2257 or .xxx which will it be?

[xxxjay]

2257 or .xxx which will it be?

Let me start by saying that I support neither 2257 or dot xxx.

The government wants to step and clean up the internet. On one hand, we have 2257 ? a draconian records keeping regulation that is near impossible to comply with, with pop inspections by armed federal agents, and harsh sentences.

On the other hand we have dot xxx. I can totally see what is coming down the pike with this one. The government and ICANN can easily create a mandatory ?virtual red light district? and say they?ve done something about porn. For too many years this industry has been sleeping saying ?they can?t regulate the world? ? well, maybe they can.

Now, assuming you have to deal with one or the other: heavy 2257 enforcement or dot xxx ? which is it going to be?

A lot of people seem to think dot xxx is worse. I don?t agree. Sure, I can see the implications ? even for my main source of income Jays XXX Links (which derives a shitload of traffic from search engines) is going to lose a ton of backlinks and it will cripple my traffic for the short term ? it has a huge legion of bookmarkers and a name brand?it will survive. There is a great article by Gregory A. Piccionelli that gave me some of these ideas:

http://www.xbiz.com/article_piece.ph...=porn %20wars

Now, this only operates under the assumption that the government slows its roll on a full frontal 2257 assault and applies the law where it is really needed:

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002

I don?t feel like the government has the money or the time for a full on 2257 assault. I will most likely use it as a backup when they are going after some extreme stuff that they really do want to nail on an obscenity charge. On top of that, I don?t feel 2257 has a ton of jury appeal and taking so many people to court is just not in their budget.

There are some on the far-far right that say dot xxx would legitimize porn or whatever ? these people will never be satisfied till all adult entertainment has been eradicated. I know most people are too young to remember the 18th amendment, but it moved ?demon alcohol? underground for 13 years. A ?noble experiment? was a fabulous disaster.

What all of these people need to remember is that NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY ? if the kids want to see hardcore porn ? they will see hardcore porn. I snuck peeks at magazines when I was a kid, so did you, and so will this generation ? it is part of growing up. I?m all for doing something that will keep it harder to keep kids off porn sites, but ultimately that is the responsibility of the parents.

The opposition needs to face facts?the genie is out of the bottle, there is no putting it back. If we need to throw them a bone so they can ease up on their moral crusade ? what is it going to be dot xxx or 2257?

This should be interesting.

[Art Del Gado]

nice read jay as always

i personally think this is just one big scare and hopefully none of it will come true... but we shoud prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

[kernelpanic]

I've put a lot of thought into the recent crackdowns, but also who has been doing them - certainly not the generation that grew up with the internet. Of all the people who are making these draconian restrictions, nearly every one of them fits the typical profile of an elected official, most notably on the age grounds: these people grew up with adult bookstores, and consequently see the internet as an expansion of existing pornography - that is why these draconian restrictions target internet pornography, since it is the omnipresent extention of the local XXX bookstore into every house, school, and workplace. What typically what a store in the bad section of town, has now extended into every location with internet connectivity, and these restrictions are a reaction by the "ruling class" - the congressmen, senior bureaucrats, and others who are of a socially conservative persuasion, and seeking to keep pornography resticted to how it was before the new-fangled internet spread it all over society.

With that said, I see .xxx as a more enduring problem. 2257 is a recordskeeping regulation, and is easily repealed once a more progressive administration takes power. However, the forcing of all adult webmasters in [pick your jurisdiction] into the .xxx ghettos is far more damaging in the long run. After time, porn sites build up bookmarkers and name identity, and thus would not want to change the identity of their whole operation when a .xxx requirement law/rule goes away.

.xxx also has the potential for nongovernmental abuse. 2257 is between the models, the publishers, and the DOJ, whereas .xxx is for the world to see. Search engines will be able now to segregate all legitimate porn sites in one measure, and so will processors. Centralizing the porn will make it easier for the ISPs, governments, and connection owners (think shared lines - apartments, universities, etc) to censor it. Furthermore, ISPs might fall victim to draconian local statutes requiring filtering of .xxx within one specific locality, especially one where "community standards" might ban adult bookstores already, or tax them heavily.

Draconian .xxx rules can also be extended across international boundries by different governments and ICANN, whereas 2257 is only a problem for those operating in the US.

