This is what needs to be stopped.
Call to action, please redistribute widely.
The Stop Porn Culture Slide Show Training Program includes a script, tips for conducting the session; it also includes the power Point Visual presentation, which contains pornographic material. They are saying that this slide show falls under the preview of Fair Use.
However, as it can now be watched, downloaded, viewed, reproduced, and yes, even sold, the creators of Stop Porn Culture, or anyone and everyone else who wishes to showcase, distribute, or otherwise use the material in the slide show is in violation of Federal Law 2257.
Never mind that not a one of the performers featured in this “educational tool” were asked their opinions, or for their consent, nor were the companies that originally produced the images…but now see, there are questions of a Federal Law which applies to Pornographers, and as these people have essentially made themselves such, the law also applies to them. Any person exhibiting pornography, even if it is free, is beholden to 2257, this includes SPC, and those who run this seminar. You will note, at the end of the presentation, there is a claim of copyright over images already subject to copyright, and used without permission.
You will also note, their attempts to keep this material out of the hands of minors are scant at best.
I encourage everyone to write a letter of protest the organizers of the SPC Training Program, inform anyone and everyone you know who is pondering doing one of these sessions of the lack of 2257 compliance and lack of consent on the part of the performers and owners of the images, and if necessary, alert legal authorities to the use of this slideshow where ever it may occur.
Oh, and I am curious, are people CARDED before attending one of these events? Viewing the slideshow on line? If not, then anyone and everyone involved in this program is guilty of showing pornography to minors…oddly enough, John Stagliano is in court for such things… do the same laws not apply?
Enough. If Pornographers must comply with 2257, so must their adversaries.
June 29, 2008 | Filed Under Blog | Comments Off
In an email thread with potential organizers of next year’s Sex 2.0, I said something that I felt was worth reposting here, as it kind of gives a basic idea of what my “vision” was with Sex 2.0. It can also be extrapolated to other causes/events/etc.
In response to Match‘s question:
3. Did the conf pay for travel/boarding for any speakers?
I answered:
You’re funny! Unless you count Dacia staying at my place, nope.
On the one hand I wish we could’ve, but that would’ve taken a shit-ton more money than I even dreamed of being able to raise. I do feel very strongly that people deserve to be paid for their hard work, including speaking, presentations, etc. – and I resent the fact that oftentimes in “progressive” circles, it’s taken as a given that people will do things “pro bono,” or they’re seen as greedy or somehow bad if they expect compensation for their efforts.
On the other hand, since fundamentally this was an unconference, setting up a hierarchy of “speaker” vs. “not-speaker” defeats the purpose. There was no call for papers. Sessions did not have to be pre-approved. Basically if somebody wanted to lead a session, they said so, and sent me a description and I posted it on the web site. It was first come, first served.
So I would caveat my first statement (“on the one hand”) by pointing out that those expectations are reasonable in some circumstances and not in others. I feel like w/ Sex 2.0, there’s a real spirit of community and all of us working for a greater good – and recognizing that we DON’T get a lot of funding, bc we have to fight tooth and nail for what little we get bc of the stigma. I feel like there was passion behind Sex 2.0 that I’ve rarely seen elsewhere.
Y’all certainly don’t have to structure it as an unconference next year if you don’t want to. Seriously, you can and should do whatever you want! Personally I think the unconference model works for Sex 2.0 in maintaining and fostering the sex commons that Elizabeth Wood spoke about. To me it makes sense for Sex 2.0 to be a space for non-hierarchical, collaborative learning. We all have things to teach and things to learn.
Finally, I will caveat THAT by saying that while I really enjoy the unconference model, I think if taken too far it descends into unmanageable chaos. I’ve had a few people lecture me on why I shouldn’t call Sex 2.0 an unconference, since it doesn’t use the “open space” model. I think these people are, quite simply, assholes – and I welcome them to run their own sex conference if they’re so full of bright ideas. I just think asking people to travel across the country without SOME idea of what to expect in terms of sessions, participants, etc. is unrealistic. I think it works best to strike a balance between the two extremes – build a general framework of expectations, and let the content grow organically.
[Cross-posted at Being Amber Rhea]
The board and judges of the Sex-Positive Journalism Awards are proud to announce the winners of the 2008 Sexies. Selected from over 100 entries submitted by both writers and readers, the winning entries cover subjects from sex in nursing homes, prostitution, and sex in Iran to Kink.com and panics over Internet sex. The winning articles were published in a dozen states in all corners of the United States (and one Canadian province), and represent a range of genres, from news to advice columns.
What they all have in common, however, is that they succeed in embodying the Sexies criteria for sex-positive journalism far better than the vast majority of their counterparts, helping to improve the quality of dialogue around sex and create a more well-informed reading public. “Too many mentions of sex in the media recapitulate our culture’s biases about sexuality and sexual diversity, especially as far as ‘controversial’ topics are concerned,” says Sexies judge (and writer, Good Vibrations Staff Sexologist, and Center for Sex & Culture founding director) Carol Queen, Ph.D. “Publications’ editors are too often afraid to let their writers show all sides, and certainly the sex-positive side, of a story. The Sexies give us a forum to highlight the exceptions, and hopefully shine a light by which all journalists can see more clearly.”
The first-place winners are:
News or feature (daily newspapers): “Never Too Old for Sex,” by Jill Bauer, Miami Herald News story (other general-topic news publications*): “Hysteria, Exploitation, and Witch Hunting in the Age of Internet Sex,” by Debbie Nathan, Counterpunch
Feature (other general-topic news publications*): “Naughty Nursing Homes,” by Daniel Engber, Slate
News or feature (sex-themed news publications): “Sex in Iran,” by Pari Esfandiari and Richard Buskin, Playboy
Opinion (all news publications): “Abstinence 1, S-CHIP 0,” by Amanda Robb, New York Times
Column (all news publications): Between the Briefs, by Alysha Rooks, Res Gestae, University of Michigan Law School
Click here for a full list of all the winners, with links to online versions of their stories where available, and comments from the judges. All entries were read by at least two members of the Sexies judges panel, including at least one with a journalism background. Copies of those winning stories not available online can be provided to the media upon request.
Awards will be presented at a cocktail party open to the public in New York City in October. Details will be announced shortly. (Sign up on our mailing list to receive updates.) The Sexies are seeking volunteers to help with the event and donors for a raffle to be held there. Raffle proceeds will help defray the costs of starting and maintaining the awards, the only journalism awards to exclusively address sex-positive coverage. For more info, contact us.
The Sexies are the brainchild of journalist Miriam Axel-Lute, and were brought about in collaboration with writers, readers, and activists from The Center for Sex & Culture and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.
The Sexies board thanks all the writers and readers who sent in entries, and encourages all of the writers who entered or were nominated to keep up their crucial work. Submissions for the 2009 Sexies are open and they will be accepted through March 2009 at www.sexies.org/submit.php.
The Sexies would also like to thank our corporate sponsors, Babeland (founding sponsor), Alt Life Films, The Playboy Foundation, and XBIZ, and all of our individual donors. It’s not too late to become part of that sex-positive number: www.sexies.org/support.html.
###
(Original post)
June 16, 2008 | Filed Under Blog | Comments Off
