From January to November 2006, Living Biography crews traveled around the nation and shot more than 200 hours of footage interviewing adult entertainment peddlers, ex-porn stars, psychological experts, business owners, technologists, Internet porn addicts, educators, members of the Free Speech Coalition, and hundreds of teenagers.

"Of all the fifteen year-olds I know that see porn? - about every one that I know..." comments a 15-year old boy.

"We don't market to kids. Kids, first of all, don't have any money. Second of all, they are really not interested in adult content," Michele Freridge, executive director, Free Speech Coalition.

The film also follows the efforts of Ralph Yarro to create the Internet Community Port Act (aka CP80 Internet Channel Initiative), a controversial piece of legislation that, for the first time, makes online pornography regulation possible without infringing on First Amendment rights. According to Yarro, "The CP80 Internet Channel Initiative takes advantage of the existing infrastructure of the Internet to categorize online content into two port ranges or channels: Community Ports for general purpose material and Open Ports for adult content. The solution will enable personal choice in your Internet experience and protect the critical rights granted under the First Amendment."

"We decided to make this film after hearing about Ralph's initiative," says Bryan Hall, film director/co-founder, Living Biography. What came loud and clear from the people we interviewed was first, online adult content is everywhere, and second, they were open to new approaches to regulating this content. What we learned was shocking - the inability to effectively manage this type of content has dramatic social and business ramifications for our society. We realized this was an issue that demanded broader exposure."

"The efforts by the government to legislate controls for online pornography have been, frankly, politically visible, but completely ineffective," says John Carosella, VP of Content Control, Blue Coat Systems and Internet parenting expert, featured in the film. "And the efforts have been marginal, at best. COPA was flawed when it was written in 1998. Why are we still arguing about it? We need a serious investment of intellect, creativity, and effort from all the key stakeholders - content providers, technology providers, ISPs, the community, and the government - or more and more kids and businesses will suffer devastating consequences. This is a community problem that requires community action - no single person can solve this problem. If we as a society can't get together on this issue, it's a loser's game."

Traffic Control is the first of three full-length films slated to follow the affect of Internet pornography on our society, and America's demand to regulate it. Traffic Control screenings are being arranged in cities across the country, and as a call to action towards providing a safe. The second feature-length installment is set to release in spring 2008.

Background ...

CP80 Foundation Begins Anti-Porn Campaign

PRWEB, 4/20/06 - The CP80 Foundation announced today the launch of their "Truth in Porn" campaign. The purpose of the campaign is to educate the public about the potential harm and dangers of Internet pornography and to raise their awareness concerning just how much of a problem Internet pornography has become for adults, families, businesses and children.

"As a family therapist working with children and adolescents who are struggling with the effects of pornography, I can tell you that pornography—especially Internet pornography with its violent, demeaning, or highly explicit messages—is damaging, not only for youths, but for many adults as well. Its affects on a person's social and sexual development can have lasting effects," said Dr. Jill C. Manning, the marriage and family therapist who has testified before members of the US Senate several times concerning the affects of pornography.

The "Truth in Porn" campaign features a website (www.truthinporn.com) where people can view a variety of public-safety announcements and informational advertisements created by students who submitted video, audio, print, interactive and editorial entries for a Truth-in-Porn contest run earlier this year.

The website also publishes Internet-pornography statistics, facts and testimonials, as well as conducts its own surveys concerning Internet-pornography related issues, such as the ineffectiveness of porn filters or drawing the line on pornography.

"People need to know what they are allowing to enter into their homes when they are connected to the Internet. They need to know that some forms of pornography are no different than leaving alcohol, drugs or fire arms laying around for their children to pick up and play with," said Matthew Yarro, VP of Marketing for The CP80 Foundation. "Maybe it won’t affect them. That is a possibility—but it could also ruin their lives and possibly even kill them. Why take the risk?"

Truth in Porn is promoted by The CP80 Foundation, a non-profit organization working towards a more responsible Internet. The foundation is pushing for new legislation that would require all pornographic material on the Internet to use its own set of adult Internet channels (known as ports). It also suggests the use of civil-cause-of-action laws that would allow private citizens to sue pornographers who violated their rights.

