• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US Government shuts down Rotten.com websites

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matlock

Banned
IT MAY NOT BE IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS TO GO TO ROTTEN.COM, JUST SAYIN'



http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html

CENSORED BY US GOVERNMENT 18 USC 2257

Yes, that is correct. The things that used to be here, the very funny things that you want to read, have been made retroactively illegal by the US government, in a side-handed attack on the pornography industry.

We might mention that the material here isn't even pornography as you normally think of it -- this site is just adult humor, in essay format, with some illustrations. The government is mandating that we meet certain bookkeeping requirements, ones impossible to meet for this site. Never mind that those requirements do not actually gain the public anything. This is the strongest attack on free speech since the passage of the CDA, and oddly, the media seems to have hardly noticed. The penalty for not abiding by these bookkeeping requirements is five years prison.

The regulations were promulgated by Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney General appointed by George Bush. If you voted for Bush, this is your fault. If you think this country is free, you are sadly mistaken. No nation has freedom when it is run by religious zealots.

Blah. Whatever happened to ex post facto? :p
 

LakeEarth

Member
I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE rotten.com...

But this is wrong and just another step to turning the US to the exact opposite of what it claims to be. Free. Not anymore bucko.
 

Tarazet

Member
I read this on the topic listing as "US Government Shuts Down" and I was all ready to break out the party hats..
 
sonarrat said:
I read this on the topic listing as "US Government Shuts Down" and I was all ready to break out the party hats..

I wish. The last time the federal government shut down, I got paid to stay home for five weeks.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this law is going to affect many more sites than just those run by rotten.com.

18 USC 2257 said:
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which -
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.
So, this could affect any site that distributes sexually explicit material, and especially ones that don't maintain any sort of records or information about the material they host, like 4chan, iichan, and any number of submission sites and image boards - not to mention porn torrent sites and people using file-sharing services. It's pretty scary stuff if they decide to start enforcing this widely.
 

Tarazet

Member
Lucky Forward said:
I wish. The last time the federal government shut down, I got paid to stay home for five weeks.

Sweet. :D

For me, it stings because what I actually got out of this topic was the exact opposite.. Big Brother is more omnipresent than ever. If anyone from Capitol Hill is reading this, fuck off. You have bigger fish to fry, and I will not be controlled anyway.
 

dskillzhtown

keep your strippers out of my American football
Does that mean that ogrish is gone too? That site actually was good as it showed the news that US news outlets don't show. Some of it gruesome, ok most of it, but the images really conveyed the brutality of war and human life.

This is bullshit. Is this the freedom that our soldiers are losing their lives for? Time to call my congressman.
 

daegan

Member
jiji said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like this law is going to affect many more sites than just those run by rotten.com.


So, this could affect any site that distributes sexually explicit material, and especially ones that don't maintain any sort of records or information about the material they host, like 4chan, iichan, and any number of submission sites and image boards - not to mention porn torrent sites and people using file-sharing services. It's pretty scary stuff if they decide to start enforcing this widely.

There was actually a little panic on 4chan about this last night.

Then they said screw it.
 

LakeEarth

Member
Wouldn't it solve the problem if rotten just removed the sexual parts of their site? It would be so fucking weird if that solved the problem. "Pictures of grusome dead bodies without permission from their families, no problems... IS THAT A BOOBIE?!?"
 

daegan

Member
LakeEarth said:
Wouldn't it solve the problem if rotten just removed the sexual parts of their site? It would be so fucking weird if that solved the problem. "Pictures of people's death without permission from their families, no problems... IS THAT A BOOBIE?!?"

I'm guessing no, because extreme violence has before and can be considered porn.
 
I'm no fan of any of those sites but, I can tell you this I know that the US Govt wants to limit the gruesome photos out of Iraq and this is the first site.
 
