2257 Trial Kicks Off In Philadelphia- 6/3/2013 -

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Redrob
    Confirmed User
    • Oct 2004
    • 4791
    #1

    2257 Trial Kicks Off In Philadelphia- 6/3/2013 -

    Mark Kernes from AVN posted:

    PHILADELPHIA?Judge Michael M. Baylson wasted no time getting down to the business of deciding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. ยง2257 and 2257A (hereafter "2257"), the federal recordkeeping and labeling law that's been on the books in one form or another since 1988. Court convened promptly at 9:15 a.m. in Courtroom 3810 of the James M. Byrne Federal Courthouse at 7th and Market Streets. Representing Free Speech Coalition (FSC) and 16 additional plaintiffs were J. Michael Murray and Lorraine Baumgartner, while the government mustered U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division attorneys Kathryn Wyer, Nathan Swinton, Hector Bladuell and James Schwartz.

    Here is the link to read Mark's full article:

    2257 Trial Kicks Off in Philadelphia
    Tags: None
    • SilentKnight
      Megan Fox's fluffer
      • Oct 2005
      • 24812
      #2
      Douglas was then asked, if 2257 disappeared tomorrow, would the industry begin using minors in its productions? No, Douglas replied, both for moral reasons and because child pornography laws still exist?and attempting to recall thousands of DVDs because they contained an underage performer would be prohibitively costly, not just to physically recall the disks, but also to reimburse retailers and customers who'd bought the product. He also testified that for a company to have been found to have used an underage performer would hurt that company's good will among retailers, who would never again trust that company's product?and that besides, since all the performers in a movie are assumed to be adults, there would be no point in using an underage performer deliberately, since that person would be assumed to be an adult also; there would be no benefit to the producer.
      Well put.

      This'll be very interesting to follow as it goes on...

        Comment

        • Best-In-BC
          Confirmed User
          • Jun 2002
          • 9509
          #3
          Yes, it should be iteresting
          Vacares - Web Hosting, Domains, O365, Security & More
          Unparked domains burning a hole in your pocket? 5 Simple Ways to Make Easy $$$ from Unused Domains

            Comment

            • Redrob
              Confirmed User
              • Oct 2004
              • 4791
              #4
              Donations for the effort are still being taken at http://2257donate.com/.

              This is a very expensive trial and any contribution is appreciated.

                Comment

                • Grapesoda
                  So Fucking Banned
                  • Jul 2003
                  • 46234
                  #5
                  Originally posted by SilentKnight
                  Well put.

                  This'll be very interesting to follow as it goes on...
                  yeah no pedo's in porn cause there are no kids... all the pedo's are at church's and school's

                    Comment

                    • MaDalton
                      I am Amazing Content!
                      • Feb 2004
                      • 39861
                      #6
                      Originally posted by Grapesoda
                      yeah no pedo's in porn cause there are no kids... all the pedo's are at church's and school's

                      At least a lot more priests have been convicted being a pedo than pornographers
                      AmazingContent.com - providing only the best content and service since 2003
                      Monetize your content on Veegaz.com - one of Germanies largest VOD sites
                      Got German traffic? We convert it into money for you!
                      Email: oltecconsult [at] gmail [dot] com

                        Comment

                        • DWB
                          Registered User
                          • Jul 2003
                          • 31779
                          #7
                          Douglas was then asked, if 2257 disappeared tomorrow, would the industry begin using minors in its productions? No, Douglas replied, both for moral reasons and because child pornography laws still exist?and attempting to recall thousands of DVDs because they contained an underage performer would be prohibitively costly, not just to physically recall the disks, but also to reimburse retailers and customers who'd bought the product. He also testified that for a company to have been found to have used an underage performer would hurt that company's good will among retailers, who would never again trust that company's product?and that besides, since all the performers in a movie are assumed to be adults, there would be no point in using an underage performer deliberately, since that person would be assumed to be an adult also; there would be no benefit to the producer.
                          Originally posted by SilentKnight
                          Well put.
                          Except for he's not telling the truth. I alerted ASACP years ago about a producer using minors from Thailand for DVDs being sold in the USA through a fairly large LA based company. Neither the ASACP, the company who was selling it, or the FBI did anything about it. I even spoke directly with FBI special agent Chuck Joyner who was heading the 2257 investigations at the time. Joan from ASACP told me that it was "pre-teen under 15" that was the problem. Not a single DVD was recalled even though it had 15 - 17 year old girls having sex in it. So as usual, someone speaking on behalf of the industry is totally full of shit. Can't say I'm surprised.

                          And has everyone forgotten that not too long ago Met-Art used to be full of underage girls, and CCbill billed for them? No one had a moral issue with that at the time. They only changed when 2257 rolled around and they had to. If there is no 2257, do you honestly think those types of people who had no problems with it in the first place wouldn't do it again? This business is a laugh a minute.

