NEWS: "Traci's Law" enacted (too?)...

[2HousePlague]

The industry is all a-shudder. The writing's on the wall.

It's funny the DOJ let "2257" out the door without applying a bit of marketing magic to the name.

The books are full of laws with female names. They pay tribute to a case of terrible victimhood, and they help galvanize public support.

Could it be that they actually DON'T EXPECT to find many underage performers in Adult?

From AVNOnline:

In all, in the last 20 years, a total of four underage performers using deliberately falsified IDs have been uncovered, beginning with Traci Lords, and including Alexandria Quinn and gay performer Jeff Browning ? an astonishingly small number considering the total number of performers who have passed through the industry during that period.

Could it be that the DOJ actually DON'T have grand PR ambitions for this law?

Google News Search returns fewer than 100 results for "2257" and Yahoo News Search but 54!



There's no question this thing became a law for the lawmakers talking-up all "the victims to be saved" on Capitol Hill.

Yet, here we are -- obsessing on the letter of the law, when all around us there is ample evidence that we, the industry, are doing a fine job at keeping under-age performers out of porn --









j-

[baddog]

Well, the first thing I noticed about the search results is that is doesn't appear that any of the first two pages have anything to do with USC TITLE 18, SECTION 2257 - but rather deal with telephone numbers, addresses and seating capacities.

Now, http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...ld+pornography . . . or just http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...nG=Search+News

[2HousePlague]

Originally Posted by baddog

Well, the first thing I noticed about the search results is that is doesn't appear that any of the first two pages have anything to do with USC TITLE 18, SECTION 2257 - but rather deal with telephone numbers, addresses and seating capacities.

Now, http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...ld+pornography . . . or just http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...nG=Search+News

[nods]

It DOES seem odd -- you'd think that if EVER they meant for jurors to opine, that there'd be SOME "grassroots" PR component underway by now. This can only mean that the Government doesn't expect to have to burden the layman juror's ear with the finer points of 2257 -- OR -- that, if and when they do bring a 2257 matter to trial, the plaintiff argument won't require any advance preparation in that jury's mind -- for being self-evident and uncontestable --

If the latter, it would be hard to imagine anything less to the Goverment's case than (the full evidentiary substantiation of) having found an actual under-age performer on some site --



j-

[sickbeatz]

i can't read, show me pics