In short, both are bad, .xxx is worse in the long run, whereas 2257 is bad in the short run.

[fireorange]

I voted 2257.

[Dalai lama]

2257 yep.

[MikeHawk]

Jay......what you must realize that the 2257 is an easy thing to manage, that will require some work. But the other has far deeper hidden meanings



This .xxx deal smells like BULLSHIT!



Unlike 2257, .xxx is a driven by a desire for money, and greed.

[american pervert]

The 2257 battle will be too pricy for the gov't to fight everyone on. I think they will be using it as an excuse to get rid of people like extreme assiocates who help cause messes like this in the first place. we should all thank rob black for going on tv and asking the gov't to come after him.

[BukkakeBrown]

i voted 2257

[opflix]

lol @ "throw them a bone"





..

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

I've put a lot of thought into the recent crackdowns, but also who has been doing them - certainly not the generation that grew up with the internet. Of all the people who are making these draconian restrictions, nearly every one of them fits the typical profile of an elected official, most notably on the age grounds: these people grew up with adult bookstores, and consequently see the internet as an expansion of existing pornography - that is why these draconian restrictions target internet pornography, since it is the omnipresent extention of the local XXX bookstore into every house, school, and workplace. What typically what a store in the bad section of town, has now extended into every location with internet connectivity, and these restrictions are a reaction by the "ruling class" - the congressmen, senior bureaucrats, and others who are of a socially conservative persuasion, and seeking to keep pornography resticted to how it was before the new-fangled internet spread it all over society.

With that said, I see .xxx as a more enduring problem. 2257 is a recordskeeping regulation, and is easily repealed once a more progressive administration takes power. However, the forcing of all adult webmasters in [pick your jurisdiction] into the .xxx ghettos is far more damaging in the long run. After time, porn sites build up bookmarkers and name identity, and thus would not want to change the identity of their whole operation when a .xxx requirement law/rule goes away.

.xxx also has the potential for nongovernmental abuse. 2257 is between the models, the publishers, and the DOJ, whereas .xxx is for the world to see. Search engines will be able now to segregate all legitimate porn sites in one measure, and so will processors. Centralizing the porn will make it easier for the ISPs, governments, and connection owners (think shared lines - apartments, universities, etc) to censor it. Furthermore, ISPs might fall victim to draconian local statutes requiring filtering of .xxx within one specific locality, especially one where "community standards" might ban adult bookstores already, or tax them heavily.

Draconian .xxx rules can also be extended across international boundries by different governments and ICANN, whereas 2257 is only a problem for those operating in the US.

In short, both are bad, .xxx is worse in the long run, whereas 2257 is bad in the short run.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing -- isn't it time some of these "conservatives" started having strokes and heat attacks?

[sherie]

It's a tough call. I would have to go with 2257 on this.

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by MikeHawk

Jay......what you must realize that the 2257 is an easy thing to manage, that will require some work. But the other has far deeper hidden meanings



This .xxx deal smells like BULLSHIT!



Unlike 2257, .xxx is a driven by a desire for money, and greed.

I didn't say I liked either.

I can easily cough up $60 for a domain. If they ask me to cough up 5 years of my life becasue I accidently didn't cross-reffernce Ivana Cockinme with with Ivana Fuck correctly...they had better plan on taking me to jail in a herse.

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing -- isn't it time some of these "conservatives" started having strokes and heat attacks?

Some will die, some will retire, and others will lose touch with progressive constituencies. Whatever happens, the outcome will be the same - younger politicians, who grew up with the internet, will be elected, and be much more sympathetic toward the needs of the online adult industry - lets face it, both of the regulations you mentioned aren't meant to attack local adult bookstores.

Also, the younger generation sees sexual promiscuity and pornography as being more acceptable in principle, and thus won't crusade against the behavior of adults in their own home.

Years ago, when I was younger (read: 13-16), I was that "one kid" who everyone could depend on for computer service when they were having trouble. As such, I frequently dealt with browser caches looking for sources of viruses, and later, spyware, and I came into contact with everybody's internet history. I found that adults viewed way more porn than kids, but were much less forthcoming about it, and tried to cover it up with a paranoid degree of thoroughness

Those are the sort of people with repressed urges, but would never be caught dead in an adult bookstore.

