XBiz News Flash: No Decision in 2257 - Preliminary Injunction

**newbreed** · 08-02-2005, 02:52 PM

Can't blam him, there is a lot of material to review.

**ElvisManson** · 08-02-2005, 03:01 PM

great coverage and article.

**Cory W** · 08-02-2005, 03:02 PM

You guys really stay on top of things.

**K R I S T E N** · 08-02-2005, 03:15 PM

cory..cant wait to sit and chat with you FINALLY at Internext...its long overdue

**JFK** · 08-02-2005, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by ElvisManson

great coverage and article.

XBIZ on top of things

**QuaWee** · 08-02-2005, 03:51 PM

As expected from Xbiz

**dopeman** · 08-02-2005, 03:53 PM

Evidence submitted by Justice included a CD-ROM compilation of websites thought to depict ?young looking? performers engaged in sexually explicit activities, among them were StrictStepdad.com, Teens.to.com, RedTeens.com, CastingCouchTeens.com and Sapphicerotica.com.

so they do indeed have a 'hitlist'.

**pornguy** · 08-02-2005, 03:55 PM

Not only is ther a lot to read, but there is also a learning curve for him. I am sure that he will have a lot to learn about the net, before he can really make an informed decision. Providing he cares.

**jact** · 08-02-2005, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by dopeman

so they do indeed have a 'hitlist'.

http://www.whois.sc/sapphicerotica.com

Disturbing that Sapphic isn't even registered to a US company/person and it's on that list.

**aimeesweet** · 08-02-2005, 03:57 PM

Thanks for the update!

**DamageX** · 08-02-2005, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by jact

http://www.whois.sc/sapphicerotica.com

Disturbing that Sapphic isn't even registered to a US company/person and it's on that list.

That could mean one of two things. Either they're poorly informed, or they intend to use the 2257 to influence the hosts and/or .com registry and get sites closed down.

**dopeman** · 08-02-2005, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by DamageX

That could mean one of two things. Either they're poorly informed, or they intend to use the 2257 to influence the hosts and/or .com registry and get sites closed down.

or they intend to go after u.s.-based affiliates.

**Murderous** · 08-02-2005, 04:15 PM

You guys rock, I look forward to your next physical issue.

**DamageX** · 08-02-2005, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by dopeman

or they intend to go after u.s.-based affiliates.

More difficult to do than to try getting the program shut down. If they can have their domain name pulled, that would definitely put some non-US sponsors out of business.

**Tala** · 08-02-2005, 04:24 PM

Good stuff Stephen! XBiz always a leader.

**dopeman** · 08-02-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by DamageX

More difficult to do than to try getting the program shut down. If they can have their domain name pulled, that would definitely put some non-US sponsors out of business.

how can they have a domain name pulled if they can't prove the girls are under 18?

**Spunky** · 08-02-2005, 04:27 PM

I like their almost daily emails..very informative

**cjaccardi** · 08-02-2005, 06:08 PM

is there a list of all the websites that are on that cd rom I would be interested in knowing

**tony286** · 08-02-2005, 06:11 PM

great work as always xbiz

**bhutocracy** · 08-02-2005, 06:33 PM

Evidence submitted by Justice included a CD-ROM compilation of websites thought to depict ?young looking? performers engaged in sexually explicit activities, among them were StrictStepdad.com, Teens.to.com, RedTeens.com, CastingCouchTeens.com and Sapphicerotica.com.

So fucking check them under existing 2257 regs for fucks sake.

**Brujah** · 08-02-2005, 06:34 PM

So they're definitely looking at TEEN sites, not just for "young" children but sites with teens that even look like they might be 17.

**tony286** · 08-02-2005, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by bhutocracy

So fucking check them under existing 2257 regs for fucks sake.

Are those even USA sites ?

**DamageX** · 08-02-2005, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by dopeman

how can they have a domain name pulled if they can't prove the girls are under 18?

If this passes, they won't have to. YOU should prove they're over 18.

**bangman** · 08-02-2005, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by DamageX

If this passes, they won't have to. YOU should prove they're over 18.

That's what I find so disturbing over these new proposed regs - Guily before proven Innocent.

**Laurie** · 08-02-2005, 07:14 PM

Thanks for the update, I still thought the hearing was next week.

**Persignup Qon** · 08-02-2005, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by bangman

That's what I find so disturbing over these new proposed regs - Guily before proven Innocent.

exactly

...

**vicki** · 08-02-2005, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Brujah

So they're definitely looking at TEEN sites, not just for "young" children but sites with teens that even look like they might be 17.

even the US banks that still offer merchant accounts for adult shy away from approving sites that push 'teen'. They definately get the fine tooth comb treatment

XBiz News Flash: No Decision in 2257 - Preliminary Injunction

XBiz News Flash: No Decision in 2257 - Preliminary Injunction

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment