Gawker: valleywag, emmett shear

Justin.tv's Emmett Shear makes Freudian slip about selling company

Jackson West — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:00:00 EDT

Kicking off a thread on Hacker News about how to sell a business, Emmett Shear, CTO of live-video startup Justin.tv, accidentally typed the name of his current employer instead of his previous company, Kiko Calendar, which was sold on eBay for $250,000. A sign the company is desperately looking for the exit? Who knows. But it certainly doesn't help to answer part of the original question about flipping a startup:

How would you do it without causing problems (ie people thinking you're up for sale)?

Last defense of nude-lesbian haters removed

Tim Faulkner — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:11:46 EDT

Lifecasting site Justin.tv no longer has any reason to restrict nudity and sexual content on their broadcasts. This morning's news of a United States Court of Appeals ruling overturning the recordkeeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, might have some effect on YouTube — but it's going to have a much bigger impact on lifecasters like Justin.tv.

The law placed onerous requirements on producers of sexually explicit material to maintain extensive dossiers on the "actors" appearing in their content. When Justin.tv first removed a broadcast for containing sex (one half of the tandem happened to be Nick McGlynn, a staffer at Valleywag publisher Gawker Media), we argued the site was turning its back on its best chance for traffic, in a bid to attract mainstream investors. Emmett Shear, the CTO of the startup, defended the decision in the comments by claiming the startup did not have the resources to comply with the law. It was a weak argument then, and now it's entirely invalid.

At the time, Shear stated:

As for sex — there are, unfortunate as it may be, laws regarding putting sex on camera. And we don't have the resources or capability to comply with those laws. We actually can't afford to become a porn site.

When the lifecasting site introduced an adult-content warning and age-verification system, I argued that no barriers remained to Justin.tv permitting true lifecasting. American law primarily restricts child pornography, not anything acceptable to consenting adults. Commenters argued on Justin.tv's behalf that the recordkeeping requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act would apply. To which I replied, the requirements had been stayed pending appeal and it was not clear if they would apply. Now, it is clear: lifecasting sex isn't what's illegal — forcing lifecasting websites to collect data about their users is.

Should Justin.tv become a porn site? Not that there's anything wrong with that. There are plenty of other sites, like PornoTube and YouPorn, willing to fill that niche in today's Web 2.0. When Shear said that Justin.tv couldn't afford to become a porn site, perhaps he really meant that it didn't want to tangle with the competition. With its legal shield removed, Justin.tv has been revealed as simply not up to the task.

No sex, please, we're skittish

Tim Faulkner — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:45:38 EDT

Lifecasting website Justin.tv has introduced an adult-content warning and age-verification system to broadcaster channels that want to push the limits of what the New York Times called "a PG-13 version of lifecasting." The broadcast of Dealer, considered offensive by some, appears to be the first channel to get the warning label. We suspect that, like a porn film's "XXX" rating, it will soon be a badge of pride strangely, though, nudity and sex remain unacceptable on Justin.tv in any circumstance. Why? Legal concerns aren't the issue.

When we previously reported the removal of a broadcast showing sex acts (involving Gawker staffer Nick McGlynn), Emmett Shear from Justin.tv commented:

As for sex - there are, unfortunate as it may be, laws regarding putting sex on camera. And we don't have the resources or capability to comply with those laws. We actually can't afford to become a porn site.

While it's true there are laws governing pornography, this claim strikes me as specious. Existing pornography laws mostly govern child pornography, and it is increasingly difficult to fail the ever-loosening standards established by the Miller test. A few provisions restricting the most prurient and violent sex acts, which everyone would easily agree with, would allow Justin Kan's company to comply with the law.

Moreover, thousands of porn sites with fewer resources and more questionable material easily have the capability to comply with the law. Justin.tv's introduction of age verification is the primary requirement to allow adult content. And yet the lifecasting site will not even permit nudity.

As we said previously, Justin.tv is seeking funding and mainstream publicity. Its founders are not afraid of legal concerns; they're afraid of controversy. Porn might distract reporters from writing puff pieces like the recent New York Times article, "A Site Warhol Would Relish." Actually, I suspect that Justin.tv's flailing hypocrisy is what would really crack Warhol up.