I think the assault on the online adult industry is a generational thing, and will pass. In the meantime, its important to stand firm for the rights of legitimate adult webmasters and producers to cater to other adults who want to view such material.

[FleshJoe2005]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

I've put a lot of thought into the recent crackdowns, but also who has been doing them - certainly not the generation that grew up with the internet. Of all the people who are making these draconian restrictions, nearly every one of them fits the typical profile of an elected official, most notably on the age grounds: these people grew up with adult bookstores, and consequently see the internet as an expansion of existing pornography - that is why these draconian restrictions target internet pornography, since it is the omnipresent extention of the local XXX bookstore into every house, school, and workplace. What typically what a store in the bad section of town, has now extended into every location with internet connectivity, and these restrictions are a reaction by the "ruling class" - the congressmen, senior bureaucrats, and others who are of a socially conservative persuasion, and seeking to keep pornography resticted to how it was before the new-fangled internet spread it all over society.

With that said, I see .xxx as a more enduring problem. 2257 is a recordskeeping regulation, and is easily repealed once a more progressive administration takes power. However, the forcing of all adult webmasters in [pick your jurisdiction] into the .xxx ghettos is far more damaging in the long run. After time, porn sites build up bookmarkers and name identity, and thus would not want to change the identity of their whole operation when a .xxx requirement law/rule goes away.

.xxx also has the potential for nongovernmental abuse. 2257 is between the models, the publishers, and the DOJ, whereas .xxx is for the world to see. Search engines will be able now to segregate all legitimate porn sites in one measure, and so will processors. Centralizing the porn will make it easier for the ISPs, governments, and connection owners (think shared lines - apartments, universities, etc) to censor it. Furthermore, ISPs might fall victim to draconian local statutes requiring filtering of .xxx within one specific locality, especially one where "community standards" might ban adult bookstores already, or tax them heavily.

Draconian .xxx rules can also be extended across international boundries by different governments and ICANN, whereas 2257 is only a problem for those operating in the US.

In short, both are bad, .xxx is worse in the long run, whereas 2257 is bad in the short run.

Clearly the 2257 regulation is much worse. You can get around the .xxx issue by using a non-USA registrar who is not bound by whatever idiotic congress critter decides to force USA-based registrars to do.

The 2257 regulation will put a huge chilling effect on your supply of models. No model/talent will want to disclose their valid ID to uncounted numbers of secondary producers (affiliates and simple net stalkers who pose as affiliates) and no secondary producers will want to disclose their home address so that random jerks and right wing nuts can harvest this info. Google '2257 compliance' now and see what info you can find. Then extrapolate to 20x with all mom-n-pop 'secondary producers' having to disclose this info, and you will see where this goes.

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by FleshJoe2005

Clearly the 2257 regulation is much worse. You can get around the .xxx issue by using a non-USA registrar who is not bound by whatever idiotic congress critter decides to force USA-based registrars to do.

The .xxx TLD lays the framework for any government to ban non-.xxx sites from operating from within their country. Besides, if ICANN is pressured into banning porn from .com and .net, then all countries will be affected by this. Its not just the US government that will be the enemy once the .xxx TLD is established.

Originally Posted by FleshJoe2005

The 2257 regulation will put a huge chilling effect on your supply of models. No model/talent will want to disclose their valid ID to uncounted numbers of secondary producers (affiliates and simple net stalkers who pose as affiliates) and no secondary producers will want to disclose their home address so that random jerks and right wing nuts can harvest this info. Google '2257 compliance' now and see what info you can find. Then extrapolate to 20x with all mom-n-pop 'secondary producers' having to disclose this info, and you will see where this goes.

There are still plenty of girls willing to do it anyway, either because they need the money, because they are naive about the implications of 2257, or because they simply don't care.

While 2257 is bad, especially to me as a secondary producer, it won't be as long lasting, in my opinion. 2257 seems to be much easier to repeal than does a move forcing all porn sites into the .xxx ghetto that is being established right now.

[crockett]

hey maybe you could get jay.xxx

[tony286]

2257 all the way

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by MikeHawk

Jay......what you must realize that the 2257 is an easy thing to manage

You and Joe STILL haven't talked to a lawyer yet, haven't you?

