman photographer Jeff Pierson on child pornography charges, for instance, indicates that nudity is not required for an image of a minor to be deemed pornographic. Pierson's work features clothed underage models deemed "provocative" by prosecutors -- but taken with parental consent. The bill would also create a federal registry containing "any email address, instant-message address, or other similar internet identifier" possessed by anyone convicted of a sex crime. Those who refuse to provide the government with this information would face penalties of up to a decade in prison. The information would then be used, presumably, by membership sites forced to purge themselves of anything "associated" with that person.

Regardless of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' recent political grandstanding on the topic, studies have shown that the online solicitation of minors has dropped during the past five years, even while social-networking sites have increased. Because of this, Bankston insists that "This constitutionally dubious proposal is being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations, rather than on the facts." Such concerns do not appear to be of interest to Congress, however, given that the Deleting Online Predators Act, another fuzzily worded bill that appears to target social-networking sites without actually defining its terms, was approved this past summer by the U.S. House of Representatives in a 410 - 15 vote.

McCain, who scored 31 points out of a 100 point total in a News.com election guide concerning technologically friendly legislation, will be in good company during the coming year. Gonzales and the FBI intent to continue to push for mandatory ISP data retention and Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY-D) plans to join McCain by jointly introducing anti-sex offender and social-networking legislation in January.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Now, my turn. remember on 360 when I said that I had a forboding of doom? Well, this is it, guys. The aim of this is NOT to trap sexual predators, but to kill sexual discussion on the web. This will target sites like this one that do allow sexuall frankness in some way, shape or form. This is an attempt to kill the budding Third Sexual Revolution. And they may well succeed.

This is being talked about under stealth. If it was not for the eagle eye of DarkLady, no one would have known about this. Talk radio will not talk about it. Liberal talk radio is too busy with Iraq. And considering the fact that Chuck Schumer, paper liberal from NY, is joining this, unless we act now, it will be a done deal.

As I have always said, at the words "Child Protection" to anything, and you can pass the most draconian legislation possible, instead of actually dealing with the real issue.

Did you hear about Paul Barnes, the megachurch pastor who quit because he was about to be outed as gay? In his mea culpa to his congregation, he said he has been dealing with homosexual feeling since age 5. AGE FIVE, GUYS! And if this one person was dealing with sexual feelings at that age, how many other were....or are? Instead of throwing it under the rug, is it possible to deal honestly with this openly?

And for adults who are sexually free, sexually liberal. For those who are naturists. How many closets can they build for you.

Add to the fact that a malicious worm is attacking MySpace thru Quicktime, and a compelling case can be made that a concerted attack on those outside of the norms of society may have begun, with the Iraq War as a cover.

Unless we do something now, the freedoms we have enjoyed, already limited, may dissapear. If you have not written or called your congressperson, do so today. Also contact Mr. McCain, and let him know that your attack on free speech will be noted if you run for President.-polybi

To find your Congressperson, go here: www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

You Could Go to Jail for the Rest of Your Life

evilgrrl — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:33:56 GMT

Torture: It's not just for foreign soldiers anymore! I know this article isn't directly related to 2257, BUT it will certainly apply to us!

Here's a highlight: . . .it would give Mr. Bush THE POWER TO JAIL PRETTY MUCH ANYONE HE WANTS FOR AS LONG AS HE WANTS without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, tTO AUTHORIZE WHAT NORMAL PEOPLE CONSIDER TORTURE, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

New York TImes Editorial
Rushing Off a Cliff

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

published: September 28, 2006

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser.

Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but *President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them.

It was only after the Supreme Court issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.

Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error.

These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws:

*Enemy Combatants:* A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

*The Geneva Conventions:* The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

*Habeas Corpus:* Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

*Judicial Review:* The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

*Coerced Evidence:* Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

*Secret Evidence:* American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

*Offenses:* The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.

We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration.

They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

More Federal Shit Rolling Down Related to 2257

rubytulips — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 21:34:43 GMT

From the Free Speech Coalition Website:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

____________

FSC to the Senate: Remove Title VI from H.R. 4472; It Does Not Target Child Pornographers!

Posted: March 9, 2006

Canoga Park, Calif. - The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) is disappointed that the

House of Representatives passed a seriously flawed provision that claims to prevent the production and distribution of child pornography but does nothing of the sort.

Yesterday the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4472, the "Children’s Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005," a comprehensive bill that deals mostly with child sexual predators and gangs. An unrelated subsection--Title VI--Child Pornography Prevention--is a seriously flawed provision that claims to prevent the production and distribution of child pornography by strengthening and expanding record-keeping requirements and criminal sanctions under U.S.C. 18 §2257.

The issues addressed are not new; Congress continues to legislate a solution unrelated to the problem it identifies. The version enacted yesterday is a hybrid of the Pence Amendment, H.R. 3726, introduced by Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind.) last year and passed in the House in the fall of 2005, and S. 2140, a significantly different Senate version introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) in December of 2005.

Title VI is the worst of both bills, and if passed into law in anything resembling its current form, would represent an abusive and unconstitutional affront to freedom of speech in this country. Worse it would do nothing to aid the eradication of child pornography or the incarceration of child pornographers, an objective supported by all members of the Free Speech Coalition. Indeed, the legitimate adult entertainment industry has been, and always will be, an active participant in the global fight against child pornography.

