my predictive prowess
23 July 2005, 2:32 pmPages: 1 2
I realize that many of you may think that cleaning up the Internet would be very beneficial.
One problem with defending “free speech” is that a lot of free speech is disgusting. There’s been a lot of hue and cry about the new 2257 regulations, but much of it has been from people whose business practices are unethical and deceptive, if not actually illegal.
I think the ‘net would be a better place without TGPs and their sneaky tracking cookies and javascripts, proliferating pop-up windows, and spyware. I’d love to see all spammers put out of business, smut-peddlars and Rolex-knockoff hawkers alike. So having every single picture — even thumbnails — bear legible information about complicance with proof-of-age requirements sounds like a swell idea to me.
What sounds less swell to me is the potential impact of the revised requirements on individual performers and independent producers. The risk to performers of harrassment and/or stalking is increased by making their private information more accessible. And while it won’t place much of a burden on operations like Playboy Enterprises or Vivid Video, having a custodian of records available 20 hours a week could put many small or solo businesses (like webcam operators) out of commission.
You may not grant that erotica that’s remotely intelligent or not intrinsically exploitive is even theoretically possible. I’ll agree there’s precious little of it, but I think it has a much better chance of coming from individuals (or small companies) who try to make a profit from their personal kinks than from the ever-more-formalized mainstream producers.
And I think the attack on those people betrays the not-so hidden agenda. According to the hype, it’s all about protecting the kids, but desmuttifying the entire ‘net for adults as well would achieve the same goal. Increasing the risk to individuals of being in the adult entertainment industry is once place to start. So is eliminating the thousands of small net-enabled businesses that have sprung up over the past dozen years.
I don’t know about you, but I’d much rather see the entrenched misogyny of the smut industry erode due to market pressures than government interference. I don’t think that people should have their privacy and safety reduced because they are in a profession many disapprove of. (After all, telemarketers aren’t exposed to increased risks of the same nature.) I still think free speech is fundamentally worth defending, no matter how repugnant some free expression can be. I think part of what keeps free speech “free” is not ceding avenues of expression to big corporate interests.
And that line of dialog I wrote last year sounds substantially less far-fetched to me in July than it did in May.
Pages: 1 2
Not much to add here other than “I agree”. I’m all for the more stricter enforcement of 2257 if it, y’know, actually helped and if the people behind it were really interested in protecting people instead of furthering a political agenda. As it is, the “legitimate”, high profile distributors already probably do what they can do to comply and don’t usually mess up. And the more underground sellers and producers are just going to ignore it and keep doing what they’re doing anyway. So it’s really just penalizing the wrong people by making them add staff and jump through more hoops, and it’s not doing anything to solve the real problem.
hmm, maybe I wasn’t too clear. I do think the current status quo requires legislative action; the old standards are (imho) inadequate for enforcement on the ‘net. I don’t think “probably do what they can do to comply” and “don’t usually mess up” are acceptable standards — I think it’s got to be zero-tolerance. I also don’t equate not being “high profile” with criminality or illegitimacy. In fact, I think non “high profile” businesses like small websites have a slightly better chance of making stuff that free speech advocates will be a little less embarrassed to defend. And just like in the indie rock world, I’m opposed to something that threatens to put law-abiding little guys out of business while leaving the big businesses alone.
In fact, maybe that’s why I thought this was writing about in the first place — it pushes both my stick-up-for-small-businesses and my first-amendment buttons.
No, it was me who wasn’t being clear. I don’t wish to wallow in the muck longer than necessary, but my usual inability to clarify my thoughts in writing caused me to use some unfortunate wishy-washy wording. I wish we were discussing this in person.
Yes, I’m all for zero tolerance. Everyone must comply completely. I’m certainly no expert on this issue from what little I’ve read - I tend to stay away from TGPs and porn sites in general (though, to be truthful, that is probably more because I’m fearful of adware/spyware than I am uninterested in the content - I’m a lonely single guy after all). But I believe that the people it is hurting the most, the legitimate, discrete retailers who sell the (legal) stuff and display images from it on their website, are already complying, hard documentation or no. Forcing them to keep documentation on file is not going to do anything to stop the illegitimate sites (of which I assume there are some) from continuing to flout the regulations. It seems to me like it should be enough that the producers of the work keep the documentation on file, not the sellers. I just wonder where it all ends - will it eventually spread to all links in the chain? If I buy a copy of Nice Rack #7 from DVD Empire, will they have to provide me with all the age-related documentation for it? If I then sell that to you, will I have to provide you with the doco? The scenario does not seem far-fetched to me. Again, the whole thing just feels like a political agenda for pushing a particular point of view, without doing anything to stop the actual problem. Bog them down with bureaucracy. But hey, if it stops just one criminal, then it’s worth it. Hopefully it can be done in such a way that the rights of others will not get trampled in the process.
I have some point about how do you draw the line between what’s a little less embarrassing for free speech advocates to defend and what’s not, but I’m not sure how to put it. Content is supposed to be a community standards issue rather than something that is federally mandated.
Also, I think your point about the privacy issue is a good one. Since that doco is likely to include real names and such, it seems dangerous for just anyone to get their hands on it.
While there are real problems with the porn industry (I assume) - I mean, problems that aren’t problems only to puritans - it’s pretty apparent that the thrust of these actions is to shut down or limit pornographers generally. Not many people want to stand up for porn, I guess. One comment on the “communicty standards” thing: I’ve always thought that’s an absurd and nebulous idea. First, the idea that an object, image, or idea can be legal in one place, and then become illegal by (say) the act of walking ten feet across a county line, is inherently silly - but more importantly, there’s never a legitimate means of truly determining what any given community’s standards are. Or rather - if the moralizers wouldn’t be so schizo with their free-marketeer side - there is, and it’s called “what do people buy?” Here’s an article that mentions the case of Larry Peterman and Provo, Utah…whose “community standards,” as measured by the number of prudish loudmouths, would seem conservative…but as measured by porn purchases and rentals, are evidently rather more libertine. And of course there’s the whole question of why “community standards” should apply to what someone downloads from some other place in the privacy of one’s own room.
The real problem is that most people, it seems, simply don’t care about free speech as such. They want it for themselves - because they are, of course, decent people - but it’s a problem when indecent, disagreeable, or dangerous people want to avail themselves of it.