[J$tyle$]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

The .xxx TLD lays the framework for any government to ban non-.xxx sites from operating from within their country. Besides, if ICANN is pressured into banning porn from .com and .net, then all countries will be affected by this. Its not just the US government that will be the enemy once the .xxx TLD is established.

I don't know about that. Granted, this is from Jason Hendeles attorney (which I found in a recent AVNONLINE article) but I think there is some validity to what is being said.

Legal Protections for the Voluntary Nature of the .xxx Domain
To: "'stld-rfp-xxx@xxxxxxxxx'" <stld-rfp-xxx@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Legal Protections for the Voluntary Nature of the .xxx Domain
From: "Corn-Revere, Bob" <bobcornrevere@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:35:17 -0700

---------------------------------------------

Title: Legal Protections for the Voluntary Nature of the .xxx Domain
I am a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP and have been retained to advise ICM Registry and IFFOR about legal and constitutional issues arising from their proposal for a .xxx domain. By way of background, I have practiced First Amendment and communications law for 20 years and have argued various cases in federal courts, including a case in the United States Supreme Court. I also previously served as Chief Counsel to former interim Chairman James H. Quello of the Federal Communications Commission.

The ICM Registry and IFFOR proposal for a .xxx domain will enable responsible adult-entertainment website operators to self-organize and self-regulate on a voluntary basis. The proposal is based on the natural utility of the domain name system to allow content providers to organize their activities based on an Internet "address." This is not a "regulatory" proposal but is designed to preserve the purpose and function of the DNS. No website operator would be required to migrate to the .xxx domain.

Some comments posted to this site recently address the nature of the .xxx proposal and offer conclusions about whether it can, or should be made mandatory. In particular, I am referring to the comments posted on April 29 by Michael Bauser and D. Evangelista. Before addressing some of their specific concerns, it should be noted as background that the ICM/IFFOR proposal is designed very specifically to preserve and defend the voluntary nature of the system. As a practical matter, the global nature of the DNS would undermine any effort by a particular government to mandate use of a particular domain. But if the U.S. government tried to require use of a .xxx address by designated entities, such a regulatory scheme would likely be found to be unconstitutional. See Background Paper: Legal Protections for the Voluntary Nature of an Adult Internet Domain (http://www.icmregistry.com/legalprotections.pdf). Even some former critics of other adult domain concepts have commented that the ICM/IFFOR proposal has done a reasonable job of addressing their concerns. See Comments of Donald Eastlake 3rd, posted April 20, 2004.

Mr. Evangelista takes issue with this position, and argues strenuously that a .xxx domain must be made mandatory and subject to "US governmental regulation and enforcement by the FTC." His comments, however, misapprehend the nature of the DNS, both as a system for Internet addressing, not regulation, and as a global system that is not subject to any particular nation's assertion of control. Mr. Evangelista asserts that any claim that a mandatory .xxx is unconstitutional (under U.S. law) is "ridiculous" and "insane" and evidently put forth by "those that were asleep during history class." These conclusions, which appear to confuse strength of rhetoric with depth of analysis, seem to rest on two assumptions: (1) that a law which violates the Bill of Rights is not "unconstitutional," and (2) that the First Amendment protects only political dissent, and not other expression. This first assumption is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution (and not a part of the Declaration of Independence, as Mr. Evangelista later seems to assert). If a law violates the First Amendment, it is declared unconstitutional. The second assumption, that the First Amendment protects only political discourse, is belied by over five decades of well-developed case law on the subject. For a more detailed discussion of specific case law that relates specifically to the .xxx proposal, the background paper linked above should answer most questions.

The comments of Michael Bauser, while very different from those of Mr. Evangelista, similarly rely on name-calling rather than analysis. He repeatedly calls proponents of a .xxx domain "delusional" and "disingenuous." Much of his criticism is based on misconceptions about the technical nature and practical effects of a .xxx domain that are beyond the scope of my comment. With respect to legal issues, however, Mr. Bauser criticizes claims that a mandatory .xxx domain would be struck down as unconstitutional. He calls the legal analyses "disingenuous," because "[e]ven if the suspicious law remains on the books, it does nothing to affect non-xxx domains outside the United States." Far from providing a strong reason for opposing the ICM/IFFOR proposal, however, this statement sums up why a law in the U.S. (or any other country) requiring registration by certain websites in .xxx would be futile. More to the point, an unconstitutional law would not "remain on the books," but would be a dead letter.

