Talk:Porn 2.0

message: This page says:
"Although 18 U.S.C. 2257 could very easily have caused the demise of the Porn 2.0 movement, a recent decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 2257 legislation was unconstitutional and violated first amendment rights.[6] While the government may still appeal the decision, this was a substantial vote of confidence for the viability of the Porn 2.0 model."
But looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act#Legal_challenges
"On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the federal record-keeping statute unconstitutional, holding that the law is overbroad and facially invalid.[1] The Sixth Circuit subsequently reheard the case en banc and issued an opinion on February 20, 2009, upholding the constitutionality of the record-keeping requirements, albeit with some dissents."
The two are inconsistent.  Does the Feb 20, 2009 decision completely overturn the Oct 23, 2007 one, once again making Porn 2.0 essentially impossible to comply with 2257?
--76.218.202.164 (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: This page is unnecessary. Everything in this page is either redundant with Web 2.0 and Pornography#Legal status, insultingly obvious, or trivial. If nobody contests it, I will merge this into Web 2.0 on Saturday, 6 March 2010. C4757p (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I will perform this merge at a later date (7 March 2010 if possible) due to an unforeseen busy schedule. C4757p (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep - strongly disagree. Two related but separate topics. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Since this merge is now contested, please re-propose as a merge Afd if still desired.  Thank you. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary 

message: The section Porn_2.0#Age_and_identity conflicts with information in another article. This article states that the 2008 6th Court of Appeals decision has paved the way for the legitimacy of the Porn 2.0 movement. The third paragraph of Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act states that that the case was reheard and the decision was overturned in Feb. of 2009. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article conflict 

message: Pornhub – 54 (36 in US)
Youporn – 64 (81 in US)
Redtube – 106 (106)
XTube – 503 (271 in US)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don-golione (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Alexa ranks 

message: This article is entirely unencyclopedic. Also, there are large contradictions when mentioning "user-generated content" and "copyright infringement".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.188.153.26 (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any specific complaints? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote down 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Porn 2.0. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071029153112/http://machinist.salon.com:80/blog/2007/10/24/porn_law/ to http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/10/24/porn_law/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified