| 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. |
Pages: [1] 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Yahoo, Child Sex Chat Rooms & Mainstream Advertising = $10 Million Lawsuit (Read 1229 times)
|
spacecadet
Admin Space Cadet
Administrator
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 50
Space Cadet
|
Yahoo, Child Sex Chat Rooms & Mainstream Advertising = $10 Million Lawsuit
Thursday, June 02, 2005
by Darklady
CYBERSPACE - The average consumer doesn't expect to find companies such as Yahoo, Countrywide Mortgage, Georgia-Pacific, T-Mobile, State Farm Insurance, or Pepsi advertising in chat rooms that promote sex with minors - yet that's precisely what has happened - and a $10 million lawsuit against Yahoo, accusing it of profiting from child porn instead of closing sites hosted on its servers, is the result.
Once aware of what their advertising dollars were unwittingly supporting, the companies withdrew their banners from what they had thought would be educational chat rooms but, instead, proved to be entirely unsavory meeting places for men seeking young, often pre-adolescent, sexual encounters. As opposed to promoting educational advancement or hobby development, the rooms sported such unsettling titles as "9-17-Year-Olds Wantin' Sex," "Younger Girls 4 Older Guys," "Girls 13 And Under For Older Guys," "Girls 13 And Up For Much Older Man," and "Girls 8 to 13 Watch Boys (In A Particular Sex Act)." Members of the Houston media who initially discovered the situation report that not only were men using the chat rooms in order to arrange sexual liaisons with minors, but also to use web cams to broadcast inappropriate images, and assist or encourage the youths in running away from home.
As expected, once this illegal and unsavory activity was brought to the attention of the authorities, legislative action was the first proposed response. "The law has not kept up with this type of criminal activity," U.S. Representative Ted Poe observed to Houston media.
When the issue was brought to his attention, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales opined that "Short of changes in the law in Congress, we may be limited about what we can do in this area." According to Gonzales, there are no laws currently available to justify the U.S. government's closing of the chat rooms. However, the Candyman website was brought down by federal agencies in 2002 using pre-existing laws.
Charles Clickman, spokesman for Child Rescue Network, Inc. indicated a belief that the advertising made the rooms an increased draw and that the companies involved should ". do the right thing." A statement from Pepsi, which had a Star-Wars themed ad for its diet soda at the entry to some rooms until alerted about their illegal nature, defended the company by pointing out that Pepsi was "...completely unaware that our advertisements were associated with these chat rooms in any way."
The responses of other advertisers upon learning about the misuse of their advertising, varied. Countrywide Mortgage removed advertising from the rooms and claims to have taken measures to avoid similar situations in the future. State Farm Insurance not only removed all advertising from the chat rooms but also from all Yahoo sites and revealed that it would suspend all online advertising with the portal giant, ".until it provides us a detailed explanation of how this situation was allowed to happen in violation of our contract, and until we receive sufficient assurance that our advertising will never again appear on inappropriate sites." Georgia-Pacific joined the insurance company in its plans to boycott advertising placement on Yahoo and in demanding an explanation.
Yahoo executives have remained silent except to issue a statement assuring the public that Yahoo's Terms of Service do not allow illegal activities in spite of the fact its servers are hosting the chat rooms, and that, "Yahoo strongly supports law enforcements' efforts to combat illegal activity on the Internet and works cooperatively with law enforcement to aid in their investigations."
Yahoo's income doubled to nearly $205 million during the past year, influenced in large part by online ads.
DarkLady is an Assistant Editor at YNOT.
|
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
|
spacecadet
Admin Space Cadet
Administrator
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 50
Space Cadet
|
Please note link may change on this site
Studios: Child Porn Bill Is Too Sweeping
October 13, 2005
By Jube Shiver Jr., Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Hollywood lobbyists are warning federal lawmakers that proposed anti-child pornography legislation could prove so onerous for studios that they may be forced to keep detailed records about actors appearing in virtually any lovemaking scene, even for movies rated PG-13.
A little-noticed rider from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to the Children's Safety Act of 2005 passed by the House would require producers of material containing actual or simulated sexual conduct to keep records of the names, ages and proof of identification of the actors shown in the productions. They also would have to make the information available to law enforcement officials upon request.
Lobbyists argue that the measure's sweeping language goes beyond the intended target — pornography — and encompasses more tame fare.
"We are extremely concerned that this measure is overly broad and violates the constitutional protections of free speech," said Erik V. Huey, a Washington lawyer for the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. "Mainstream film and television productions are being lumped in the same category as hard-core pornography."
The act is awaiting action in the Senate, where John Feehery, executive vice president for external affairs at the Motion Picture Assn. of America, said the studio trade group hoped to derail the record-keeping measure.
