Jump to content

State of the Site Address - June 2005 - MUST READ


JTT

Recommended Posts

This is simply amazing... I can't believe something like this is being enforced and has passed through legistlature. It makes sense to have laws in place to protect children from the content but restricting everyone to keep records of this crap is just assinine!

This sites been such an integral success in my accepting myself emotionally and physically, that I don't know what I would have done if it was not around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is simply amazing... I can't believe something like this is being enforced and has passed through legistlature.

It hasn't. Congress hasn't changed the statute at all. But the statute gives the Justice Department the responsibility of promulgating regulations to implement the law. The Justice Department has revised those regulations.

 

 

Alan G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is truly ridiculous...I mean, even in logical terms, nobody who doesn't want to see the nude content on this site actually ARE, are they? Unless they happen "accidentally" pay the subscription fee to access the galleries. It's censorship gone mad and something we should all be very much against together. Count me in if you need any help, Josh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... you sure do think more clearly about precious freedoms when they become infringed.

I've been quite busy with other things in life and hadn't actually checked into the site here

in rather a while, so it was shock to see all this today.

 

Josh et al., thank you *so much* for doing what's needed to keep the site going in the face

of this type of unwarranted legalistic intrusion. Even if measurection ends up carrying no x-rated

visual material at all, I will remain a member into the future--the forums and the general "mission"

of camaraderie and support are such a great thing that I really do value a lot.

 

This also reminded me that I hadn't made a donation in quite a long time, so I've just

done so via PayPal, using your link up there. Sorry that it was by credit card instead

of bank transfer, and that it wasn't as large as you deserve, but I plan to help again

as soon as possible. (Note: it might have been preferable to have that PayPal link

set up to allow the donor to insert a free-form note along with the payment, as you

can do when you just start from scratch on PayPal's site.)

 

This is a cliche and self-evident, but can't hurt to repeat anyway: All you measurection

users who have enjoyed the site at all, please make even a smallish donation -- our

numbers are our strength, and the maintainers need it now more than ever, right?

 

There's a lot of political/religious/etc. stuff I could spew about, but will leave that aside.

For now I just want to express the fullest support I can for this site and for Josh and others

who make it all possible. You really are appreciated! Happy start of summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK... I am not one to preach, nor one to even care about politics, but I really believe that our country (starting in the winter) will live under the "Big Brother" way of life. We already give out the major companies enough information about our spending habits through credit cards, but they have already started installing microchips into every day clothes and products to know where products being bought are being delivered. It is a scary thing, but our country is going to rot from the inside out if we continue to allow it... Bottom line, children accessing porn on the net is just as bad as children knowing how to punch in the code for porn on the parents satelite receiver, but the parents have a parental control on their satelite just as they do on their childrens internet... if you dont tell them the code, they wont punch it in, nor use the adults internet settings... I am not a parent, but why do parents have such a hard time admitting that they make mistakes and and they are scared to punish their child the way they were punished and not care so much about going to jail? You can still punish your kid physically to where you will NOT go to jail, but if your kid gets a bruise on their face because you smaked them with a belt across the jaw, then maybe you SHOULD be in jail.

 

Anyway, I don't want to continue all night, so I will leave this post with an email I got earlier today that makes this kind of post ironic reading both in the same day...

 

2 TOUGH QUESTIONS

 

 

Question 1:

If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?

 

Read the next question before looking at the response for this one.

 

Question 2:

It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts.

 

Here are the facts about the three candidates.

 

Candidate A.

 

 

Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologist. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

 

Candidate B.

 

 

He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

 

 

 

Candidate C.

 

He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife. Which of these candidates would be your choice?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Candidate A is Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Candidate B is Winston Churchill.

Candidate C is Adolph Hitler.

 

And, by the way, on your answer to the abortion question: If you said YES, you just killed Beethoven.

 

Pretty interesting isn't it? Makes a person think before judging someone.

 

Keep reading...

 

Never be afraid to try something new.

Remember: Amateurs...built the ark.

Professionals...built the Titanic

 

 

 

And Finally, can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 500 employees and has the following statistics:

 

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse

* 7 have been arrested for fraud

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks

* 117 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

* 3 have done time for assault

* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting

* 21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

* 84 have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year...

 

Can you guess which organization this is?

 

 

 

Give up yet?

 

It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

 

 

Jake

 

PS-I do not mean to offend anyone here, nor this excellent website... just thought I would address the first amendment while I still could...

 

PMS-Sorry if I offended anyone (a second apology)

Because I know that this country cannot appreciate a good joke anymore without taking offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is sticky, from what I've read, and I did get some quick advice from a regular lawyer (can't get a first ammendment attorney)....