                            Comment

                            • SGS
                              Confirmed User
                              • Dec 2002
                              • 5176
                              #8
                              Originally posted by MaDalton
                              At least a lot more priests have been convicted being a pedo than pornographers
                              On a % of those involved in either job? I would bet pornographers per % of head involved would be the highest in the world bar none actually.
                              See sig...

                                Comment

                                • fitzmulti
                                  I Like Depth Of Field!
                                  • Jan 2003
                                  • 14861
                                  #9
                                  Originally posted by MaDalton
                                  At least a lot more priests have been convicted being a pedo than pornographers

                                  Originally posted by SGS
                                  On a % of those involved in either job? I would bet pornographers per % of head involved would be the highest in the world bar none actually.
                                  One fault in your point there...
                                  Being a priest CAN be considered a "job"...
                                  A "pornographer" is NOT a job.


                                  www.SexyGirlsCash.com

                                  CONTACT // FITZMULTI AT GMAIL.COM //
                                  {Please include a message so I know you are from GFY! I get too many spam "add requests"!}

                                    Comment

                                    • Webmaster Advertising
                                      So Fucking Banned
                                      • Sep 2003
                                      • 1360
                                      #10
                                      Originally posted by DWB
                                      Except for he's not telling the truth. I alerted ASACP years ago about a producer using minors from Thailand for DVDs being sold in the USA through a fairly large LA based company. Neither the ASACP, the company who was selling it, or the FBI did anything about it. I even spoke directly with FBI special agent Chuck Joyner who was heading the 2257 investigations at the time. Joan from ASACP told me that it was "pre-teen under 15" that was the problem. Not a single DVD was recalled even though it had 15 - 17 year old girls having sex in it. So as usual, someone speaking on behalf of the industry is totally full of shit. Can't say I'm surprised.

                                      And has everyone forgotten that not too long ago Met-Art used to be full of underage girls, and CCbill billed for them? No one had a moral issue with that at the time. They only changed when 2257 rolled around and they had to. If there is no 2257, do you honestly think those types of people who had no problems with it in the first place wouldn't do it again? This business is a laugh a minute.
                                      Don't forget Brent Corrigan / Cobra Video...

                                        Comment

                                        • SGS
                                          Confirmed User
                                          • Dec 2002
                                          • 5176
                                          #11
                                          Originally posted by fitzmulti
                                          One fault in your point there...
                                          Being a priest CAN be considered a "job"...
                                          A "pornographer" is NOT a job.
                                          Semantics
                                          See sig...

                                            Comment

                                            • BFT3K
                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                              • Dec 2005
                                              • 10764
                                              #12
                                              Will any aspect of this trial discuss whether or not tubes and torrents will be REQUIRED BY LAW to maintain 2257 files and records, or will thieves still be given a free ride?

                                              How will this trial effect non-US websites, and sites hosted offshore?

                                                Comment

                                                • Webmaster Advertising
                                                  So Fucking Banned
                                                  • Sep 2003
                                                  • 1360
                                                  #13
                                                  Originally posted by BFT3K
                                                  Will any aspect of this trial discuss whether or not tubes and torrents will be REQUIRED BY LAW to maintain 2257 files and records, or will thieves still be given a free ride?

                                                  How will this trial effect non-US websites, and sites hosted offshore?
                                                  No, it wont.

                                                  Again, it wont.

                                                    Comment

                                                    • BFT3K
                                                      Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                      • Dec 2005
                                                      • 10764
                                                      #14
                                                      Originally posted by Webmaster Advertising
                                                      No, it wont.

                                                      Again, it wont.
                                                      Well, there you have it then. Just more unfair bullshit on planet earth. Where can I donate for this again?

                                                        Comment

                                                        • xxxjay
                                                          Tube groupie.
                                                          • Aug 2002
                                                          • 13482
                                                          #15
                                                          I'm going on record. I hope it passes. I'd like to see a tube site comply.

                                                          It's pretty clear by now they aren't ISPs.

                                                          Upload your own video and see what happens if you don't have a deal worked out with them
                                                          http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

                                                            Comment

                                                            • BFT3K
                                                              Too lazy to set a custom title
                                                              • Dec 2005
                                                              • 10764
                                                              #16
                                                              Bump Bump.

                                                                Comment

                                                                • Markul
                                                                  Likes Pie
                                                                  • Dec 2007
                                                                  • 12404
                                                                  #17
                                                                  Those 2257 requirements are fucking crazy.
                                                                  But.... I pulled out...

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • faxxaff
                                                                      Confirmed User
                                                                      • Dec 2002
                                                                      • 2134
                                                                      #18
                                                                      Originally posted by xxxjay
                                                                      I'm going on record. I hope it passes. I'd like to see a tube site comply.
                                                                      It's pretty clear by now they aren't ISPs.
                                                                      Unfortunately, they are considered ISPs by law:
                                                                      http://www.xbiz.com/articles/legal/162709
                                                                      Asian Babes

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        Previous template Next
                                                                        Working...