You keep saying it's right there in the regs, POST the part you are talking about.
That is all.
That is all.
-
It´s sooo late!!, why fight?... -
because we're talking felony chargesOriginally posted by CaptainHowdy
The commentary refers to section 2257(f) in the event that the secondary producers are unable to produce the complete records for all content that they ever published. Section 2257(f) is the part of the law that basically says, 'failure to maintain the required records is a crime!'
the D.C. Circuit, in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno, had upheld the requirement that secondary producers
maintain records. The Department is not responsible if secondary
producers chose to rely on the Tenth Circuit's holding in Sundance and
not to maintain records while ignoring the D.C. Circuit's holding in
American Library Ass'n v. Reno. A prudent secondary producer would have
continued to secure copies of the records from primary producers after
July 3, 1995. If those records, which are statutorily required, are not
currently available, then the commenters are correct that they will be
required to comply with the requirements of all applicable laws,
including section 2257(f). They are incorrect, however, to claim that
this would result in an impermissible burden on free speech. As the
D.C. Circuit held, the government has a compelling state interest in
protecting children from sexual exploitation. If the producers (primary
and secondary) of sexually explicit depictions cannot document that
children were not used for the production of the sexually explicit
depictions, then they must take whatever appropriate actions are
warranted to comply with the child exploitation, obscenity, and record-
keeping statutes. The First Amendment is not offended by making it
unlawful knowingly to fail or refuse to comply with the record-keeping
or labeling provisions of this valid statute.Comment
-
Three things.Originally posted by dopeman
1) The commentary is just the DOJ's opinion, nothing more. It's how they view the situation, a court can (and probably will) view the situation differently.
2) The Sundance decision came down AFTER the Library Ass'n decision came down. One would think that basing your decisions on the latest case law is "prudent"
3) EVEN IF the courts today disagree with the 10th circuit's decision in the Sundance case, that the secondary producer requirements in the regulations overreach the law.....there is still a very strong argument to be made that secondary producers acted in "good faith" by following the Sundance ruling.
It would be a giant stretch of the law for the DOJ to obtain a conviction on you for content you published prior to the publication of the new regs, if that content was removed before the new regs went into effect.
I'm not an attorney, this is not legal advice, this is just my opinion. It is however, a sound and well thought out opinion.sig too bigComment
-
Originally posted by Lenny2
thanks for the response Lenny. trust me, i want to be wrong. not that i have ever posted a hardcore pic in the past, of course. but if the courts don't agree, i'd say affiliates are sitting ducks without model IDs.
of course for any previous publishings before june 23rd, they just need an ID without the draconian indexing system. but how many affiliates have that? i'd say 99% don't. and sponsors are not handing those out.
if the courts can retroactively go after small time affiliates who posted a hardcore thumbnail last year or even last month or even today, i'd say we have a major problem here.
i'm not going to say whether or not i've personally spoken with an attorney, but there are conflicting opinions on this throughout. but the bigger problem i think is smaller affiliates without the connections and money to get the big name lawyers are left holding the bag in this situation. the pool of lawyers that can handle these types of cases is very limited, and the ones that exist are tied up now with the lawsuit and are on retainer from the big guys.
in my opinion - of course it's just one opinion - this does not bode well for affiliates. again, thanks for the reply.Comment
Comment