“Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends, we’re so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside.”

Well the semester has come to an end and an end with no final exam for me!  So I figured why not write another entry before they are all due about a brief summary of what I’ve learned and will take with me from this unique learning experience.

Before this semester, I knew of a blog but wasn’t using one.  When I first read the syllabus I immediately felt that this would be a class full of overwhelmingly amounts of work.  With working a full time job, 45 to 52 hours a week, I jumped at the idea of taking an online class.  So I did and with myself needing 3 COM classes to graduate, I decided to take this class section of Cyberporn and Society, better known as COM 497.  This provided me with my own time schedule of when to “attend” class lectures.  This was usually done on Wednesdays when I would spend anywhere from 2 to 3 hours just watching the lectures and taking notes.  Then I’d spend another couple of hours writing up those infamous blog entries that Dr. Halavais is known to love.  With the amount required to write, I thought I was getting myself into something that I shouldn’t but in the end it turned out great.  I started off writing as a Virgin Blogger but felt I got better as the semester went on.

Most of the topics I found out to be very interesting.  I really like learning about this history of pornography and how it has evolved into a money making juggernaut today.  I also found the topic of obscenity to be very interesting and confusing.  This also leads me to thinking about how porn has changed the way we view it through the eyes of our children.  Many laws or regulations have been unsuccessful in the past from protecting our children.  Our government needs to come up with a set standard to charge people with the showing, producing, or creating of obscene porn and how to keep it away from our children.  Obscenity is without a doubt the most confusing topic we talked about but is perhaps the most important in the understanding of the pornographic/adult industry.

Our class wasn’t just all about viewing then commenting on the lectures.  We also got to read each other’s blogs and comment.  I found this entertaining as well as educational.  We taking an online class sometimes you miss things or the whole idea presented completely.  By reading other student’s blogs, I was able to grasp some topics that I misunderstood and helped me soak up what I needed to.  I also, for the first time, started to use outside the class blogs as a way to expand upon what our class lectures were talking about.  It’s good to get away from all the educational stuff and actually gain an interest in what you’re learning.  Another task I enjoyed was guessing the class leadins.     

I had fun with that even though I lost and won’t get the coveted limited edition

School of
Informatics size XL t-shirt.  I did manage to get parts of 27 out of 35 correct, while missing the others with those damn cover band names, oh well.

I would like to conclude by wishing Dr. Halavais success in wherever his future lies after instructing @ UB.  He helped introduce me to the world of blogs and cyber pornography.  I plan on continuing to use blogs since I feel it’s a great way to express how you feel and a way to learn about topics you know nothing about.  Also, I will take on stronger feelings about topics I learned this semester that I probably never would of without COM 497.  So thanks for an entertaining/enjoyable/educational class that I won’t soon forget.

Adult Industry uses advancing technology to promote itself

This article talks about how internet bloggers are using blogs as a way to promote and advertise their porn sites.  This relates to my previous entry on how the adult industry is one step ahead of others in making use of advancing technologies.  This is just another way that the porn industry will make use of the internet to gain financially.  Regulations or the new labeling system proposed, should also apply to blogs that can link others to potentially sexual images that weren’t anticipated on.

You down with IP? Yeah you know me!

This week’s lecture focused on Intellectual Property (IP).  We learned about patents, trademarks, plagiarism and copyrights.  I personally feel that using ones work without their permission for your personal gain should be criminal.  I also feel that ones creation/idea/invention should be their own forever, or at least have the rights to that material and should be the only one to profit from it.

We learned that everything from the Happy Birthday song to the shape and size of the Coca-cola soda bottle to be owned and strictly enforced against the use of.  This also relates to the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act of 1998.  This extended the copyright law to 70 years past the author’s death so that nobody could make use or profit from one’s ideas.  This came into play with Walt Disney and his beloved Mickey Mouse.  However, every time Mickey Mouse steps closer to allowing the public free use of it, a new law comes across to protect this character and to only be allowed use of by Disney.   

