# Future Legal Issues Looming?



## RyuujinZERO (Dec 7, 2007)

There's a new bill being passed by the US Congress (Or more exactly "rushed") which I'm thinking FA could fall afoul of:
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829759-38.html 
(and here)
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9830648-38.html



> The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000.





> Allen said the legislation--called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act--will "ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography."



It's odd because 4 or 5 years ago the US courts ruled that underaged cartoon characters were not child pornography as they are not real people and do not have rights to be infringed, and yet the second statement suggests they've now overturned that decision.

Anyway, it's not really my problem - I'm against cub/loli anyway, but given FA a while back decided to stand by underaged art this new bill could put it in legal hot water in the future.

Just a heads up ^^

[/quote]


----------



## Bokracroc (Dec 7, 2007)

Host the server in a different country then?


----------



## Paul Revere (Dec 7, 2007)

THIS IS IT, PEOPLE!

They're trying to take over the internet!

You let them get one foot in the door, and it's all over.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 7, 2007)

I'll worry about it when we need to worry about it. As it stands, the ramifications of this are too great, and it reduces almost everybody's right to privacy and free speech.


----------



## Janglur (Dec 7, 2007)

Once fiction is illegal, it's fucking over.


----------



## jayhusky (Dec 7, 2007)

God there rounding us up like sheep, whatever happened to free will and freedom!!

When freedom is gone the world shall riot


----------



## Armaetus (Dec 7, 2007)

It said WI-FI sharing


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 7, 2007)

Let me know when FA is WI FI, and not a server.


----------



## nobuyuki (Dec 7, 2007)

1.  what arshes said
2.  That last part is interesting and it's yet another way they're hoping to prosecute crimes against nonexistent victims through the backdoor.  These are your elected officials, you know what to do starting February 5th.

3.  this is retarded and seems like something someone lobbied for to stop the bleed of the idea that internet should be free (many people give away free internet from their wi-fi routers simply as a service to travellers)


----------



## Rilvor (Dec 7, 2007)

"Forget salvation, forget the cure, 'cause nothing's sacred, anymore"

'Tis a shame. Bunch of old women with their panties in a twist, thats what our officials are.


----------



## net-cat (Dec 7, 2007)

I suppose this means it's a good thing I'm a selfish bastard and don't share my WiFi connection.

:roll:


----------



## shebawolf145 (Dec 7, 2007)

so what about people like me who sit on their roof and snatch it from across the street?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 7, 2007)

Did anyone read the "Open WiFi to the PUBLIC" part or was this missed?


----------



## kitetsu (Dec 7, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Did anyone read the "Open WiFi to the PUBLIC" part or was this missed?



I don't know if that's a necessary question, since you may also be asking a minority of the group who specializes on overlooking details. :?


----------



## icehawk (Dec 8, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Did anyone read the "Open WiFi to the PUBLIC" part or was this missed?



Actually this applies to both "electronic communication service" and "remote computing service" providers, the second one being defined as "the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communication system. "

I think the important thing that people are missing is that the text of the bill actually says the nobody has to actively monitor anyone, just that they have to report it if they become aware about it.


----------



## Armaetus (Dec 8, 2007)

Not gonna be a part for home owners.

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9830648-38.html?tag=nefd.top

Open spots like McDonalds and Starbucks is more applicable to this.


----------



## Wolfblade (Dec 9, 2007)

This one is sloppier than other bills that the supreme court has shot down. I'd be amazed if it made it into actual effect.

Like Arshes said, this isn't going to affect Fur Affinity. We don't provide internet service.

This basically means that if a McDonald's manager happens to look at what is being downloaded through their wi-fi, and they spot "obscene cartoons" (which are not illegal to have, share, or download), they are required to report it or be subject to a hefty fine.

You can't fine someone for failing to report people doing something that is perfectly legal. They couldn't make imaginary fiction of "bad things" illegal, so they're trying to put in a loophole, while putting the burden of tracking and reporting this stuff off on third parties. This, is witch hunt tactics. But sloppier than their previous attempts, so if this passes where their other attempts to police imagination have failed, It'd be flat out stupid.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 9, 2007)

They're just going out of their way to ensure minors are not subjected to porn (which they probably already know how to get anyway).


----------



## Meliz (Dec 9, 2007)

someone should spraypaint "STFU N00B" on whoever thought of that crap's house.

nobody tries to fling poop at the internet, home of a million fans.


----------



## Visimar (Dec 9, 2007)

Wait, FA now provides a wireless service? *Why did they not tell us!?*


----------



## starfyre (Dec 9, 2007)

I'm glad this isn't being overblown here unlike on some people's journals.

FA is not affected, it is not an ISP.

Nor is it WiFi.

The Bill (H.R. 3791) states: 

(f) Protection of Privacy- Nothing in this section shall be construed to require an electronic communication service provider or a remote computing service provider toâ€“

   1. monitor any user, subscriber, or customer of that provider;
   2. monitor the content of any communication of any person described in paragraph (1); or
   3. affirmatively seek facts or circumstances described in subsection (a)(2).

It's mostly a bill to enforce private ISPs and WiFi owners to report child pornography. 

They are not going out of their way to arrest furries.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Dec 10, 2007)

The first half of this thread made it overly tempting to post a facepalming image macro.

