"Porn" is still constitutionally protected art.
This 2257 stuff sure seems to have a lot of people spooked. 
Forgive my ignorance, but has anybody ever been prosecuted soley for keeping inadequate records? While it's obviously better to stay on the good side of the law (especially when it's easy enough), I don't believe a conviction on only a 2257 technicality could ever stand up to appeals. Under the 1st Ammendment, no form of art should be able to be regulated by the government.
Also, 2257 tries to place the burden of proof on the defendant, which is not the way our legal system works. It is up to the state to prove that a child was abused. Since when does an absence of evidence assume guilt? I would think there is a strong case to be made that this is an unlawful law.
Forgive my ignorance, but has anybody ever been prosecuted soley for keeping inadequate records? While it's obviously better to stay on the good side of the law (especially when it's easy enough), I don't believe a conviction on only a 2257 technicality could ever stand up to appeals. Under the 1st Ammendment, no form of art should be able to be regulated by the government.
Also, 2257 tries to place the burden of proof on the defendant, which is not the way our legal system works. It is up to the state to prove that a child was abused. Since when does an absence of evidence assume guilt? I would think there is a strong case to be made that this is an unlawful law.
Comment