We believe that this bill, which targets this industry as well as innocent citizens engaged in lawful sexual speech, cannot succeed for the simple reason that it is aimed at the wrong people. Child pornographers do not keep records of their crimes!

FSC staff attorneys will need time to analyze the new bill, but we can safely say that today the House clearly made worse already unconstitutional 2257 regulations. Specifically, H.R. 4472:

Creates section 2257A, which provides record keeping requirements for simulated sexual content;
Gives the Attorney General of the Unites States the discretion to define certain activities not subject to 2257;
Adds civil and criminal asset forfeiture penalties in 2257 and obscenity cases;
Restores section 2256 (E), the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person," to the definition of "sexually explicit conduct" for the purposes of 2257;
Makes the production of obscenity a federal criminal offense under Section 1465 of title 18 of the United States Code;
Prohibits defense counsel and expert witnesses in a child pornography case from reproducing evidence that is defined as child pornography under Section 2256.
Attorneys for the Free Speech Coalition are also assessing what impact, if any, this bill would have on current 2257 litigation, but we have been assured that nothing in it can or will undo the victory we achieved in the recent preliminary injunction ruling in Denver.

But neither have we thrown in the towel with respect to the final outcome of H.R. 4472. We will continue to work through our federal lobbyists to convince the Senate to avoid the expense and time involved in litigation at the federal level, and instead reject the current Title VI legislation in favor of legislation that will actually do what it claims.

Free Speech Coalition is the trade organization of the adult entertainment industry. Its mission is to safeguard the industry from oppressive governmental regulation and to promote good business practices within the industry.

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

Does anybody actually READ this law?

Wed, 11 Jan 2006 03:51:47 GMT

I'm curious if anybody at Tribe has actually ever even read law 2257.

Paragraph 2257(h)(3) clearly states:

"...does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted;"

For one thing, the people posting pictures on Tribe are not "performers" (unless you give a REALLY broad definition to that word). But more importantly, nobody on Tribe is "hired, contracted or managed" and Tribe has not "arranged for the participation".

Therefore, this law does not even APPLY to Tribe.

Are we truly that ignorant and afraid of laws that we just run scared and don't even read them?

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 7 replies

forced exile

Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:36:17 GMT

From
TOU (Terms o...
No connection between you and TOU (Terms of Use...
Kibbitzer
Here for: enforcing Tribe.net's Terms of Use Policy
0 friends
Date Thu, January 19, 2006 - 2:17 PM
Subject note from tribe.net: TOU/Code of Conduct violation
Message Hi ๓ậтæö --

Please refrain from uploading photos which violate our Terms of Use/Code of Conduct.
Your photos have been consistently flagged by the community. Please adhere to the guidelines you agreed to when you joined tribe.net, or your account may be removed.

If you have any questions, please let me know!

Thank you --

--TOU (Terms of Use) Guy

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

2257 Update from the AVN Convention in Las Vegas

rubytulips — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 08:15:25 GMT

LAS VEGAS - The human throng couldn’t have moved more quickly if someone had shouted “Fire!” in the crowded seminar room as soon as attorney Paul Cambria announced that he only had a limited number of copies of his and associate Roger Wilcox’s “2257 Client Handbook.”

-advertisement-

More than two dozen attendees jumped out of their seats and raced to the pile of handbooks, cutting Cambria off in mid-sentence as he was explaining the history of the recordkeeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257 during the seminar titled, aptly, “Are You In Compliance with Section 2257?”, held Thursday in Room 305 of the Sands Expo Center.

As the crowd was moving toward the handbooks, Cambria quickly noted that five more boxes of them had been delayed in shipping, but would be arriving at the convention today.

The primary speakers at the seminar were Cambria and Free Speech Coalition (FSC) board chair Jeffrey Douglas, a criminal defense attorney with an abiding interest in the adult industry. The pair were introduced by Sean Bersell of the Video Software Dealers Assn., who in turn was introduced by FSC Director of Public Relations Tom Hymes.

Cambria outlined 2257 practically from its beginning, noting that it was his agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, then under Attorney General Janet Reno, that established the earliest date for 2257 compliance as July 3, 1995, thereby legalizing all product shot before that date. Attorney Clyde DeWitt shouted out from the audience that he had a copy of the Justice Department’s letter of agreement, and offered to photocopy it for Cambria, who’d misplaced his copy years ago.

Cambria then touched on the uselessness of the 2257 regulations regarding preventing minors from appearing in sexually explicit depictions.

“Generally speaking,” Cambria said, “people who shoot underage performers don’t bother to keep copies of their IDs so in case a government inspector wants to look at them, he can prove that his performers were all minors.”

Cambria then detailed some of the requirements of the older 2257 regulations, which were updated last summer by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and touched on some of the changes embodied in the new regs.

For instance, under both sets of regulations, performers in sexually explicit material need to provide government-approved forms of identification, with the new regulations disallowing some forms that had been acceptable under the old regs. Notably, those new restrictions included foreign passports and driver’s licenses, making it nearly impossible for recent immigrants to get work in adult features.

