Anonymous Comes for Hunter Moore – Moore’s Man Card Revoked

December 1, 2012

Anonymous has now targeted Hunter Moore.

In a release published today, Anon writes:

Greetings citizens of the world, We are Anonymous.

This is a call to all Anonymous worldwide, you have a chance to make a real difference in the lives of hundreds of bullied teenagers and protect them from real harm such as rape or stalking.

Hunter Moore, Founder of previous revenge pornography site is coming back stronger than ever from the shutdown of his previous website. This capitalist makes money off of the misery of others.

People submit pictures of others naked to his website and he posted their social networking profiles along with the pictures.

This time he is taking it a step further and plans to list physical addresses next to the victims pictures along with a map to their house, self proclaiming that he has singlehandedly enabled the stalking of hundreds.

His servers are up. he already has domains he is secretly testing and will go public soon. He hides behind a loophole of section 230 of the United States online decency act which states he cannot be held legally accountable for third party submitted content.

This is a call to all of anonymous. We Will hold hunter moore accountable for his actions, we will protect anyone who is victimized by abuse of our internet, we will prevent the stalking, rape, and possible murders as byproduct of his sites.

Operation Anti-Bully. Operation Hunt Hunter engaged. We are Anonymous, we are Legion, we do not Forgive, we do not Forget, Hunter Moore, EXPECT US. (source)

I applaud them for it. I do have one issue with the missive — I don’t think that Moore is as protected by Section 230 as he likes to believe.

But, lets set the legal issues aside for this post: Moore is a douchebag, and deserves everything that Anonymous may throw at him. Here’s why:

Once upon a time, girls weren’t all paranoid about being raped, having shit slipped in their drink, or being stalked. Then, douchebags discovered rohypnol, stalking, etc., which ushered in a new era of “Why has this asshole just showed up at my table with a drink in his hand? Does he think I’m an idiot?”

Now, thanks to these clowns, you need to convince the girl that she should have sex with you AND that you’re not going to rape her or cut her into little pieces. Girls who were once approachable are scared to death to even have a conversation with you in a bar. All because of douchebags who need to circumvent rejection with drugs. And stalking. Lots and lots of stalking.

The douchebag’s MO is to shit out a cloud of fear. That cloud of fear supports an ecosystem that only benefits two kinds of people — other douchebags and second-wave feminists who absolutely love women in fear, because it makes their bullshit message resonate with just enough terrified women to keep a few of them signing up for their classes. Never forget the best way to control behavior is through FEAR. Just like the TSA, fear creates a justification for existence. There is the implied message of “If you challenge me, I’ll fucking spank you, so you better choose wisely.” But, if you take away fear, the assholes evaporate.

Involuntary Porn sites (like those run by Hunter Moore, Eric Chanson, Craig Brittain, and Chance Trahan) are the online equivalent of the asshole who goes to a bar with roofies in his pocket, or who stalks a girl who won’t give him the time of day. They punish all women through fear because they got rejected by their high school prom date or some chick in a bar or…whatever. They get off on the smell of fear and the resultant power over a woman and this is the drug that gives them the warm tinglys.

Imagine if no women had to live in fear of a shithead ex-boyfriend or these dickless fucks. Forget the morality of what they do, if you want, and think about from a purely utilitarian / economic perspective. Without these nimrods, a woman would always feel comfortable letting you take naked pictures of her. Women would feel comfortable sending you those pics as a “hey good morning” present. More naked pictures of girls means a better world for everyone, in my humble opinion.

Real men don’t get off on scaring women. Real men get off on trying to take that fear away.

Not because we are nice, or chivalrous. OK, some of us are, but more importantly, it’s because we want more naked pics and Hunter More and Craig Brittain are fucking with that.

So fuck you, Hunter Moore. Fuck you, Eric Chanson. Fuck you, Chance Trahan. And Fuck you, Craig Brittain.

Any man who gets off on putting women in fear loses his man card.

Good hunting, Anonymous.

Subcultures that make no sense

November 24, 2010

By J. DeVoy

For example, the hipsters seen in this video. (Be cautious depending on your employer.)  It’s just YouTube, so why am I not linking to it?  It’s not particularly work safe, and there’s an open 18 U.S.C. § 2257 question about the appropriate documentation for this work, whose protagonist starts masturbating in front of a crowd of identical-looking nonconformists.  (I didn’t see the requisite disclosures under 28 C.F.R. § 75.1 et seq, either, though I understand that ensuring compliance with the law isn’t all that hip.)  Yes, we’d probably be a “distributor” within the scope of the statute and its regulations, but why assume any potential risk when we can push it upstream to YouTube and Google?