Copyrighting and legal issues had a new obstacle to face in the late 1990’s.  With the increase use and ease of the computer, the internet sprung up and became something everybody was using.  This brought about a new problem facing copyright laws and how it pertained to the internet.  During this time, only universities and colleges had regular easy use of scanners.  As the volume of scanners increased, students started making use of them and began scanning images to the internet.  This included Playboy pictures from their magazines that slowly began appearing across the internet.  These images allowed other people to sell and profit at the disapproval of Playboy.  This led to a landmark case in the adult industry, involving copyrights, with Playboy v Sanfilippo (1998).  Mr. Sanfilippo began putting up Playboy images on his site and profiting from the visitors.  Playboy ended up asking him twice with Mr. Sanfilippo saying he would but didn’t. Then in 1997 Playboy threatened to sue him and ultimately in 1998 took him to court for violation of copyright laws, or infringement.  The court said Playboy had to prove these images to be their own property and to prove they were being infringed upon.  This was easily done with copies of their magazine shown to the courts and helped the prompt decision to be in their favor.  The judge said it was a violation and the penalty would be accessed by the amount of infringement that had occurred.  The total number of images shown by Mr. Sanfilippo totaled 667 and came to a $3.3 million settlement to be paid to Playboy. 

That case was important for several reasons.  First being that it showed a company, Playboy, was pursing against copyright infringement.  This is a stipulation in the law and required if a company wants to sue.  Playboy actually has won over 400 cases of copyrighted material.  Secondly, Playboy became a leader in creating technology that would deter copyright violators.  Since Playboy is so profitable, they can afford to try out new ideas in combating people like Mr. Sanfilippo from profiting off them.  They developed the digital watermark.  This put a “stamp” of sorts on their images that would appear when copied.  While it wasn’t too successful, it led to other inventions on how to stop criminals from taking your work.  Third, it’s now actually considered to be better not to go after infringers as Playboy did.  Today, with companies shying away from advertising main stream, copying ones work to be shown over the internet is actually beneficial.  Companies don’t like to advertise on TV or thru direct mail, so they don’t pursue people from displaying images from their company on the net.  It’s a form of free advertising that sends people to their company’s site after viewing a clip of their copyrighted work.  It’s estimated that 42% of peer to peer users are downloading porn.  The adult industry views this as a way to eventually make a profit from interested viewers. 

Ultimately, I feel that copyright laws need to be enforced.  However, with the stipulation being that in order for you to sue you must show that you are actively pursing copiers, the companies that are using infringers as free advertisers shouldn’t ever be allowed to sue.  Instead, this creates a whole new portion to the copyright laws and should be treated differently.  I feel that it’s your right to do with your work as you choose, but then the law shouldn’t apply to you. 

Could Bush have come up with something clever?

This week we were asked to read an online article about a new labeling system for websites.  The article entitled “Gonzales calls for mandatory Web labeling law” talks about a plan that Bush administration drew up to help combat pornography online. The plan says that “Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years.”

Whats different about this plan, as to the others in the past, is that there seems to be a more clear cut definition as to what the law says.  According to the website “The Bush administration's proposal would require commercial Web sites to place "marks and notices" to be devised by the Federal Trade Commission on each sexually explicit page. The definition of sexually explicit broadly covers depictions of everything from sexual intercourse and masturbation to "sadistic abuse" and close-ups of fully clothed genital regions.”  This is key to a new law being put in place and is where others have failed. 

Critics say that this plan is still unconstitutional.  Also, as in previous cases such as Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court often rules that the internet should be protected by the same freedom of speech as in other printed material.  There was a Clinton administration plan to be put in place with a rating system in 1997.  What was unique about this idea was the backing from the head of the Lycos search engine, Bob Davis, and his proposal to only index rated pages on his site.  This plan even called for a federal criminal punishment for the misrepresenting of a rating on a site.  However, like obscenity laws in the past, it quickly fell through with no clear cut guidelines/rules to follow and even publishers opening agreeing to not rate their sites.

What I agree and like about Bush’s proposal is how it says what is to be labeled.  “For the rating system's definition of sexually explicit material, the Bush administration proposal borrows language from existing federal law. It covers: sexual intercourse of all types; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.”  I’m not saying that some lawyer for some site will find a loop hole and get off without a penalty, but I feel that this includes much, if not all, of what I feel to be obscene and should be labeled as so.  That lawyer could even use what is in the Bush’s proposal to help in a websites defense.  That is the part where it says “There is one exception: Sexual depictions that constitute a "small and insignificant part" of a large Web site do not have to be rated.”  This could potentially be a larger loop hole than anticipated.

So could Bush have come up with something clever?  Well I’m sure our commander in chief had help, but for now it seems that way.  All in all, I feel that the Bush administration is addressing a problem that needs to be solved promptly.  This will hopefully help in decreasing the amount of disturbing images that our children are exposed to on a daily basis.  Also with the plan calling for the saving of records from the sites customers, the government can investigate into any further wrong doing.  I hope for the implementation and success of this plan.  

