08-20-2007, 12:25 PM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a refrigerator box by the tracks.
Posts: 4,791
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by swampthing
Thanks for the response, I think Im pretty much schooled up on the 2257 issue, however Im concerned about the adam walsh act.
Like 2257, from what I understand about the adam walsh act, also requires webmasters, primary and secondary, to hold records as well.
If this is the case, does the adam walsh act have to refer to the record keeping requirements outlined in 2257, which is of course still in the courts, in order for an inspection to take place?
What does the significance of the adam walsh act have on record keeping requirements?
|
Clarification from Reed Lee, FSC Boardmember:
Quote:
Your correspondent slightly misunderstands
the situation. (S)He seems to think of Section
2257 and Adam Walsh as two completely
separate things. Actually they are not.
When Congress passes and the President signs
a law, it gets a public law number, and it
sometimes has a name, such as the Adam
Walsh Act. (Sometimes even subparts of a
new law are separately named).
Most general laws, once passed are then codified,
which means they are placed in the United States
Code, which is a subject matter (rather than
chronological) ordering of the federal laws in
force.
Section 2257 originally came from a part of the
Drug Czar bill in 1988. It was placed in Title
18 of the United States Code, which is the federal
criminal code. It has been amended several times
since, most recently by the Adam Walsh Act.
So to straighten out you correspondent,
you should note that 2257 and Adam Walsh
are not really separate legal requirements.
Adam Walsh amended (i.e. changed) Section
2257, thus altering its requirements (assuming
that Section 2257 is constitutional as amended).
I hope this is clear. If not, let me know and
I'll try to explain it another way.
|
I hope this helps..... |
|
|