To sum up: A voluntary .xxx domain can serve the needs of the Internet community for self-identification while avoiding the principal legal and policy objections to an adult domain. Significant legal barriers exist to mandating registration in an "adult" domain, and the proposal of ICM Registry and IFFOR for .xxx includes a commitment to maintaining the voluntary and non-exclusive nature of the domain.

The flip side is that flying .XXX sites may in fact give more credence to the theory that webmasters are operating a legitimate business ... and are 2257 compliant and ARE responsible for NOT allowing childern to view adult material

Also, the one thing most people are forgetting is percption of SURFERS ... AND if they want porn - THEY'RE GOING TO GET PORN!

How's THIS for a conservative view point ...

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=229089

The Family Research Council issued a statement on Friday voicing its opposition to the .xxx sponsored Top Level Domain. Whether the group realizes it or not, its position matches one held by at least a portion of the adult industry.

Who knew adult entertainment and the religious right had so much in common?

Patrick Trueman, the FRC?s senior legal counsel and former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, composed the organization?s statement. Ever the open-minded individual, he was at a loss to defend his position when contacted by AVNOnline.com.

?The Adult Video News? No. No. Not interested [in commenting],? Trueman said.

However, the obviously eloquent individual had the following to say in the position statement he prepared for the FRC:

?The new domain would do more harm than good. The .com domain has been a cash cow for the porn industry, and pornographers will not give it up and remove themselves to the .xxx domain. Instead, they will populate the .xxx domain and perhaps double the number of porn sites available on the Web.

"The .xxx domain also cloaks the porn industry with legitimacy. The industry will have a place at the table in developing and maintaining their new property.

?Creating a virtual red-light district may also discourage law enforcement from bringing obscenity cases on the notion that the problem is solved.?

[seeric]

probably one of the most intelligent stements i have read COMPLETELY on these subjeccts. street knowledge always preceeds common knowledge and factual knowledge.

whatever, theres intention and reality with laws and law enforcement.

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by A1R3K

probably one of the most intelligent stements i have read COMPLETELY on these subjeccts. street knowledge always preceeds common knowledge and factual knowledge.

whatever, theres intention and reality with laws and law enforcement.

Thanks...I think.

[clickhappy]

Why would anyone pick 2257 over .xxx?

One is annoying and costs you $70 to deal with, and the other puts you in jail for 5 years for a clerical error.

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

I don't know about that. Granted, this is from Jason Hendeles attorney (which I found in a recent AVNONLINE article) but I think there is some validity to what is being said.






The flip side is that flying .XXX sites may in fact give more credence to the theory that webmasters are operating a legitimate business ... and are 2257 compliant and ARE responsible for NOT allowing childern to view adult material

Also, the one thing most people are forgetting is percption of SURFERS ... AND if they want porn - THEY'RE GOING TO GET PORN!

How's THIS for a conservative view point ...

I was looking for that quote...thanks for the link:
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=229089

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by clickhappy

Why would anyone pick 2257 over .xxx?

One is annoying and costs you $70 to deal with, and the other puts you in jail for 5 years for a clerical error.

Could be the non-US crowd.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by clickhappy

Why would anyone pick 2257 over .xxx?

One is annoying and costs you $70 to deal with, and the other puts you in jail for 5 years for a clerical error.

one could put you out if business forever

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by clickhappy

Why would anyone pick 2257 over .xxx?

One is annoying and costs you $70 to deal with, and the other puts you in jail for 5 years for a clerical error.

I can dodge 2257 by falling outside its guidelines, all the while hoping for an injunction or repealing.

[J$tyle$]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I was looking for that quote...thanks for the link:
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=229089

Intersting perspective, huh?

Also interesting are the resposes of people outside the biz that think .xxx is "COOL" - one guy said to me - "great, now it will be easier to find my porn!"

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by tony404

one could put you out if business forever

How could .xxx put you out of biz forever?

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

Also interesting are the resposes of people outside the biz that think .xxx is "COOL" - one guy said to me - "great, now it will be easier to find my porn!"

And the kids without any filtering software will know right where to go!

