(Post a new comment)

	kookaburra 2005-07-28 08:25 pm UTC (link)
	I read the first couple paragraphs in that thing, and said to myself, "This is something to NOT get involved in. So glad to know that my wank pre-sense is working." (Reply to this)

innsmouth_eyes 2005-07-28 08:38 pm UTC (link)

I also don't quite get why Canadians are supposed to be ashamed that we have stricter child porn laws than the US... I think his point was that dispite all the complaining about oppressive US porn industry laws, the laws in Canada are stricter. I don't think he necessarily considers that a bad thing, unless he's trying to say that the laws are unreasonably strict, which I can't really tell. Just one more reason I'm glad I'm not a fucking American. Uh, because you'd be required to disclose your records should you be suspected of using underage porn actors? I'm having a hard time seeing the OMG INJUSTICE here. (Reply to this)(Thread)

esorlehcar 2005-07-29 01:17 am UTC (link)

2257 is actually pretty fucking scary, for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with child pornography. To quote from a very informative article on the subject from alternet: So now the DOJ has wisely made the world safer by forcing anyone even remotely connected with publishing erotic images to keep elaborate files on the true identities of everyone in said images for seven years. And we're even more secure because law enforcement officers can wander into adult businesses any time they want, without a court order, and go through every single file for hours or days at a time. But few people - save for the heroic Free Speech Coalition, which is working on crushing this new regulation with injunctions and lawsuits - are going to argue with placing porn under surveillance. After all, porn is naughty, and the people in it don't deserve privacy. That's why 2257 is a great testing ground for a much broader scheme by the DOJ. This scheme, sometimes called "mandatory data retention," would force all Internet service providers to keep files on everything that people using their services are doing online. Every time you use AOL, the company would have to keep a record of your chat sessions, what Web sites you visited, your e-mail, etc. Sound like another paranoid fantasy brought to you by the tinfoil-hat brigade? Think again: It's a real proposal that was floated by the DOJ at an April 27 meeting with various Internet service providers. News.com quotes US Internet Industry Association president Dave McClure saying that DOJ reps want to mandate, perhaps "by law," a set time period during which ISPs would retain data about the personal online habits of all their users. That's how it goes. First they come for the pornographers, and then they come for you. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	notjo 2005-07-29 10:27 am UTC (link)
	Thanks for the link to that article. I'm not American, but I think it's only a very brief matter of time before other governments follow suit. Wish there was something I could do about it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Deleted post)

notjo 2005-07-29 10:30 am UTC (link)

I remember that. I think it may still be going on. It was two bookstores in Vancouver, but damned if I can remember the names of either of them. Canadian porn laws are interesting. The big case that hit my buttons was the John Sharpe one, the man in BC who had tons of kiddie porn on his computer, plus had written a bunch of porn stories involving children. The kiddie porn was, of course, found illegal, but the stories were not. My understanding of the rational was that if we make writing about something illegal illegal, that would be wrong. (And would cut down on the number of books I own about thieves and grifters, I'm sure.) (Is now going to shut up, but Freedom of Speech and Pornography laws in Canada is still something I follow with avid interest after taking a class in it back when I was a wee undergrad.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	vasaris 2005-07-28 08:48 pm UTC (link)
	I also don't quite get why Canadians are supposed to be ashamed that we have stricter child porn laws than the US... You do? Good on ya, then. ...and what does requiring a certain amount of Canadian content have to do with not having free speech? *boggles* (Reply to this)(Thread)

innsmouth_eyes 2005-07-28 08:54 pm UTC (link)

Well, because rather than running what the stations want to run or what people want to see, they have to fill a certain quota according to law of stuff that might or might not be what they actually want to run. That's if what that guy says is accurate, I don't know about that law personally. But I would think a law forces a quota on domestic material should seem just a little oppressive. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

vasaris 2005-07-28 09:03 pm UTC (link)