Cambria also explained the concepts of “primary” and “secondary” producer as embodied in both sets of regulations, and mentioned that the recent decision by Judge Walker D. Miller on a preliminary injunction in FSC’s lawsuit against the law invalidated the “secondary producer” concept, limiting the recordkeeping – but not the labeling – requirements to those who actually employed the performers who appeared in the material. Secondary producers, Cambria said, need only obtain from the primary producer a letter indicating who the custodian of records is, where the records are kept, and the date of production of the material. He also advised that the secondary producers obtain a statement that all participants in the material are 18 years old or older.

Cambria (and later Douglas) stressed that Judge Miller’s ruling would only apply to Free Speech members.

Cambria also voiced agreement with some of the points DeWitt had made in a recent AVN.com article, over some of the omissions in Judge Miller’s opinion that will continue to cause major problems for producers. Most notable were the hours during which producers will have to have their records made available for government inspectors – none of whom have yet been identified nor trained to perform inspections – and the failure to deal with the foreign ID situation.

When it came Douglas’ turn at the podium, he outlined the genesis of FSC’s lawsuit, noting that attorney and fellow FSC board member Reed Lee had discussed with him in 2003 the idea of suing to overturn the 2257 law, saying, “We can’t live with it.” Douglas further noted that Gonzales’ revamping of the regulations provided the perfect opportunity to both challenge the regs and attempt to invalidate the law at the same time.

Douglas then outlined the good points in Judge Miller’s preliminary injunction, highlighting the abolition of the requirement that secondary producers keep identity records on performers, mentioning that such regulations had been responsible for dozens of reports of stalking and theft of performers’ identities through widespread, nearly uncontrolled access to those records. He also spoke of the ruling that providers of live webcam content could not be required to record their sessions and archive them, which the judge had noted would require thousands of terabytes of storage space.

“The judge’s goal seems to have been to maintain the status quo,” Douglas said, in that Judge Miller’s ruling upheld the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Sundance Associates v. Reno 11 years previous which had also denied the concept of secondary producer – a ruling which the government ignored in promulgating its new regulations.

Douglas said he expected the limitations on enforcement in the injunction to be good for at least two or three years, and that he expected them to be permanent once the lawsuit comes to trial and FSC wins, an outcome he described as “very likely.” He also noted that even if Congress should pass laws which have already been introduced in both houses – House Resolution 3231 and Senate Bill 2140 – which would reestablish the “secondary producer” concept, those laws could only be prospective, so any material shot before the effective date of such laws would be exempt from its requirements.

Douglas stressed that at this point in the lawsuit, FSC would need to identify more victims of the 2257 regulations – people who had lost business or otherwise been affected by the regs’ onerous requirements – and he urged such victims to contact FSC to become witnesses in the lawsuit.

A lively question-and-answer session followed, with audience members asking germane questions in trying to understand the current state of 2257, and others obviously still not clear on the differences between primary and secondary producers.

Several responses from the attorneys are worth noting, including the opinion that nothing in 2257 requires that the records be kept within the United States, and that in the cases where a company or individual is both a primary and secondary producer, that the records required to be kept by a primary be segregated from records that may be in the company’s possession as a secondary producer.

All in all, it was a lively 90 minutes, and at its conclusion, attendees crowded the front of the hall with additional questions for the attorneys.

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

2257 Workshop in San Francisco. Any interest?

rubytulips — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:55:08 GMT

Any interest in a 2257 workshop held by a qualified attorney who is very involved with the issue?

I know an attorney who recently spoke on a panel for this issue at the Adult Internet and Film convention in Las Vegas.

I am thinking about organizing this in San Francisco. I may also invite someone from the Free Speech Coalition.

Tickets would be a minimum of $100 per person (might be more depending on my overhead and I'd like to give some money to the Free Speech Coalition as well).

Please inbox me if you are interested. Feel free to include your phone number if desired.

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 1 reply

Judge upholds porn rules - with limits| 2257 Heat May be Off Tribe!

polybi — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:24:13 GMT

URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4351234,00.html

Judge upholds porn rules - with limits
Records must be kept on performers; chatrooms excluded

By Sarah Langbein, Rocky Mountain News
December 30, 2005

A federal judge in Denver has upheld new guidelines that require the porn industry to keep records on performers, saying the government has a legitimate interest in cracking down on child pornography.

But the ruling, issued late Wednesday, also limited the application of those rules.

U.S. District Judge Walker D. Miller said some of the guidelines were overly broad. As a result, he granted a preliminary injunction preventing the government from enforcing those rules on Internet chatrooms and Web sites that are out of the control of adult pornographers.

What will remain in place are rules that require producers of sexually explicit material to keep records of their performers, including verifying their names and ages. Performers must be 18 years or older.

The Free Speech Coalition, which represents more than 600 people in the pornography industry, filed the lawsuit in federal court this summer, arguing that the new rules violated their clients' First Amendment rights.

On Thursday, the Woodlands, Calif.-based group's spokesman said Miller's ruling "deals a substantial blow to the government regulatory scheme."

"We're pleased with some of it. We're confused with other parts of it," Tom Hymes said.

The group's lawyers were combing through the ruling Thursday afternoon, deciding whether they would ask the judge for clarification.

The group's lawsuit was triggered by revisions in May to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1998. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved the revised regulations.

The government said the new guidelines were designed to cut down on child pornography, one of Gonzales' top priorities.