The worst this could affect FA is by mildly inconveniencing the people setting up the WiFi at their conventions IF and only IF the bill went into affect (which I, as well as many others who've explained why, doubt will happen). And when I say mildly I mean mildly -- only if they gave a rat's ass about it would they, well, have to give a rat's ass about it, for lack of a better term.


----------



## getsuookami (Dec 10, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> This one is sloppier than other bills that the supreme court has shot down. I'd be amazed if it made it into actual effect.
> 
> Like Arshes said, this isn't going to affect Fur Affinity. We don't provide internet service.
> 
> ...



The problem lies in the fact that ISPs might be subject to fines if they allow ANY kind of drawn pornography over their systems. So, yes, it does affect FA, but because the ISPs will go after you, not the gov't itself. This bill isn't good, and the Senate may very well vote it down, but considering the current political climate, I wouldn't chance it: call your Senators, tell them the bill infringes on your rights and not to let it pass.


----------



## yak (Dec 10, 2007)

Since when did FA started to host child pornography?


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, my point was really that the people running the WiFi at the cons would only have to bother about monitoring it for the stuff if they felt they had a need to in the first place -- I seriously doubt there's any going over the invisible tubes for them to catch anyway.

Again, all in all, that's only if this joke of a bill goes through (which I highly doubt).


----------



## Teelie (Dec 11, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> Since when did FA started to host child pornography?



It doesn't strictly but the piss-poor wording of the bill it might interpet the cub/underage stuff as child porn even if the characters are not human and not even real. This could potentially affect a lot of websites indirectly if their providers get too twitchy and nervous about being accused of allowing child porn no matter how fictional the character is.


----------



## SynjoDeonecros (Dec 12, 2007)

This reminds me of the Livejournal incident last summer with the Warriors for Innocence, an internet volunteer group against pedophilia. Over 5,000 communities and accounts on there were temporarily shut down, because they had something that the group saw as advocating pedophilia, including ageplay and incest fetish groups, counseling groups for VICTIMS of child molestation, etc. Most of them were reinstated later, because they didn't break the law or LJ policy, but it's still ridiculous that they even tried.

I seriously hope this goes the way of COPA, if it's even passed; ruled too broad and vague in its determination of "public" and "offending material" for it to be enforced. If it doesn't, then America has truly screwed itself over and became Nazi Germany (or 1982)...


----------



## Wyrwulf (Dec 12, 2007)

The bill hasn't even gone to committee yet, last I checked. I'd be surprised if this makes it to the President's desk at all, let alone in anything resembling it's current form.

Most of the laws passed to protect minors from internet porn have been struck down by the courts, in part or in full.


----------



## Odjit-Sanura (Dec 12, 2007)

If there was any simple way of putting a notice up as a front page stating if you are under 18 to not enter, that will help the situation.  I also noticed you have to sort of become a member to be able to view any of the more explicit images anyways.  so, unless an underage noob knows what they're doing, there shouldnt be too much of a problem right?


----------



## Odjit-Sanura (Dec 12, 2007)

they cant really ding you anyways or they would ding deviant art as well for the amount of fetish photos people stick up on there for public viewing.....its called artistic expression and they cant really do anything about it anyways if they tried.....im sure deviant art's lawyers are going to be on that so fast to get it shut down....along with other art galleries, etc


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 12, 2007)

CAN WE WAIT AND SEE IF THE BILL HAS PASSED BEFORE MAKING PROPOSALS? LET US ALSO WAIT AND MAKE SURE IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL BEFORE ASSUMING ANYTHING SINCE THIS HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN MANY TIMES.

thank you.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Dec 12, 2007)

If they didn't listen to the rest of the thread's more knowledgable population going "lol irrelevant", I doubt they're going to listen to you now. D: They don't seem to pay any attention.


----------



## Odjit-Sanura (Dec 12, 2007)

I realise theres alot of what ifs and that nothing is set in stone.  Its also an odd situation not living in the states, and the bills that get passed or dont get passed affect those of us not under the US laws. (IE working for a collections firm in canada collecting on US accounts...we still have to abide by those laws too).  

Its not that I didnt read the previous posts, but it doesnt hurt to have a contingancy plan....but then again thats just me.

If memory serves me correctly, there was one extremely simillar to this bill that they're trying to pass that got shut down relatively quickly.

one can only hope.....please dont shut me down for not fully understanding what he heck is gonig on.


----------



## icehawk (Dec 12, 2007)

Ceceil Felias said:
			
		

> If they didn't listen to the rest of the thread's more knowledgable population going "lol irrelevant", I doubt they're going to listen to you now. D: They don't seem to pay any attention.



It's the internet. We have to reach our quota of posters speculating wildly and coming to conclusions without any basis in fact.


----------



## TehSean (Dec 13, 2007)

What would the embarrassingly famous court case be named and would FA win it?


----------



## Eevee (Dec 13, 2007)

Internet v. the United States?


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 13, 2007)

Fender -vs- the World


----------



## yak (Dec 14, 2007)

People vs. Common Sense.


----------



## Ceceil Felias (Dec 14, 2007)

I think I've got a phrase that'd describe this bill's fate.

'Speedy thing goes in, speedy thing goes out''.


----------

