06/23/2005
2257 Regulations Hit Adult Sites Hard
Ridiculous new regulations from the U.S. Dept. of Justice that go into effect today, regulations that the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has previously found to be unconstitutional, restrict your ability to share photos containing adult content online.
Gay.com sent out an email outlining the new guidelines, which have forced them to pull all adult content from their site until it is vetted.
New standards for "sexually explicit" content on Gay.com
* 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 clearly "cupping" or covering genitals for the purposes of keeping them covered is allowable.
* An image of a hand inside pants is prohibited as it implies masturbation.
* Pictures with more that one person that include nudity are prohibited.
* All cartoons 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.
* In the interest of safety, images of nude children (e.g., a nude baby at the beach with her two dads) will not be allowed.
* A clothed person posing with a pet is allowed, but a nude person with an animal is prohibited. (No more walking your dog in the nude!)
* 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.)
* Digital images run through an illustrator filter on software will be held to these same standards.
I'm sure Spokane Mayor James West and Jeff Gannon are busy right now pulling down profile photos that show them pulling their butt cheeks apart. All kidding aside, these new regulations are both confusing, horrific, and disgustingly puritanical.
More on the new 2257 regulations over at Fleshbot.
(thanks Eric)
Posted 5:32 PM EST by Andy Towle in Current Affairs | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I can't believe it. I just... I... I need to go masturbate (before they outlaw that, too).
Shit.
In other news, I like the new orange line on the bottom of your posts. Very nice!
Posted by: Josh K. | Jun 23, 2005 5:42:04 PM
What prompted all of this? Did some soccer mom, accidentlally on purpose see something that she did not like online?
Posted by: HoyaBoy | Jun 23, 2005 5:54:09 PM
That's because sex is dirty and bad and we have to protect the children.
I'm glad they have cured cancer, eradicated poverty, decimated violent crime, halted AIDS, choked out malaria and nipped tuberculosis in the bud so they can get down to the really important work...
STOPPING PORN AND POT SMOKING!
I think you would all be shocked - shocked! - to find out how those two frequently go - er - hand in hand.
Amen, etc.
Posted by: david | Jun 23, 2005 5:55:19 PM
Did I mention that the party is over? Of course, most gay men continue to ignore the increasing number of dangerous black objects protuding in the fog, content to rearrange the deck chairs on the S.S. Titanic Queen. It's not going to change until the anger manifested by acts of civil disobedience a la the days and nights of Act Up spreads across the country. While I certainly don't believe the evolution will lead to a similar place, our community is acting very much like nongay Jews and gays generally did in Germany in the thirties, refusing to believe that things will really get worse than a lot of nasty rhetoric, ever more restrictive laws, and a few arrested here and there. Today freedom of expression on the Net, tomorrow print and film media. Today gay marriage, tomorrow any type of civil union, job protection, housing protection, physical protection. Latest exhibit: in Texas, big surprise, the second of three animals who beat a high school student so badly last fall that his face required reconstructive surgery, has received only probation. Oh, yes, and instructed to attend "anger management" classes--instead of having his dick nailed to a chair. The third thug only got 6 months in a teenage "boot camp" for the unprovoked assault.
Posted by: Leland | Jun 23, 2005 6:07:27 PM
Ugh....I think gov't should stay out of it. Even though personally, I do not pose like the aforementioned no no's...I don't think they should have the right to impose these guidlines. Where's the ACLU when you need 'em??? Still defending NAMBLA? C'mon guys...
Posted by: Roy | Jun 23, 2005 6:17:39 PM
I work at a porn company and have been dealing with this first hand - it's a major pain in the ass and will do no good in prevent underage porn, which is what the law is supposedly supposed to do. In reality it's just a ploy to push one's own views on the adult industry.
Posted by: Michael | Jun 23, 2005 7:16:34 PM
I salute Leland for an astonishing piece of of insight and warning; I would also suggest for all authors of blogs and the like, its not enough to bear witness and whine: suggest something. What can be done? I have read todays events with wonder--i didn't see it coming...a quick glance at craigs list and nothings changed (I wish some things would)...who does this effect? Was gay.com singled out? Personally, I will write to my congress people, my senators..while we enjoy our exotic cocktails in the open air, watch our new logo and whatever, grow very bored with Bravo and those annoying queers and think damn, i wish i could marry...while all the while, little by little, the little certainties of justice disappear.