Lucas Questions

These questions stem from Mr. Michael Lucas’ work, “Gay Porn: Violence and Liberation”, which is to be published Spring 2006 in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. 

 

1.)    When you said “There is no outlet for healthy expression of gay sexuality in mainstream media today.  To that effect, gay porn serves as a necessary outlet in homosexual society.”, how do you think your work, with all the precautions you take, can go one step further and actually portray gay sexuality in a positive way?

 

 

2.)    You also talked about Brokeback Mountain and are quoted saying “In Brokeback Mountain, for example, there is no male nudity aside from a blurred nude male image in the background of one scene.  Instead, explicit depictions of female nudity are shown by two characters in the film.  The male on male sex scene is clothed, and focuses on the grunting faces of the actors in the scene.”  Do you think this film helped out the gay community or pushed it further into the “closet”?

 

3.)    With the gay community dealing with the AIDS situation and how media portrays heterosexuality as much as they do, do your honestly think there will ever be equality in our society between these two forms of sexual expression?

 

4.)     When you say that “Rather than being oppressive, gay pornography validates homosexuality and creates community” do you think that any of today’s heterosexual porn does this too?

 

5.)        In your work, you only place an emphasis on gay men; does your material relate to lesbian produced porn as well?

 

6.)    I understand what you mean when you say “If he is aroused, he will have an erect penis.  If he is having an orgasm, he will ejaculate.” and for the most part I agree.  But a big deal in men with women porn, is that the women fake it or force themselves to like it just for the money.  Do you think gay men do the same thing just for the money?  They could use Viagra to get aroused and then eventually make themselves enjoy for the paycheck, right?

 

Mr. Lucas, if you do get a hold of these questions, thanks for your time and presenting your ideas to our class.

Other people use blogs besides our class?

While checking out Technorati, I came across an interesting entry that I knew nothing about until reading.  This blogger talked about the newest ideas of how Congress has tried to combat pornography online through its legal system.   

The newest arsenal presented by Congress in attempts to dispose of child pornography and obscenity is through the Child Pornography and Obscenity Prevention Amendments of 2006.  The blogger says its “aimed at not only protecting children from becoming exposed to explicit material, but also encouraging “electronic communications services providers” to report the presence of child pornography on their systems. If they fail to do so, Internet service providers could be looking at fines of up to $300,000 per violation if they don't comply with the directive from Justice.   Among the many aspects of the proposed legislation, it would require adult websites to include warning labels on their homepages and make sure that sexually explicit material is – at a very minimum – a click away.”

If this is the case, then it sounds like Congress is stepping in the right direction to finally rid of this disgusting crime in our society.   U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales adds “I think it is time to deliver a wake-up call about the true nature and scope of this criminal activity – the depth of the depravity and the harm being inflicted upon innocent children.”  Lawyers for the porn industry believe that the government still won’t have a clear definition on what can be viewed as obscene or entertainment.  The porn industry’s lawyer, Lawrence G. Walters, said “"The intent of what the government is trying to accomplish is clearly that they want to put the burden of proof on the ISPs to identify and investigate child porn." Walters added "But what sticks out is that this is just another dishonest attempt to tie the issues of child pornography with adult entertainment. These are two completely different issues, and it is an attempt to rile up the American public and focus that ire on the adult industry, which is not responsible for child pornography. We see this over and over again."

This debate reminds me, and will to you too if you’re from
Buffalo, of the dumb-ass debate over the Peace Bridge.  Our community’s officials have been fighting over building a new bridge to link us with
Canada for almost 10years now.  They can’t decide on whether to build a totally new super span bridge or to keep the old one and add to it.  All of this ridiculous debate has nothing concluding in the near future with only the citizens left to hurt.  This situation is just like the one with the child porn issue.  Fighting will go back and forth, nothing will happen while our children will be continued to be exploited.

So all in all, this seems to be a he said she said situation that will end up going to court many times for many years with no real answers. 

 

On a side note, thanks to this blogger and the entry for the information supplied in my entry. 

“At the COPA”…wait not the song

This week’s lectures focus on “protecting our children” and dealing with this issue.  This has been an ongoing and never ending discussion with no clear direction on how to solve or fix it.  Personally, I’ve been talking about this matter in several other blog entries and view it as a major topic that needs stronger polices in today’s society.

