http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/10/sexdrive_
1019
Proposed Law Could Be a Cold Shower for YouPorn
Regina Lynn
<http://www.wired.com/services/feedback/letterstoeditor>
10.19.07 | 12:00 AM
YouPorn is the highest trafficked adult website in the world and boasts a
higher Alexa rating than both CNN and Weather.com, reports Portfolio.
Saw that one coming
<http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/08/sexdrive
_0809> , didn't we?
But YouPorn and other blue Web 2.0 startups could be out of business in the
near future if proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. 2257 are accepted into law.
Known in the industry as "2257," 18 U.S.C. 2257 defines requirements porn
producers must follow to verify the age of every performer, keep records
about the performers' identities and make those records available to the
government. The proposed changes would extend the statute's reach beyond
adult-content producers to include social networking websites.
That could mean every adult who wants to upload a naughty picture to a
social network would have to submit a photo ID and state their full name,
date of birth and other personal information. The network would have to
maintain that record for as long as the picture exists -- likely in
perpetuity throughout the universe -- and ensure the record is available
without question to The Authorities for 20 hours a week, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Porn studios already have a hard time complying with all the ins and outs of
recordkeeping laws. And while adult social networking sites do seem to try
to keep illegal material off their servers, I think it would be impossible
for a social networking site to comply with the proposed changes.
What if users submit false information -- who gets punished? Who verifies
IDs? A studio production assistant can check performer IDs in person; would
social networks have to open offices all over the country to verify
prospective members in person? Good luck with that one.
Few people know much about the recordkeeping requirements. It's like the FBI
warning you can't fast-forward on a DVD -- it's included on every porn
website and adult video, but doesn't stand out to viewers any more than gang
graffiti on delivery trucks in my east Los Angeles neighborhood.
But if the proposed changes come to pass, I hope we'll see a much overdue
surge of patriotism and protest. After all, this isn't the administration
blatantly tucking the Bill of Rights into the back of a storage closet --
our personal sex lives are at stake!
The ostensible purpose of the law is to curtail child pornography, and no
legitimate porn producer argues with that. In fact, many have become rather
paranoid about not letting underage individuals slip through the screening
process.
Yet porn and adult social networking are entirely different things. The
former is entertainment; the latter is sex.
An adult social networking site is not about producers publishing static
content in hopes of making a profit. It's about people coming together and
sharing sexual experiences.
They might plan to hook up in person or keep the sex online; they might
simply participate in exhibitionism or voyeurism; it can be entirely fantasy
or a platform for ongoing relationships. Sometimes it's as simple as
uploading a favorite clip from a porn DVD.
But the foundation of social networking, or user-generated content, or Web
2.0, or whatever you want to call it, is community. Users don't passively
look at content someone else chose to shove at them. They share, rate,
create, organize, recommend, criticize. No member stands alone.
A porn delivery site is a one-on-one transaction; a social network is a
many-to-many bazaar that exists because its members communicate. Minors on
the site would not go unnoticed. And adults who frequent adults-only
communities do so because those places are adults-only, not because they
want to hang out with minors.
It's not just the technology that would make it impossible to enforce the
new regulations on community sites. It's the attitude. Internet community is
traditionally against anything smacking of outside control or authority, and
the human need to expose ourselves in sexual ways online simply cannot be
stopped.
You can put pressure on a business to comply with ridiculous legal
requirements, but try leaning on millions of individuals engaging in
private, personal behavior in their own bedrooms. Even Alabama focused its
sex-toy ban
<http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/sexdrive/2007/10/sex_driv
e1005> on the stores, not on the use or possession by individuals.
User-generated content may not be as slick as studio porn, but that's okay
when the content is real -- when it's no longer porn, but sex. It's the
difference between form and substance, or between art and life.
We have become complacent in recent years about the government's ability to
control the form and art of things. But the substance -- the life -- the
sex?
Not when the venue is this private (your own home) and doesn't involve
controversial, far-reaching public decisions that involve minors, like sex
education versus abstinence curriculum. And not when the regulations no
longer apply to some amorphous other (the "adult industry") but to regular
people doing something perfectly innocent, like posting a fully nude
self-portrait on an adults-only network.
Porn is always going to be political -- but sex shouldn't be.
See you in a fortnight,
Regina Lynn
- - -
Regina Lynn posts Sex Drive <http://www.wired.com/commentary/
on
Wired News every other Friday. You can find more from her on her blog at
reginalynn.com <http://www.reginalynn.com> .