Failure to comply could send first-time offenders to prison for five years. The result of a second offense: two to 10 years.

"Child pornographers will be denied access to commercial markets, and everything else will go forward," U.S. Justice Department trial attorney Samuel Kaplan said at a hearing in August.

Calls to the Department of Justice on Thursday were not returned.

langbeins@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-2536

Copyright 2005, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.

This is disturbing the rigetwous flock to no end, and obviously we are pleased. Now this does not mean that the restrictions are off.....companies like Toyota/Scion may not take kindly to advertising on a site that features, for instance, a tribe called "Ejac-Elation!'

Also now that advertisers are flocking to Tribe, we may also attract some of the AFA vermin, not to mention moles who want to subvert our own subvertivness.

The bottom line is that the foot has lifted off the neck for now. Please remember WADE, TRIBE, AND ITS MANAGMENT ARE NOT THE ENEMY! But they must know that if the do stand and fight these futhermuckers, that we as Tribers will stand with them.

We're not stormin' Normadie yet, but the boat is on the beach...and that's a start!

polybi

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 5 replies

Most important part of the new ruling...

Tue, 03 Jan 2006 04:30:49 GMT

Here it is.... It's a little long here, but basically what is says is that the 2257 rules don't apply to tribe. Unless they go back to the old way now, they're lying about 2257, and they're really just gentrifying the site....

Here are the relevant paragraphs from the free speech coalition site...

"The other major victories are in the areas of live Internet chat rooms and webmasters who don't produce their own content.

As to the chat rooms, Judge Miller has ruled that to keep a "copy of the depiction" of the immense quantity of material generated creates an undue burden on a "chat room" operator, by which is meant "a performer on the Internet who engages in printed or telephonic dialogue with a customer while a simultaneous video image of the performer is transmitted." This would seem to include, at the very least, performers who have live webcams transmitting from their homes, as well as companies that employ performers to talk or write to customers while simultaneously posing in front of a webcam.

"It is a reasonable reading of the new regulation, however, that it requires the producer of the 'digitally-or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture or other matter that contains a depiction of actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct' maintain a 'copy of the depiction'," Judge Miller ruled. "Plaintiffs assert that to do so would involve extraordinary computer capacity of terabytes (1 trillion bytes) and petabytes (1 quadrillion bytes) on an annual basis which could cost as much as $15 million dollars annually. Defendant does not present any contravening testimony concerning chat rooms. This evidence may present a substantial likelihood that the regulation is not narrowly tailored with regard to chat rooms since it may well burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government’s legitimate interest."

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

What do we really need to do

jaymoyes — Thu, 22 Dec 2005 06:35:50 GMT

Folks, I've seen a lot of responses to the new TOU. However, very few people seem to be addressing the issue correctly.

Formost, remember that these decisions are being made by people trying to react logically to problems before them.

Remind them that you understand what they are trying to do, but that their actions are contradictory to the member's wishes.

Address them as individuals making a decision.

Address them, directly as opposed to just putting up a pic or talking about the situation.

I suggest you touch base with this person.
http://people.tribe.net/jan
This is Jan Gullett, the CEO of tribe.

And this person.
http://people.tribe.net/wade
This is Wade Lagrone, who had to make the decision. We've been writing back and forth to each other respectfully for some time.

Fax letters in. Don't harass. Don't be mean. Just simply say you feel the new rules are uncalled for and unjust. The fax number is (415) 861-5989.

Call a human being and address the issue. Their media contact is Steve Honig at (310) 246-1801.

Take the right risks. I may lose my tribe account for this. I hold nothing against tribe, Jan, Wade, or Steve if they terminate my account. It's not going to hurt anything I've done, and I can deal. However, talking to these people and being involved in the process is much more effective than just sticking a pic on your tribe that says "censored" or worse.

Finally, take what you've learned here and apply it. How many of you folks have ever called a congressperson? The senate just passed an extension to the patriot act. How many of you called to protest that? How many letters have you written to congress or the president? Maybe if you all of you had, we wouldn't be in this position to begin with.

Sincerely,

Jay Moyes
www.jaymoyes.com

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 17 replies

Court Ruling re: Content Posted by Third Parties

pug — Fri, 30 Dec 2005 16:33:09 GMT

Anyone that has personal ad online and/or been paying attention to the legal disputes regarding 2257 will find this ruling to be a glimmer of hope.

Forwarded Message:
----------------

AdultFriendFinder Not Responsible for Third-Party Content, Judge Rules
AVN Online.com

By: MJ McMahon

SHREVEPORT, La -

A lawsuit filed against Various, the parent company of AdultFriendFinder, in
federal court was dismissed Tuesday, strengthening the argument that
websites are not responsible for content posted by third parties.

The suit was filed by Shelly Landry-Belle, who claimed that an ex-boyfriend
had posted false, defamatory and obscene information about her on
AdultFriendFinder and other personals sites operated by Various. Posts
contained clothed pictures of Landry-Belle, but suggested she would engage
in, as Judge Mark Hornsby wrote in his dismissal, "lewd and obscene acts of
perversion." Other posts suggested she was bisexual.

Various' attorney Ira Rothken defended the company, filing a motion to
dismiss based on Communications Decency Act (CDA) immunity given to Internet
service providers. The CDA states that "no provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of
any information provided by another information content provider."

