2257 Regs, Webmasters & The Attorneys

[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....

[Major (Tom)]

you are correct. i havent recieved an *offical* letter from my attorey yet telling me *exactly* what to do. Until then, im going through all of my records with a fine tooth comb but cannot really do much until its broken down for me with specific instructions. Sure I can read the new regs and come to my own conclusions, but something is telling me thats not a good idea.
Duke

[Nasty]

Great post, so much bullshit flying around over 2257 right now

[DWB]

See sig... stay informed. It's free.

[newbreed]

Well said.

[Jace]

great post..

and if you know what you are doing and who is around you, you can see through the shit some of the more "famous" adult lawyers are flinging on the wall, and boy is there a lot of it

my favorite so far has been the one certain lawyer that hung up on someone after they asked a question, only to say, sorry you haven't give me any money yet, so I can't discuss this with you...LOL...and it was a reporter that was asking the questions...

[John3]

Originally Posted by 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....

1. I've never heard of an attorney who thought his job was to develop a consensus with another attorney. If you know of any please let me know so I won't ever hire his ass.

2. see above. and you're being deceitful, too. 2257 violations do not equate to cp violations, different laws.

3. huh? do you have an attorney? if so you're apparently a dumbass. i like paying people to come to conclusions that aren't their own.

While I agree with your conclusion, the rest of your post sucks.

[John3]

edit - I DON'T like paying people to come to conclusions that aren't their own

[Redrob]

Friend,

This summary is taken from the FIRST page of the new regs.

"SUMMARY: This rule amends the record-keeping and inspection
requirements of 28 CFR part 75 to bring the regulations up to date with
current law, to improve understanding of the regulatory system, and to
make the inspection process effective for the purposes set by Congress
in enacting the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, as
amended, relating to the sexual exploitation and other abuse of children."

The regs have everything to do with CP. I'd suggest you take time to read the regs before you respond.

[Redrob]

Bump for the afternoon crowd.

[s9ann0]

I think its the end of the adult webmaster

[Redrob]

Loss of FREEDOM seldom happens overnight. Oppression doesn't stand on the doorstep with toothbrush moustache and swastika armband -- it creeps up insidiously... step by step, and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realizes that it is gone.
Baron Lane


Bump for the evening crowd.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Redrob

Loss of FREEDOM seldom happens overnight. Oppression doesn't stand on the doorstep with toothbrush moustache and swastika armband -- it creeps up insidiously... step by step, and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realizes that it is gone.
Baron Lane


Bump for the evening crowd.

amen.

[kernelpanic]

Well said

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by DukeSkywalker

you are correct. i havent recieved an *offical* letter from my attorey yet telling me *exactly* what to do. Until then, im going through all of my records with a fine tooth comb but cannot really do much until its broken down for me with specific instructions. Sure I can read the new regs and come to my own conclusions, but something is telling me thats not a good idea.
Duke

Yep, we are hearing the same thing.