But a Senate aide, who requested anonymity because the final bill hasn't been drafted, said that although lawmakers were willing to work with Hollywood, a bill Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) planned to introduce would probably mirror the House version. Backers of the measure contend that the broad language is needed to close loopholes that could be exploited by child pornographers, arguing that Hollywood is overreacting because the measure merely tightens a law on the books.
Currently, the makers of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other material that "contains one or more visual depictions … of actual sexually explicit conduct" are required to keep each performer's birth certificates and driver's licenses on file, and include on the packaging disclaimers stating that no actors participating in sexual acts were minors.
Pence's rider would extend the record-keeping requirement to productions that depict even "simulated sex," and make that information available to law enforcement. First-time violators would be subject to a fine and as many as two years in jail.
"My amendment … is designed to give law enforcement the tools to stop child pornography at the source," Pence said in a statement. "It will fix a glaring loophole in the current law by requiring pornographers to keep records of the names and ages of their subjects and proof of identification."
Although Pence's staff has indicated that the lawmaker is open to "a technical correction" that would limit the scope of the bill, Hollywood lobbyists fear the Justice Department will be unyielding in its push for tougher record keeping. Justice officials argue that changes are needed to protect children from sexual exploitation by pornographers.
"While it is true that these changes will mean that more mainstream producers whose materials depict only simulated sex and/or nudity, rather than overt sexual acts, will have to keep records … eliminating them from the record-keeping requirement, as is now the case, raises serious child exploitation potential," the Justice Department said in an analysis.
Underscoring the weakness of current law, the Justice Department added that "a pornographer can film 16-year-old girls engaged in 'soft-core' sex and not be subject to the record-keeping requirement" because the filmmaker "can claim … he was not aware of the ages of the girls" and escape punishment. Justice Department officials declined to further comment.
*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writers Sallie Hofmeister and Meg James contributed to this report.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
spacecadet
Admin Space Cadet
Administrator
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 50
Space Cadet
|
Please note link may change on this site
Studios: Child Porn Bill Is Too Sweeping
October 13, 2005
By Jube Shiver Jr., Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Hollywood lobbyists are warning federal lawmakers that proposed anti-child pornography legislation could prove so onerous for studios that they may be forced to keep detailed records about actors appearing in virtually any lovemaking scene, even for movies rated PG-13.
A little-noticed rider from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to the Children's Safety Act of 2005 passed by the House would require producers of material containing actual or simulated sexual conduct to keep records of the names, ages and proof of identification of the actors shown in the productions. They also would have to make the information available to law enforcement officials upon request.
Lobbyists argue that the measure's sweeping language goes beyond the intended target — pornography — and encompasses more tame fare.
"We are extremely concerned that this measure is overly broad and violates the constitutional protections of free speech," said Erik V. Huey, a Washington lawyer for the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. "Mainstream film and television productions are being lumped in the same category as hard-core pornography."
The act is awaiting action in the Senate, where John Feehery, executive vice president for external affairs at the Motion Picture Assn. of America, said the studio trade group hoped to derail the record-keeping measure.
But a Senate aide, who requested anonymity because the final bill hasn't been drafted, said that although lawmakers were willing to work with Hollywood, a bill Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) planned to introduce would probably mirror the House version. Backers of the measure contend that the broad language is needed to close loopholes that could be exploited by child pornographers, arguing that Hollywood is overreacting because the measure merely tightens a law on the books.
Currently, the makers of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other material that "contains one or more visual depictions … of actual sexually explicit conduct" are required to keep each performer's birth certificates and driver's licenses on file, and include on the packaging disclaimers stating that no actors participating in sexual acts were minors.
Pence's rider would extend the record-keeping requirement to productions that depict even "simulated sex," and make that information available to law enforcement. First-time violators would be subject to a fine and as many as two years in jail.
"My amendment … is designed to give law enforcement the tools to stop child pornography at the source," Pence said in a statement. "It will fix a glaring loophole in the current law by requiring pornographers to keep records of the names and ages of their subjects and proof of identification."
Although Pence's staff has indicated that the lawmaker is open to "a technical correction" that would limit the scope of the bill, Hollywood lobbyists fear the Justice Department will be unyielding in its push for tougher record keeping. Justice officials argue that changes are needed to protect children from sexual exploitation by pornographers.
"While it is true that these changes will mean that more mainstream producers whose materials depict only simulated sex and/or nudity, rather than overt sexual acts, will have to keep records … eliminating them from the record-keeping requirement, as is now the case, raises serious child exploitation potential," the Justice Department said in an analysis.
Underscoring the weakness of current law, the Justice Department added that "a pornographer can film 16-year-old girls engaged in 'soft-core' sex and not be subject to the record-keeping requirement" because the filmmaker "can claim … he was not aware of the ages of the girls" and escape punishment. Justice Department officials declined to further comment.
*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writers Sallie Hofmeister and Meg James contributed to this report.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 
|
|
|
|
