On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Theo10011 <de10...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, things got complicated when DOJ added an entirely new class of > producers you speak of "secondary producers", anyone who "publishes, > reproduces, or reissues" explicit material. This is where things get > complicated. What followed was a circuit court decision, and other > proceedings, that ruled these requirements were facially invalid because > they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected > speech. > > The real question now becomes about its enforcement. Much of the sexual > material on the internet, even depiction of works of art several hundred > years old, any form of nudity even for educational, anatomical purposes > might fall under this law (lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic > area of any person). > Theo, that is completely wrong. Record-keeping requirements only apply to images where models were required to engage in actual sexually explicit conduct, and moreover, it only applies to images created from 1990 onward. > The burden on service providers, and hosting websites would be massive to > speak of - consider the implication on Facebook for example, or Flickr, or > even Google, being responsible for linking every single image in results, > they don't possess the proper records of the depicted subjects, which might > very well number into tens of millions. > Again, that is completely wrong. Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation are already protected by 230(c) safe harbor provisions. Responsibility lies with the individual uploader or editor, who enjoys no such protection but is fully liable for their own actions. Maybe that's why, it has been implemented only in one specific case > primarily based on the new 2257 law and related legislation. The case was > against Joe Francis, the originator of "Girls gone Wild" series. Also, of > relevance might be that the series in question only depicted nudity, and > not any sexual act. Even these charges were for the most part dropped later > on. > The thing is: Wikimedia keeps edit histories and contributions lists for decades. We have no idea what implementation of US law will look like in five or ten years' time, given political vagaries.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
