2257

Elizabeth's picture

Is "Stop Porn Culture" Violating Porn Laws?

Some thoughts on "Fair Use," 2257, and Stop Porn Culture's pornographic slide show

Stop Porn Culture is an organized effort on the part of a number of antiporn-feminist scholars and activists to convince people that pornography is harmful to society (and especially to girls and women) and to get them to swear off porn and to challenge other people's use of it.

Stop Porn Culture (SPC) is also a traveling porn exhibition. In fact, not only is it a traveling porn exhibition, it is a distributor of free pornographic images. Lots of them. Lots of the most hard core of them.

Some sex worker advocates that I respect tremendously, like Ren of Renegade Evolution and Blog for Pro Porn Activism (BPPA) are out there, dedicated and loud, calling SPC out on its failure to comply with a US law that distributors of pornography must follow. That law, known by its shorthand section number (2257) requires producers of pornography to maintain records of performers' identities and ages, and to make those records available for inspection by law enforcement officials. SPC does not do this. These advocates are also calling SPC out on its use of the copyrighted images without permission from the copyright owners or consent of those depicted in the images.

I sympathize. It is galling to watch SPC use the work of the people they most claim to despise, and to freely distribute images they think nobody else should be able to distribute. And it is especially galling to watch them talk about the exploitation and humiliation of the women in the images all the while continuing to humiliate those same women by publicly exposing in and then condemning their work.

Elizabeth's picture

2257 Declared Unconstitutional by 6th Circuit

by Violet Blue and lifted directly from Fleshbot:

A federal appeals court has ruled today that the 2257 record keeping laws that have beleagured the adult industry for years now are in direct violation of First Amendment rights, specifically in regard to the definition of "sexually explicit conduct". As you know, this language has been spookily ... nay, ridiculously vague in keeping porn makers and the wide variety of so-called "secondary producers" on their toes; when you never categorically know what you're doing is against the law, it becomes just another scare tactic to keep porn peeps afraid that they're doing something wrong. 

Read the rest of the article here.

Elizabeth's picture

CLOSED: Reminder! Last day to tell the House that private info on adult social sites should remain private!

Lolita posted last week about HR 4472, which would extend the 2257 record keeping requirements to adult social networking sites. (Very very briefly, 2257 regs are the ones that porn makers and distributors have to keep to demonstrate that models are all 18+.)

 

Syndicate content