CP80 Foundation Builds Legal Team

Salt Lake City, PRWEB, 2/14/06 - The CP80 Foundation announced today that Cheryl B. Preston, Professor of Law at Brigham Young University, has joined the CP80 team to coordinate the legal and legislative efforts. In conjunction with this announcement, The CP80 Foundation has also announced the formation of The CP80 legal and legislative advisory board and The CP80 legal and legislative consultative group.

"I am thrilled that Cheryl Preston has joined CP80 to assist us with our efforts to enhance choice while preserving free speech on the Internet—and to help protect our families from pornography," said Ralph Yarro, Chairman of The CP80 Foundation.

Professor Preston is a highly-respected legal scholar who has published in the areas of law and religion, pornography and social policy, banking, and feminist theory. Professor Preston is currently a member of the American Law Institute and is in the Consultative Group for the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts.

"As soon as I heard about the CP80 initiative, I wanted to be involved. The solutions offered by CP80 are the most workable and visionary of any ever offered to address the critical social problem of pornography and the protection of children and the workplace," said Professor Preston.

Before joining the faculty at Brigham Young University Law School 16 years ago, she practiced with O’Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, and Holme Roberts & Owen, Salt Lake City, and clerked for the 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals.

The CP80 legal and legislative consultative group was recently formed to aid in the development of legal strategies surrounding the CP80 initiative. "I am grateful for all of the individuals who are willing to donate their time, energies and expertise to the CP80 legal and legislative efforts," said Ralph Yarro, Chairman of The CP80 Foundation.

The consultative group currently includes Douglas Matsumori (Ray Quinney & Nebeker); Frederick Mark Gedicks (Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School); Brent Christensen and Lisa Demmons (Fabian and Clendenin); Jon C. Christiansen and Preston C. Regehr (TechLawVentures, PLLC), Stephen J. Hill and Jonathan O. Hafen (Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless); Scott Loveless (Director, World Family Policy Center); Stanley J. Preston, Maralyn M. Reger and Michael J. Carlston (Snow Christensen & Martineau); Nolan Taylor (Dorsey & Whitney); Ken Jennings and Harrison Colter (ColterJennings); and David Vandagriff (Vice President of Business Development, Corda Technologies).

"I believe Internet channeling offers the possibility of accommodating both free speech interests and the interests of those who wish to control the speech that enters their homes through the Internet," said Frederick Mark Gedicks, Guy Anderson Chair & Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School, "I am interested in investigating how to draft the CP80 initiative so that it is consistent with both of these First Amendment interests.

The CP80 Foundation is a non-profit 501 (C6) organization dedicated to creating a more responsible and manageable Internet. It is currently working on an initiative that uses available Internet ports to categorize Internet content.

With content organized into general-public and adult "Internet channels", an individual can easily choose whether or not he wants to access pornography—a choice that does not exist today.

Should Porn be Kept Off of Port 80?

Annalee Newitz, Metroactive, 1/4/06 - Given all the bad porn on the Internet, I guess it's only fair that there should be some truly terrible ideas about stopping porn on the Internet, too. The latest comes from a group called CP80 (www.cp80.com), which sadly isn't a phalanx of uptight androids who enjoy mysteriously homoerotic relationships with mailbox-shaped companions.

Instead, it is the "Internet Channel Initiative," an organization with a mysterious relationship to Third Way, a lobbying group that's trying to make the Democratic Party popular in red states. Apparently, Third Way is trying to accomplish this with technology initiatives that will stamp out Internet free speech. CP80's website should be subtitled "Conservative Wonks Gone Wild." Dozens of pictures of kids—many of whom have bare shoulders, as if they were shirtless or naked outside the frame—adorn naive blurts of text about how we can redesign the Internet as a series of "channels," just like cable television.

That way, you can put all the porn on one "channel" and ask your ISP to block it. Easy as punch, right? Next, we'll turn our mobile phones into microwave ovens! Cell phones broadcast in the microwave spectrum, so all you have to do is turn the volume up really high! Whenever I find a website full of entertaining politico-technical babble, I know exactly what to do: Check out the FAQs for further hilarity.

