http://www.gapingmaw.com/35150/

CENSORED BY US GOVERNMENT

18 USC 2257

Yes, that is correct. The wonderful 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.

Regulations effective 24 June 2005.

Now tell me, what on earth can the US teach us other western countries about freedom?

http://www.gapingmaw.com/35150/

CENSORED BY US GOVERNMENT

18 USC 2257

Yes, that is correct. The wonderful 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.

Regulations effective 24 June 2005.

Now tell me, what on earth can the US teach us other western countries about freedom?

You don't pay yer taxes, expect the axes

Even though you laugh at tits and asses.

You don't pay yer taxes, expect the axes

Even though you laugh at tits and asses.

Actually, it's not about taxes.

The US passed a code ( 18 USC 2257 ) that requires anyone who creates porno (i.e. pictures, videos) to keep records verifying that the persons appearing in those pics/vids were of legal age at the time they were made. This applies to any porno created after 1 November 1990 !

The law (code) didn't come out until 3 August 2005 !!!

In other words, they expect you to be holding records from 15 years before the law requiring those records was even created !

The code is another one of those long-winded laws made by lawyers in such a way that it requires more lawyers, and probably a court case or two, to understand.

I heard about this awhile ago. One of the big arguements was that the law supposedly requires EVERY site that displays porno to be able to produce records verifying the age of the people portrayed. Even if you are just displaying stuff created by someone else, you are required to maintain those records.

Some consider this an attack on porno sites, many of which display pics/vids they have ripped off from other sites. You'd have to remove any pics/vids for which you couldn't produce records. If enforced, this would wipe out a vast majority of the porn sites currently operating in the US.

It would even affect certain chat sites (like barladies if it was based in the US, or MySpace.com ) if a user posted a pornographic image, and the site didn't have records verifying the age of the person shown.

You don't pay yer taxes, expect the axes

Even though you laugh at tits and asses.

Actually, it's not about taxes.

The US passed a code ( 18 USC 2257 ) that requires anyone who creates porno (i.e. pictures, videos) to keep records verifying that the persons appearing in those pics/vids were of legal age at the time they were made. This applies to any porno created after 1 November 1990 !

The law (code) didn't come out until 3 August 2005 !!!

In other words, they expect you to be holding records from 15 years before the law requiring those records was even created !

The code is another one of those long-winded laws made by lawyers in such a way that it requires more lawyers, and probably a court case or two, to understand.

I heard about this awhile ago. One of the big arguements was that the law supposedly requires EVERY site that displays porno to be able to produce records verifying the age of the people portrayed. Even if you are just displaying stuff created by someone else, you are required to maintain those records.

Some consider this an attack on porno sites, many of which display pics/vids they have ripped off from other sites. You'd have to remove any pics/vids for which you couldn't produce records. If enforced, this would wipe out a vast majority of the porn sites currently operating in the US.

It would even affect certain chat sites (like barladies if it was based in the US, or MySpace.com ) if a user posted a pornographic image, and the site didn't have records verifying the age of the person shown.

I cannot see why this is a big issue - or even a freedom of speech issue.

There is so much porn available, it must be relatively easy to only shown porn made recently and recorded correctly: promote the porn industry; compromise the rip-off artists.

If this is too much trouble for these respectable enterprises, they can always move their servers to another country.

There must be at least 50 lands who would gladly host their sites for a little piece of the action.

The US has freedom of speech and to say it doesn't is ridiculous.

You can say anything from wanting to gas the Jews to exterminating these evil Muslims who settled in the US.

Freedom of speech, yeeeaaahhhhhh!

But be careful not to spell "f.u.c.k." in public!

The US has freedom of speech and to say it doesn't is ridiculous.

It doesn't. Not in the media-world. (Check out a little itsy bitsy thing called the FCC.)

TM>> Yes, that site could move, but the point is two-folded:

- They shouldn't have to.

- Websites are easy to move, but other restrictions cannot so easily be circumvented.