"I think this is going to provide an important precedent for online adult
sites to give them comfort that they have immunity when third parties post
something defamatory," Rothken says.

"AdultFriendFinder has millions of people posting millions of things every
single day. We can't be the arbiter of who's right and who's wrong. There
could be a complaint that comes in. and they could be lying. We can't do a
micro-investigation every time."

Landry-Belle has 10 days from dismissal to appeal the case, but Rothken
doesn't believe an appeal will be heard.

"It's not likely the court will change its mind when it accepted as true all
of the allegations the plaintiff made and still found against them," he
says. "I think this gives great precedent to any adult site that allows
anyone to upload pictures and content, to be able to rely on this [case]
should they get sued."

Landry-Belle is also attempting to sue the ex-boyfriend, Zach Wilhelm, but
she has not been able to locate him.

===================================
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.

Please note that distribution of this item does not necessarily constitute
endorsement of the content; in fact, often items are distributed as
"opposition research."

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and
allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are
often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted by
Woodhull may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go
to Original" links.
*******************************************************************
* Howto - unsubscribe, change settings, access the archive: *
* http://server.serve101.org:81/faq.htm *
*******************************************************************

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 1 reply

CENSORHIP SUCKS TRIBE

Dastardly — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:24:33 GMT

Join my new tribe! http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791
“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition (00-795) 198 F.3d 1083, affirmed.

“Almost all human beings have an infinite capacity for taking things for granted.” — Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)

http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks
http://tribes.tribe.net/censorshipsucks

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

lines in the sand...

Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:39:31 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/hideinplainsight

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

How about starting TRIBU.CA?

Sun, 18 Dec 2005 06:01:53 GMT

How about someone creating a new system that would use the tribe template but with a slightly different name (tribu is tribe in French and Spanish) and have it registered in Canada or Mexico where it is not subject to Amerikan laws.

ledanz

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 7 replies

So what DO we do?

polybi — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 18:38:53 GMT

This....

1) Next year we get to elect members of Congress and the Senate. We HAVE to start asking point blank, "Are you for the First Amendment?" We have to start making it a major issue. We have to start electing people who will stand up for freedom. Ask: "Are you in favor on 2257?" A yes answer means you do not get my vote.

2)We have to find a way to make people aware that it's thier freedoms at risk too. The other side made abortion an issue, even though most people did not even care for it. I am not advocating we go to the extremes they did, but I am advocating that we starte letters to the editor, talk show calls, blogging, whatever it takes to get this issue into the minds of people.

3) Back to the vote. Our local politicos. "Are you for censorship?" We vote you out. "Are you for restrictions on sexual freedom amongst consenting adults?" We vote you out. And we have to vote in larhe enough numbers.

4) Getting these people out forever. We are stuck with these clown until 2008. Even with impeachment AND a conviction, you have Dennis Hastert, CondoSleaze-a Rice, Rummy, et. al., all lined up to take the job. (See Presidential Succession: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html ). We have to start to mobilize now to create a bloc of votes that will make sure these people are out in 2008 (yes Bush can't get back in, but The Fellas do have a bullpen). And that means YOU, Mr. Republican. You have a great party being destroyed by these religeous perverts. It's time you take YOUR party back.

5) Hold those who are IN accountabale in terms of separation of church and state. It is these Xian Fundies who have lead us down the road of 2257. Look at these organizations...and thier tax exempt status. Look at thier influence: are there legal problems there? Here's the deal...if we promist to go to the polls EVERYTIME and vote for freedom....will you work for US for a change.

That's for starters.

polybi

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 8 replies

3 more days

troubleporndawgie — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:53:54 GMT

Can't wait to see. What happens.

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

Internet Censorship coming to the U.S. - Must read

Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:03:08 GMT

Internet Censorship
By Wayne Madsen
12-9-5

http://waynemadsenreport.com/

Internet censorship. It did not happen overnight but slowly came to America's shores from testing grounds in China and the Middle East.

Progressive and investigative journalist web site administrators are beginning to talk to each other about it, e-mail users are beginning to understand why their e-mail is being disrupted by it, major search engines appear to be complying with it, and the low to equal signal-to-noise ratio of legitimate e-mail and spam appears to be perpetuated by it.

In this case, "it," is what privacy and computer experts have long warned about: massive censorship of the web on a nationwide and global scale. For many years, the web has been heavily censored in countries around the world. That censorship continues at this very moment. Now it is happening right here in America.

The agreement by the Congress to extend an enhanced Patriot Act for another four years will permit the political enforcers of the Bush administration, who use law enforcement as their proxies, to further clamp censorship controls on the web.

Internet Censorship: The Warning Signs Were Not Hidden

The warning signs for the crackdown on the web have been with us for over a decade. The Clipper chip controversy of the 90s, John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness (TIA) system pushed in the aftermath of 9-11, backroom deals between the Federal government and the Internet service industry, and the Patriot Act have ushered in a new era of Internet censorship, something just half a decade ago computer programmers averred was impossible given the nature of the web. They were wrong, dead wrong.

