12-14-2006, 11:31 AM
|
|
|
So Fucking Gay
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 19,714
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nation-x
Since there hasn't actually been a ruling as far as secondary producers go then really any discussion about criminal prosecution is moot. And I know for a fact that being a member or not being a member of FSC makes no difference because in the US we all share equal protection under the law. They can't choose to convict a non-member when they have chosen not to prosecute a member (based on membership) no matter what.
I have confidence that COPA will be amended to exclude the secondary producer from 2257 responsibility because it places un unreasonable burden on the secondary producer and violates the models right to privacy.
I think that COPA will say that no matter how old the model is... that if you present the model as preteen or underage that you will be responsible... much like the dope dealer that sells soap or coffee creamer can still be charged with selling dope because there is intent to commit a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
I like Slick and respect him as a webmaster... but I do have to agree that some of the thumbs on his sites are just not acceptable as good taste in my opinion. |
Well despite your best attempts to make yourself sound intelligent, you failed miserably.
"I have confidence that COPA will be amended to exclude the secondary producer from 2257 responsibility"
COPA has absolutely nothing to do with 2257, so this statement makes absolutely zero sense.
"I think that COPA will say that no matter how old the model is... that if you present the model as preteen or underage that you will be responsible."
COPA, when originally passed, it DID contain that provision. It was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. End of that story.
As for being "confident that secondary producers will be excluded from 2257". It's sure as hell not looking that way. The judge in the current FSC case virtually rejected ALL of the first amendment and privacy arguments that were made. The ONLY reason an injunction is in place right now is because the judge was bound by a higher court ruling, which basically said the regs overstepped authority granted to them by statute. Now that 4472 has passed, which specifically grants the authority, things aren't looking good right now.
Perhaps you should be minding your own business until you learn what the fuck you're talking about? |
|
|