A little matter of censorship

[gsdx]

It dawned on me this evening just how ludicrous the age 18 U.S.C. 2257 law really is. Because of that, we can't enjoy Syncsta lip synching to Numa Numa anymore. We can't share photos of our high school year books. Young men under the age of 18 must be edited out of photos, even in the most innocent of situations, such as when I had to pixelate Ernie and Chip from a photo of the cast of My Three Sons or to crop out one of the members of Syncsta because he's underage. Or when Daniel Radcliffe performed naked on stage in England but his photos were banned in the forum.

There is often talk of censorship in this forum - such as the recent worldwide YouTube shutdown - and yet one single law in the United States affects the whole world and determines what we non-Americans can or cannot look at in this non-American forum. Our lives are being governed by another country.

Just doesn't seem right to me.

Please keep it civil, but discuss.

 

[Jory]

Domain Name: JUSTUSBOYS.COM

Registrant [158259]:
JUB Media, Ltd.


Montreal
Q.C.
H3A 0A5
CA

 

[star-warrior]

Its a small sacrifice, but the Syncstas are still on youtube where you can enjoy them.

 

[josher]

I think I can live very happily without the images of minors being posted here.

For one thing, it helps to keep the creeps away.

And as liberal as I am, I do feel that 16 is still too young an age to make informed decisions about sexual expressions with another person, though I realize the law cannot prevent it from happening.

Physical maturity and emotional maturity aren't the same thing, and I don't believe the overwhelming majority of 16 year olds have the emotional maturity to get involved in certain things.

Sex is one. Drinking alcohol is another, particularly since most jurisdictions permit 16 year olds to drive.

 

[AdmiraalW238]

Domain Name: JUSTUSBOYS.COM

Registrant [158259]:
JUB Media, Ltd.


Montreal
Q.C.
H3A 0A5
CA

Well, you learn something every day...I always assumed that JUB was registered in the US

If you can't get it here there are plenty of other sites you can go to and get whatever you want. Some things need to be censored to protect liability.

Ditto

I think I can live very happily without the images of minors being posted here.

For one thing, it helps to keep the creeps away.

And as liberal as I am, I do feel that 16 is still too young an age to make informed decisions about sexual expressions with another person, though I realize the law cannot prevent it from happening.

Physical maturity and emotional maturity aren't the same thing, and I don't believe the overwhelming majority of 16 year olds have the emotional maturity to get involved in certain things.

Sex is one. Drinking alcohol is another, particularly since most jurisdictions permit 16 year olds to drive.

Well said.

 

[AlinCanada]

GDSX and lets look at the Canadian law it is less specific pornographic images of persons under 18 or WHO MAY APPEAR TO BE under 18. That has actually landed some canadians in hot water even with the USC statement.

 

[tbonez]

... even in the most innocent of situations, such as when I had to pixelate Ernie and Chip from a photo of the cast of My Three Sons or to crop out one of the members of Syncsta because he's underage. Or when Daniel Radcliffe performed naked on stage in England but his photos were banned in the forum....

I guess what appears innocent to you could be construed as salacious and exploitative by some. Syncsta is often sexually suggestive in their videos.

In most countries (including Canada) we all have to give up some personal freedoms to protect us from the actions of a few 'bad' people. Think of DUI spot checks where every sober driver is detained and questioned on the assumption that some person may have been drinking before driving.

Our lives are being governed by another country.

Canada and Mexico have always faced that burden sharing a continent with a country with a MUCH larger population and economy. I'm just thankful it's the US and not any number of other more repressive regimes. They really are good neighbours all considered...Really (Except the gun fetish thing.)

If you can't get it here there are plenty of other sites you can go to and get whatever you want. Some things need to be censored to protect liability.

I've always had the strongest dislike for the: "if you don't like it here, go somewhere else" answer.

Terms of service (you must agree to when you become a member)

You and JustUsBoys.com agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within Washoe County, Nevada.

A bit unsettling as I have no clue as to what the laws of Nevada are.

Personally I really don't take issue with the restrictions. This is, after all, a site funded, fuelled and littered with sexually explicit images and material...I'm quite comfortable with keeping images of minors out of the mix. It's also a commercial site and any expectation of unfettered freedom of expression is a bit unrealistic IMO.

 

[tbonez]

I think I can live very happily without the images of minors being posted here.

For one thing, it helps to keep the creeps away.

Ditto. Those kind of creeps anyways.

Physical maturity and emotional maturity aren't the same thing, and I don't believe the overwhelming majority of 16 year olds have the emotional maturity to get involved in certain things.

Many 40 year-olds don't 'have the emotional maturity to get involved in certain things' either.

