08-16-2006, 11:42 PM
|
|
|
Mandy
Industry Role:
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: in a house
Posts: 424
|
Quote:
|
The term "secondary producer" never existed in Section 2257 and is not found in the recently amended statute, either. Instead, Congress has included the persons who insert images depicting actual, explicit sex and those who digitize them with a commercial interest into the expanded definition of the persons who "produce" such conduct. Congress has clearly legislated that secondary producers are, indeed, producers. The obligations of the law affect them as much as the guy behind the lens, assuming the constitutionality of the Statute. It is now clear that licensing/assignee webmasters must maintain the records and content, publish the notice, categorize the records, and make them available for inspection.
|
http://www.xxxlaw.net/
Quote:
|
But there is no comparable provision for 2257. So, we can expect that the government will argue that records must be created and maintained for ?lascivious display? images created on or after July 28, 2006. We can also expect the government to argue that secondary producers must keep records from that day forward. Remember, though, the government may argue that secondary producers should have been keeping the required records all along. (FSC will, of course, oppose all of these arguments. See answers below).
|
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...p?coid=655#two |
|
|