 

If you are in a foreign country, they most likely aren't going to worry about you.... since they have no easy control over you. If you are selling to americans, they will attempt to excercise their control just as they do for alcohol and tobacco products coming into the US. They can have control over the money trail. Avoiding the money trail back to the US is shady for sure. You're talking money laundering and swiss bank accounts. LOL

 

They can also declare a foreign citizen in violation of US Federal Law. That's fine, you're good and safe and it's difficult for them to get you, provided you stay in your own country, but if you try to enter the US and are in violation of 2257, you could be arrested.

 

OK - so the regulation is defining a "Secondary Producer" as someone who "inserts content on, or manages, a computer site". That's a pretty broad term. That doesn't say the one collecting the money from a computer website, that's anyone involved in the running of it. If the website is in violation, even if outside the US, are all the people defined as "secondary producers" safe and sound outside the US? That's a tricky question. One open to interpretation and a point that could be argued if you got into trouble. The big problem is that trying to argue those points would be an expensive and risky legal proposition. Might be worth it if the site were making millions, but tough to take a risk like that on a site that already loses money.

 

Your server would have to be located outside the US, and the billing and income solutions are outside the US and not parented to to anyone in the US. (Difficult for major credit cards. Rebillers like CCBill and iBill aren't touching this with a 10 foot pole, since they are in the US thus the money travels through the US).

 

There aren't that many rebillers who take common credit cards (like Visa/Mastercard). CCBill already has updated their TOS to state "Websites must comply witht he 18 U.S.C. 2257." They don't say that US sites must comply, they say that all sites using CCBill must comply.

 

iBill doesn't have this specifically yet - but iBill already holds all sites using the iBill service to be bound by Copyright laws of the United States, so they've already set this presidence of requiring sites to comply with US laws.

 

So in theory that seems safe.... but in reality, it's scary and tricky to remove traces to the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of foreign adult paysites that are compliant just because they provide free content to people they sponsor for thumbnail gallery posts or free sites, but that is for the people they sponsor's protection, not theirs. If they didn't provide free content, then they prolly wouldn't be compliant.

 

If measurerection was offshores completly, not just the hosting but the people who collect the money also, then it would be safre, but the whole roundabout thing probably won't be effective.

 

My views on this regulations are twofold. I think this will wipe out the voyeur niche, which can be good in my opinion for violating women's privacy. The producers will not have model releases nor any 2257 on these women so will either have to shut down or be in risk of being raided. However, it hurts everyone else who may be doing honest business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE

 

Just a short note, as you know we are at the Chicago gathering, so I am tired from travel and have spent the evening talking with the guys here.

 

It does look like we'll be able to bring the galleries back... at least until the first part of September. Remember that $300 we spent to join the http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ organization. There has been an "agreement" between the justice department and the FSC that the justice department will not enforce rules against FSC members named in the lawsuit. Many other non-member sites will not see relief, but we will.... at least until September when it's back in play again.

 

We should be bringing the galleries back soon..... but please keep in mind, we are all at the gathering now trying to have some fun and spend time with each other..... so it will wait until our return home. smile.gif Stay tuned.

 

Please read the announcment here: http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

 

FSC/DoJ Reach Agreement Suspending 2257 Enforcement for Plaintiffs and FSC Members

Posted: June 23, 2005

 

Denver, Co. - The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) announced today a stipulation between the parties in Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, under which the U.S. Department of Justice agrees that the regulations relating to the federal record-keeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, will not be enforced against plaintiffs and all FSC members until September 7, 2005.

 

The U.S. District Court in Denver will hold a preliminary injunction hearing on August 8, 2005, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction.

 

Specifically, the DoJ will not conduct any inspections or pursue any claims with regard to the plaintiffs and their members, but reserves the right to inspect and prosecute anyone who is not a plaintiff or FSC member.

 

According to the stipulation, agreed to and issued as an order of the Court today, the DoJ, will submit any entity it intends to inspect to a Special Master who will then check the entity’s name against a sealed and confidential FSC membership list. The Special Master will be appointed by the Court, with the consent of the parties, and will be under a specific obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the FSC membership list.

 

A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on Wednesday June 29, 2005, and will include all FSC members as of 2:00 p.m. pacific standard time, Saturday June 25, 2005.

 

At no time will the DoJ have direct access to the FSC membership list, which will remain under seal.

 

All FSC members should advise the FSC office of all of their dbas by Monday, June 27, 2005, so that the master list will be as complete as possible.

 

On behalf of the entire adult entertainment industry, the FSC acknowledges the bravery and integrity of our co-plaintiffs, New Beginnings and Dave Cummings. We trust that the industry appreciates their willingness to take on the fight for justice on behalf of all of us.