Bacon said:
It doesn't sound like the government is shutting them down, they're just making them to better book keeping...
...which they know is infeasible for a lot of porn sites, and for practically any individual users who trade porn. It's censorship through bureaucracy.
 

RedDwarf

Smegging smeg of a smeg!
jiji said:
...which they know is infeasible for a lot of porn sites, and for practically any individual users who trade porn. It's censorship through bureaucracy.

I agree, just saying they're not actually shutting down.
 

blahness

Member
Society said:
What is that other country that censors websites? Oh ya, COMMUNIST CHINA.

they are trying to censor anything.... they are just making it almost impossible for sites like rotten.com to operate with all the bookkeeping they are requiring

i dont agree with 2557 and i think it sucks bigtime but as jiji said its censorship through bureaucracy
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Tommie Hu$tle said:
I'm no fan of any of those sites but, I can tell you this I know that the US Govt wants to limit the gruesome photos out of Iraq and this is the first site.
This occurred to me a few minutes after reading this thread.....gruesome war photos were probably the biggest incentive to do this.
 

White Man

Member
blahness said:
they are trying to censor anything.... they are just making it almost impossible for sites like rotten.com to operate with all the bookkeeping they are requiring

i dont agree with 2557 and i think it sucks bigtime but as jiji said its censorship through bureaucracy

Bureaucracy at its finest. Gogol would be proud. My country is dead.
 
I was bummed earlier today when I clicked on the "Sexy Male" section on iichan and was forwarded to this news instead of hot pics.
 

sprsk

force push the doodoo rock
thats kind of sad, rotten.com has been a staple of the internet since i started using it. Not that i like the site or anything, but its still sad :/
 
As others have said, I find rotten.com disgusting and obscene and a symbol of the absolute worst in humanity (and the rest of humanity's fascination with just that), but this is wrong. This completely trounces on free speech.

If this administration keeps it up, this term could turn out far, far worse than the last.
 
i look forward to the day when the collective american conscience looks back on the 8years of Bush and thinks to themselves "WTF WERE WE THINKING??!?!?!?!?"
 
Not that I particularly enjoyed looking at obese old men showing their crotch but the worst is available only to premium members so I never bothered to look. It doesn't interest me. I'm one of the few people who don't use gay.com as a place to hookup. But I noticed this today. This is written by people at gay.com (who are gay obviously) and most gays hate Bush whether they know why or not.

CENSORED! BY U.S. GOVERNMENT!
Changes to our photo policy mandated by the Bush Administration
Always on the lookout for hot guys and ways to keep people from having fun, the U.S. Dept. of Justice is taking a break from prosecuting terrorists to do something it thinks is more important: restricting your right to view and share photos online.

All member photos identified as adult on our site are temporarily unavailable for public view as the result of the sudden, and unconstitutional, decision by the U.S. Dept. of Justice to place new restrictions on all Web sites around the world that do business in the United States. (I guess nobody ever told them the internet is borderless.) Gay.com thinks your adult photos should be sexy, secure and legally protected, so we've joined with other companies to seek an injunction against this ruling. We're doing everything possible to minimize its impact on you.

What does this mean for you?

Your civil liberties are under attack by the US government!
All photos identified as adult will be temporarily unavailable from public view
Members will still be able to view their own adult photos and edit their profiles, but they temporarily won't be able to see anyone else's adult photos
Gay.com will begin reviewing all adult photos, and will make them available again for public viewing if they meet our new standards (see below)
About these new government regulations

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has previously found these regulations to be unconstitutional, yet the Bush Administration has chosen to implement them anyway
The new regulations go into effect June 23, 2005
It applies only to "sexually explicit" content, not content that is merely "lascivious" (Hmmm, I don't know what explicit means, but I know it when I see it!)
See below for a detailed, and entertaining, explanation of what's "explicit."
Your adult photos