Well, yeah, but then again, with the agressiveness of American programming, it could reasonably be said that it might be difficult for stuff produced by and for Canadians to get on the air. *shrugs* Frankly, most of the Canadian programming I've seen is excellent (I live on the border, and hell, if I had rabbit ears for the TV the only stations I'd actually be able to get are Canadian), but probably would have difficulty up against slicker US-written and produced shows... (I rather miss Air Farce and This Hour Has 22 minutes, but I'd rather have a cable modem than cable TV, so there ya go.) I don't see it as much different than trying to protect Canadian products by limiting the import/sale of US goods, which, though sometimes baffling and annoying (why the hell can't they sell Rocky Road candy bars in Canada?) isn't completely unreasonable. Most countries protect themselves that way, unless the WTO gets involved. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

toasterkitten 2005-07-28 11:30 pm UTC (link)

here are the CRTC's mandates: Private television stations and networks (e.g. CTV, Global,TVA) and ethnic TV stations must achieve a yearly Canadian content level of: * 60% overall, measured during the day – i.e. 6AM and midnight; * 50%, measured during the evening broadcast period – i.e. between 6PM and midnight. CBC must ensure that at least 60% of its overall schedule, measured during the day – i.e. 6AM to midnight, is Canadian. The CRTC will certify programs as Canadian if they meet the following criteria: * the producer is Canadian; * key creative personnel are Canadian; * 75% of service costs and post-production lab costs are paid to Canadians. All radio stations must ensure that 35% of their popular musical selections are Canadian each week really, it's not banning free speech, its sort of offering an alternative set of speech? i don't really understand what njyoder is bitching about. most of my tv channels are american, and i can say pretty much whatever i want, so i'm happy. (Reply to this)(Parent)

ealusaid 2005-07-28 10:24 pm UTC (link)

Actually, for the magazine industry, at least (I don't know about radio and television) you have to put out 80% Canadian content to qualify for subsidies, grants, and discounts. The underlying logic would be that if you didn't care and made something with no Canadian content, you would, but it would be prohibitively expensive. But I don't know for sure. It was just something I read once. (Reply to this)(Parent)

adora_spintriae 2005-07-29 02:46 am UTC (link)

But isn't the counter-argument that by allowing a certain space for Canadian-made-only material they're making a space for Canadian free speech? We have the same laws here in Australia, which are especially stronger for government related networks. Those not commerically owned and/or government supported networks like ABC & SBS have to allow quite a large space for Australian content and for this very reason are the most outspoken media outlets against the government (and so get into trouble for it all the time). The commercial networks circumvent the laws which say they have to show much much less of a quota than the ABC by buying US programs and ads and redubbing/narrating them with Australian voices, and then claiming the show is "Australian made", or making cheap reality-TV shows like Big Brother and Idol which are a similar localising-franchise thing. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kannaophelia 2005-07-29 03:36 am UTC (link)

We have the same laws here in Australia Din't the bloody FTA do away with that, though? As for the ABC being a voice critical of the government, the appointment of whatshername did away with that. Gah. We now have a Howard cheerleader who believes tv doesn't "sufficiently represent majority culture" running the ABC. I don't get nyoder's point. TV isn't full of imported crap because it containes speech our networks really, really want to express, it's because it's cheaper. Heh. I'm all for quotas, as if it isn't obvious. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

adora_spintriae 2005-07-29 04:01 am UTC (link)

Not yet. The details are a little fuzzy, since one side is claiming it's more open and the other side is claiming it's still the same, but I think the FTA included some sort of pseudo-promise to try to open the laws up more on our side, or at least think about opening them up, especially the media-ownership laws. As for the ABC being a voice critical of the government, the appointment of whatshername did away with that Not really. It's still outspoken and Albrechtsen can only do so much to control it, because the national broadcaster's board is still filled with people who don't toe the government line - she's the odd one out. Also, Albrechtsen and Helen Coonan seem to be more of a comical farce considering Albrechtsen's own piss-poor reputation as a journalist (twisting sources, faking sources, and flat-out lying) than anyone who could really make a change to the ABC content. You really have to wonder why they put someone with such a bad reputation in the position if they were really serious about their own conservative agenda. It's almost as though the government put her there to make it look like they're doing something about the ABC rather than actually doing something about the ABC (which seems to be a common theme in our current administrations policies, funnily enough). Undoubtably it's the first step to stacking the board, and it could get worse, but I'm not really that worried quite yet. I mean, if suddenly there's half of the board who are ex-writers for Quadrant, I might get pissed. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	annabelle_lee 2005-07-29 10:16 am UTC (link)
	Completely unrelated to anything, but your icon dances in the time to Oingo Boingo's "Dead Man's Party". XD (Reply to this)(Parent)

	gal_montag 2005-07-28 09:20 pm UTC (link)
	I'm confused why it's such a travisty that folks won't be able to post their home PAs on the internets anymore. (Reply to this)

	the_wanlorn 2005-07-28 09:52 pm UTC (link)
	Ahhh I love njyoder. brutal_honesty was so much more fun before he got banned. (Reply to this)

danaoshee 2005-07-28 11:13 pm UTC (link)