There I discovered that CP80's plan involves turning computer ports into TV channels. Ports are software-created entryways to your computer that are used for different types of communication, such as HTTP (the web protocol on port 80) and SMTP (the email protocol on port 25). Basically, CP80 wants to redefine one of the building blocks of Internet communication. Instead of using ports to distinguish different types of information-transfer protocols, they would use them to distinguish different types of content. There are several technical problems with this approach, but CP80 barely hits those before running up against a fundamental policy problem. In the "technical" FAQ, some CP80 wonk on crack wrote, "Adult content will be required to be on a specific port (i.e., 1101). Providers of content will be required to publish the Adult content on this specific port. They may still maintain their presence on port 80 as long as they do not cross into adult content (this line to be made up by who??? The Government?)."

I just love it when gems like that somehow make it into print. These censors are so unsure of how anyone can tell the difference between adult and nonadult content that they actually use comic-book punctuation (three question marks???) to poke holes in their own theories.

Even better, this FAQ is accompanied by a kind of public-service Flash movie (www.cp80.org/solutions/CP80-Flash-Overview.html) about how porn creeps into our homes. "The free and open nature of the Internet is becoming a problem," a smooth female voice informs us as the film begins. Then we see a marvelously campy cartoon where a red tide of porno seeps into a sea of innocent blue computers. The thing is so laughably bad that it actually got passed around various blogs as a parody until somebody figured out that it wasn't.

But here's the kicker. CP80 isn't just a bunch of right-wing college students who read Blogging for Dummies and threw up a website. It's sponsored by dozens of corporations, including Amazon, Apple, Sony, Nokia, Disney, Wal-Mart and Hickory Farms. And it has real political clout. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) sits on the board of Third Way—she recently sponsored a bill in the Senate that would have resulted in a 25 percent "porn tax" on Internet pornography. With backing like this, it's not likely that we can just dismiss CP80 with jokes, although that's tempting.

We need to remind this group and others like it that you can't solve problems with content by re-architecting the Internet. Turning ports into channels will cost us—first by making ISPs and web software designers start blocking Internet traffic as well as routing it, and second by placing a burden on people whose erotic expression is legal. Since most firewalls and browsers block all but a few ports, putting porn on some random port like 12045 means that most people's computers will be configured by default to block all speech classified as "adult." Even if ISPs route information on that port, home computers won't allow it in. Using technology to enforce social policy is always a losing proposition—especially when the social policies are so contested that no communication network, no matter how fungible, could ever be configured to support them.

Ralph Yarro Wants Porn off of Port 80

Ars Technica, 11/30/05 - The widespread availability of questionable content on the Internet has quite a few parents concerned. Former Canopy Group digital entrepreneur Ralph Yarro thinks he has the answer: push the porn off of port 80. Yarro and his associates have established a non-profit organization called CP80 that is actively lobbying for government regulations that would require pornographers to use alternative network ports.

Although the HTTP protocol is traditionally confined to port 80, existing web browsers are capable of viewing content transmitted from other ports. Yarro compares ports to television channels, and argues that the CP80 regulatory solution would enable parents to protect their children from unwanted content. Yarro argues that his solution would help responsible parents to control their children's browsing habits without violating the civil liberties of porn producers or consumers.

Will Yarro's plan accomplish anything? Probably not. A large number of pornographers operate outside of American jurisdiction, and the federal government wouldn't be able to enforce these regulations on foreign companies. Such legislation would compel American pornographers to move their businesses overseas, and the government would lose out on the tax revenue associated with one of the most profitable industries on the Internet.

The technological feasibility is also questionable. Segregation of content with port numbers would create a massive burden for software developers, system administrators, and web site maintainers. Many pieces of existing software are designed with the assumption that HTTP content lives on port 80, and some of that software could potentially cease to function appropriately in certain contexts if that assumption is undermined. In theory, it would make more sense to use top-level domains for voluntary segregation of content, but critics say that specialized top-level domains for pornographic content would merely promote Internet pornography and make it more accessible to children. The Bush administration recently requested that ICANN hold off on creating the .xxx top-level domain until further analysis can be performed.

There are also some philosophical implications relevant to this debate. Should the government have the ability to relegate pornographers (or any kind of content producer for that matter) to a second class status on the Internet? Supporters of the CP80 plan point out that local governments already have the regulatory power to control where adult video stores can open, and they feel that CP80 is a logical extension of that power that will help to provide assurances to concerned parents.