I know that we have to defend all forms of expression but… seriously, what the fuck is this shit?  The first two minutes are a stunning allegory for today’s youth, bumbling with a can opener and trying to attach it to a container of Spaghetti-O’s – of all things – at a 90 degree angle.  Also, note how winded the main character gets when trying to open the can, an ever-present reminder of the youth obesity epidemic.

Then comes the “everything is shit” monologue.  Well, yes.  That’s one of those things so obvious it doesn’t need to be pointed out to anyone.  I would like to see something similar at trial, though, and it could make a good kamikaze closing argument in a number of cases.  The next time you’re in front of a judge or jury, forget their emotions; just try to shock and bewilder them by smearing brown, gooey Spaghetti-Os over your Jos. A Banks suit – one of three you can get for the price of one at any time – and explain that, “ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we are shit, this is all shit, and we seek meaning where there is none.”  If you think that wouldn’t work, it’s because it won’t, and is the kind of lazy thinking that qualifies as self-empowerment these days.  If someone makes something, it’s considered inherently valuable.  Expression’s right to exist under the First Amendment, though, doesn’t account for taste, decorum or novelty.

The video devolves into guttural utterances and the above-described masturbation, all of which are met with cheers and applause.  Good for the actors and audience, expressing themselves and encouraging one another, but they’re doing it wrong.  The freedom to express yourself does not mean you’re good, or even mediocre.  If anything, it should encourage the kind of criticism that sends the unoriginal back to the drawing board or, if such criticism is received early enough, into the warm embrace of an accounting firm.  While people have the right to put on performance art pieces like this, people need to remember that the pendulum swings in both directions — they have the right to criticize this kind of nonsense, even if not the duty to do so.

Also, this is the culmination of a not insubstantial portion of federal, state and local education budgets.  17+ years of costly schooling culminating in live-action nonsense?  Looks like a great investment to me.  And I sincerely hope the film’s heroine thought through her life and realized what potential employers might think of her before appearing on camera.  We’d all like to think life is one big tolerance festival, but actions do have consequences.

3d Circuit: “No child porn charges in sexting case”

March 19, 2010

by Jason Fischer

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down its decision this week in the Pennsylvania “sexting” case, in which a prosecutor threatened to press child porn charges against a group of teenage girls for sending cell phone pictures of themselves in bras and underwear.  You can read our anti-gender-bias coverage of the oral arguments here.  In upholding the preliminary injunction requested by the girls’ parents, the Third has declared that District Attorney George P. Skumanick, Jr., cannot use the threat of prosecution to bully them into a court-ordered “re-education” program.  (source)

While education may be the right medicine (if you believe that there’s some disease), that decision is for the teens and their parents to make — not some jackass, let’s-think-outside-the-box DA who thinks he somehow knows what’s best.  As much as I hate the ACLU for politically motivated meddling in the other direction, for once I’m glad they’re helping these families file a civil rights claim against Mr. Skumanick.  (Read that complaint here.)

Did Perez Hilton fail to comply with § 2257 guidelines?

March 17, 2010

By J. DeVoy

At True/Slant, there’s speculation that noted celebrity blogger Perez Hilton may have violated Federal obscenity laws.  The upshot:

According to [WYB], the online home of Adult Video News, the adult movie industry’s trade publication, Hilton’s March 15 post, “Chuy Is an Official Porn Star!” [WYB], does not follow 18 U.S.C. § 2257 guidelines. The code requires websites that post explicit sexual content to comply to various regulations and rules, including a link to a “2257 compliance statement containing the name and address of the custodian of records, who is required to keep records relating to the age and identity of the performers in the content, as well as other information,” writes’s Tom Hymes. Hilton’s post doesn’t.

2257 regulations were born out of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, and it may behoove Hilton to note that “Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.” The vast majority of producers of adult content are intimately familiar with the finer nuances of the regulations and follow them dutifully so as not to be targeted by the Feds. And it’s not only those who produce adult content that must comply; it includes so-called “secondary producers,” defined as “anyone who ‘publishes, reproduces, or reissues’ explicit material.” Including Perez.

