• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

Matlock
Banned
(06-23-2005, 03:58 PM)
IT MAY NOT BE IN YOUR BEST INTERESTS TO GO TO ROTTEN.COM, JUST SAYIN'



http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22...ur_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
Lakitu
st5fu
(06-23-2005, 03:59 PM)
Lakitu's Avatar
I'm glad. What a horrible website.
Ruzbeh
Banned
(06-23-2005, 04:00 PM)
Good.
LakeEarth
Member
(06-23-2005, 04:01 PM)
LakeEarth's Avatar
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
(06-23-2005, 04:01 PM)
Tarazet's Avatar
I read this on the topic listing as "US Government Shuts Down" and I was all ready to break out the party hats..
olimario
Banned
(06-23-2005, 04:01 PM)
I hate sites like it, but it is wrong to shut it down.
Lucky Forward
Member
(06-23-2005, 04:03 PM)
Lucky Forward's Avatar

Originally Posted by sonarrat

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.
jiji
purveyor and connoisseur
of fine gaming specimens
(06-23-2005, 04:15 PM)
jiji's Avatar
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.

Originally Posted by 18 USC 2257

(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.
f_elz
Member
(06-23-2005, 04:19 PM)
They should not have the power to shut down sites, what about free speech? Eh.
human5892
Queen of Denmark
(06-23-2005, 04:24 PM)
human5892's Avatar
What the fuck?

I'm no rotten.com fan or anything, but this just isn't right.
Tarazet
Member
(06-23-2005, 04:27 PM)
Tarazet's Avatar

Originally Posted by Lucky Forward

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
(06-23-2005, 04:35 PM)
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
(06-23-2005, 04:39 PM)
daegan's Avatar

Originally Posted by jiji

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
(06-23-2005, 04:47 PM)
LakeEarth's Avatar
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
(06-23-2005, 04:47 PM)
daegan's Avatar

Originally Posted by LakeEarth

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.
themadcowtipper
Smells faintly of rancid stilton.
(06-23-2005, 04:49 PM)
themadcowtipper's Avatar
before the edit, I wonder how many people went there to check it out :lol
demon
I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
(06-23-2005, 04:51 PM)
demon's Avatar
And the laaaaand of the freeeeeee......
RedDwarf
Smegging smeg of a smeg!
(06-23-2005, 04:53 PM)
It doesn't sound like they're closing, just going "dark" in protest tonight.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
(06-23-2005, 04:53 PM)
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.
Baconäger
Member
(06-23-2005, 04:55 PM)
It doesn't sound like the government is shutting them down, they're just making them to better book keeping...
Kon Tiki
Move your mouse over my tag to make my post disappear
(06-23-2005, 04:57 PM)
What is that other country that censors websites? Oh ya, COMMUNIST CHINA.
jiji
purveyor and connoisseur
of fine gaming specimens
(06-23-2005, 04:57 PM)
jiji's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bacon

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!
(06-23-2005, 04:58 PM)

Originally Posted by jiji

...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
(06-23-2005, 04:59 PM)
blahness's Avatar

Originally Posted by Society

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
(06-23-2005, 05:00 PM)
demon's Avatar

Originally Posted by Tommie Hu$tle

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
Two things would happen right before I died: I would regret my entire life and I would want to live it over again.
(06-23-2005, 05:05 PM)
White Man's Avatar

Originally Posted by blahness

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.
Agent Dormer
Dirty Drinking Smoker
(06-23-2005, 05:12 PM)
3 more years... 3 more years. :/
Naked Snake
(06-23-2005, 05:19 PM)
Naked Snake's Avatar
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
(06-23-2005, 05:24 PM)
sprsk's Avatar
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 :/
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
(06-23-2005, 05:54 PM)
out of curiosity, is there something grotesque on the main page?
Justin Bailey
------ ------
(06-23-2005, 05:57 PM)

Originally Posted by quadriplegicjon

out of curiosity, is there something grotesque on the main page?

nope
fart
Savant
(06-23-2005, 06:15 PM)
well, there goes free speech
WHOAguitarninja
Member
(06-23-2005, 06:18 PM)
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.
MrPing1000
Member
(06-23-2005, 07:51 PM)
MrPing1000's Avatar
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??!?!?!?!?"
Escape Goat
(06-23-2005, 07:57 PM)
Escape Goat's Avatar
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
(06-23-2005, 08:00 PM)
teiresias's Avatar
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!
Last edited by teiresias; 06-23-2005 at 08:04 PM.
Jim Bowie
Member
(06-23-2005, 08:01 PM)
Okay, I'm really starting to get frightened.
ronito
got my tag in the OT
(06-23-2005, 08:07 PM)
ronito's Avatar
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!
Last edited by ronito; 06-23-2005 at 10:17 PM.
human5892
Queen of Denmark
(06-23-2005, 08:08 PM)
human5892's Avatar

All cartoons are prohibited.

what.gif
Mashing
Member
(06-23-2005, 08:09 PM)
Mashing's Avatar
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.
jiji
purveyor and connoisseur
of fine gaming specimens
(06-23-2005, 08:16 PM)
jiji's Avatar

Originally Posted by human5892

what.gif

Allow me.

human5892
Queen of Denmark
(06-23-2005, 08:18 PM)
human5892's Avatar

Originally Posted by jiji

Allow me.

Thank you, sir. You're a gentleman and a scholar.
MrPing1000
Member
(06-23-2005, 08:24 PM)
MrPing1000's Avatar
ohh and i wonder if this sorta fills in another item on the facist state list
Father_Brain
Samus made me a Widower :(
(06-23-2005, 08:36 PM)
Father_Brain's Avatar
Scary, but I doubt that this has much chance of standing up to court review.
OpinionatedCyborg
Thread Clinging Troll
(06-23-2005, 10:09 PM)
OpinionatedCyborg's Avatar
Nice, it appears as though the Rotten Library is still up and running. It's like wikipedia but with funny descriptions and occassionally brain melting images.
Waychel
Banned
(06-23-2005, 10:13 PM)
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.
Last edited by Waychel; 06-23-2005 at 10:17 PM.
gofreak
GAF's Bob Woodward
(06-23-2005, 10:15 PM)
gofreak's Avatar
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
got my tag in the OT
(06-23-2005, 10:27 PM)
ronito's Avatar

Originally Posted by Waychel

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.



Now if only I could get over that whole emminet domain thing.
goomba
Member
(06-23-2005, 10:39 PM)
goomba's Avatar
What if rotten.com moved to a webserver outside the USA?
Mashing
Member
(06-23-2005, 10:50 PM)
Mashing's Avatar

Originally Posted by Waychel

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.

Thread Tools