2257: The good, the bad - GoFuckYourself.com

Maurelle Marquez · 03-09-2016, 11:31 PM

Understanding The Free Speech Fight Against 2257 Regulations

Quote:

This isn?t about keeping minors out of adult film. The industry is already incredibly stringent about age-verification, as the production of child pornography is not only morally and ethically despicable, it also carries a mandatory minimum of fifteen years in prison. A record-keeping requirement means nothing to a child pornographer. But for legitimate producers, the burdensome and byzantine requirements create numerous ways for producers to be prosecuted and harassed by law enforcement, that have nothing to do with the age of performers.

Paul Markham · 03-10-2016, 01:44 AM

Come up with a safer system and suggest it.

TCLGirls · 03-10-2016, 01:49 AM

If any producer finds 2257 "byzantine requirements" too "burdensome", they should probably not be in business.

j3rkules · 03-10-2016, 03:23 AM

Great read, thanks for sharing.

Paul Markham · 03-10-2016, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

If any producer finds 2257 "byzantine requirements" too "burdensome", they should probably not be in business.

Absobloodylutely.

2257 is a doddle to keep and as for FBI able to knock on the door to inspect them, so what?

Of course, if you're working in your Mum's basement in an anti-porn area. I guess it is a problem.

mikesouth · 03-10-2016, 11:23 AM

The issues with 2257 as the courts recently noted is that it amounts to a warrant-less search.

In a broader scope it also shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense and it completely destroys presumptive innocence.

I am as much against CP as anyone can be but 2257 is NOT the proper way to do it, nor is it the most productive way.

Paul Markham · 03-10-2016, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

The issues with 2257 as the courts recently noted is that it amounts to a warrant-less search.

In a broader scope it also shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense and it completely destroys presumptive innocence.

I am as much against CP as anyone can be but 2257 is NOT the proper way to do it, nor is it the most productive way.

The issue with warrantless search goes to other agencies as well. It's a factor of being in porn, agree or leave.

You either have the documents or do not. the prosecution has to prove you don't have them.

So what is a better way than 2257 with the FBI able to view the documents without notice and the pornograp[her able to produce and link them to scenes? You must know a better way, as you said it's not the best way.

mikesouth · 03-10-2016, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

The issue with warrantless search goes to other agencies as well. It's a factor of being in porn, agree or leave.

You either have the documents or do not. the prosecution has to prove you don't have them.

So what is a better way than 2257 with the FBI able to view the documents without notice and the pornograp[her able to produce and link them to scenes? You must know a better way, as you said it's not the best way.

I should know better but I am going to say it anyway.

1. Having to get a warrant is a good thing it means that they have to show a judge probable cause, that means that they cant simply use the law to harass us, which the government has a long habit of doing here in the USA, I realize that isnt here for you....

2. As the law is written I have to prove that I haven't committed a crime that in all likelihood never happened. That makes no sense, I agree everyone should have proof of age, what I cant agree with is that you should have to produce it, on demand, with no probable cause, just because the government wants you to.

3.If they tried to do this shit to bars, convenience store owners, tobacco shops etc it would be laughed out of court, one better way is use the same tactics used on them, stings...with that tactic it is very clear that a crime was committed with intent even.

In the United States of America our legal system operates on the premise innocent until proven guilty, and that burden of proof was always intended to be high, because it is better that a guilty man escape justice than for an innocent man to be deprived of his liberties.

Now I know that the system here has slipped very far from that foundation, but it is up to the citizens of this country to correct that, far too many have been conditioned to kiss the boots of government, I am NOT one of them.

Paul Markham · 03-10-2016, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

I should know better but I am going to say it anyway.

1. Having to get a warrant is a good thing it means that they have to show a judge probable cause, that means that they cant simply use the law to harass us, which the government has a long habit of doing here in the USA, I realize that isnt here for you....

2. As the law is written I have to prove that I haven't committed a crime that in all likelihood never happened. That makes no sense, I agree everyone should have proof of age, what I cant agree with is that you should have to produce it, on demand, with no probable cause, just because the government wants you to.

3.If they tried to do this shit to bars, convenience store owners, tobacco shops etc it would be laughed out of court, one better way is use the same tactics used on them, stings...with that tactic it is very clear that a crime was committed with intent even.

In the United States of America our legal system operates on the premise innocent until proven guilty, and that burden of proof was always intended to be high, because it is better that a guilty man escape justice than for an innocent man to be deprived of his liberties.

Now I know that the system here has slipped very far from that foundation, but it is up to the citizens of this country to correct that, far too many have been conditioned to kiss the boots of government, I am NOT one of them.

1. It's an inspection method many industries have.
2. what crime are you supposed to have committed?
3. It is used on other industries to prove they are working within the law.

The law isn't about having content of underage girls, it's about having the correct paperwork.

03-10-2016, 01:44 AM	#2
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Come up with a safer system and suggest it. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

03-10-2016, 03:23 AM	#4
j3rkules VIP Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 22,111	Great read, thanks for sharing. __________________ How To Build A Porn Site And Make Money \| My Best $$$ Cam Sponsor \| New Webcam Script 3 Top Adult Hosting Providers

03-10-2016, 11:23 AM	#6
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	The issues with 2257 as the courts recently noted is that it amounts to a warrant-less search. In a broader scope it also shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense and it completely destroys presumptive innocence. I am as much against CP as anyone can be but 2257 is NOT the proper way to do it, nor is it the most productive way. __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.

03-10-2016, 01:49 AM	#3
TCLGirls Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Posts: 3,068	If any producer finds 2257 "byzantine requirements" too "burdensome", they should probably not be in business.