Photographs of minors taken in public illegal to use on adult sites

[basschick]

i've never been very comfortable about adult sites that show minors in the background. i've seen sites showing chicks flashing in store aisles seconds after kids had left and in parking lots. i know i wouldn't want a 13 year old of mine to have his/her face on a porn site. apparently the state of california feels the same way.

i'd be really interested to hear the downside of this bill if anyone - *hint CHAD hint* can see what i might be missing.

"SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Posting photographs of minors taken at public events on adult websites would become a crime under legislation approved Tuesday by the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

The crime would be punishable by up to one year in jail and up to a $5,000 fine, or both, to display such pictures "on an Internet web site containing obscene material."

the bill
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2101-2150/ab_2104_bill_20080219_introduced.pdf



the article

http://xbiz.com/news/91800

[gaybucks_chip]

We've always been conservative about showing *anyone* on an adult site that we don't have a release from. I can just imagine some right wing looney that happens to be walking by somewhere in the background suing us because somebody saw her on our site or something.

As for the law, I'm in favor of anything that reasonably provides a firewall between children and porn without running roughshod over other rights.

My big concern here would be in the wording of the legislation. Unless incredibly carefully crafted, I don't see how they'd be able to avoid creating a special class of people (i.e., porn site owners) that are less protected under the first amendment.

I mean, I understand the reasoning behind the law and agree with it, but I'm concerned that it would seem to apply a standard to adult sites that isn't applied to any other type of speech or expression. And if that's the case, I would think, viewed under the microscope of the first amendment, it wouldn't be constitutional.

Besides, it would seem that kids already have that sort of protection in that they are not allowed to view or otherwise be exposed to sexual acts, which would preclude them from being on camera when explicit content is being shot.

[basschick]

chip, i see kids in the background of reality sites and public nudity sites all the time - not during sex or nudity, but it's not uncommon. unfortunately the people who write our laws tend to either have axes to grind that have nothing to do with the specifics of the law they are working on or they just phone it in.

after taking a look at the bill, i've found my first issue:

(b) Subdivision (a) shall apply even if the minor is fully clothed in a photograph or image that is posted on a Web site containing obscene matter.

the majority of porn sites do not contain matter declared legally obscene. that being the case, i guess this is just another of our lawmakers who can't be bothered to do any research - they just assume that their personal definition of obscene is the legal definition.

*sigh*

[Fister]

...after taking a look at the bill, i've found my first issue:

(b) Subdivision (a) shall apply even if the minor is fully clothed in a photograph or image that is posted on a Web site containing obscene matter.

the majority of porn sites do not contain matter declared legally obscene. that being the case, i guess this is just another of our lawmakers who can't be bothered to do any research - they just assume that their personal definition of obscene is the legal definition.

*sigh*

Yikes, imagine that, incompetent legislators!

[gaybucks_chip]

The good news is, if the law applies only to websites containing to obscene matter, it won't apply to much of anything in the legitimate adult industry. :)

Perhaps they're smarter than you think and are trying to tapdance. They know that obscenity is not protected by the first amendment, so they say the bill only applies to obscene sites, but then hope they can shove the definition of "obscene" down a jury's throat by using the kids as leverage... "You wouldn't want YOUR kids subjected to this EVIL, OBSCENE content, would you? Then find the defendants GUILTY!"

[gaydemon]

This will be really interesting to see how it turns out.

There are a HUGE amount of blogs (a lot on blogger.com) which shows semi nude very young guys in one post, then the next they have full on porn pictures. This new law must then apply to these blogs as well.

[marcjacob]

At first glance I support this. I havent read the bill in full, but in principle, I dont think children should ever appear on an adult site, clothed or not. In fact really no one should be there unless they fully consent to their image being used in that way. How hard is it to film away from people who dont consent to appear in the photos or movies?

[Gaystoryman]

At first glance I support this. I havent read the bill in full, but in principle, I dont think children should ever appear on an adult site, clothed or not. In fact really no one should be there unless they fully consent to their image being used in that way. How hard is it to film away from people who dont consent to appear in the photos or movies?

Have to agree, don't see why any 'adult rated' site would have any images of minors in them, least not those that aren't trying to imply other things. I just don't believe this is a line that should be blurred.