Posted by: rexless | Jun 23, 2005 8:30:55 PM
can all these porn servers just move to off-shore or out of country hosts? dns servers arent (yet) illegal... right?
Posted by: question | Jun 23, 2005 10:06:58 PM
I'm touching myself! Right now. And there's NOTHING you can do to stop me!!
Posted by: cafegogo | Jun 23, 2005 10:11:54 PM
This issue is a perfect example of why we all need to support more libertarian-minded politicians and judicial appointees.
BTW there has been a significant recent development in all this as pertains to gay.com and other sites of the Free Speech Coalition...suspending enforcement of the regs for a time; see the gay.com link posted above by Andy, and:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/
Posted by: Cassius | Jun 23, 2005 10:13:33 PM
Who knew Gay.com could be so stupid? Thankfully the seem to have found their common sense (cupped carefully in one hand, I'm sure...) because their site now says that, in a "Victory for your rights", they're not going to stupidly comply with regulations that are ridiculously overbroad, and that the DOJ isn't going to enforce them until there's been time for judicial review.
Posted by: Ray Everett-Church | Jun 23, 2005 10:18:51 PM
I'm trying to find the document that might have dictated Gay.com's community guidelines, and am turning up nada. The new regulations address liability and impoosible documentation, but not content as far as I can see. What am I missing?
Posted by: Jessica | Jun 23, 2005 10:23:00 PM
Da-amn. My friend just returned from Japan and he informed me how much international students want to help those of us that still have half of a brain. This shit is just crazy. Wait til I start posting pics of guys with their hands in their pants!
Posted by: Rob | Jun 23, 2005 11:55:43 PM
Since when did we all become citizens of China!?
Posted by: Kasper | Jun 24, 2005 12:27:18 AM
I'm glad I live in the Netherlands right now. While our Prime Minister is nearly as bad as Bush and his cronies (what you like to call 'administration), he's a wuss. So legislation like this will never pass and will never come into effect here.
Posted by: DutchECK | Jun 24, 2005 2:11:24 AM
You know... now that I've read the regs, I just don't see how they're going to apply to a site like Gay.com. First, they're the recordkeeping regulation for porn producers. You'd have to very loosely interpret "producer" to cover what Gay.com does. Second, the regs don't apply to entities that do "mere distribution" and "do not, and reasonably cannot, manage" sexually explicit content. (If you'd have to take down the entire site and hire massive volumes of workers to review the site, that sounds like "reasonably cannot" to me.) Third, the definition of "secondary producer" presumes "commercial distribution," which arguably may not include the provision of personal ads, which is the business that Gay.com is in. Anyway, some creative lawyering should solve this. (Note: I am a lawyer but this isn't legal advice.)
Posted by: Ray Everett-Church | Jun 24, 2005 2:24:51 AM
All I have to say is come to Canada. Get married and watch porn in peace :)
Posted by: Peter | Jun 24, 2005 2:46:29 AM
lovesit. the US is going full steam back into the 50s. next kissing in movies will be outlawed, unless the characters onscreen are married.
and at the same time teenagers are shooting themselves left and right. way to go.
Posted by: lollers | Jun 24, 2005 3:00:34 AM
This is a sign of the end of porn. Collect those stuff before you couldn't see them anymore!
Posted by: Sayed | Jun 24, 2005 4:53:07 AM
yea nude stuff gotta be stopped on the screen,pls lets ensure we do not go against this.
Posted by: jiggleboy | Jun 24, 2005 7:50:44 AM
This all remindes me of the episode "Gingerbread" of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. See if you get the reference!
Posted by: Hunter | Jun 24, 2005 7:54:26 AM
America is getting more and more draconian and phobic.
This just shows how exactly backwards the American administration is. Freedom of the press? Freedom of speech? don't make me laugh.
For a nation of the 'free' Americans sure have a lot of rules to live by.
Posted by: Jamie | Jun 24, 2005 8:01:49 AM
this is just another example of the Pussification of the World.
Posted by: puss | Jun 24, 2005 8:37:01 AM
Looks like gay.com is back to normal after a fight. Follow the "new guidelines" link for the update. However, this doesn't apply to ALL sites, so there's still a problem.
Posted by: paul | Jun 24, 2005 9:03:02 AM
And, you might want to beware of gay.com (or any internet site) when it comes to meeting someone new in Nashville....(see link)...
Posted by: Jeff | Jun 24, 2005 10:11:09 AM