But was it the recordkeeping provisions that were challenged in the lawsuit that was originally mentioned?
The suit seemed to be only over the community standards provisions, but if you know otherwise (I didn't see a link to the decision), I'd be interested.
----- Original Message ----- From: "andie nachgeborenen" <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] court upholds CDA
This is not about proof of age for access tio websites. I've had to answer some legal questions about the record-keeping requirements of these sites, which are indeed absurd and onerous. Each photo in the questioned categories has to be linked to _US_ documentation, maintained by the site provider, involving name and proof of age -- foreign birth certificates won't do, e.g., for example, effectively requiring posters to have US driver's licenses or state IDs. The law is retroactive. It's not aimed at proptecting child surfers or even so much at the international porn trade as imposing very conservative US standards -- almost the most conservative community standrads imaginable -- on local content. Many people with ususual sexaul intertsests or even normal ones but interest in anonymity will be affected and deterreed even if theie interests are wholle legal, and site providers, few if whom are child pronographers, face draconian penalties. The difficulty for those unwilling or unable to move abroad or provide the requisitite documentation is crushing. And then there is the present effective total lack of internet privacy. This is a scary bad law. jks
--- Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> > And is a law that requires some proof of age-- a
> credit card, whatever --
> > to access a website so terrible? What is gained
> by demanding that
> > children have unlimited access to these sites?
>
> IIUC, no one is objecting to password requirements
> -- almost all such
> websites already have them, and it usually already
> takes a credit card to
> get in. It's rather the onerous recordkeeping
> requirements for all photos
> -- including those behind password barriers -- that
> would force sites to
> shut down (and especially non commercial community
> sites where people meet
> up).
>
> At least that what they say:
>
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050704/014160.html
>
> Michael
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk