Quote:
Originally posted by The Other Steve
If the intentions really were to keep kids out of porn then I would agree - but they are not.
Valid and just??????????????????
Holy crap!!
|
Settle down, cowboy. Yes, I'm naive enough to believe that the original intentions of the law were indeed (at least, initially) to prevent underage performers from appearing in porn. Granted, I wasn't there. But I don't think that requiring primary producers to maintain accurate records is a burdensome statute.
The "revised" statute is, I believe, a whole different story. It does nothing to fight CP. It creates an undue burden on those who were previously classified as secondary producers, and makes the DOJ's job that much more difficult. The proposed changes make the statute into a joke, IMO.
We're on the same side. Chill out.