Everyone has a 2257 opinion - here's mine

[Chimmy]

The way I see it, yes, the DOJ will prosecute some companies. But their manpower is limited, and thus, just has been the case with the CanSpam act, they will make sure that the companies they prosecute will be operating on a very large scale.

And initially I am also confidant that the companies they prosecute will be clearly guilty of publishing underage material, and not merely unable to promptly produce id records. The reason is simple. The first case going forth to the courts will be a landmark case. As such, the DOJ will want to ensure 2 very important things:

1) The DOJ will want to go into court with as much confidence as possible that they will WIN the case.
2) The DOJ will want to ensure that their new crackdown will be backed by widespread public support. To achieve this, the public must be convinced that DOJ is fighting a worthy case. Simply prosecuting a company because they can not immediately produce records will not likely generate this support. Instead, this could easily be interpretted as a bureaucratic waste of the public's money. But involve children or teens in the equation, and then you are talking huge support.

Be rest assured, the first case is guaranteed to achieve vast media coverage. Anything involving civil rights is very media friendly. As time goes on, unless the offender is of a significant size, then most cases will likely be under the news media radar. This is when prosecutions for mere records keeping offences may start to appear.

So the moral, the sky probably isn't falling quite yet. But, if you keep your head in the sand for to long, you may find when you remove your head from the sand, that your neck has already been put on the chopping block.

[ytcracker]

teal dear

[thonglife]

Originally Posted by Chimmy

The way I see it, yes, the DOJ will prosecute some companies. But their manpower is limited, and thus, just has been the case with the CanSpam act, they will make sure that the companies they prosecute will be operating on a very large scale.

And initially I am also confidant that the companies they prosecute will be clearly guilty of publishing underage material, and not merely unable to promptly produce id records. The reason is simple. The first case going forth to the courts will be a landmark case. As such, the DOJ will want to ensure 2 very important things:

1) The DOJ will want to go into court with as much confidence as possible that they will WIN the case.
2) The DOJ will want to ensure that their new crackdown will be backed by widespread public support. To achieve this, the public must be convinced that DOJ is fighting a worthy case. Simply prosecuting a company because they can not immediately produce records will not likely generate this support. Instead, this could easily be interpretted as a bureaucratic waste of the public's money. But involve children or teens in the equation, and then you are talking huge support.

Be rest assured, the first case is guaranteed to achieve vast media coverage. Anything involving civil rights is very media friendly. As time goes on, unless the offender is of a significant size, then most cases will likely be under the news media radar. This is when prosecutions for mere records keeping offences may start to appear.

So the moral, the sky probably isn't falling quite yet. But, if you keep your head in the sand for to long, you may find when you remove your head from the sand, that your neck has already been put on the chopping block.

I just ordered from an online pharmacy. Ever heard of these? Holy shit! You can order drugs online and not even have a face-to-face relationship with the doctor as mandated by the DEA. The DEA says this is illegal and the the doctor and patient can go to jail. They've said this for several years now.. yet all I see are online pharmacies all over the place. I'm screwed.. glad I bought some benzos because I'll need them with the DEA comes to my door. Surely they have the manpower to enforce these laws by now. BTW .. this post is pure satire in accordance to 18 U.S.C. 2257.

[Chimmy]

I see we have our first "head in the sand" contestant.

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by ytcracker

teal dear

que-eff-tee

[H.I.G]

Originally Posted by Chimmy

The way I see it, yes, the DOJ will prosecute some companies. But their manpower is limited, and thus, just has been the case with the CanSpam act, they will make sure that the companies they prosecute will be operating on a very large scale.

And initially I am also confidant that the companies they prosecute will be clearly guilty of publishing underage material, and not merely unable to promptly produce id records. The reason is simple. The first case going forth to the courts will be a landmark case. As such, the DOJ will want to ensure 2 very important things:

1) The DOJ will want to go into court with as much confidence as possible that they will WIN the case.
2) The DOJ will want to ensure that their new crackdown will be backed by widespread public support. To achieve this, the public must be convinced that DOJ is fighting a worthy case. Simply prosecuting a company because they can not immediately produce records will not likely generate this support. Instead, this could easily be interpretted as a bureaucratic waste of the public's money. But involve children or teens in the equation, and then you are talking huge support.

