CENSORED by the US GOVERNMENT = ILX is doomed!

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Looks like some new bullshit regulations happened this summer which I haven't heard anything about. Bullshit regulations with STIFF penalties!

I clicked on a link to a funny essay entitled "How To Ask For A Blowjob in Sign Language" and to my surprise it turned up this message.

"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. "

― Heil Bush, Sunday, 20 November 2005 00:33 (twenty years ago)

hmm gapingmaw.com - no thanks.

― Trayce (trayce), Sunday, 20 November 2005 00:37 (twenty years ago)

there's nothing there anyway except for the above quote.

― Heil Bush, Sunday, 20 November 2005 00:38 (twenty years ago)

ILX is doomed!
yay!

― bato (bato), Sunday, 20 November 2005 00:40 (twenty years ago)

ILX is based in Australia = I lose no sleep over a threat to ILX that way. Idiotic Gonzalez-led efforts to concentrate on 'the porn problem,' though, is straight up b.s.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 20 November 2005 00:44 (twenty years ago)

hold on, we're a porn site now? Did I miss a memo?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 20 November 2005 00:53 (twenty years ago)

hold on, we're a porn site now? Did I miss a memo?

Was the other site? No! We certainly have things as raunchy as an essay about asking how to get a blowjob in sign language. Atari Penis comes to mind.

xpost: I had no idea this was Australian-based. I wonder if the next step is to bar international sites like they do in China.

― Heil Bush, Sunday, 20 November 2005 01:05 (twenty years ago)

"bookkeeping requirements"? i'm not sure i understand.

― Kim (Kim), Sunday, 20 November 2005 01:27 (twenty years ago)

alot of porn sites are also preemptively pulling stuff and vaguely implying it's due to bushco war on porn, though usually it's more cuz this is an easy way to make a point and these people are such strong believers in free speech they're not even willing to wait to find out if there's even the possibility they might have to fight for it; better just to cave immediately to bush and then pretend otherwise to yr audience so you can dodge any heat from them also - cowardice and dishonesty in the porn industry shockah. not to excuse in any way gonzales' pathetic war on porn (esp since gee there might be a better use for them fbi agents just maybe), but it focuses on stuff ALOT harder than wakka wakka rotten.com fodder (or suicidegirls, etc.). this administration's crimes and incompetencies need no exaggeration.

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:26 (twenty years ago)

blount, you MAY be correct, but you could easily be incorrect. I have no doubts, personally, that the above website got a notice about their content, read what they had to do to comply and decided it was not worth the money it would cost simply to provide free entertainment, especially at the risk of getting 5 years in jail if they did it wrong.

― You may be wrong for all i know you may be right, Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:33 (twenty years ago)

and directly below this just now on the new answers page is
Porn and credit card fraud

― Last Of The Famous International Pfunkboys (Kerr), Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:37 (twenty years ago)

i doubt the blow job essay was as funny as our thread-starter anticipates.

― estela (estela), Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:39 (twenty years ago)

um gonzales doesn't give 'notices', he arrests people, and these arrests have been pretty high profile (sops to yr base are worthless if you keep it on the downlow). you may be right and i might be wrong and george bush may have been such a rotten regular he memo'ed the doj 'hey gonzo - i know you don't give warnings, you send out warrants cuz the doj aren't fucking traffic cops going easy on granma for forgetting to turn on her headlights but just this once let's just give them a notice cuz we're nice guys or something'.

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:40 (twenty years ago)

I have been present on dismal occasions where people have mimed blow jobs and they weren't funny, that's where my doubt comes from.

― estela (estela), Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:51 (twenty years ago)

I guess I was thinking of non-governmental legal disputes in which you generally get a warning or a cease and desist. I guess in this case, it's just breaking the law. Weird. So, they got no letter and they would never get a letter-- even BETTER reason to do what they did!