Take for example of what recently occurred when two journalists were taking on the phone about a story that appeared on Google News. The story was about a Christian fundamentalist move in Congress to use U.S. military force in Sudan to end genocide in Darfur. The story appeared on the English Google News site in Qatar. But the very same Google News site when accessed simultaneously in Washington, DC failed to show the article. This censorship is accomplished by geolocation filtering: the restriction or modifying of web content based on the geographical region of the user. In addition to countries, such filtering can now be implemented for states, cities, and even individual IP addresses.

With reports in the Swedish newspaper Svensa Dagbladet today that the United States has transmitted a Homeland Security Department "no fly" list of 80,000 suspected terrorists to airport authorities around the world, it is not unreasonable that a "no [or restricted] surfing/emailing" list has been transmitted to Internet Service Providers around the world. The systematic disruptions of web sites and email strongly suggests that such a list exists.

News reports on CIA prisoner flights and secret prisons are disappearing from Google and other search engines like Alltheweb as fast as they appear. Here now, gone tomorrow is the name of the game.

Google is systematically failing to list and link to articles that contain explosive information about the Bush administration, the war in Iraq, Al Qaeda, and U.S. political scandals. But Google is not alone in working closely to stifle Internet discourse. America On Line, Microsoft, Yahoo and others are slowly turning the Internet into an information superhighway dominated by barricades, toll booths, off-ramps that lead to dead ends, choke points, and security checks.

America On Line is the most egregious in stifling Internet freedom. A former AOL employee noted how AOL and other Internet Service Providers cooperate with the Bush administration in censoring email. The Patriot Act gave federal agencies the power to review information to the packet level and AOL was directed by agencies like the FBI to do more than sniff the subject line. The AOL term of service (TOS) has gradually been expanded to grant AOL virtually universal power regarding information. Many AOL users are likely unaware of the elastic clause, which says they will be bound by the current TOS and any TOS revisions which AOL may elect at any time in the future. Essentially, AOL users once agreed to allow the censorship and non-delivery of their email.

Microsoft has similar requirements for Hotmail as do Yahoo and Google for their respective e-mail services.

There are also many cases of Google's search engine failing to list and link to certain information. According to a number of web site administrators who carry anti-Bush political content, this situation has become more pronounced in the last month. In addition, many web site administrators are reporting a dramatic drop-off in hits to their sites, according to their web statistic analyzers. Adding to their woes is the frequency at which spam viruses are being spoofed as coming from their web site addresses.

Government disruption of the political side of the web can easily be hidden amid hyped mainstream news media reports of the latest "boutique" viruses and worms, reports that have more to do with the sales of anti-virus software and services than actual long-term disruption of banks, utilities, or airlines.

Internet Censorship in the US: No Longer a Prediction

Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Cisco Systems have honed their skills at Internet censorship for years in places like China, Jordan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and other countries. They have learned well. They will be the last to admit they have imported their censorship skills into the United States at the behest of the Bush regime. Last year, the Bush-Cheney campaign blocked international access to its web site -- www.georgewbush.com -- for unspecified "security reasons."

Only those in the Federal bureaucracy and the companies involved are in a position to know what deals have been made and how extensive Internet censorship has become. They owe full disclosure to their customers and their fellow citizens.

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 1 reply

tribe(tm) Censorship is Pure Exploitation and Greed...

anarchistslut — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:41:14 GMT

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Others have legally dissected every bullshit legal argument so far raised by tribe(tm) in the tribes devoted specifically to discussing the new censorship policies - they are not doing this to cover their asses in any realistic legal sense. They are most definitely not doing this to create a "respectful environment for everyone" - by allowing anti-everything extremists to censor certain people. It's a crass move by the tribe bureaucrats to appeal to advertisers (who are themselves overwhelmingly anti-sex extremists because that's who runs this country and has all the money), nothing more.

The tribe(tm) techno-bureaucrats built this site, it's huge number of members, the word of mouth networks, the countless tribes (not tm), the thousands of volunteer moderators, and all their its-per-day/eyeballs-per-minute/etc advertising selling points on OUR efforts - the freaks, weirdos, and perverts. Now, they want to kick us off, desperately hold on to the less controversial crowds who followed us here, gain more lucrative advertising clients who won't pay a site that allows free expression because it offends their extremist anti-sex sensibilities, and exploit our unpaid labors of love.

We are the new proles - "now we stand outcast and starving 'midst the wonders we have made."

A simple and stupid fact of the spineless pseudo-postmodern "internet economy" administered by boot licking, smug, short-sighted techsperts, as an appendage of the boneheaded pre-modern capitalist economy run by Calvinist scum who own the world (because their grandaddy's grandaddy killed a bunch of brown people for it fair and square) and are happily and rapidly destroying the inabitable planetary surface in a feeble attempt to please their angry little notion of God and bring about an apocalyspe.

James Baldwin put it best in a letter to Angela Davis:

"Your struggle is our struggle, for if they come for you in the morning they will be coming for us at night." they will be coming for us at night."

On a less polemical note, I have seen many people make claims in various tribe(tm) forums that messages and entire tribes(not tm) will or will not be deleted depending on whether someone thinks the message or tribe itself is offensive. I responded to Wade's emails asking quite directly for an answer to this concern.

I would like a yes or no answer. I still have not seen one, in my messages from Wade or in any forum in which this is being discussed.

