Pixies Place Forums - New Picture Posting Q & A

Pixies Place Forums (http://www.pixies-place.com/forums/index.php)

- General Chat (http://www.pixies-place.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - New Picture Posting Q & A (http://www.pixies-place.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25437)

so is all the picture uploading on hold as of now or do we already have to be careful of whats posted?

Do we know roughly when the old pics are gonna be deleted?

At this point, reported posts will be dealt with. Please make sure that anything you post from here on out fall within the pic posting guidelines.

I will comply :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Does Pixies (or the owners) happen to be a member of the Free Speech Coalition? See below:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=49359

I read that too. I'm not privy to that information but my best guess would be that they may be. I couldn't speak to that really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jseal

PalaceGuard,

Looking back at the thread, I can see your point. :o Still, at the time, with a thread heading of “New Picture Posting Q & A”, it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. I didn’t realize that I was causing a problem by doing so.

I’ll have to be more sensitive/selective in the future.

if you notice this was a thread for Q & A for pixies new posting rules not about the law that has caused it

Quote:

Originally Posted by Booger

if you notice this was a thread for Q & A for pixies new posting rules not about the law that has caused it

Booger,

No sir, that is incorrect. The thread title reads, “New Picture Posting Q & A” and the following is the first post to the thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilith

This is an area where I hope to be able to adddress your questions and concerns regarding the new policy enacted to comply with recent U.S.law.

The second post to the thread was explicitly about the law:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winston77

So what does the law say????

I posted a couple of questions I had about the new policy. Those questions were well within the scope of the thread title and the limits expressed by Lilith in the initial post.

Lilith, while neither providing an answer to either question, nor offering to find out, acknowledged that the question was not out of line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilith

Your question was not the problem, I did not see it in the original post I read...

You know, I realize that some people like to argue just for the sake of arguing but it's counterproductive in regards to this topic. My reason for this thread was to give the members who produce and display images at this site a place to ask questions as to how the new policy will be carried out and what is permissible.

jseal...if you have questions for the owners PM them. I don't own the site, I run it, and damn well! If you have a complaint about the job I do here then PM them as to that as well. I don't need to "find out" anything for you, if you have questions address them to the appropriate source, I made it clear to you in several posts that I am not that source.

Lilith,

You are, I am sure, aware that I have posted pictures of me at Pixies. The rumors that I used a wide angle lens are untrue. You invited questions about the new site policy, so I asked. When you stated “That's not a question I can answer”, I did not ask the questions again. I have never complained about the job you have done, and I have praised your efforts, and those of the other site moderators.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilith

if you have questions for the owners PM them.

OK, just curious. If I had a question for the owners and I wanted to PM them, just who would I be PMing?

Well, I have to say, I'm just as irate as everyone else. Not so much about my pictures, but at the continual shredding of the Bill of Rights by the George of Wrong and his ilk. But that's who we all need to focus our attention on. It does us no good to bicker among ourselves. We are family here, all equally affected, and no doubt all outraged. Let's not shoot the messenger. Lil started this thread so we could be informed, and know what she has to do. We all have to do what our bosses say. Start writing your reps. I live in a largely elephantine state, so I write, and they usually write back a polite "tough noogies," but if we let this keep happening, it's like boiling a frog. Pretty soon it'll be too late, and we won't know what happened.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by jseal

Booger,

No sir, that is incorrect. The thread title reads, “New Picture Posting Q & A” and the following is the first post to the thread:

The second post to the thread was explicitly about the law:

I posted a couple of questions I had about the new policy. Those questions were well within the scope of the thread title and the limits expressed by Lilith in the initial post.

Lilith, while neither providing an answer to either question, nor offering to find out, acknowledged that the question was not out of line.

If you will notice the line you had quoted above from lilith states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lilith

This is an area where I hope to be able to adddress your questions and concerns regarding the new policy enacted to comply with recent U.S.law.

I you notice it say regarding the new policy enacted to comply with recent U.S.law. If you notice it say to comply with the law. It dose not say and the law. The second post was some one asking what the law was not a question about the law itself. This is your first question in this thread if you will note it is about the new law not the new policy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jseal

Lilith,

What parts of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 are at issue?

As Pixies doesn’t produce the images in question it isn’t a Primary producer. Sec. 75.1 Definitions, C, (1)

I presume that the concern is about (2), in particular the part I’ve underlined: “A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer- manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.”

Even so, Pixies is not a producer per (4) (ii)

“Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
…
(ii) Mere distribution;”

Pixies, while a commercial site, gets no revenue from the availability of the pictures at the site.

Perhaps I am looking at the statute incorrectly, or perhaps I am looking at the wrong parts of the statute, but I see no requirement for Pixies to maintain the records commercial pornographers must. It is the criminal penalties associated with inadequate or insufficient record keeping which is at issue here, is it not?

Lilith,

Thanks for starting the thread and keeping us informed.

It would be nice if we could all focus on making efforts to change the law rather than over-analyzing or finding holes and gaps in it.

A number of people have already made the point that is most essential in this whole debate, regardless of the letter of the law, the law is intended to restrict free expression of human sexuality. No loophole or trick of wording will prevent this administration from prosecuting and restricting access to websites it deems to be in violation of this law.

For those who want to take me or others to task for criticizing the current or any government, I remind you that it is my duty and right as a citizen. If the administration can't take the heat, they should get out of the White House.

Booger,

When Lilith solicited questions about Pixies’ new policy enacted to comply with recent U.S. law, then fielded posts about the law from Winston77, rukh75, Dubblz, wyndhy without problem, while accepting the political posts and rants without comment – all of which occurred before my initial post, well, I’d say that the scope of the thread was quite wide. It would seem that you take a rather more narrow reading.

Unto each his own. Respectfully, I disagree with you.