Yeah, you shouldn't make any reference to extremist views, communist, anarchist, Islamist, socialist, pornographic etc., or you'll attract attention of the F.B.I. or worse...

Welcome to AMERICA, the land of the free....

You don't pay yer taxes, expect the axes

Even though you laugh at tits and asses.

:D

The US has freedom of speech and to say it doesn't is ridiculous.

And anybody who disagrees can <deleted> off to Guantanemo with all other non "Patriotic" as$holes

You don't pay yer taxes, expect the axes

Even though you laugh at tits and asses.

:D

The US has freedom of speech and to say it doesn't is ridiculous.

And anybody who disagrees can <deleted> off to Guantanemo with all other non "Patriotic" as$holes

...and talk amongst themselves - 'cos sure as h£ll, nobody else will hear what they have to say, no matter how freely they speak!

And anybody who disagrees can <deleted> off to Guantanemo with all other non "Patriotic" as$holes

Yep...good place for Hanoi Jane Fonda, eh?

Perhaps the OP needs a refresher lesson in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution:

Here's an example:

Fights Break Out At Neo-Nazi Rally In Orlando

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Two opposing groups hurled insults at each other across police barricades Saturday during a tension-filled neo-Nazi rally that culminated in 17 arrests…

Where else on this globe are you allowed to have a Neo-Nazi Rally, eh?

Well i am writting an essay about the political and other issues related with environmental problems...reading some of the post here made me understand why some people will never think that is a big problem the Philippines forest deforestation and the fact that this is affecting the lives of Batak tribe...

as well as they speak about guantanamo with so much disdain...

BTW save your bashing because i don´t give a <deleted> what you have to add...Guantanamo is against all human rights...

Where else on this globe are you allowed to have a Neo-Nazi Rally, eh?

Most western democracies.

cv

TM - Surely Allah hears them burp after finishing one of their delivered meals in between showering excercise, reading and prayers.

Perhaps the OP needs a refresher lesson in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution:

Here's an example:

Fights Break Out At Neo-Nazi Rally In Orlando

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Two opposing groups hurled insults at each other across police barricades Saturday during a tension-filled neo-Nazi rally that culminated in 17 arrests…

Where else on this globe are you allowed to have a Neo-Nazi Rally, eh?

Boon me>> We already know you are truly ignorant. It's ok, you don't have to post and prove it every day. Unless you are calling the nordic countries of Sweden, Denmark and Norway a part of the US of A.

(Did you ever finish 9th grade in school?)

TM - Surely Allah hears them burp after finishing one of their delivered meals in between showering excercise, reading and prayers.

Aren't the prayers censored?

But we would never really know, would we?

Media aiming to cover this year's Sept. 11 events at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, faced tightened press limits at the U.S. Naval station, including restroom escorts and restricted interviews.

Guantanamo Bay, which includes Camp Delta where nearly 600 suspected terrorists are detained, has upheld a high degree of media management since the detainees began arriving in January, said Miami Herald reporter Carol Rosenberg. But restrictions have become more severe in recent weeks, she noted.

In the past, reporters were allowed to speak with people on base in civilian clothes, Rosenberg said. "Now, there's a virtual absolute control over who we talk to and how, and a deep degree of distrust of allowing reporters to talk to people doing their job."

The tightened restrictions include monitored interviews with U.S. military personnel, media escorts on the side of the base where the detainees are held including restrooms and vending machines, according to a Sept. 14 report by Paisley Dodds of The Associated Press.

Rosenberg said that the 17 reporters and crew who traveled to Guantanamo were told that unauthorized interactions with civilians were not permitted, not even in eating establishments or to ask to which organization they belonged.

"Anywhere where you might have any sort of ordinary interaction with anyone on that base you had an escort at your elbow," Rosenberg said. "It was more obtrusive than any other time."

Prior to the four-day media trip, both American and foreign journalists were told they would be able to photograph Sept. 11 services but were barred from doing so upon arrival, AP reported.

