Tribe.net self-censoring to conform with 2257 porn laws?
December 9, 2005 – 9:23 amAuthor and sexblogger/podcaster Violet Blue tells Boing Boing that popular social networking site Tribe.net is proactively, voluntarily applying 2257 laws to its members and service architecture.
This makes approximately zero-to-the-tenth-power sense. Tribe is not a producer of content, they’re a forum for end-users to communicate and share content they create or collect. What’s next? AOL, Microsoft, and Yahoo ban jpeg attachments because there’s no way to enforce age documentation for amateur nudie shots swapped by users of those free email services?
Two weeks ago Tribe asked me for a phone meeting; I didn’t know what it was about but I figured it had something to do with Tribe’s mature content. They explained to me in a half-hour conference call that they were gearing up to change Tribe’s architecture (entry pages, etc) to conform to updated 2257 laws, which are record keeping requirements.
The federal law now requires website owners to keep *physical* records documenting, among other things, that “a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct” is over the age of 18. Visual depictions *after* 1990, mind you.
(…) I think they are making a huge mistake, based on a law that is unenforcable. The law violates privacy — I was sent the 2257 information for the porn performers I featured in my last podcast. I now have enough information to steal the actual identity, and stalk, every performer in that film. They performers don’t even know I have that information, or who else might have it as a legal requirement, and nothing makes me more uncomfortable than having that information in my posession.
The law is meant for primary and secondary producers of porn, not online communities. The law violates our federal right to freedom of speech. The law is obstensibly created “to protect children from being exploited as [porn] performers”, not healthy adult enjoyment of human sexuality. In truth, 2257 laws are less about protecting children from porn exploitation, but instead about regulating porn businesses, free speech and healthy adult sexual expression into unfesability.
Link to Violet Blue’s blog post.
Link to text of law.
Previously on Boing Boing:
Bad news for free speech: “Children’s Safety Act” passes in House
Rotten.com: gapingmaw, othersites shut in anticipation of 2257
Image: Jacob Appelbaum.
Reader comment: Tribe.net employee Gary says,
There are a number of interesting discussions going on at Tribe where our members are talking about the upcoming changes, and the impact of 2257.
Discussion of 2257 Legalities: Link; and General Discussion: Link.
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.