Disagree with there Bt UN has try pass resolution take your right as american owen guns way from you. The current whitehouse has agree with ever resilution that UN has want pass sighn off buy secretary Hillary Clinton support buy Obama him self. Sent UN resolution buy pass US congress can take way are right guns it such strech see come up resolution that bill internet like phone company does add rules from counrty that are not freindly porn indusrty taxs that not friendly porn indusrty. Ingor what UN gone do internet is bad idea becuase put counrtys that hate porn indusrty in charge of the market place which they sell most of there goods. If cash hungery counrty want quike money there gone tax right out porn indusrty if UN has way. Want proof that watch are owen US goverment sueing all major private owen banks for billions dallors pay for give out fan-may freddy mack housing loans which the force private bank do so.

The larger important issues are related to the health of the community. On other sites, porn producers and performers routinely say things like the clap, chlymidia, herpes and syphillis are the cost of doing business and HIV is rare. What’s the big deal? There is simply no other industry where government says: Hey, if you’re going to enter that business, you deserve what’s coming to you. Even boxers have to wear certain ounce gloves and pass physicals to fight and referees have to wear latex gloves due to the risk of permanent injury and the potential to pass on a disease. Do you really think a boxing referee is at more risk of contracting a disease from exposure to bodily fluids than a porn actor?

The porn industry has threatened to leave California if the condom measure passes. Per a post today on Adult FYI, that’s easier said than done since the production of porn is illegal in all states except California and New Hampshire. Does it happen anyway? Sure, on a small scale because state attorney generals have other things to worry about than chasing after a few guys making porn. But, if the industry tries to move into a new state and scale their businesses up to the extent the industry exists in California, that’s another thing. Now they are a target. Remember: Cincinatti shut down Larry Flynnt.

The threat that it will go off-shore – that’s potentially real. But is talent going to pack up and move en masse to some new locale? Probably not. That means production companies would have to transport talent to these new locations. Put aside the Mann Act. Can porn companies that are already operating on thin margins afford to add transportation costs for nearly every shoot to their production budgets?

The other threat is that porn will just go underground. That may be true for smaller, gonzo guys. But the major production companies want to be recognized as legitimate, main stream businesses that sell a legitimate product to a public that wants to buy it. That’s the only way they create a business with value rather than simply make a quick buck. Going underground destroys that whole concept. You’re back to the 1960’s and ’70s when porn was an outlaw industry with ties to the mafia. Irresponsibility invites more scrutiny and government action.

Since the days of Max Hardcore, donkey punches and Rob Black taunting the Feds to come after him, Mike has been saying that porn is inviting trouble. He was absolutely correct. If the industry had operated in a responsible manner, government would mostly just leave the industry alone. Act like irresponsible cowboys and you deal with the blow back.

I care becuase if like see your favirta porn star on internet. You may not be able to see her if UN get there way. Most porn indusrty sales are done on the internet today like or not if internet get regulate buy UN counrtys that are not friendly porn indusrty like China are gone pick chose what you see what you on see internet than charge price for how long how your there where you go what you do on internet. Freedom spech on internet well be in control buy UN counrtys back measure mean there well be no such thing freedom of speech. If porn star can not sell her web site porn indusrty can not sell products on the internet than UN take over internet much bigger threat than condoms in porn indusrty. After all porn indusrty can not make money on Internet it no longer be indusrty.

Who cares? The internet is always going to be a risk. I think what is more important is seeing the condom mandate getting approved by the voters and the female talent getting more protection from std and potential exposure to HIV.

Heck with the tax on the internet! That’s a least of a worry these days.

Is the U.N. Trying to Tax the Internet

So are they or aren’t they? Earlier today, eyebrows were raised sharply when it was reported that the UN (United Nations) was considering a new internet tax on web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple and Netflix. The proposal, which was leaked today, has been allegedly introduced by ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators Association), a Brussels-based group representing such companies as Belgacom, SwissCom, Cyta, Eircom and Deutsche Telecom, and will be officially discussed at the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in December.

The proposal would allegedly amend an existing telecommunications treaty, the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITR), by imposing heavy costs on popular web sites and their network providers. The idea is that huge content providers like Apple and Google should be forced to pay fees linked to usage – data heavy sites like those tend to use lots of bandwidth. It’s akin to the system used for international phone calls, where the recipient’s network sets the pricing for calls; before the availability of voice over internet protocol (VOIP) like Skype, U.S. phone companies used to pay billions of dollars in fees for the privilege of facilitating calls abroad. In the world of the internet, the fear is that this kind of “pay as you go” system would restrict the availability of the internet to users in developing countries.

However, despite the reports, ETNO says that it is not asking the UN to tax the internet. While the ETNO does not deny that it believes that the way that content providers use the internet should be changed, it stopped short of calling for an actual tax, saying instead that it wants telecommunications network operators to consider making deals with content providers. Additionally, the ETNO has hinted that significant changes to the ITR are sure to come; the treaty has not been altered much in the nearly 25 years it has been in existence while the internet has actually changed dramatically.

ETNO claims that changes would lead to a “new sustainable model for the internet”, with its Executive Board Chair, Luigi Gambardella, saying:
“The revised ITRs should acknowledge the challenges of the new Internet economy and the principles that fair compensation is received for carried traffic and operators’ revenues should not be disconnected from the investment needs caused by rapid Internet traffic growth. The ITRs should be flexible enough so as to further encourage future growth and sustainable development of telecoms markets, while respecting the guiding principles that led to the successful development of the Internet: private sector leadership, independent multi-stakeholder governance and commercial agreements.

But not everyone is on board with the proposed changes. Google’s Vinton Cerf has been vocal about the need to counter efforts to regulate the internet through the U.N., as countries gear up for the ITU. He worries that such regulations could restrict the freedom of the internet through such features as per-click taxes. Specifically, Cerf voiced concern that:

The open Internet has never been at higher risk than it is now… A new international battle is brewing — a battle that will determine the future of the Internet. It’s clear that the explosive growth of the internet has both created challenges and opportunities for the private sector. How the intersection of government and the private sector might affect our use of the internet is worth watching. ETNO’s proposal won’t be officially discussed until December – but expect lots of chatter about it until then.

I agree with many that any performer who chooses to use a condom should be allowed to do so under Industry practice. However Measure B will change the nature of pornography (and possibly obscenity prosecutions) drastically overnight. The porn industry is fill of misogynistic assholes but Measure B is truly an invasion on free speech.

For instance, amateur content producers who prefer not to use condoms would find it more difficult to distribute their product on video. And sure, you may say they’re always the internet but we don’t know how obscenity prosecutions would be going forward. With the passage of Measure B, the scope of sexual activity depicted in content will be further limited and content that is now considered standard and “safe” might find themselves under renewed scrutiny by obscenity prosecutors.

So, I feel deeply for you Brooke but Measure B is not the way to go.

Different points of view..said respectfully.

Plus they can see that 1+1=2 and Weinstein and his flunkys are using smoke and mirrors to make a minor problem into a mountain of drama where none really exists.