The post further notes that Obama’s administration, notably Attorney General Eric Holder, lacks the zeal of former AG’s Alberto Gonzales and Ed Meese in prosecuting pornography crimes.  From my volunteer stint at a United States Attorney’s Office, Gonzales’s crusade seemed to consume a significant amount of office resources.  But, those days appear to be over.

Nevertheless, obscenity charges against Hilton would be a just dessert for the kind of degenerate crap he’s pushed on mainstream culture over the years, pulling it deeper into the cesspool of meaningless distraction — even though his day job is lawful.  Something similar happened to O.J. Simpson.  In the end, hubris betrays all who fancy it.

Has the Sixth Circuit Declared Jihad on the First Amendment?

February 27, 2009

by Jason Fischer

Twice in two weeks, the Sixth Circuit has handed down decisions that are targeted at burdening the adult entertainment industry. As we pointed out in an earlier post and as Professor Salkin explains, the Sixth upheld a questionable Tennessee regulation that creates special licensing requirements for “sexually-oriented businesses.” They also did a number on their previous ruling concerning Section 2257.

If you are an avid reader of the Legal Satyricon, then you are familiar with the infamous little piece of federal legislation which can be found at Title 18, Section 2257 of the United States Code. If not, you can find a little light reading on the subject here and here.

Section 2257 lays out the record-keeping requirements that any producer of sexually explicit images or video must follow, in order to verify that none of the participants is underage. Sounds reasonable, right? Gotta make sure that no one is making child pornography, right? Fair enough, but that isn’t what this particular piece of legislation is doing. It’s suppressing other forms of expression that have nothing to do with underage performers.

As written, Section 2257 requires anyone, who takes dirty pictures or films a naughty movie, must keep special records that show the identity and age of all participants. “Anyone” includes you and your spouse – no matter how old you both are, even if you never plan on showing your kink materials to anyone else. Section 2257 also requires that you and your spouse attach a notice to all of your dirty pictures and naughty movies, which indicates where those records can be found. If a member of the law enforcement community comes to that place, where those records are to be kept, the records must be provided upon request – no warrant required. Failure to do any of the foregoing will result in criminal liability.

It doesn’t take a hard-core civil libertarian to see the issues with a statute that makes punishable, by up to five years in federal prison, constitutionally protected conduct which was perfectly legal before the statute was enacted.

Recognizing these problems with the law, Connection Distributing Co., a publisher of a swingers’ magazines, filed an action in federal court, seeking to invalidate the statute. Late in 2007, after fighting the legal battle for more than ten years, Connection received a victory when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Section 2257 was unconstitutional. For an in-depth discussion of that ruling, along with plenty of analysis of the First Amendment problems with the law, you can read up on it here.

This would have been the end of the matter, except that the powers that be determined that the issue was too important to be decided by a three-judge panel. As a result, the case was reviewed by seventeen judges, sitting en banc, and that panel decided to reverse the original holding. The court’s full opinion can be found here, but below are the high points:

Our government cannot enact laws that regulate speech based on its content – that would be censorship. Connection argued that Section 2257 was content-based regulation, which violates the First Amendment, because it only applies to certain kinds of images. In simple terms, Section 2257 burdens pictures that would be found in a photo-illustrated Karma Sutra, but not those found in a coffee table book about kittens. However, according to the court, it’s okay to ban speech, as long as the motives for doing so are not based on the content. The court reasons that “[s]o long . . . as the law addresses the collateral or ‘secondary effects’ of the expression, not the effect the expression itself will have on others, it will be treated as content neutral.”

“[T]he law [does not] implicate the central risk of a content-based regulation of speech: that the government has impermissibly interfered with the free exchange of ideas by imposing trade barriers on certain viewpoints but not on others. . . . No doubt, § 2257 favors a particular viewpoint on this issue: Congress is against child pornography and is using this law to prevent it. Although that kind of viewpoint discrimination normally would be fatal to a law, that is not true here because the Constitution allows the government to embrace this viewpoint and to act on it by imposing a complete trade barrier on the production and trafficking of this kind of speech. . . . What we have, then, is a valid speech-related end—eliminating child pornography—followed by a means of achieving that end, a proof-of-age requirement that refers to the content of the speech (specifically defined images) not because of its effect on the audience but because it is the kind of speech that implicates the government’s ban on child pornography. That kind of sensible reference to the content of speech—how else would the government impose a proof-of-age requirement designed to address child pornography?—does not rise to the level of a presumptively impermissible content-based regulation of speech.”