 

The FSC also expresses appreciation to our extraordinary legal team: H. Louis Sirkin, Paul Cambria, Art Schwartz, Jennifer Kingsley, Roger Wilcox, Michael Gross, Barry Covert and Michael Deal. Special acknowledgement also to Michael Murray, whose agreement with the DoJ in the Connections Magazine case in Cleveland, Ohio, laid the groundwork for this agreement.

 

Over the course of the next few months, there will be continuing proceedings, including discovery, that culminate with the August 8, 2005 preliminary injunction hearing. While we remain optimistic regarding our ultimate success in the litigation, the FSC encourages everyone to try to comply with the law to the extent that it is possible.

 

Any questions can be emailed either to execdir@freespeechcoalition.com or mlfreridge@hotmail.com. Please be patient. We ask that people not both call and email, as we will respond as soon as possible to all inquiries.

 

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.

1119608734-freespeechlogo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just do what you have got to do. If you do not have deep pockets, don't let yourself be the test case - that's for the big boys.

I suspect before long thre'll be an interpetation that a frontal nude not showing an erection will not be a violation. Takes out some of the fun but locker room pics can be interesting. Or, a tighter screening of new members will make the site "private."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all thank you for the great job you are doing. Do whatever you must do to keep yourselves in the clear and out of any leagal complications. We'll just talk even in more graphic detail and let our imagination fill in the blanks.

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE

 

The court hearing date has been moved up a week, so the expiration of the agreement between the FSC and the Justice Department will be a week earlier as well.

 

New Date For Preliminary Injunction Hearing in FSC Lawsuit

By: Mark Kernes - Adult Video News

Posted: 3:30 pm PDT 6-24-2005

 

 

 

DENVER - According to Michael Gross, local counsel for the Free Speech Coalition in its lawsuit against the federal government regarding the recordkeeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, the date of the hearing on FSC's motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the new regulations from going into effect for its members and the other plaintiffs has been rescheduled to August 1-2.

 

 

The hearing had previously been scheduled for August 8-9.

 

 

This means that the agreement which the plaintiffs had reached with the U.S. Department of Justice, that the Justice Department would not initiate inspections or prosecutions of FSC members for one month after the preliminary injunction hearing, would now expire on September 1, 2005, unless Judge Walker D. Miller extends the prohibition for a longer period at the August 1-2 hearing.

 

Alan G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, would the 2275 regulations apply to the following picture?

__________

 

New York Yankees runner Derek Jeter (L) and batter Gary Sheffield embrace after Sheffield hit his second three-run home run of the game off Tampa Bay Devil Rays pitcher Travis Harper in the eighth inning of their game at Yankee Stadium in New York June 21, 2005. Yankees won 20-11 on 23 hits, scoring 13 runs in the eighth inning. -REUTERS/Ray Stubblebine-

1119700411-r3318410604.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been to the site much lately as work keeps me way too busy. Came back to check how things were going, maybe hop in the chatroom for a bit, and I see this. It's a shame.

 

It is not, however, a big surprise. This, obviously, is what most of America wants. After all, they're the ones who put Bush back in office, and voted for their senators and representatives. I also find it hilarious that anyone who disagrees is labeled as "unpatriotic" or "un-American". It is precisely because I am patriotic that I don't want to see our country turned into another fascist state where the citizens have no rights. And that's where we're headed. Calling those who speak out against the bad decisions of government "un-American" and "unpatriotic" is exactly how it begins ...

 

I am an American and a patriot, but I am not a sheep, willing to follow whoever blows the whistle.

 

Canada does look better and better every day that Shrub and his cronies are in office. But personally, I'd get sick of the ice and snow, and would prefer to stay here in Texas. But I'm a gay male, and if this kind of so-called morality continues, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we're returned to the time of my being considered a criminal, and I'll be forced to leave.

 

And that day will make me very sad indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From 365Gay.com

The Wockner Wire

by Rex Wockner

 

Crackdown on cruisy Web sites

 

There are no nude pics of me on the Web. Partially because I'm some sort of a public figure and I figured editors and some of you might take a dim view of such adventures.

 

And now there never may be, thanks to ridiculous new federal regulations Congress added to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 (18 U.S.C. §2257). They took effect June 23.

 

The U.S. Department of Justice is expected to use the laws to smack down Web sites that contain lascivious photos for which webmasters do not have "the legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer's examination of a picture identification card. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction made after July 3, 1995, the records shall also include a legible copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible copy of a picture identification card."

 

This applies to mainstream gay cruising sites such as Gay.com, BigMuscleBears.com, Manhunt.net and the like -- and even to pictures of yourself that you put on the sites.

 

The laws apply to any "visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct."