― You May Be Wrong, Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:52 (twenty years ago)

have you gotten any letters for posting here? BETTER STOP JUST IN CASE RIGHT? YNEVER KNOW

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:53 (twenty years ago)

I can't decide which is worse: the boy one where someone sticks their index finger inside their mouth and pokes their cheek in and out, or the girl one where they splay their fingers in front of their face and make slurping noises. I think they are as not funny as each other.

― estela (estela), Sunday, 20 November 2005 02:58 (twenty years ago)

have you gotten any letters for posting here? BETTER STOP JUST IN CASE RIGHT? YNEVER KNOW

I don't run the website, so I'm not responsible for it's maintenance, right? Since the laws are about bookkeeping responsibilities of potentially offensive websites, that wouldn't have anything to do with me.

― You May Be Wrong, Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:02 (twenty years ago)

Maybe I have no sense of adult humour.

― estela (estela), Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:03 (twenty years ago)

Maybe I have no sense of adult humour.

What about when they jerk off an imaginary cock into their open mouth while poking the side of their cheek out with their tongue, as if the imaginary cock is banging against their cheek? That's classic, no? Somehow I doubt any of this is worthy of a joke ESSAY.

― Penis Hilarity, Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:06 (twenty years ago)

PH OTM

― estela (estela), Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:08 (twenty years ago)

Hoho! Gotcha there! Gotcha there! Gotcha there, didn't I, blount?

― You May Be Wrong, Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:18 (twenty years ago)

according to you either 1) receiving a 'notice' from gonzales or 2) not receiving a 'notice' from gonzales is conclusive proof that you must cease and desist posting something not remotely obscene by even bush's standards so really, before them jackboot thugs bust down yr door - SAVE YRSELF!

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:26 (twenty years ago)

I wonder if the next step is to bar international sites like they do in China.

I'm sure that will make every company in America that uses the internet really happy... especially the ones that outsource. ;-D

― do knut (donut), Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:38 (twenty years ago)

i hear bush has already not sent notices telling them to stop that. he also didn't send a notice bringing all the troops home - HAPPY XMAS WAR IS OVER!!! YAY!

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:39 (twenty years ago)

These days, nobody knows exactly what is obscene anymore. Do you have a copy of the new legislation, you god damned jackass?

Here is a typical compliance notice:

18 U.S.C. Section 2257 Compliance Notice
All models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen years at the time of the creation of such depictions.

All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

With respect to all visual depictions displayed on this website, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual content or otherwise, all persons in said visual depictions were at least 18 years of age when said visual depictions were created.

The original records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 for all materials contained in the website are kept by the following Custodian of Records:
Mauricio Botero
225 7th street
Miami, Fl 33139

It sounds like a lot of hassle, you god damned jackass.

― You God Damned Jackass, Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:49 (twenty years ago)

take it easy chuckles

― jim p. irrelevant (electricsound), Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:51 (twenty years ago)

um i'd say gonzales has given some indication about what they're prosecuting as obscene by who they're actually yknow prosecuting. hint: not people writing wakka wakka rotten.com 'essays' and not suicidegirls. better play it safe and keep posting anonymously though. cowardice in the face of non-existant threats is always the way to go. better to be a pussy than to show one right?

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:53 (twenty years ago)

take it easy chuckles

Hey, there's no need to start name-calling.

― You God Damned Jackass, Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:53 (twenty years ago)

better play it safe and keep posting anonymously though.

As I said, I don't maintain this website.

― You God Damned Jackass, Sunday, 20 November 2005 03:54 (twenty years ago)

not people writing wakka wakka rotten.com 'essays' and not suicidegirls.

suicidegirls pushes the age thing though.

― kyle (akmonday), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:25 (twenty years ago)

Is this initiative only aimed at websites or is this also why Howard Stern's show is reduced to utter g-rated filler now?

― Heil Bush, Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:27 (twenty years ago)

ok were you homeschooled and you've just been exposed to media in the past year or something? when you find out about 2 live crew lemme know.

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:30 (twenty years ago)

What's new in sports, james?

