US flag burning amendment getting closer.

NAD

What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse
Jun 5, 2002
38,465
1,172
113
Kandarian Ruins
Although I've grown pretty unhappy with America the last few years, I've never wanted to burn the flag. I love America's history (well, a bit of it :dopey: ), and recognize that Old Glory isn't a symbol of the Bush Administration. But if something so basic a protest as burning the flag is outlawed, this country really is becoming a police state. Does anybody remember history?! You know, the whole reason why the US is here is from PROTESTING THE GOVERNMENT?!?!?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4122814.stm

The Republican-led House voted 286-130 on the divisive measure, which now goes before the Senate.

Similar moves in the past have failed to gather the three-thirds majority required for constitutional amendments in both houses of the US Congress.

The draft amendment aims to override a 1989 Supreme Court ruling protecting flag desecration as free speech.

The issue has been a rallying cause for conservatives ever since.

It gathered political momentum in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the World Trade Center," said Republican Randy Cunningham, a Californian congressman.

"Ask them and they will tell you - pass this amendment"

Senate hurdle

Wednesday's vote was the fifth time the Republican-dominated House has approved the amendment.

But so far it has failed to get the required 67 votes needed in the Senate.

However Democrats are divided on the issue, and recent changes in the Senate mean the measure could be approved.

"There are too many scenarios where we would lose," Terri Ann Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union - which opposes the amendment - told the New York Times.

The move does not directly prohibit desecration of the flag - but allows individual state legislatures and the US Congress to enact such a ban.

If the Senate in turn approves the amendment by a two-thirds majority, it still has to be ratified by 38 states.

The constitution has been amended 27 times, including the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights.
 
More fun:

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/22/rottencom_our_gaping.html

Rotten.com: our gapingmaw.com and other sites shut in anticipation of 2257
Amended Section 2257 recordkeeping regulations go into effect at midnight tonight. The federal law requires website owners to keep records documenting, among other things, that "every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct" is over the age of 18.

In anticipation, porn sites and others that offer adult content are preparing to make their sites compliant -- or taking them offline. Today, several sites in the Rotten.com family are going dark for that reason, including ratemyboner.com (like amihotornot for amateur snapshots of a particular male anatomical part in a particular state) and gapingmaw.com (which you could call an industrial-strength grossout blog).

Section 2257 is ostensibly aimed at preventing the exploitation of minors in pornography. However, some free speech advocates argue it provides the conservative Bush administration with the power to silence other websites deemed offensive. Here's the full text of the law: Link to U.S. Code : Title 18 : Section 2257.

And here is the full text of the enabling regulations which are more widely contested than the US code itself: Link. The amendment was signed into law last month by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

A message on gapingmaw.com -- which wasn't a porn site, per se, but did include some sexually explicit images -- says:

CENSORED BY US GOVERNMENT 18 USC 2257

Yes, that is correct. The things that used to be here, the very funny things that you want to read, have been made retroactively illegal by the US government, in a side-handed attack on the pornography industry.

We might mention that the material here isn't even pornography as you normally think of it -- this site is just adult humor, in essay format, with some illustrations. The government is mandating that we meet certain bookkeeping requirements, ones impossible to meet for this site. Never mind that those requirements do not actually gain the public anything. This is the strongest attack on free speech since the passage of the CDA, and oddly, the media seems to have hardly noticed. The penalty for not abiding by these bookkeeping requirements is five years prison.

The regulations were promulgated by Alberto Gonzales, US Attorney General appointed by George Bush. If you voted for Bush, this is your fault. If you think this country is free, you are sadly mistaken. No nation has freedom when it is run by religious zealots.

Link to gapingmaw.com article (note: statement is actually dated tomorrow, June 23).

The adult biz advocacy group Free Speech Coalition (FSC) filed a lawsuit last week challenging 2257, and AVN has more on that: Link. Here's an article on adult news site XBiz about last-minute compliance preparations in the porn world: Link

Previously on Boing Boing: Porn Law Draws Adult Sites' Ire

Reader comment: Race says,

In terms of the bookkeeping requirements for Adult film distributors -- each distributor has to keep records on site. That includes social security numbers, driver license scans and other personal information. So lets say you're Paris Hilton (in red light's "one night in Paris"), your personal information is then has to be carried by every distributor that carries that film ( which could be hundreds if not thousands of locations, increasing the likelihood of identity theft, etc -- and not to mention privacy issues). It used to be that the studio producing an adult film would carry that information at their studio. (...) This law is a way for the goverment to control porn.

Mark Haas says,

I'm just coming up to speed on this whole 2257 issue, but I just read the full text of the enabling regulations, and concerning who must keep these records, the text clearly states: "The record-keeping requirements apply to ``[w]hoever produces'' the material in question ... but ["produces"] does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.'' And so it seems to me that if you are not directly involved in the actual "creation" of the work -- i.e. a web site that displays images someone else created, or a film distributor -- then the record keeping requirements do not apply to you. Am I missing something?

Bad Penny says:

Mark is right that the only ones responsible for keeping the records are those who produce the material, but this amendment makes it unlawful for anyone to "knowingly sell or otherwise transfer" any pornographic material made after the effective date in 1990 without being able to show where the records are held. So while websites with such material are not required to have the records, they are required to know where they are.

Section 4 of the amendment contains the relevant text on this issue:

(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which -
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.

Tom Adams says,

There's an aspect to this I haven't seen discussed. Immediately after the Patriot act was in force, there were uses of its provisions against criminals other than terrorists. John Ashcroft defended this, saying that "prosecutors should use all the tools available to them." It seems a small stretch to argue that these new regulations could apply to p2p transfers of adult material. This would open the door to morality based prosecutions of individuals. The Government's Bible Belt equivalent of RIAA suits.

A Rotten.com spokesperson responds:

You are missing the part where "distributor" is redefined to include posting on an internet web site. Re-read the enabling regulations more closely. Yes, it really does that. Specifically the term "secondary producer" is defined to include anyone who posts a digital image on an internet site, under 75.1 (c)(2). Secondary producers are the ones who are now being required to maintain this information. It is no over-reaction.
 
haha

I think it's time I start my own Netflix account, shit is only $10 a month now and I won't have to bug momz to rent me movies anymore.
 
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the World Trade Center," said Republican Randy Cunningham, a Californian congressman.

"Ask them and they will tell you - pass this amendment"

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh