First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
Post Reply Questionable Crunchyroll Advertisements
Posted 7/26/15

BlueOni wrote:


nooneinparticular wrote:

Could be risky. There are laws against knowingly giving minors explicit images and with CR having profiles for their user, many of which list age, running that ad for someone who says they are a minor could very well be illegal.

Some are pretty broad in there definition of explicit imagery. eg http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.059.003.000..HTM



(1) any picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, videotape or similar visual representation or image of a person or portion of the human body which depicts nudity, sexual conduct, or sadomasochistic abuse and which is harmful to minors;


That's a two-pronged provision, and I don't think anyone's going to be able to demonstrate harm brought on by the ad unless the definition of "harm" they're using is so laughably wide that it really ought to be stricken from the books. If we define the content of that ad as harmful it's no leap to say that the various volumes of the Rosario Vampire manga are harmful, and that means bookstores in Pennsylvania would have to either stop selling them altogether or put them off in an inaccessible "adult" section (which would be ridiculous and summon a furious outcry from booksellers, publishers, and manga consumers). Like I tried to show with my Newtype USA and bookstore examples: there's no harm being done. There's been plenty of time for harmful effects to emerge (decades), and they haven't.

Besides, given that ads are selected randomly from the list one might argue that CR isn't actively providing this content to minors, and that minors' exposure thereto is thus not a premeditated (and thus "knowing") act on CR's part. One might try to angle "knowing" provision (assuming harmfulness is somehow demonstrated and that CR composes its own ad lists) in CR's failure to have two separate lists of ads for self-reported minors and self-reported adults. But honestly, even if that would cover their backsides legally I'm wholly unconvinced that such separation would make one iota of substantial difference in whether minors are exposed to the content in question. We all know perfectly well that it's not actually reasonably possible for CR to verify that someone is at or above the age of majority when they say they are, so sorting ad content by age would be a meaningless gesture which minors could (and do) circumvent throughout the internet despite efforts on the part of website owners to collect accurate information from end users. They do not, and cannot, know who is sitting at the monitor or television even if valid credit card information is a prerequisite to accessing the content in question, and the technology website owners have at their disposal is such that minors can't reasonably be prevented from circumventing age filtering in one way or another.

It just seems like a big waste of time over something that's not even harmful, but if people want ad filtering based on self-reported age I think CR might accommodate if only to please its consumers and cover its backside.


My intent wasn't to argue for the merit of, only the existence of such laws. The simplest solution would appear to be remove age from profiles as violating the law is predicated on actual knowledge or information suggesting one is dealing with a minor.
Harmful in this case meaning a violation of the subjective standards imposed by a legislative body.
The definition of harmful in that law is based on the Supreme Court's Miller test for obscenity and relies on community (defined as the state in this law) standards for the first two prongs of the test, an extremely subjective standard. Used no doubt cause it is the only standard to pass constitutional muster for the censorship of sexual content. It seems extremely unlikely that it would be a reliable indicator of actual done by consuming the content, but such is the way with "think of the children" legislation. Prosecutors are nothing if not opportunistic.

The randomness of the ad selection seems unlikely to be convincing since part of the standard for "knowingly" is "reason to believe", an age in a profile even if inaccurate would seem to satisfy it.


Knowingly" means having general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of both:
(i) the character and content of any material or performance described herein which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant; and
(ii) the age of the minor: Provided, however, That an honest mistake shall constitute an excuse from liability hereunder if the defendant made a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of such minor.


Accuracy of age validation has rarely been a concern, at least in cases I am aware of. They mostly seem concerned with the cases were there is reason to believe the person receiving it is a minor. In fact since COPA was found unconstitutional it seems age gating has become a rarity, they just don't ask any questions that might reveal age.
13650 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 7/26/15 , edited 8/27/15
You know, my problem with the ad is... it's more ecchi than the show! There have been no nipples in MonMusu!
35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/26/15

nooneinparticular wrote:

My intent wasn't to argue for the merit of, only the existence of such laws. The simplest solution would appear to be remove age from profiles as violating the law is predicated on actual knowledge or information suggesting one is dealing with a minor.
Harmful in this case meaning a violation of the subjective standards imposed by a legislative body.
The definition of harmful in that law is based on the Supreme Court's Miller test for obscenity and relies on community (defined as the state in this law) standards for the first two prongs of the test, an extremely subjective standard. Used no doubt cause it is the only standard to pass constitutional muster for the censorship of sexual content. It seems extremely unlikely that it would be a reliable indicator of actual done by consuming the content, but such is the way with "think of the children" legislation. Prosecutors are nothing if not opportunistic.

The randomness of the ad selection seems unlikely to be convincing since part of the standard for "knowingly" is "reason to believe", an age in a profile even if inaccurate would seem to satisfy it.


Knowingly" means having general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of both:
(i) the character and content of any material or performance described herein which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant; and
(ii) the age of the minor: Provided, however, That an honest mistake shall constitute an excuse from liability hereunder if the defendant made a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of such minor.


Accuracy of age validation has rarely been a concern, at least in cases I am aware of. They mostly seem concerned with the cases were there is reason to believe the person receiving it is a minor. In fact since COPA was found unconstitutional it seems age gating has become a rarity, they just don't ask any questions that might reveal age.


Well, CR? There you have it. Thank you much.
Posted 7/26/15

BlueOni wrote:


nooneinparticular wrote:

My intent wasn't to argue for the merit of, only the existence of such laws. The simplest solution would appear to be remove age from profiles as violating the law is predicated on actual knowledge or information suggesting one is dealing with a minor.
Harmful in this case meaning a violation of the subjective standards imposed by a legislative body.
The definition of harmful in that law is based on the Supreme Court's Miller test for obscenity and relies on community (defined as the state in this law) standards for the first two prongs of the test, an extremely subjective standard. Used no doubt cause it is the only standard to pass constitutional muster for the censorship of sexual content. It seems extremely unlikely that it would be a reliable indicator of actual done by consuming the content, but such is the way with "think of the children" legislation. Prosecutors are nothing if not opportunistic.

The randomness of the ad selection seems unlikely to be convincing since part of the standard for "knowingly" is "reason to believe", an age in a profile even if inaccurate would seem to satisfy it.


Knowingly" means having general knowledge of, or reason to know, or a belief or ground for belief which warrants further inspection or inquiry of both:
(i) the character and content of any material or performance described herein which is reasonably susceptible of examination by the defendant; and
(ii) the age of the minor: Provided, however, That an honest mistake shall constitute an excuse from liability hereunder if the defendant made a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of such minor.


Accuracy of age validation has rarely been a concern, at least in cases I am aware of. They mostly seem concerned with the cases were there is reason to believe the person receiving it is a minor. In fact since COPA was found unconstitutional it seems age gating has become a rarity, they just don't ask any questions that might reveal age.


Well, CR? There you have it. Thank you much.


Ok?




35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/26/15 , edited 7/26/15


I'm not sure of the "why" behind the question mark. This is an acceptance of your reasoning and acknowledgement of the simplicity of your solution. Since this thread is, if the moderators' comments herein are any indication, as much a problems and solutions, nuts and bolts thread as it is a debate about the appropriateness of the content in question, it's important that we try to come up with solutions. You presented a logical position about a potential concern and offered a straightforward solution. I'm acknowledging that, and thanking you for your provision of further information about how and why the statutes of potential concern would be applied.
Posted 7/26/15 , edited 7/26/15

BlueOni wrote:



I'm not sure of the "why" behind the question mark. This is an acceptance of your reasoning and acknowledgement of the simplicity of your solution. Since this thread is, if the moderators' comments herein are any indication, as much a problems and solutions, nuts and bolts thread as it is a debate about the appropriateness of the content in question, it's important that we try to come up with solutions. You presented a logical position about a potential concern and offered a straightforward solution. I'm acknowledging that, and thanking you for your provision of further information about how and why the statutes of potential concern would be applied.


I just wasn't entirely sure if it was a sarcastic response or not.

35017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 7/26/15

nooneinparticular wrote:

I just wasn't entirely sure if it was a sarcastic response.


Oh. A horse of a different colour, this. I condensed my response a little too much.
md4124 
47303 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/26/15 , edited 7/26/15
You're complaining about something that you get for free. If you paid for Crunchyroll you wouldn't get these advertisements.
Posted 7/26/15 , edited 7/26/15
Offered for free is not a shield from criticism.
16739 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 7/26/15 , edited 7/26/15

SweetPerplexity wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

13 year olds are looking up porn these days. I think they'll be ok with 2d/3d ecchi adverts...

I'm not sure if the mature content filter applies to ads or not, but either way, it's not a big deal really. It's common practice to advertise your sites material, regardless of what it may be.


Your first statement is subjective to your personal experiences based on interactions on the internet and 13 year olds you know in your life, you can't just generalise all 13 year olds like that.

Mature content filter didn't apply to that advertisement because I have mine turned on and I've still watched it 4 times.


I've been watching questionable stuff in hollywood movies since I was in single digits and have never checked ratings ever in my life. Suggestive stuff isn't understood by people that are too young.

Also... HAHA! You actually use the mature content filter!
1264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/28/15

Rujikin wrote:


SweetPerplexity wrote:


dotsforlife wrote:

13 year olds are looking up porn these days. I think they'll be ok with 2d/3d ecchi adverts...

I'm not sure if the mature content filter applies to ads or not, but either way, it's not a big deal really. It's common practice to advertise your sites material, regardless of what it may be.


Your first statement is subjective to your personal experiences based on interactions on the internet and 13 year olds you know in your life, you can't just generalise all 13 year olds like that.

Mature content filter didn't apply to that advertisement because I have mine turned on and I've still watched it 4 times.


I've been watching questionable stuff in hollywood movies since I was in single digits and have never checked ratings ever in my life. Suggestive stuff isn't understood by people that are too young.

Also... HAHA! You actually use the mature content filter!


I use the mature content filter to avoid over sexualised anime, unlike the surprising majority on this thread, I don't like to indulge in such material and don't watch anything 18+ in my spare time and I don't want to. I'm a spiritual person and I think it just poisons your mind, but everyone's entitled to their own opinion and perspective, I don't hate people who do indulge in 18+ content, but I do dislike it when they publicise it.
25139 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Beyond The Wall
Offline
Posted 7/28/15
I completely forgot CR had ads
37142 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 7/29/15


All better.
5233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 7/29/15
I am with you.
33924 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Florida
Offline
Posted 7/29/15
I think it's fine if you're watching another ecchi title.
It'd be bothersome if that would happen while watching, let's say, Non Non Biyori with family members.

Glad I'm premium.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.