The good news: Most of your photos are OK (including your adult photos) and will be restored once they've been approved by Gay.com, because the dirty boys at the U.S. government consider only certain poses and activities to be "sexually explicit"
The bad news: Under these regulations Gay.com will no longer be able to accept or display "sexually explicit" photos from its members for either public or private view
New standards for "sexually explicit" content on Gay.com

An image of a hand holding or touching genitals, or appearing to grip or stimulate genitals, is considered masturbation and is prohibited.
An image of a hand clearly "cupping" or covering genitals for the purposes of keeping them covered is allowable.
An image of a hand inside pants is prohibited as it implies masturbation.
Pictures with more that one person that include nudity are prohibited.
All cartoons are prohibited.
While images of a nude person on all fours is allowable, an image showing the buttocks being held apart by hands is considered explicit and is prohibited.
In the interest of safety, images of nude children (e.g., a nude baby at the beach with her two dads) will not be allowed.
A clothed person posing with a pet is allowed, but a nude person with an animal is prohibited. (No more walking your dog in the nude!)
An image of a person in a bondage or fetish outfit is allowed (but please, no polyester!).
Images that depict bondage or S&M "abuse" are prohibited. (Shockingly, images from Abu Ghraib prison would be censored under the new regulations.)
Digital images run through an illustrator filter on software will be held to these same standards
What is Gay.com doing about the regulation?

We have joined with other companies to legally challenge its enactment
We're fighting for your civil liberties and are opposing undue government interference in individual expression
We're fighting against regulations such as this because we know they have a disproportionate effect on historically isolated groups, such as the LGBT community
Make your voice heard!
Contact U.S. elected officials and the Dept. of Justice to tell them you oppose 18 U.S.C. §2257

U.S. Dept. of Justice: www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html
U.S. Senate: www.senate.gov
U.S. House of Representatives: www.house.gov
Need help? Call: 1 (866) 313-6373
(Toll-free in the U.S. and Canada)

E-mail us:
premiumservices@gay.com

Member submissions that warrant further investigation and that are subject to immediate removal from the site include depictions or descriptions of violence, bestiality, incest, child pornography and any other objectionable violations of law or user safety. Depictions that fall into the category of unacceptable adult materials are ultimately subject to Gay.com's litmus test of violation, not the user's personal opinion.

Gay.com reserves the right but is not obligated to remove any profile, including content and images, which we deem inappropriate for this site and its viewers. Further, all content and images are subject to removal, if they are otherwise in conflict with our user agreement. To the extent that anything here conflicts with the user agreement, that document controls.

The pictures in question are available ONLY to those that pay for premium subscription. *boggle*
 

teiresias

Member
Thank god the media is making a big deal about this and informing the public about the Bush administrations attempt to trample on the constitution . . . oh wait.

Hmmm, I wonder if my avatar will get GAF shut down????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Images that depict bondage or S&M "abuse" are prohibited. (Shockingly, images from Abu Ghraib prison would be censored under the new regulations.)

How surprising . . . not!
 

ronito

Member
Not that I'm for rotten.com and it's ilk but this plus the whole emminent domain thing has just made this the worst day to be an american ever.

edit: It's still up? On second thought. Take it down! Take it down!
 

Mashing

Member
Rotten.com surely sucked but this kind of government regulation is absurd. What happens when they do go after legitimate, non smut sites with this crap?

Good riddiance to Rotten.com though.
 
human5892 said:
Allow me.

what.gif
 

Waychel

Banned
The fact of the matter is that it is both ridiculous and uneconomical to expect the US government to conduct investigation into every website that it suspects of containing pornographic material involving minors. After all, many women naturally look younger than their age (I'm one of them) and this can complicate matters further when the porn itself is actually advertised as having "teen" actresses and being lolita.

However, as a result of book keeping records being required pursuant to §2257, these websites can easily and expediently exonerate themselves by providing documentation or proof of an actress/model's age by providing sources for the material. So, not only does this law protect many providers of pornography from undue suspicion, but it allows investigators to conduct their searches where they matter regarding the increasing, unregulated rise of underage actors in pornography.