― Heil Bush, Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:33 (twenty years ago)

ok were you homeschooled and you've just been exposed to media in the past year or something? when you find out about 2 live crew lemme know.

... cuz if you listen to Howard Stern, you know the reason everything is censored is because THEY DON'T KNOW what's allowed and what's not anymore! Bing bong, I win! I am the winner of the contest!

― I am the winner of the contest!, Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:36 (twenty years ago)

"anymore"

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:37 (twenty years ago)

Any longer; at the present

― Look, I keep winning and now I have a gold star as well, Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:41 (twenty years ago)

The Stern "filler" part is b/c they're packing up and leaving.

― kingfish hobo juckie (kingfish 2.0), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:42 (twenty years ago)

they must've not gotten a notice

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:42 (twenty years ago)

cuz that's what the feds do now, instead of yknow arresting people or levying heavy fines. they send invisible notices and have home schooled kids spread the word anonymously online.

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:44 (twenty years ago)

The Stern "filler" part is b/c they're packing up and leaving.

Not really. They're (Tom Chiasano and the 3 guys on the 3 buttons) are cutting all kinds of crap that they used to be able to say which is why Stern had to leave. They can't play bits they used to play 6 months ago.

― Stern Fan, Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:45 (twenty years ago)

tell us more

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:48 (twenty years ago)

cuz that's what the feds do now, instead of yknow arresting people or levying heavy fines. they send invisible notices and have home schooled kids spread the word anonymously online.

They got notices, you jackass. The notices are totally unclear. Howard called the former head of the FCC on live tv to debate him about the issue on what exactly can or can't be said and there was never any resolution on the issue. For that reason, Infinity Broadcasting came up with their OWN very cautious guidelines and put three guys at the button to make sure nothing slips out that could get them fined.

― Stern Fan, Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:48 (twenty years ago)

tell us more

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:49 (twenty years ago)

I haven't heard anything about Howard Stern risking 5 years in prison, however. That's why I was wondering if this just applied to websites. I know the FCC will fine individual broadcasters, which means he would have to pay from his own pocket. He goes to Sirius, website pulls blowjob jokes.

― Stern Fan, Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:51 (twenty years ago)

tell us more

― j blount (papa la bas), Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:53 (twenty years ago)

Okay, stick around. I have much more to say, so wait for it.

― Stern Fan, Sunday, 20 November 2005 04:55 (twenty years ago)

ILX is based in Australia

what makes you think that will save you ned HEIL THE HOWARD REICH!!!

― ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!, Sunday, 20 November 2005 05:29 (twenty years ago)

I'm not so much saved as acknowledged.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 20 November 2005 08:12 (twenty years ago)

I hate to say this but Esteban has a POINT.

― Trayce (trayce), Sunday, 20 November 2005 08:18 (twenty years ago)

Esteban always got point

― THIS IS THE SOUND OF ALTERN 8 !!! (noodle vague), Sunday, 20 November 2005 09:38 (twenty years ago)

Why is Bush so hard on porn? Wink.

― HEIL BUSH, Sunday, 20 November 2005 09:56 (twenty years ago)

You spelt wank wrong.

― THIS IS THE SOUND OF ALTERN 8 !!! (noodle vague), Sunday, 20 November 2005 10:06 (twenty years ago)

four months pass...

http://www.boingboing.net/images/DOJ-v-Google-decision.pdf
Here's a PDF copy of the actual order in the Department of Justice subpoena to Google for porn search results and queries (Gonzales v. Google). It's not every day that you see the phrases "teabagging" and "pearlnecklace" footnoted in a legal opinion -- see page 8, footnote 3. Also page 13, footnote 6 is highly amusing. Anyway, the bottom line is that Google has to turn over 50,000 random URLs from its index but no query strings, so most of the privacy concerns are now moot.

― R.I.P. Concrete Octopus ]-`: is a guy with a belly button piercing (ex machina), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 18:01 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.