On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)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.