In addition, reporters said they were not informed of incidents, such as the arrival of new detainees, as they happened on base, even after the Pentagon released an official statement regarding the incident.

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorismfoi/pressrestrictions.html

Amnesty International also has some comments (2004):

In the US, almost a year after the Supreme Court decided that detainees in Guantanamo should have access to judicial review, not one single case from among the 500 or so detained has reached the courts because of stonewalling by the Administration.

Under this agenda some people are above the law and others are clearly outside it.

Guantanamo has become the gulag our times, entrenching the notion that people can be detained without any recourse to the law.

If Guantanamo evokes images of Soviet repression, "ghost detainees" – or the incommunicado detention of unregistered detainees - bring back the practice of "disappearances" so popular with Latin American dictators in the past.

According to US official sources there could be over 100 ghost detainees held by the US.

In 2004 thousands of people were held by the US in Iraq, hundreds in Afghanistan and undisclosed numbers in undisclosed locations.

AI is calling on the US Administration to "close Guantanamo and disclose the rest". What we mean by this is: either release the prisoners or charge and prosecute them with due process.

By peddling the politics of fear and division, this new agenda has also encouraged intolerance, racism, and xenophobia.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100142005

Sorry about this long post folks, but here is an up date:

Washington, February 25 (RHC)-- A U.S. federal judge has ordered the Pentagon to release the identities of hundreds of detainees at Guantánamo to the Associated Press -a move which would force the government to break its secrecy and reveal the most comprehensive list yet of those who have been imprisoned at the camp, located in eastern Cuba and illegally occupied by the United States.

Many of the nearly 500 detainees being held at the U.S. military base at Guantánamo have been held as long as four years and only a few have been officially identified.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff in New York ordered the Defense Department to release uncensored transcripts of detainee hearings, which contain the names of detainees in custody and those who have been held and later released. Previously released documents have had identities and other details blacked out. The judge ordered the government to hand over the documents by March 3rd after the Defense Department announced it would not appeal his earlier ruling in the lawsuit filed by the Associated Press.

On January 23rd, Rakoff ordered the military to turn over uncensored copies of transcripts and other documents from 317 military hearings for detainees at the prison camp. There were another 241 detainees who refused to participate in the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the Defense Department said no transcripts exist of those hearings.

The Pentagon has never officially released the names of any detainees except the ten who have been charged. Most of those that are known emerged from the approximately 400 civil suits filed on behalf of prisoners by lawyers who got their names from family or other detainees, according to Michael Ratner, president of the centre for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents about 200 detainees.

The head of the centre for Constitutional Rights said that the military has been "very resistant to releasing the names," noting that there are still people at Guantánamo "who don't have a lawyer and we don't know who they are." Other attorneys and legal experts point out that the U.S. government has tried to maintain Guantánamo as a 'black hole' since it was opened shortly after Washington's invasion of Afghanistan in October of 2001.

Memos Reveal Allegations of Abuse at Guantánamo

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents at Guantánamo warned military interrogators that aggressive interrogation techniques were illegal, according to newly-released documents. A story published by the Financial Times says the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released internal FBI memos that outline agents' concerns about the interrogation tactics being used by Defense Intelligence Agency interrogators at the prison.

One memo, dated May 2003, shows that FBI agents in late 2002 believed DIA interrogators were using tactics that were of "questionable effectiveness." The memo said: "Not only are these tactics at odds with legally permissible interviewing techniques used by U.S. law enforcement agencies in the U.S., but they are being employed by personnel in GTMO [Guantánamo] who appear to have little, if any, experience eliciting information for judicial purposes."

Another memo documents how DIA interrogators used techniques such as showing pornographic videos and wrapping prisoners in the Israeli flag. It also notes that the interrogators sometimes posed as FBI agents.

According to the May 2003 memo, FBI agents complained that the U.S. military officer overseeing interrogations at Guantánamo "blatantly misled" the Pentagon into believing that the FBI had endorsed some of the more aggressive techniques.