I'm less worried about impact of 16 year olds seeing sexually explicit images/dialog and more concerned about the sexual exploitation of minors. There is a huge difference between a minor seeking out sexually explicit material and minors being sought or seen as sexually explicit material.

 

[G-Lexington]

I happened to be on the radio on September 11th, 2001. A kid called up and demanded I play the Cure song "Killing an Arab". I knew what the song was actually about (Camus), but I also knew why the kid wanted me to play it.

I refused to play the song.

He demanded to know why I was "censoring" him.

The fact is, I wasn't censoring him. He can play the song all he wants. He can put his speakers in the windows, and blast that song (or anything else he wants) until the cows come home. Or at least until his neighbors file a noise complaint.

The radio station was a private enterprise, owned by a corporation. They're answerable to a federal entity that monitors their output. Had anything unpleasant happened as a result of that song being played, the responsible party would have been the station/company, and myself.

Similarly, this bulletin board isn't ours. It belongs to JUB. They let us scribble and put up pictures here. But since they're the owners, and they're answerable to a federal authority, they have final say over what gets put up and what doesn't. They're more interested in keeping the site (and company) up and running than in letting everybody do what they want.

It seems we all want all our freedoms, but none of the responsibilities that go with it. We want to use the credit card to buy things, but don't want the bill at the end of the month. Sorry - with one comes the other.

Lex

 

[NineOfClubs]

^Still, gsdx, I'm with you.

I thought about putting up a "pre-18" pic of me, and one at my present age in the same innocent pose. Had to scotch the idea, of course. But it is rather ridiculous, isn't it?

 

[Yuki Sohma]

 

[quasar]

...There is a huge difference between a minor seeking out sexually explicit material and minors being sought or seen as sexually explicit material.

This is the crux of it basically.

There is no legal restriction on the posting of ordinary images of minors - or discussion of such.

Our CoC states:- Please do not post or link to erotic pictures, movies, or stories where the subjects appear to be, or are described to be, under the age of 18. This includes avatars, signatures, and personal galleries.Do not request such materials from others.

However, because we are pro-active in our stance to both minors seeking pornography and paedophiles seeking minors, JD made the conscious decision to draw the line quite firmly at 18 year old and over.

This applies to both images and 'sexual discussions'.

We are however, flexible enough to allow discussions of the abilities/talents of minors ie Daniel Radcliffe, Ryan Scheckler, Nicholas Hoult and American Idol performers etc, as we recognise that it is unavoidable considering their status within our varying cultures and their fields.

However, the minute that any of these minors are sexualised in a discussion, is the minute that posts and threads get withdrawn and infractions issued.

 

[trawler69]

Perhaps, to avoid confusion, the C of C should have the term erotic removed to reflect JD's conscious decision to draw the line quite firmly at 18 year old and over.

With the rules as they stand I could post an innocent pic of me at 17 and it would be within the C of C but would be deleted by the Mod squad.

Not long ago there were people with Avatars of Babies and it was permitted. Despite the rules about nakedness in Hot Topics avatars and sigs with erotic nudity are allowed.

A bit of clarification might not go amiss.

 

[gsdx]

This really isn't a matter of JUB's CoC. I was more concerned with the effect the age 18 U.S.C. 2257 law has on the rest of the world.

In other words, one country is, in affect, making a law for the entire world and the world must abide by it.

 

[quasar]

This really isn't a matter of JUB's CoC. I was more concerned with the effect the age 18 U.S.C. 2257 law has on the rest of the world.

In other words, one country is, in affect, making a law for the entire world and the world must abide by it.

Indeed, I just thought I'd use the opportunity to explain our position (okay, it was a bit of a hijack, sorry ) *hangs head in shame*

To be fair, I think its ended up affecting the rest of the world, simply because the FBI now works so closely with all the major intelligence agencies worldwide in the crackdown on child porn.

Because of this exchange of information, and the trillion dollar business that porn is worldwide, no site in the UK, France, Russia etc wants to have their business shutdown because it breaks the law in the US.

Running a site that doesn't comply with 18 USC 2257 would really be financial suicide. In fact, some of the sites on the prohibited list and the censored words list are there because they either don't comply or we don't trust their certificates. There are also some that - whilst legit - we simply don't want to be associated with because they purposely make their models look young.

Again though, when signing up to many sites, the owners are placing the onus fairly and squarely on the end user by using phrases like 'in your local community' etc. If you're from certain states in the US, you can be breaking the law by even logging on to some of these sites.

Personally, I don't mind in the slightest.

 

[gsdx]

Indeed, I just thought I'd use the opportunity to explain our position (okay, it was a bit of a hijack, sorry ) *hangs head in shame*

I didn't see it as a hijack, my friend. I saw it going in a different direction than I had expected it to go and I didn't want it to get into a discussion about JUB's Code of Conduct.