 

Since the internet has taken off and grown to be apart of our everyday lives, issues have come about on what is or isn’t legal.  By this I mean what is allowed to be shown over the internet.  By that I mean what breaks the almighty 1^st amendment and freedom of speech.

 

Congress has tried to come up with laws or guidelines as to what can and can’t be shown over the internet.  At first, they wanted to obstruct much of what the porn industry had to offer.  The Supreme Court quickly found out that it would be wrong to do so totally, so they focused on what our children shouldn’t be allowed to view.  So Congress came up with the Communications Decency Act.  The CDA was found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for being to overbroad and ambiguous.  They found it to not be clear enough and would end up causing people to self-censor their own work.  An example of this would be people taking pictures of naked people, ones that could be considered art, in the fear of being arrested.  Congress’ next attempt was with the Child Online Protection Act of 1997.  Better known as COPA, this act was often referred to as the brother of the CDA but a leaner and better version of it.  It allowed for graphic material to be shown as long as there was an adult verification process to insure children couldn’t obtain the material.  This act was flip flopped back and forth in Congress with it being ruled unconstitutional in 1999 for being considered to be to broad, then in 2002 was considered to be ok with the use of the Miller test, then ultimately ruled to be unconstitutional in 2004 due to it not being narrowed down as to what is illegal.

 

This now leads to the current act in place to protect our beloved children.  The Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2001, or CIPA, is what guides us today.  It was ruled to be constitutional by the Supreme Court by how it manages to work its way around the 1^st amendment.  It says that children in schools or public libraries shouldn’t have access to pornographic images and should be done so with filters.  These filters would be put into place on public libraries but if an adult with a valid reason wants to view these images, then he/she can ask a librarian to remove the filters.  That’s what makes this legal and for an act to finally be put into place.  Critics often argue that filters don’t work and that even the best ones still allow 10% of porn to get through and even block out 25% of valuable health related information.   

 

After listening to all of these “acts”, the only thing clear to me is that changes still need to go a lot further.  I realize that the 1^st amendment should never be broken, but when a common sense issue comes up, the rule should be bent.  When I say bent I mean just that.  The fact that children are viewing disturbing images should negate the whole freedom of speech rule and those images shouldn’t be shown.  I also realize that people would complain about how this amendment shouldn’t ever be altered for fear of the government taking it away completely, but when it hurts our children, I feel it should be.  Congress and our judicial system should crack down on this hard and promptly.  There is now room for any of this nonsense.  This problem has lasted to long and shouldn’t even have to be talked about anymore; it should just be resolved without confrontation.  Congress needs to address this problem without feeling that they will harm somebody else.  These children are our future and should be taken care of just as the voting public are by the politicians.

Vote Leahy 2010

After this week’s reading from Dr. Halavais’ text, I came to several conclusions about my own feelings on the Communications Decency Act.  When reading both sides of the argument, I found myself taking the side of Senator Leahy.

Senator Leahy, in the reader, talks about the Communications Decency Act and addresses the president.  The topic is all about how the internet is full of porn and that something needs to be done.  However, Senator Leahy wants to take the harsh rules out of play.  Instead he favors a different technique in protecting our children from the easily accessible porn.  He and I both agree that less should be done by the government and more done by the family.  His argument says that the internet has been so successful and grown so fast because of the limited regulations imposed on it by the government.  The government, in the past, has regulated things and caused them to no be nearly as successful as they should’ve been.  The family, more or less the parents, need to be more involved and controlling of what their young ones do.  By putting the computer in the family room, children won’t try to look at material they don’t want to see.  The parents could monitor who their children are e-mailing to or chatting online with.  By being more involved, you can achieve the same goals as would stricter laws, only without hurting the growth and advancement of the internet.  The internet is a valuable tool that our society needs.  It needs to continue to advance and be as practical as it is in order for us to benefit from it.  With more regulations, companies might frown upon going into business or using the internet.  This could hurt our economy and our everyday life.  All I’m saying that needs to be done to protect our children is to be more involved and aware of what your children are doing.  This will not only help you keep them away from material you don’t want them viewing, but will keep you close and have better family values throughout your lives.      

Saving our children from other children

This blog entry talks about protecting our children.  Well, what about protecting our children from other children who are helping sexual predators out?   

This most recent sexually explicit topic in the news, caught my attention as a cyber porn student talking about indecency and obscenity.  The story of a young California teenager named Justin Berry  is considerably different from what one might expect about a teenager.  Justin made $100’s of thousands of dollars by going online with his web cam and chatting with others. 

