Redrob

I felt this was important enough to give the discussion its own thread, hence:

The truth of the matter is threefold:

1. The major 1st Amendment attorneys have not yet developed a consensus concerning the exact requirements for compliance with the new 2257 Regs. If you ask two different attorneys, you will probably get two different interpretations of the regs.

2. There seems to be a major split in the goals of attorneys depending on how they view the constitutionality of the regs. Some say we can live with the regs if we are able to remove some of the worst language. Others say the regs are totally unconstitutional, cause an unreasonable burden on producers, are some kind of prior restraint on our First Amendment rights, have a presumption of guilt unless the producer can prove they are not guilty, and are not narrowly tailored as required by law to address the problem of elimination of child pornography. The regs assume any image that is not in compliance is child porn, hence, the justification for the penalties.

3. And finally, many are posturing to attract business for their law firms and seem to be creatings some havoc by denouncing other competing attorneys and their law firms. As there has not yet developed a consensus, it would be wise to wait a week or two for the attorneys to caucus and, hopefully, decide exactly what we have to do to comply with the regulations.

To that end, we as webmasters need to decide whether or not we want to get rid of the worst parts of the regs, or, do we want to see the regs eliminated totally due to their unconstitutional nature.

Personally, I abhor the idea of the presumption of guilt unless proven innocent. The regs undercut one of the pillars of our American Justice....that you are innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be the position the FSC is taking as well.

Just my opinion....