Be rest assured, the first case is guaranteed to achieve vast media coverage. Anything involving civil rights is very media friendly. As time goes on, unless the offender is of a significant size, then most cases will likely be under the news media radar. This is when prosecutions for mere records keeping offences may start to appear.

So the moral, the sky probably isn't falling quite yet. But, if you keep your head in the sand for to long, you may find when you remove your head from the sand, that your neck has already been put on the chopping block.

good point

[Doctor Dre]

The thing is ... the US gov put this 3rd on their todo important list (a lot before email spamming) . so I guess we'll see a bit more money into it then on any other online task force ever done ...

But the problem they have right now is getting the 2257 bill to get there without any changes so they can do pretty much all they do and set the line where THEY want .

[thonglife]

Originally Posted by Doctor Dre

The thing is ... the US gov put this 3rd on their todo important list (a lot before email spamming) . so I guess we'll see a bit more money into it then on any other online task force ever done ...

But the problem they have right now is getting the 2257 bill to get there without any changes so they can do pretty much all they do and set the line where THEY want .

I'm still trying to comprehend why government is more concerned about a minor seeing a 'nudey' site as opposed to that same minor ordering Oxycontin online and dieing. Pure madness.

[YankBro]

The main point behind the 2257 reg's is to protect children from being exploited, that's very true. I don't have a problem with that. The fact that all this extra bs is being poured in is what makes it so hard to support.

The wording specifically states that violation of the record-keeping regulations are punishable by prison time. That's all they need to prove in court. You can pay your attorney all the money you want in the world to represent you but if your defense is going to be that yes, you commited the crime you are charged of but you aren't guilty of child porn (which you weren't charged for) you might as well start some ass-stretching exercise now.

[thonglife]

Originally Posted by YankBro

The main point behind the 2257 reg's is to protect children from being exploited, that's very true. I don't have a problem with that. The fact that all this extra bs is being poured in is what makes it so hard to support.

The wording specifically states that violation of the record-keeping regulations are punishable by prison time. That's all they need to prove in court. You can pay your attorney all the money you want in the world to represent you but if your defense is going to be that yes, you commited the crime you are charged of but you aren't guilty of child porn (which you weren't charged for) you might as well start some ass-stretching exercise now.

You've obviously never been in court to even know how it works. It's not an automatic jail-term.

[YankBro]

I feel pretty comfortable in betting that the justice department wants a lot of convictions during the first year or so after the new regulations go into effect. Whoever is stupid or unlucky enough to walk into federal court and have to admit that they are guilty as charged as a defense will get their ass handed to them. Unless you have a heavy-hitter attorney in the 100k+range you are going to be in some deep shit. This isn't some local yokel prosecutor scenario...it's the big boys who have been mandated by congress to slap it to the adult internet industry.

You have to have a better idea of how to defend your innocence than trying to make the jury or judge believe that 2257 was meant only to punish child porn publishers...because it wasn't. It says you have to maintain the records or you're guilty.

Even if you win you would have to have deep enough pockets to pay the huge legal fees plus face a total loss of income while all this is going on...which could drag on for years. Call Cambria, Walters, or Sirkin's office and ask what it costs to retain them for a 2-3 years long federal case...you will shit your pants I guarantee it. Just for kicks, go ahead and ask what it would cost for the appeals process if you are convicted. It's fucking astronomical.

The feds would be just as happy to see you go bankrupt as they would go to jail for a year. It appears infinitely easier to just go ahead and comply. The 2257 loophole is closing, but the traffic and profits will always be there so just change with the times. I bet over 90% of adult webmasters couldn't stand the financial impact of defending federal charges. The customers aren't going away, we are just going to have to re-think the way we reach and convert them. Adapt or die, that's life.