Internet pornography is both popular and profitable. Recent estimates show that about 40 million American adults visit Internet pornography sites, and profits from Internet pornography total well over a billion dollars a year. Some analysts say that as much as 30 percent of all content on the Internet is pornographic in nature. Pornographic freedom advocates like Wendy McElroy, author of XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography, argue that banning pornography needlessly endangers women. She cites Thelma McCormack's controversial study, which indicated that pornography may have a cathartic quality capable of reducing instances of rape. Such arguments are commonly made, but difficult to substantiate with objective evidence. Some statistics seem to show that instances of rape have decreased significantly since pornography became widely available on the Internet, but those rape trends could be the result of any number of other factors.

Ralph Yarro is an interesting character with a colorful history. He was kicked out of the Canopy Group and accused of defrauding the company of millions of dollars. After a litigious litany of suits and counter-suits, Yarro managed to reach a settlement with Canopy, and decided to move on. The Canopy Group is best known for its association with a member company called the SCO Group, which has attained cult status in the open source community for its incomprehensible legal assault on the Linux operating system. Given Yarro's peculiar background and his active involvement in SCO dealings, I doubt that the Internet community is eager to trust him, but some politicians are willing to hear him out. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has already expressed support for CP80:

We have to pursue creative and innovative solutions to this growing public health threat, and CP80 is one of the leaders in that effort.

Can somebody please explain to me how Internet pornography represents a health threat? Senator Hatch is a big fan of bad legislation. He was one of the authors of the maniacally insane INDUCE act, a prodigiously disturbing and fundamentally misguided piece of legislation that would have effectively criminalized VCRs and iPods. Senator Hatch's support of the INDUCE act led many to conclude that he is more interested in serving the media industry rather than protecting fair use rights and the interests of consumers.

With such a dubious crowd of advocates, and a proposal that is effectively unenforceable and highly disruptive, one can only hope that nobody takes CP80 too seriously.

More ...

CP80 Proposal Would Put Porn on Different Ports

Deseret Morning News, 11/28/05 - Ralph Yarro says the Internet is a lot like the "lawless, wild West." If that's the case, then the Utah County high-tech tycoon is something of a Wyatt Earp for today's family man — armed with a laptop and a diaper bag.

For the past 10 years, Yarro has been building and developing technology companies such as Altiris Inc. and SCO Group Inc. These days, Yarro and his team at the Orem-based ThinkAtomic Inc., a high-tech think tank, are putting that work on hold and using their technological know-how in the battle against Internet pornography.

"We started to kind of develop a concept (in 2003)," Yarro said. "The majority of my team, we are all hard-core technology businessmen, so we thought we'd take a look at it from that perspective. We're also fathers and husbands, so we care about this from that perspective."

The result is CP80, a nonprofit organization that proposes that the existing Internet infrastructure of ports and protocols be used to categorize all Web content into channels, allowing Internet users to choose the type of content they want to receive — much like cable television.

The group also calls for legislation to "support and empower its solution," making sure pornographic content is published only on adult-designated channels and putting laws in place to make pornographers who violate the law accountable, similar to the way the Federal Communications Commission regulates television and radio.

For the past three months, Yarro has spent a lot of time in Washington, D.C., where the CP80 Internet Channel Initiative is seeking political support.

Ralph Thomson, president and CEO of International Business Catalysts, has been lobbying on behalf of CP80 in Washington. He's been talking up CP80's blueprint with elected officials on Capitol Hill, as well as with the Department of Justice and the FCC.

"One of the things that we're finding is that CP80 has the right sound to it," Thomson said. "It's not a technology that has to be developed; the software and the hardware pieces are in place. Now it's just a matter of getting the policy in place so we can have at least some part of the Internet that is free of the filth and free of the degradation."

Yarro or members of the CP80 group have made presentations to Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, R-Utah, as well as state Reps. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, and Jim Matheson, D-Utah. The group has also had phone conversations with Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

"From my perspective, all of the local guys have been generally supportive," Yarro said. "We feel good about it."

In a statement issued last week, Hatch called Internet pornography a "clear and present danger to children and families," and he praised the efforts of CP80.