[J$tyle$]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

And the kids without any filtering software will know right where to go!

Isn't that a parenting issue that's still relevent TODAY regardless of .XXX?

Or you just being a wiseass for the sake of it?

C'mon now - reality is that those that want porn will find it ... this we know.

[kernelpanic]

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

Isn't that a parenting issue that's still relevent TODAY regardless of .XXX?

Or you just being a wiseass for the sake of it?

C'mon now - reality is that those that want porn will find it ... this we know.

Well, less than 10% of internet-enabled households with children under 13 have filtering software in use, and yet .xxx is being billed as a way to keep it out of the hands of kids


Shit, there is no parental responsibility anymore

[MikeHawk]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

You and Joe STILL haven't talked to a lawyer yet, haven't you?

Jay, of course we have...............i will talk to you in person in San Diego.

[J$tyle$]

Originally Posted by kernelpanic

Well, less than 10% of internet-enabled households with children under 13 have filtering software in use, and yet .xxx is being billed as a way to keep it out of the hands of kids


Shit, there is no parental responsibility anymore

[adonthenet]

.xxx !!!

[Babagirls]

I'd MUCH rather deal with the 2257 bullshit.

imagine if .xxx domains were to become available at midnight tonight:
the first people to sex.xxx & porn.xxx will become fairly rich right away (as soon as porn surfers knew about the .xxx switch).

Now, those 2 domains could be ran by newbies & fuck up the game even more than cheaters already do, AND not to mention, you would have to start all over again with traffic, trades, and a bunch of shit that possibly took YEARS to gain.

The day .xxx domains become "the new way of porn", is the day I say fuck this biz, im out! And guess how many other people will eventually be saying the same thing?? I'd bet ALOT!

Now, knowing this, the goverment can see this is a whole new way of destroying the adult industry, very fast, and without violating the 1st addmendment.

[xXxtreme2005]

2257 gets my vote since im in compliance!

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by J$tyle$

Isn't that a parenting issue that's still relevent TODAY regardless of .XXX?

Or you just being a wiseass for the sake of it?

C'mon now - reality is that those that want porn will find it ... this we know.

Parenting - that would be too much to ask! LOL Why parent when you can get the goverment to watch your kids?

[tony286]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

How could .xxx put you out of biz forever?

Lets see its made into a law in the us, you have to give up your .com and get a .xxx . Say good bye to most of your day time sales, college sales, then the isp blocking starts. Now I dont make a million a yr like yourself, so too many hard hits im done . Where you have to learn to get by on 200k a yr.

[Nader]

Great thread Jay!

This is going to be a very interesting year.

[Major (Tom)]

2257 because i control my own destiny, not the asacp or the other people in this "coffee clutch."
.xxx i have no control over.

Duke

[NTSS]

2257....

[dopeman]

well lightspeed just said that he won't be giving affiliates the 2257 docs. i think that will set the precedence for other sponsors. this is really going to change everything.

[Rhesus]

2257 means a restriction of the industry. .Xxx can wipe it all out.

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by dopeman

well lightspeed just said that he won't be giving affiliates the 2257 docs. i think that will set the precedence for other sponsors. this is really going to change everything.

I don't blame him and I support him.

We are meeting with our lawyers on the 9th to finalize our decision.

[Connor]

Both are awful. I'd vote for .xxx being the bigger problem only because I have complete confidence that the industry will either completely defeat all the 2257 regs, or get them altered so much that they won't be a problem in their final form. What stinks so much about .xxx is that people inside the industry helped bring this down on us... we're used to dealing with the government and issues like 2257, but .xxx is an assault from both the outside and within, and financed by private business interests. That's trickier to beat. Now, if 2257 were to stand exactly as it is right now and nothing were changed in court, then it would be a tougher call which was worse. But I am confident that the FSC will be successful to at least some degree in its challenge. Let's hope I'm right there.

[reynold]

Is there a thrid option?

[ADL Colin]

The real battle will be with Visa

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by reynold

Is there a thrid option?

See post above.

[tradermcduck]

Originally Posted by Almighty Colin

The real battle will be with Visa

possible

[dopeman]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

I don't blame him and I support him.

We are meeting with our lawyers on the 9th to finalize our decision.

as long as there is no retroactive action taken against affiliates who cannot now get the docs.