The report said Major General Geoffrey Miller, overall commander of the prison from late 2002, who was later sent to Abu Ghraib to improve the flow of intelligence from interrogations, "favored" the more aggressive techniques "despite FBI assertions that such methods could easily result in the elicitation of unreliable and legally inadmissible information."

A military investigation last year recommended that General Miller receive a reprimand for inadequate supervision of interrogations, but his commanding officer declined to act, saying that Miller had broken no law.

General Miller, who is soon expected to retire from the military, last month refused to testify at the trial of two Abu Ghraib dog handlers, who are accused of using dogs to abuse prisoners at the notorious Baghdad prison.

http://www.periodico26.cu/english/news_world/gitmo022506.htm

Perhaps the OP needs a refresher lesson in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution:

Here's an example:

Fights Break Out At Neo-Nazi Rally In Orlando

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Two opposing groups hurled insults at each other across police barricades Saturday during a tension-filled neo-Nazi rally that culminated in 17 arrests…

Where else on this globe are you allowed to have a Neo-Nazi Rally, eh?

Boon me>> We already know you are truly ignorant. It's ok, you don't have to post and prove it every day. Unless you are calling the nordic countries of Sweden, Denmark and Norway a part of the US of A.

(Did you ever finish 9th grade in school?)

No, I certainly wouldn't call Scandinavia part of America!

Who wants to reside in a Nanny State with extreme taxes.

In terms of "Free Speech", the rest of those Eurowennie countries have restrictions America don't have - e.g. UK Blasphemy Laws and in Germany, the Horst Wessel Song is mucho verboten!

Back to the OP (which had nothing to do with G'tmo).

This is about the supression of pornography, and cracking down on child pornography, in the US.

It doesn't prevent the creation or display of porno. The code does require site owners/operators to manage what could be a very time-consuming and expensive set of records, verifying the age of every person (male/female) displayed in the pictures and videos.

As mentioned earlier, this applies to all porno sites operated in the US, even if they didn't create the original pictures/videos.

The story in the OP was about a site owner whining about having to be able to prove that the material on his/her site was created by or featured people of LEGAL AGE. Sites that don't maintain those records could/would be shut down.

It's a win-win situation for the Administration.

By making the requirements time-consuming, awkward and costly, the Administration is hoping to force large numbers of porno sites into closing down (the real reason for the law being created, which is a victory for the Religious Right).

By forcing sites to be able to verify the age of the people depicted, the Administration makes it look like it is getting tough on child pornography (the secondary reason for the law, which scores a victory in the Public Relations department, making it very hard to argue against the law. Anyone who argues against this law can then be vilified as being a proponent of child pornography).

When looking at this law, it is important to keep in mind who created it, and what their stance is on certain issues (such as religion).

No, I certainly wouldn't call Scandinavia part of America!

Who wants to reside in a Nanny State with extreme taxes.

It's not good, but atleast there is freedom of speach. (And comming next election, we are getting a regime-change.)

In terms of "Free Speech", the rest of those Eurowennie countries have restrictions America don't have - e.g. UK Blasphemy Laws and in Germany, the Horst Wessel Song is mucho verboten!

And the nordic-countries doesn't. They have even more Freedom of Speach then the US in some areas. Which was my point.

No state is perfect, but your claim of 'only in the US' is just filled with evidence of your ignorance about the world around you.

And the nordic-countries doesn't. They have even more Freedom of Speach then the US in some areas.

You.. got.. like an example there bud?

And the nordic-countries doesn't. They have even more Freedom of Speach then the US in some areas.

I had to laugh (not at the spelling of "Speach").

Arguing about who has more "Freedom of Speech" and quantifying it in the same sentence with "in some areas" !

So, because some countries have more Freedom of Speech "in some areas", does that make them better than other countries that may have more Freedom of Speech "in some other areas" ?

And the nordic-countries doesn't. They have even more Freedom of Speach then the US in some areas.