I would like to note that the new 2257 laws are somewhat fucked up, and it's *not* about "OMG it's harder to post child pron!!!1" The way the 2257 laws that went into effect at the end of june work, there's a few problems. One is that if you have a model running her own site in her spare time, with mostly pictures of herself, maybe once in a while a pic of her with another model, she is legally required now to have documents available, without warning, during all "Normal business hours" (preferably 40/week, but allowances can be made for as few as 20) at her publically announced "place of business." If most of her content is shot at her home, that's technically her place of business, and she's now legally supposed to put that up on the web for everyone to see. The thing about having to have documents available at your "place of business" for roughly 40hrs/week that must be between 9 and 5, without warning, is I think the one that has the most people upset. Amateur pron sites cannot now operate legally, because if you're working a real job and running a site in your spare time there is no way to have documents available for any goverment agent that decides to show up without calling first. Also, there does not have to be any suspicion of wrong-doing, they just have to be curious or suspect that they could easily catch you without having followed every rule - technically, you can now get 5 years of jail for not having your documents alphabetized. Another weird piece of the new regulations is that every URL where a picture can be found must now be listed on the documentation. That one's less annoying, and more WTF. If there's a 40-pic set of a model, there now must be at least 40 different URLs listed on the documents. If you move the picture to a new URL(say, from random.com/pic1.jpg to random.com/pic2.jpg), the documentation must be changed. Basically, they seem to be trying to shut down porn sites by flooding them in red tape. Um, I'll stop wanking now. This is just a regulation that makes me very angry. (Reply to this)(Thread)

greenling 2005-07-29 12:45 am UTC (link)

...technically, you can now get 5 years of jail for not having your documents alphabetized. Basically, they seem to be trying to shut down porn sites by flooding them in red tape. Exactly. I'd like to know why it's up to the porn sites to proactively prove they're not violating a law before they're actually suspected of violating it. That's like asking me to prove I didn't kill someone who may or may not actually be dead because I own a knife. o.O (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	moonjaguar 2005-07-29 04:50 am UTC (link)
	Or it's like busting all the kids for underage drinking at 7pm Monday because they might go out drinking at 11pm the following Friday-- even if they didn't intend to do anything except go to the movies and then have coffee or pizza afterwards. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	adora_spintriae 2005-07-29 02:38 am UTC (link)
	they legally mandate that Canadian media produce air/show a certain percentage of Canadian produced content (in other words, they can't exceed airing/showing a certain percentage of US produced content) Um, how is this restricting freedom speech again...? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	(Anonymous) 2005-07-29 04:26 pm UTC (link)
	Now, if everything we say were required to be 50-60% Canadian content, njyoder would have a point. (Actually, that sounds kind of fun.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	flightstothesea 2005-07-29 04:34 am UTC (link)
	Man, that njyoder guy is everywhere. He's like the Superman of wank; any time it happens, he's there. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	moonjaguar 2005-07-29 04:54 am UTC (link)
	NJYoder and Conuly should hook up. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	flightstothesea 2005-07-29 04:58 am UTC (link)
	*insert obligatory OTP comment* (Reply to this)(Parent)

	blackjackrocket 2005-07-29 06:35 am UTC (link)
	So wait, I'm confused. A site about ADULT piercings was told to close because of laws about CHILD porn? (Reply to this)(Thread)

	michmatch 2005-07-29 07:01 am UTC (link)
	USC #2257 is only theoretically about child porn. But the short answer would be 'yes'. The long answer begins with someone finally ratting out 2257 for the craptastic legislation that it is... and ends in wank. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	big_bad_wolf 2005-07-29 12:22 pm UTC (link)
	Wow, that makes sense. ...just not earth sense. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	rogue 2005-07-29 07:50 am UTC (link)
	*blank stare* ... *goes back to watching C-Span, where at least she can make fun of Bill Frist's ties* (Reply to this)