They have made clear that photos will be deleted. Why not make clear whether messages and tribes will be deleted?

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

Patriot Act and 2257

Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:39:47 GMT

http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/091205Patriot_act.htm

Take a look at that.. it justifies gov't intrusion into any aspect of your life. Your computer etc.

All a police dept has to do is call you a domestic te**orist and you just last ALL of your legal rights as a citizen...

1984 Is closer than you think....
Remember George Orwell's concept of double speak... Remeinds me of a speach bush said ... "war is peace"

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 16 replies

2257 Commercial (pay sites) vs free sites

girldebbie — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:37:03 GMT

2257 regulations "seem to imply" that the record-keeping requirement is restricted to commercial operations.

1) Is this true?
2) If so, would tribe.net NOT fall under 2257 because this is not a "pay for membership and access" site?

slavegirl debbie

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 8 replies

Thank you !!!

Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:28:52 GMT

Slave debbie for making us aware of this... I was aware of Midori's beauty bound and the INSEX sites going away...

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 8 replies

Alternatives

polybi — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 06:17:45 GMT

have created a portal where many of you can join some group that have not yet been hit by the neocon storm troopers. At least we can keep freedom for a little while.

Will you join me?

http://socalbis.tripod.com/tribe

polybi

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

So how about we leave

Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:33:00 GMT

Anyone thought that in protest of Tribe knuckling under to pressure that we just pick up and leave.
Where would we go.. ?? Remember good old mailing lists?

This crap is totally ridiculous

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 2 replies

2257, abuse and consent

girldebbie — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:30:28 GMT

Below is the paragaph of 2257 that deals with S&M. i just realized that they use the word ABUSE. But what we do is CONSENSUAL.

Nudity aside, i wonder if it makes any difference in the fight against 2257 that most of the pics people see are CONSENSUAL. Sure, i've seen sites where the creators claim that real rape and real non-consensual activities are taking place. But that's a whole different ballgame. Still, how can one "prove" the pic they took is consensual?

This all makes one's head spin...

slavegirl debbie

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 2 replies

BDSM Tribe Pointers tribe

wahwah — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 06:19:23 GMT

I just started a new tribe called BDSM Tribe Pointers specifically to provide a listing of all BDSM-related tribes on Tribe.net. This is not a discussion tribe, just a listing of names and urls for other tribes.

It looks as if we're going to have to make our tribes private in order to survive the new Tribe Terms of Service and continue to operate. Private tribes do not show up on searches, so it's going to be difficult for new Tribe members to find us if they want to. Hopefully, at least this tribe will be able to remain public so that anyone looking for BDSM content will find it, and subsequently be able to find the rest of our tribes.

The url is http://tribes.tribe.net/BDSMTribePointers

Please spread the word.

Wendy

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice

prairiekittin — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:01:01 GMT

18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice
All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.

All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

With respect to all visual depictions displayed on this website, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual content or otherwise, all persons in said visual depictions were at least 18 years of age when said visual depictions were created.

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

The letter tribe.net sent out today

girldebbie — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:49:16 GMT

Date Tue, December 6, 2005 - 1:19 PM
Subject TRIBE.NET > Review Your Photo Album Now

Hi,

Following on today's announcement about privacy controls, we wanted to drop a note to everybody who currently has a Mature profile. That's because on or about 12/20, we’ll make the following changes that affect you:

1) We’re implementing Community Flagging. To ensure that all posts are respectful, and to respond to concerns from our users about some of the content on the site being offensive, we’re going to allow members to flag content (photos and listings) for removal. In our judgment, at least some of your photos are likely to be flagged for removal by other tribe.net members.

2) We’re updating our Terms of Use (“TOU”). This update is to reflect changes in the legal environment facing us and our members. In particular, posting content that portrays obscenity, pornography, or sexually explicit conduct is for practical purposes illegal for members like ours under U.S. federal law. So it will be prohibited in our TOU, and we will drop the “Mature” designation from your profile and site wide. Your profile will be viewable to any visitor or member, except for content that you’ve designated Friends Only.

3) We’re switching all the photos in your photo album to Friends Only status. This is to give you time to decide which ones need to be removed, and which ones don’t.

What to do now: we suggest you remove all photos that you think are likely to be considered in violation of the new TOU. Then remove the mature mark (before 12/20) on your profile, at

www.tribe.net/template/ac...reProfile.vm

Doing this now will save you a lot of work down the road.

This is an important transition for Tribe, one we’ve had to think through long and hard. We appreciate your help and patience as we all get through this. If you have questions, we’ll be discussing this online at tribeideas.tribe.net

Thanks,

Wade Lagrone
VP Marketing
www.tribe.net/template/pub%2CAbout.vm

P.S. If you have so many photos to remove that it’s a big chore, let us know and we’ll figure out a way to help.

posted in ! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL ! - 0 replies

a letter to tribe.net

girldebbie — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 01:48:02 GMT

Dear Kinky, BDSM & Leather Friends,

i am deeply disturbed and alarmed by our government's recent crackdown on websites containing BDSM content. The most recent news? US Law Code 18/Section 2257 has now hit our bdsm/leather community online. This morning, tribe.net sent a letter to all its members, stating:

"...We’re implementing Community Flagging…'We’re going to allow (other) members to flag content (photos and listings) for removal…'that are offensive in nature. Posting content that portrays obscenity, pornography, or sexually explicit conduct is for practical purposes illegal for members like ours under U.S. federal law.”
====================
Keep in mind - tribe.net members can flag as "offensive" any photo, event listing or even a discussion thread! Does this seem ridiculous? Perhaps. But tribe.net is only responding to the U.S. Government crackdown on ANY website that contains sexually explicit content.