Judge Sutton, who authored the majority opinion, seems to ignore the fact that Congress has already imposed a “complete trade barrier” around child pornography. It has enacted laws that make the production of child pornography illegal. See 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (2006). There are also laws that make transportation, shipping, receiving, and distribution of child pornography illegal. See id. § 2252. In contrast to 2257, these provisions are narrowly tailored to target the specific, permissible goal of Congress that Sutton describes. Shouldn’t they be enough?

Six of the seventeen judges seemed to think so. In four separate dissenting opinions, those judges expressed concern about the application of Section 2257 to private couples, engaged in First Amendment protected conduct while in the privacy of their own homes. Judge Kennedy was not comforted by the assertions, made by the Attorney General, that those couples would not be prosecuted.

“Because federal criminal statutes outlast Attorneys General, the reach of the statute’s text, not a promise from law enforcement nor a recently enacted regulation, is the proper focus of our inquiry.”

Central to the dispute between the majority and the dissenters was the question of how many people, who are engaged in normally lawful activities, would be caught up in the “sweep” of Section 2257. How many is too many? How many is enough to call the statute “overbroad”?

“The majority states that the question of substantiality is: When ‘is it appropriate to invalidate a law in all of its applications when its invalidity can be shown (or assumed) in just some of its applications?’ . . . That could very well be framed as: ‘When is it appropriate to adjudicate unconstitutional applications of a statute on a case-by-case basis versus invalidating a law in its entirety because of some unconstitutional applications?’ The second formulation not only brings to life a central concern that runs throughout overbreadth–namely that unconstitutional applications otherwise may never make it before the court because speakers refrain from speaking, injuring speech and leaving few left to challenge the unconstitutional law–it also presents for consideration the burden–as it pertains to the substantiality of overbreadth–on a private couple in challenging the law as-applied.”

Another constitutional issue, which was raised by some of Connection’s subscribers, was based in the Fifth Amendment’s protection from self-incrimination. Everyone has the right to “remain silent” when they are the subject of a criminal investigation. The problem here is that the regulations surrounding Section 2257 allow law enforcement to use the records, provided in compliance with that statute, as evidence in other matters that are unrelated to the content for which the records were created. The majority refrained from ruling on this particular challenge, claiming that the issue was not ripe for review.

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Clay describes the danger of leaving the law intact:

“[T]he statute itself no longer begins and ends with the record-keeping requirement; because of the 2003 amendment, it now includes the threat of criminal prosecution for child pornography, sexual exploitation of children, and obscenity, based on information in the records required by the statute. . . . Because the statute now explicitly authorizes the government to use the identifying information for the purpose of prosecuting other crimes, the fear of Connection’s law-abiding advertisers that they may one day be subject to criminal investigation or prosecution is not unreasonable. To minimize this concern by stating that adult swingers who follow the law have nothing to fear ignores the reality that law-abiding people unfortunately can mistakenly become the targets of criminal prosecutions, with all of the accompanying burdens.”

One has to wonder if the judges that voted to uphold 2257 are allowing their own personal morality to motivate their decision. Should that kind of results-oriented jurisprudence really be allowed? This observer thinks not. Morality and legality are not the same thing. Isn’t preventing this kind of situation precisely the reason why the First Amendment is part of our Constitution? What say you?

An Inside Look at the Adult Entertainment Industry’s Fight to Stamp Out Child Pornography

June 8, 2008

Many anti-porn activists like to try to connect adult entertainment with child pornography as a means to build support for their desire to roll back the First Amendment. Let’s face it, screaming “protect the children,” is a good way to get a lot of people to set aside logic and get them on your side.

However, those who have any regular contact with the adult entertainment industry already know that the industry has zero involvement with productions involving children. In fact, the adult entertainment industry is the child pornographer’s worst enemy. Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert recently published an article that shines some light on the facts. See Untangling Child Pornography From The Adult Entertainment Industry: An Inside Look at the Industry’s Efforts to Protect Minors,” 44 Cal. W. L. Rev. 511 (2008)

Calvert and Richards highlight the efforts of the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP, Anti porn zealots would probably be surprised to learn that ASACP, founded in 1996, is a non-profit organization fully funded by the adult entertainment industry to fight internet child pornography and to help parents prevent children from viewing age-inappropriate material online. ASACP investigates thousands of reports per month to determine the hosting, billing, IP address, ownership, and linkage of suspected child pornography sites and then forwards the information to law enforcement, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), and hotlines in other countries.