"We have to pursue creative and innovative solutions to this growing public health threat, and CP80 is one of the leaders in that effort," Hatch said.

Orem marriage and family therapist Jill Manning, who earlier this month testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution about the negative effects of Internet pornography on marriages and families, calls the initiative "a fresh, thinking-outside-the-box solution that we desperately need."

"It's effective, it's smart, it makes sense and it's a solution," Manning said. "That's what I love about it. When we're so focused on the problem, here comes along an innovative, fresh-thinking solution that makes sense."

The good news for consumers is that CP80 would be available for everyone to use — or not use — for free, Yarro said.

As a nonprofit, all of the costs associated with developing the CP80 Internet Channel Initiative — including payroll — have come out of Yarro's deep pockets.

In March, Yarro was the recipient of an undisclosed amount of money and 5.49 million shares of SCO stock — valued at about $22 million — in a settlement with The Canopy Group. Yarro was the former CEO of the Lindon-based venture-capital firm and was one of three former executives to sue for unlawful termination.

"I've seen a lot of solutions out there — tons," he said. "Every now and then, somebody will walk through the door and say, 'I know how to fix the porn problem,' and they'll offer us this new appliance that they're going to knock on every door in America and have the parents buy."
But families or employers who don't want pornography in their homes or offices shouldn't have to pay to keep it out, he said.

CP80 also isn't another content filter, which Yarro says are well-intended but flawed and can give parents a false sense of security.

"Filters don't cut it," he said. "They don't catch everything. Parents aren't being given the tools to choose what content comes into their homes. If you give them that, I guarantee parents will embrace it and will support it."

And that's what CP80 does, Yarro said: It creates choice for the end user.

Despite all of the content available on the Internet, he said, users really don't have any choice beyond Internet-on or Internet-off. And even that's not much of a choice anymore.

"More and more, it's not a choice if your kid gets online," Yarro said. "You almost have to have the Internet to function in today's environment. In education, our kids have to have access to the Internet. Because of that, they're exposed to the dangers that go along with that."

No matter what Web site children are visiting, Internet pornography is just one click away, Manning said. And with tricks and traps being employed by Internet pornographers — such as creating links that say one thing but take users to pornographic sites or using misspelled variations of popular Web sites to attract unsuspecting traffic — it's easy to unintentionally view pornographic material.

"If you can click a mouse, you can be exposed to porn," she said.

CP80's solution, with accompanying legislation in place that can be used to prosecute violators, would solve that problem, too, Yarro said, by keeping all adult content on designated channels or ports.

The Internet, he explained, is made up of more than 65,000 ports that are used to categorize content and services. However, all content viewed when users browse a Web site — news, sports scores, children's games or pornography — uses the same port: Port 80.

"Thus the name, CP80," Yarro said. "CP80 originally stood for Clean Port 80. It's really the process of cleaning up and providing more channels."

So why aren't more of the 65,000-plus ports being used for content? Good question, Yarro said.

"There is a plentiful amount of channels out there," he said. "Why are we not taking adult content and assigning it to its own channel? Doesn't that make sense?"

By assigning adult content to its own channel or channels, Yarro said, CP80 avoids the pitfall of previous legislative attempts to clean up the Internet: violations of the First Amendment.

"We had to preserve freedom of speech," he said, "and that's what we've done."

Instead of trying to censor the Internet, CP80 gives those who don't want access to pornographic material on the Internet the ability to restrict that, Yarro said. Pornographers will still be able to publish their content, and those who wish to view it can do so.

"It's not censoring," he said, "and I don't believe I'll hear a free-speech fight. Bottom line: The consumer who wants the Internet like they have it today, nothing has changed. You still have it all. Those who don't want it, on an opt-in basis, won't get it."

With the technology in place, the focus now is on legislation, Yarro said. Laws need to be enacted to mandate that adult content be broadcast on designated ports, as well as to empower the private sector to enforce compliance and require Internet service providers to assist consumers in the identification of violators, he said.

"There needs to be a legislative process to determine, dictate and be very specific in forcing adult content onto its own channel," Yarro said. "I don't believe we'll get the movement without legislation. We need the penalties associated with noncompliance."

This page contains copyrighted material and is made available to better understand pornography, e.g., its effect on society. It is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving the information for research and educational purposes.