Alberto Gonzales has ruined my day -or- 2257 thorns in my dick

Conservative puritan values just plain suck.

I used to have a gallery on my personal website. It contained hundreds of photographs chronicling my BDSM sessions. Nothing was ever for sale, no subscriptions or fees were ever required to view the site..and, in fact, it still costs me a lot of money each month in ISP fees. I gain nothing from it except an occasional play request and lots of comments thanking me for being so open and sharing my creativity and skills so openly.

Along comes Gonzales as our Attorney General. Just like the Iraq war, issues and reasons have become intermingled as a smokescreen to trick constituents into believing a lie. "US Code 18 - Section 2257" is an old law that has been given a new twist on life to cover our internet -- thank you for nothing, Senor Gonzales. It claims to protect minors from being in and viewing adult porn. Fact is, though, it does nothing to protect either -- but rather puts thousands of pornography sites out of business (can you just smell the right-wing assholes getting moist at the thought). Fine, like I care. But... it also reaches right out over the heads of artists, non-commercial and educational websites, and holds them to the same test.

I do not consider my activities in any way "pornographic" but our right-wing lawmakers (led by Gonzales) have written laws so intentionally vague and convoluted that they can go after expressions of free speech such as our sexuality. My site is a personal diary and resource. Even though it is non-commercial and generates no revenue, it falls into a rather serious gray area in these litigious times.

I took the pictures down... voluntarily. The penalties are automatic prison time upon conviction.

If you are not aware of the legal mess here in the US regarding adult websites - I would advise you to learn all you can and help protest this ugly situation (the Department of Justice "2257" Regulations). To have a gallery on my personal website site, I would have to provide and file the names, addresses, ID photocopies, and social security numbers of everyone I have had sessions with (to prove they are over 18). For those of you who have seen this gallery in the past I hope you see my point and just how ridiculous this is. I could be considered a "distributor". A distributor has been defined to include someone posting on an internet web site. The scarier part is a "secondary producer" which also seems to be described as anyone who posts a digital image on an internet site. It seems as now distributors are not as liable but secondary content producers are in the crosshairs.

Because the photos are edited and uploaded primarily from my home, I would now have to open up my home to the Dept. of Justice 20 hours per week for unannounced inspections of my "records". I am NOT a business, Mr. Gonzales. I am an avid and passionate amateur photographer. It is often said I have a rope in one hand and a camera in the other! It is sad to learn that displaying one's artwork has to become a commercial entity and a mountain of paperwork.

To learn more and keep up with this conservative morass, please visit and support the Free Speech Coalition or do a Google search of "2257"

So... Mr. Gonzales, yes you can still ruin my day. Thanks for nothing...

-Lthrbound