One day Justin was online chatting with seemingly friendly adults when one asked him to take his shirt off for $50.  Confused but interested, Justin did so and the rest is history.  This young kid started showing himself doing sexually explicit things for paying viewers.  These viewers, almost all of them being older adult males, paid Justin money for over five years.  These men, found out to be lawyers, teachers and others who are around children daily, ended up paying Justin several $100,000.  This kid was making money and kind of viewed everything as a joke and not that these men were sick deranged animals. 

Recently, Justin has come clean about his lucrative business.  He explained the every growing websites of young children getting paid to perform sexually in front on an online audience.  Justin had as many as 1500 paying customers viewing him and said these websites have schedules for the customers to know when the next sexual act was being performed.  He told police all that he had knew as well as the customer’s information.  With background checks done, anybody who paid, produced, advertised or in any way associated with this despicable form of child porn, could have charges filed against.  Justin had come full circle from producing to helping in the prosecuting of these sexual predators. 

I have to admit; when I first read this article my first impression was that this kid wasn’t really doing anything wrong.  The people viewing this material were and Justin was just making money.  However, looking into it further I feel that Justin should be held accountable.  Ultimately, he was producing child porn and this is obscene and illegal.  The viewers and subscribers to his websites should all be held responsible and have criminal charges against them, as well as Justin.  I know that people will say he was too young to know what was going on, but was he?  I think that you know what your doing if your making several $100,000.  Maybe he shouldn’t have criminal charges but he should have to pay a fine, or some kind of restitution to make up for his wrong doing.  He helped “sickos” get off that could spiral down and cause these ill-minded men to possibly commit sexual crimes.  He was helping out sexual predators who like little children.  Whenever that is done, all people should be in trouble and have justice served against them.   

All in all, this kid knew what he was doing and was doing something so obscene, that it needs to be taken care of.  Congress should address this situation quickly and with harsh punishments that will deter people from being any part of child porn and hopefully bring it to an end.

Naked Girls Next Door!!! Who Knew It!!!

Aww yes the wonderful world of indecency.  This takes me back to previous blog entries about obscenity.  Indecency is basically something that is improper and shouldn’t be viewed or something obscene.  Since we have had problems with obscenity and defining it, Congress decided to make it easier with the word indecency.  So our Congress came up with giving the power to decide what is indecent to our society, to the Federal Communications Commission, a.k.a. the FCC.           

The FCC says that “It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to broadcast indecent or profane programming during certain hours.”  These certain hours where “indecent” material may be portrayed are during the Safe harbor hours of 10pm to 6am, the time when children are most likely not to being around this material.  Oh ok, well at least that problem is solved, or is it?  Does the FCC or our government ever go beyond what the law says and violate it themselves?  Of course not, right?           

First let me start talking about the whole strip club situation.  Some areas of the nation, it’s illegal to show nipples and the girls have to wear pasties over them.  Around here in Buffalo, NY, the girls can expose their breast but have to wear G-strings to stop them from showing their “baby releasing” part of their body.  Then you get good old Canada! Oh Canada, you allow your women to bare all!  So why doesn’t our society allow this form of expression to be legal?  Well actually in the court case of Barnes v. Glen Theatre, this freedom of expression was found to be legal and should be allowed. Critics often say that the showing of fully naked women, even jus the showing of a nipple, could lead to the increase of crime in that area.  When in actuality, several studies have shown the police presence to be increased in those areas and the local crime rates to lower. 

Then you get the fine crazy FCC who loves to go after people they don’t like and make them pay for their “indecent material”. Most noticeably they have fined Fox TV, Howard Stern, and even George Carlin. (who I can’t wait to see in Niagara Falls this May) Fox, Stern and Carlin have all either shown or spoke about supposedly “dirty” words or images that the FCC wanted to make clear, was indecent to our society. Legally, they can’t outlaw a particular form of speech, but can restrict how and where they can say it.  It all goes back to if there are Adverse Secondary Effects or not.

I guess all I’m trying to say is that I would hope for Congress to reconsider the way the FCC looks at indecent or obscene material.  There should be further definitions of what is and isn’t, so the FCC can’t go after the ones they don’t like for an opinion they have on what material could be labeled as bad for our society.  If I don’t know there are girls next door walking around or taking showers together naked on the internet for money, then what kind of an effect can it have on me?