Proposed federal regulation to get info on users of adult networking sites

Proposed federal regulation to get identifying personal info on users of adult networking sites

Many thanks to the original poster (JN) who brought this to our attention over on Second Citizen. The following link is from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. It is about an upcoming federal regulation that potentially impacts any site that allows adults to meet up for personal reasons.

Here's my question to the residents: will this affect us in SL?

Also, there is a comment form and if you're American and wish to oppose this regulation please send it in.

The link is:
http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/say_no_to_section_2257

Many thanks.

Brenda Archer
Bisexuals in Second Life

Hmm...lots of Page not Found errors - I tried using the Reports Search link...seems that page is down as well.

Perhaps it's a momentary glitch.

I can't get the task force page to load either, but with a little Googling I found out that Section 2257 is the law that went into effect in the 90s and required producers of sexually explicit photographic material to maintain records documenting that all the performers are 18 or over.

What seems to be at play now is proposed amendments to it that would require social networking Web sites to gather information on every user who posts a sexually explicit photo of themselves, also to verify they are of legal age.

http://www.outinamerica.com/home/news.asp?articleid=31370

The law seems to specify that it pertains to photographs only, so my initial impression, and based on second-hand information is:

1. It won't affect SL unless there are people posting sexually explicit photos of themselves in their profiles or somewhere, or RL sexually explicit photos sold inworld as art .. but not avatar sex.

2. Even though I don't think it will have more than a whisper of effect on SL, it's still a stupid, heavyhanded and unneeded law.

some people do actually do this.

It doesn't seem Entirely unreasonable that the Legal establishment would want in Place a form of legal assurance that the persons depicted in any Sexually explicit Photograph Was in Deed of legal age to Display such a photo of themselves. I also read the submission and it Seems to me also to pertain to Photos. The Existing laws already require Adult Web sites to log Information on Subscribers so there is no Change there.

Angel.

This change to the law is so overbroad and burdensome that it is fundamentally unenforcable and likely constitutionally invalid.

I can't see MySpace/Facebook/etc. even able to pretend they are in compliance. I also expect that the owner of MySpace, Rupert Murdoch, to have the greatest interest in not complying, and amount of "access" needed to defeat this.

I don't think that this really adds any intrusiveness that the current administration hasn't already made through other specious laws. O brave new world that has such people in't!

What about the escorts that have ads placed in SL clubs advertising live cam? Would that fall into this category?

Hm.. Define "photo" for us, please. Also, does this law include movies? How about animated characters moving around my computer screen?

Well Sindy, as I said, I only have read a brief article or two. But from what I gather "photograph" means a photograph of an actual person in a sexually explicit situation. The older law that this proposal would amend does apply to movies ... it was originally enacted in the 1990s as a way to compel makers of porn films to confirm and maintain records to show that all their performers were of legal age at the time the film was made.

I see nothing to suggest that it would apply to animated characters, and in fact I said just that in my original post. Now it may well be that further information will come to light that will cause me to change what I think it means, but so far, that is what I've gleaned.

Now my question back to you is, why are you demanding *I* give you this information? How do you figure that I have any inside knowledge? (Please note that while the paragraph of mine that you quoted sounds like a definitive statement, the sentence immediately before it was "my initial impression, and based on second-hand information is:"

So it won't affect straight people at all?

Shouldn't affect SL much. Public areas (including profiles) are officially PG and so such material is against tos anyway. Adult art (such as the pre-Raphaelite stuff) is legally protected (though it may also be copyrighted, depending) and won't be restricted if that's what you're into. if you post pics of yourself in a so-called private area, well, I know *I* won't be going there. SL is waay too open for that.

I am sure that if it was applied to SL it would affect straight and gay alike. Outside of SL it might get applied in a discriminatory manner. Given the recent press, in here if any of us are pervs we all are.

I was just curious why the "National Gay and Lesbian Task Force" were breaking the story, that's all. It would imply that they would be the only ones affected by this law, although it seems everyone (who has adult pictures anywhere) would be affected.

I don't have any pictures of 'the real me' anywhere online, let alone ones of an adult nature ... but I can see the concern.

Mind you, it is hard to tell these days how old teenage girls actually are, with skimpy clothes and makeup you can easily get confused.

Damn... showing my age here ... *shuffles off*

I think it's just because they have an interest in preventing sexual oppression by authorities. Doesn't mean they're the only ones affected.

Tsk. Leave it in 1st I say, for this sort of thing. If I wanted to see that I'd go look at webcam sites ...

Why does the government need a list of everyone whose naked picture is on the internets?

Just wait till the paranoid people decide voice isnt working for them and want webcam on a prim.

So Congress can pay you a visit come re-election time.

I knew it! All those politicans are perverts.

More bad news to add to all the rest. Freedom, if we ever really had any, is now a thing of the past. Another line in my list of things that dissappeared with the twentieth century. Alongside lines such as "Cheap as Chips" and "Safe as a Bank" goes "Freedom for All".

The amount of bullshit forced upon us, even form other countries now, has become an ever growng pile. A meeting in Sydney Australia, closed the F'ing city for christs sake. For over a WEEK.

Thats freedom folks.


I think its on topic.

Yeah, it is.

Because they're terrorists! Haven't you heard of sex terrorism?

/sarcasm_off as she shakes fist at the stupidity of the current regime.

And fears the next regime will be just as stupid.......

So does that mean if we don't have sex, the terrorists win?

Do you want Sex now?

I saw this first on another mailing list, and was surprised that the NGLTF was even still around. They were a major gay right's lobbying group around the time I came out, but these days, that role has been filled (quite well) by the Human Rights Campaign. I don't know where NGLTF fits in the political spectrum these days, or what this says about them and this issue. I looked around for other organizations trying to raise awareness about this, and couldn't find any.

Gay people, much more so than straights, have a need for internet-based contact boards, particularly those who don't live near any established gay communities. If such boards were forced to collect personal information, or prohibit photographs, it would impact them seriously. As a result, it would have a much stronger impact on gay users than straight users. (Consider Matthew Shepherd. Might he be alive today if he had had better opportunities to meet other gay students via the net, instead of picking up strangers at random bars?)