The article includes interviews with attorneys and activists in order to shed light, on how ASACP works to fight internet child porn. The interviews highlight the difficulty the adult industry faces both in stopping politicians from linking mainstream adult entertainment to child pornography and in changing public perception about this conflation.

“In a highly ironic twist, while adult entertainment industry-funded ASACP is aiding law enforcement to stamp out child pornography, the FBI is simultaneously conducting age-verification and record-keeping inspections, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2257, of adult movie companies to ensure they are not using underage performers, which would be tantamount to creating child pornography.”

Calvert and Richards dispel some popular misconceptions about the adult entertainment industry, such as the fanciful problem of underage performers in the mainstream adult movie business.

ASACP director Joan Irvine states, “I do not see one [a problem with underage performers] and, in fact, there really hasn’t been one. The adult industry is by adults and for adults. We don’t see it, people aren’t doing it and it is not worth it.” On politicians who have tried to link the adult porn industry with child pornography, “[t]hey didn’t get the distinction between them. I also really do believe that the current administration is generally anti-adult entertainment. There are almost no data that could ever even show that the adult industry was involved with underage children in movies and, thus, child pornography. With our hotline, for the first time, we actually have empirical data that show no involvement. Before, the industry didn’t have that data, so the government could say, “Go show us the data.” Irvine goes on to recall how, “[a]t one of the last meetings that I went to, Dan Larkin, an FBI forensic specialist, said “We know the industry is not involved in this and that it is organized crime that is involved in child pornography, mainly out of the Eastern European bloc countries.”

The article discusses how adult entertainment insider, Alec Helmy, started ASACP. Helmy “wanted to have a place where Webmasters could report it and not feel that they were going to be investigated for reporting it, because we don’t keep IP addresses.” The article sums up the ASACP’s ongoing fight against child pornography and those who make and distribute it, quoting Irvine again, “[c]hild pornography doesn’t exist in the industry, but the perception exists. Child porn is a big one, but we’ve gotten it to a point where we have a handle on it and we’re working with the right people. They know and recognize us for being able to handle it.”

In an “academic” environment too-often polluted by anti-freedom crybabies, it is refreshing to see work like this — work that actually examines the facts about the link between adult porn and child porn. Once the “link” is effectively examined, the authors come to the unshakable conclusion that not only is there no connection, but that the adult entertainment industry is a child pornographer’s greatest enemy and worst nightmare.

-Zac Papantoniou (guest blogger)

Connection Distributing v. Keisler – Section 2257 Struck Down

November 14, 2007

Now that the far right has managed to pack the federal courts, it is becoming more and more rare to see a good old-fashioned speech protective case come down from a higher court. The Sixth Circuit recently reaffirmed that the First Amendment does, indeed, mean something when it struck down 18 U.S.C. § 2257 – the adult media record keeping law that has plagued the industry for more than a decade. See Connection Distributing v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 545 (6th Cir. 2007).

The Background – The War on Sex

Social conservatives on both the right and left take great delight in attempting to carve out an erotic speech exception to the First Amendment. The far right thinks that their imaginary friend knows what is best for us – and that is that we shouldn’t have access to erotic materials. The far left is just as bad – believing that they know how to bring us to utopia, and banning erotica is a cobblestone in that road. Neither have any respect for the First Amendment. (For a great discussion of the issue of erophobia, see Dr. Marty Klein, America’s War on Sex).

For the most part, these efforts have not been successful. Outright bans on adult entertainment are unconstitutional. Attempts by misguided left-leaning paternalists to create private causes of action engineered to drive erotica out of business have been no more successful. See, e.g., American Booksellers Ass’n. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985).

However, when Congress passed 18 U.S.C. § 2257, it inaugurated a new, creative, and somewhat scary “third front” in the war on sexual expression. Forged in the fires of the Meese Commission, Section 2257 attempted to drive adult entertainment out of business by simply making it too burdensome to produce it. Read the rest of this entry »

2257 Inspections in Florida!

September 26, 2007

XBiz reports that the FBI has conducted five 2257 inspections in the state of Florida, and that all five turned up violations. (source). None of the violations were due to underage performers, and appear to be mere bookkeeping problems.

Prior post – how to handle a 2257 inspection.