 

The United States Code defines sexually explicit conduct as "sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person."

 

What does this mean in the real world? That if you have a lascivious pic of yourself on a Web site, then the site has to have in its possession a copy of your driver's license. Say adiós to anonymity. And say hello to a massive new burden on Web site owners.

 

More realistically, say hello to massive new restrictions by Web sites on what pictures of yourself you can post. Indeed, numerous sites modified their photo guidelines on June 23.

 

Gay.com, for example, temporarily removed all user-posted adult photos, and declared, "Your civil liberties are under attack by the US government!"

 

The site issued new guidelines which read, in part: "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 inside pants is prohibited as it implies masturbation. ... Pictures with more that one person that include nudity 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. ... A clothed person posing with a pet is allowed, but a nude person with an animal is prohibited. ... 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.)"

 

Gay.com and other members of the Free Speech Coalition are fighting 18 U.S.C. §2257 in court. Gay.com urged its users to complain to the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. Department of Justice (http://www.usdoj.gov/contact-us.html).

 

Meanwhile, on June 24, a day after the laws took effect, the Free Speech Coalition extracted a promise from the Justice Department not to prosecute Web sites that are members of the coalition until Sept. 7. (This led Gay.com to temporarily unblock the photos it had temporarily blocked the day before.) Web sites that are not members of the coalition remain at immediate risk.

 

Are you feeling sick yet?

 

Dear Universe: Please give us a Democratic Congress and president next time. The prudes are in control and they want to fling us socially and culturally back to about 1959. And, as this law demonstrates, they may have the power to do it.

 

"The ongoing escalation in the use of federal resources to prevent adults from using the Internet for sexual expression, information and association is but one more sign of the power of the religious far right under the Bush administration," Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, told me. "One of the most troubling things about the confirmation of judicial ideologues like William Pryor is that it's unclear to what extent we will be able to continue to count on the federal courts to place checks on this sort of tyranny. ... I keep wondering how bad it's going to have to get before the American public gets it, and votes -- as their own liberty, financial, health and environmental interests dictate they should -- to throw the bums out."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update Alan! smile.gif

 

OK - there's been confusion on what qualifies for Photo Gallery Access. I had offered Photo Gallery access for users selecting Recurring (Automatic Repeating) Monthly donations. This ensures our regular income.

 

There was however a loophole which allowed the free form "donate any amount" button to also gain Photo Gallery access. This was incorrect and miscoded and not what I offered. tongue.gif Now that I'm back from Chicago, I have corrected this coding error.

 

Also, some users who found this loophole made very small donations. Today's donation tally was .01 cent. This gets eaten up (and then some) by PayPal fees. So I have set the minimum for "any amount" donations to $5.00. No need to give PayPal money, it needs to be large enough so that we actually see something from it, or else it's not doing anyone (except PayPal) any good. wink.gif

 

I have since restructured the Payment Page

http://www.measurection.com/forums/paymentoptions.php

 

There are Recurring Monthly SOS Options, which include ALL SOS Benefits AND Photo Gallery access for $15, $20, and $25 per month.

 

A ONE TIME SOS Donation can be made for $5, up to any amount. This will give you ALL SOS Benefits, but not automatically grant Photo Gallery Access. For larger donations (above $15), we'll manually add Photo Gallery access on a basis of $15/month. For example: if you send $150, you'd get 10 months of Photo Gallery access. We have to manually add this photo gallery access, so it can take 24-72 hours to gain gallery access.

 

I have also added a 1 Month SOS Option, which is a non-recurring option for 1 month of SOS + Photo Gallery access.

 

And we have added a Photo Gallery option only, which is $10 for 20 days of access.

 

Please review all options before selecting so you choose the option that best fits you and your budget. We really encourage the Automatic Recurring monthly payments. This helps us plan on incomming revenue and know that we can pay our bills each month. You can cancel recurring payments anytime, easily through the PayPal website.

 

If you have questions, please post them here or contact us.

 

Although we did not promise photo gallery access for 1 time donations, Existing users who have made one-time donations (greater than $5) will be extended photo gallery access for at least 1 month. For donations larger, we used the $15/month formula.

 

We no longer offer the existing $5 & $10 recurring SOS option (since when we added those options, the photo galleries have been removed). However since you came through when we needed you wink.gif existing $5 & $10/ month recurring subscriptions will continue and be honored WITH photo gallery access.

 

Thanks everyone for your support!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL well, I said "any" donation helps, but actually - given PayPal fees, it really doesn't. wink.gif Drop the penny in an envelope and mail it to us. Of course that'll cost you 37 cents. lol.gif We've also had a couple of $1 donations this week... which means we get .67 cents. tongue.gif At least on a $5 donation, we get $4.55 of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.