You.. got.. like an example there bud?

Check out the difference in what can be said on tv, radio and other media for instance.

Infact, I can only come to think of one thing Sweden have where it doesn't fully support freedom of speech (se below), but Norway and Denmark doesn't have our exact laws. (Looser in some areas, more restrictive in some.)

But yes, you are still wrong in assuming Neo-nazis wouldn't be able to have a parade or whatever.

And the nordic-countries doesn't. They have even more Freedom of Speach then the US in some areas.

I had to laugh (not at the spelling of "Speach").

Arguing about who has more "Freedom of Speech" and quantifying it in the same sentence with "in some areas" !

So, because some countries have more Freedom of Speech "in some areas", does that make them better than other countries that may have more Freedom of Speech "in some other areas" ?

While I agree that Freedom of Speech is absolute, no goverment in the world does. And as such we have to grade the restrictions as to how 'bad' they are. Otherwise we could just say right now that NO country has freedom of speech and be over with ut. And Boon Me would still be wrong.

One area Sweden is a disgrace: A law called 'Hets mot Folkgrupp' (eng. 'Agitation against Ethnic Group').

It supposudly should protect any 'ethnic group', but its pre-draft states it's for minoritys only.

So we have a law that is not only pro racial descrimination, it also have been extended to include sexual minoritys, even though they aren't any 'etchnic group'.

And ofcourse the basis for the law is that it allows the socialist goverment (with the Party in office, and Überst Pig Goran Persson at the helm) to act out on any groups that isn't in their liking. (Not to mention that there is already laws against starting riots or agitating people to kill others, so there isn't any need for the law in itself - besides the fact that they now clustered all the laws against starting riots or whatever and lowered the limit for when it's a 'crime'.)

So, is any country perfect? Absolutly not.

But atleast I don't make up lies on what can be done in 'my country and not in any other', to cover for the other crap we do. Like Boon Me.

Ps. Hope you can overlook any spelling-errors since English isn't my native tounge. I'd be more then happy to write everything in Swedish instead. Ds.

But atleast I don't make up lies on what can be done in 'my country and not in any other', to cover for the other crap we do. Like Boon Me.

Boon Mee doesn't lie.

He just sees things differently from those who can't even spell "speech" properly.

Thank you for proving my point about how you are.

I had to laugh (not at the spelling of "Speach").

Ps. Hope you can overlook any spelling-errors since English isn't my native tounge. I'd be more then happy to write everything in Swedish instead. Ds.

I understand. English has a lot of homonyms (words that sound the same, but have different meanings, like: here/hear, dear/deer/, there/their/they're, eight/ate and so on). I've noticed on ThaiVisa that even some "native" english speakers will make mistakes now and then.

TV has members from a wide range of countries, can't expect them all to be native english speakers.

Canada passed an anti-hate law as well. From what I understand, just about anybody that feels offended about almost anything, can have charges filed against the offender. How ever, I don't think it applies if you are caucasian. If you are white, and accuse anyone else of promoting hatred against "whites", then you are a racist (kind of a double standard).

The restrictions in European countries are different from the US. Hate and violence inciting speech is prohibited in some, on the other hand, nud_e pics are allowed and you may spell out f.u.c.k.

It does vary though, from nation to nation. Unlike some like to think, Europe is a geographic area with a variety of cultures, countries and laws.

"Boon Mee doesn't lie", but there is a large chunk of reality he doesn't know, or doesn't care to know. Ah well, if life would be so simple...

The restrictions in European countries are different from the US. Hate and violence inciting speech is prohibited in some, on the other hand, nud_e pics are allowed and you may spell out f.u.c.k.

It does vary though, from nation to nation. Unlike some like to think, Europe is a geographic area with a variety of cultures, countries and laws.

"Boon Mee doesn't lie", but there is a large chunk of reality he doesn't know, or doesn't care to know. Ah well, if life would be so simple...

Been drinking that kool-aid again zzap?

I thought that's your regular drink, pal?