To read the actual law, US Code 18 Section 2257 go to:
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/caseco...57.html

This law was originally created to crack down on child pornography. But the recent change in the law has set the US government upon us -- consenting adults. There can be NO MORE denial. The far right in America had to pick a new target, and WE, my leather and kinky friends, are it.

In His recent address at the Together in Leather Conference in Charlotte NC, Master Steve Sampson said, "The far right has lost the war against gays and lesbians. The new "beat 'em up and feel righteous" target is the SM community – WE ARE the new gays. With current legislation, the possibility of a witch hunt designed to hurt and destroy SM websites and activities is very real."

Friends, this government crackdown was originally about child pornography. But they’ve found a way to use it against consenting adults. They are arresting and prosecuting owners of websites whose content includes sado-masochistic pictures AND websites with BDSM content in WORD only! In response, several website owners have decided to close down.

• Our own beloved MIDORI has removed her website, BeautyBound.com, citing fear of obscenity prosecution.

• The owner of three SM websites, known as GRANDPA DESADE, removed his websites from the Internet.

• SUICIDEGIRLS.COM announced they are self-censoring their materials over concerns about a possible obscenity crackdown

• The popular INSEX.COM has left America, is being run in another country, and has taken down all prior content

• An extension was made last month week, delaying enforcement of 2257 that some GAY MALE CRUISING WEBSITES say are threatening the use of nude photos, a staple of their popularity.

• And now, with TRIBE.NET changing what content they will allow, 2257 has reached our community's informational and educational resource sites.

Even website owners with NO bdsm pictures are being arrested. The erotic fiction website RED ROSE STORIES is facing obscenity charges after federal agents raided the owner's home on October 3rd, taking computer equipment and diskettes that contained all of their files and site information.

In His speech, Master Steve Sampson continued, "But we do have a voice and a choice. Our way of life is being threatened and we have to act now to protect it."

Throughout all this 2257 craziness, the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) has remained hard at work on our behalf, working on obscenity cases that are before the United States District Courts, Appeal Courts and US Supreme Court www.ncsfreedom.org/news/2005/

This fight takes money and the time to take action is NOW. Please, i urge each and every one of us who is into bdsm, kink, fetishes and/or the leather lifestyle to take the time to join the NCSF, either as individuals or groups. Individual membership is $25.00 and for groups is $100. More details can be found on the NCSF's website at www.ncsfreedom.org

i do NOT work for the NCSF. i am just a kinky leather girl who is appalled and disgusted with our government's right-wing, closed-minded prudish attitude towards CONSENSUAL alternative sexual lifestyles.

Right now they're only coming after our websites. What's next? The closure of our bdsm and leather yahoo groups? Our dungeon spaces? Our leather bars? Please, don't buy into the saying "that would never happen in America." If we don’t stand up now, we will be putting the red carpet out for history to repeat itself. And let’s not fool ourselves. Our toes are already on that carpet...First it was adult porn producers. Then bdsm porn sites. Then online erotica sites. Then Pro-Domme sites. Then gay dating sites. Now our online communities. What’s next?

Please, will you join me in joining the NCSF now?

In loving service,
slavegirl debbie

PR Director, Southwest Leather Conference
Outreach Coordinator, L.A. Leather Coalition
Founder, L.A. Females United in Kink
Program Coordinator, Lair de Sade

For more discussion about this subject, feel free to join this new tribe i was asked to create: http://tribes.tribe.net/2257

======================

The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that advances equal
rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual expression.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
822 Guilford Avenue, Box 127
Baltimore, MD 21202-3707
410-539-4824
www.ncsfreedom.org

Please cross post and e-mail at will.

! 2257: NO MORE DENIAL !'s topics - tribe.net

Lawyer Petition to Defend Habeas Corpus

Federal Judge Blocks Online Pornography Law

If you liked 2257, you will LOVE this........!

You Could Go to Jail for the Rest of Your Life

More Federal Shit Rolling Down Related to 2257

Does anybody actually READ this law?

forced exile

2257 Update from the AVN Convention in Las Vegas

2257 Workshop in San Francisco. Any interest?

Judge upholds porn rules - with limits| 2257 Heat May be Off Tribe!

Most important part of the new ruling...

What do we really need to do

Court Ruling re: Content Posted by Third Parties

CENSORHIP SUCKS TRIBE

lines in the sand...

How about starting TRIBU.CA?

So what DO we do?

3 more days

Internet Censorship coming to the U.S. - Must read

tribe(tm) Censorship is Pure Exploitation and Greed...

Patriot Act and 2257

2257 Commercial (pay sites) vs free sites

Thank you !!!

Alternatives

So how about we leave

2257, abuse and consent

BDSM Tribe Pointers tribe

18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice

The letter tribe.net sent out today

a letter to tribe.net

Other tribes are talking about this -- jon the discussion