Child prostitution and pornography has been running rampant in states bordering the US-Mexico border (such as California and Texas) because minors are easily smuggled in from Mexico and forced into these trades like modern day slaves. When it comes to the Internet, tracking this activity alone is an incredible task; especially when it comes to finding it's source. This isn't about censorship so much as making the process of investigating these crimes easier for all involved.

Personally, I also fail to see why Rotten.com should be exempt from the same requirements that normal businesses online must adhere to. All that this law asks for is for pornography websites to take the responsibility of regulating themselves. That isn't censorship, but protecting the rights of whomever may be involved in the material being posted; especially in the consideration of minors.
 

gofreak

GAF's Bob Woodward
Woah. I may be naive, but I never thought things would get so bad. WTF?

This is SERIOUS. They're fucking with my internet! And I don't even live in America!
 

ronito

Member
Waychel said:
The fact of the matter is that it is both ridiculous and uneconomical to expect the US government to conduct investigation into every website that it suspects of containing pornographic material involving minors. After all, many women naturally look younger than their age (I'm one of them) and this can complicate matters further when the porn itself is actually advertised as having "teen" actresses and being lolita.

However, as a result of book keeping records being required pursuant to §2257, these websites can easily and expediently exonerate themselves by providing documentation or proof of an actress/model's age by providing sources for the material. So, not only does this law protect many providers of pornography from undue suspicion, but it allows investigators to conduct their searches where they matter regarding the increasing, unregulated rise of underage actors in pornography.

Child prostitution and pornography has been running rampant in states bordering the US-Mexico border (such as California and Texas) because minors are easily smuggled in from Mexico and forced into these trades like modern day slaves. When it comes to the Internet, tracking this activity alone is an incredible task; especially when it comes to finding it's source. This isn't about censorship so much as making the process of investigating these crimes easier for all involved.

Personally, I also fail to see why Rotten.com should be exempt from the same requirements that normal businesses online must adhere to. All that this law asks for is for pornography websites to take the responsibility of regulating themselves. That isn't censorship, but protecting the rights of whomever may be involved in the material being posted; especially in the consideration of minors.

Very well put. I am all for it if it stays as you say. I just saw censorship +bush+site shut down right after the whole emminet domain thing (which I'm still very depressed about) and did a knee jerk. I stand corrected. Thanks for bringing me back to reason. I tip my hat to you.

nashville-hat-tip.jpg


Now if only I could get over that whole emminet domain thing.
 

Mashing

Member
Waychel said:
The fact of the matter is that it is both ridiculous and uneconomical to expect the US government to conduct investigation into every website that it suspects of containing pornographic material involving minors. After all, many women naturally look younger than their age (I'm one of them) and this can complicate matters further when the porn itself is actually advertised as having "teen" actresses and being lolita.

However, as a result of book keeping records being required pursuant to §2257, these websites can easily and expediently exonerate themselves by providing documentation or proof of an actress/model's age by providing sources for the material. So, not only does this law protect many providers of pornography from undue suspicion, but it allows investigators to conduct their searches where they matter regarding the increasing, unregulated rise of underage actors in pornography.

Child prostitution and pornography has been running rampant in states bordering the US-Mexico border (such as California and Texas) because minors are easily smuggled in from Mexico and forced into these trades like modern day slaves. When it comes to the Internet, tracking this activity alone is an incredible task; especially when it comes to finding it's source. This isn't about censorship so much as making the process of investigating these crimes easier for all involved.

Personally, I also fail to see why Rotten.com should be exempt from the same requirements that normal businesses online must adhere to. All that this law asks for is for pornography websites to take the responsibility of regulating themselves. That isn't censorship, but protecting the rights of whomever may be involved in the material being posted; especially in the consideration of minors.


Great post, I never really thought of it that way and in light of that it makes more sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom