DOJ who will they go after?

[bigdog]

who do you think the DOJ will be going after? random people or the guys with the young looking girl and extreme sites.

[jollyperv]

If I ran a teen thumb tgp or a teen paysite, I'd be a little worried.

[broke]

I wouldn't want to be teen revenue right now.






This post in no way implies they don't have their shit together. Dealing with the hassle of an inspection in and of itself is going to suck.

[Worldnet]

I would not want to be the owner of this site:
http://www.dixietrailertrash.com/autorank/toplist.html

[xclusive]

They will probably start with the extreme teen sites first not going to be fun whoever they decide to go after

[Matt 26z]

Pedo sites. They'll use 2257 to stack the deck against them on top of their CP charges. Then when a plea deal is offered, it's something like "We'll drop the 2257 charges if you agree to plead guilty to the CP production." Now the plea doesn't cut into the main charge.

I will be shocked if any legit adult companies are ever checked.

[fusionx]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Pedo sites. They'll use 2257 to stack the deck against them on top of their CP charges. Then when a plea deal is offered, it's something like "We'll drop the 2257 charges if you agree to plead guilty to the CP production." Now the plea doesn't cut into the main charge.

I will be shocked if any legit adult companies are ever checked.

I'd modify this to pedo and "obscenity", but this is almost exactly how I think it will be used in the real world. It's a tool to bypass normal protections under the law, allowing the DOJ to investigate and prosecute obscenity and CP without having to follow the normal rules concerning search and siezure.

here's an interesting clip from this article from 11-29-2004: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=207208

Continuing the trend to obfuscate legal issues pertaining to adult entertainment by associating it with child pornography, the government reports that the ?number of child exploitation and adult obscenity investigations and prosecutions increased by more than 300% since 2001.?

Cambria notes that the DOJ is exaggerating their ability to prosecute adult material by lumping it together with child pornography. ?When you track down their convictions, most of them are to pleas to child porn. Some of them have to do with extreme types of adult entertainment: bestiality, or really hardcore depictions of rape or situations like that,? Cambria said. ?That is not mainstream product, I have not seen any mainstream adult products prosecuted.

[mardigras]

The DOJ doesn't have to initiate cases against mainstream adult products when you have people like Sam Brownback promising to use every new tool they give him to do the job for them

[Bama]

Damn it's good to see other voices of reason on this topic.

I can't stand to see the "they'll put us all in jail" - "all of our liberties are in jeopardy" cries. I swear to God they ought to teach common sense in high school cause there are alot of folks here that don't have any!

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by mardigras

The DOJ doesn't have to initiate cases against mainstream adult products when you have people like Sam Brownback promising to use every new tool they give him to do the job for them

I meant to say Pat Trueman but Sam Brownback is as bad.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Pedo sites. They'll use 2257 to stack the deck against them on top of their CP charges. Then when a plea deal is offered, it's something like "We'll drop the 2257 charges if you agree to plead guilty to the CP production." Now the plea doesn't cut into the main charge.

I will be shocked if any legit adult companies are ever checked.

I would think the deal would go the other way.

They don't usually plea bargain up to harsher cases, but down to less harsh cases.

If I were a teen site owner and they said plead guilty to CP production I'd say fuck that shit..take me to court and prosecute.

More than likely it would be that you would plead to violation of 2257 regs for a lesser penalty because they couldn't necessarily prove the CP part just because you were missing one sheet of paper.

Unless you were talking about actual CP sites..Illegal sites...they'll go after them regardless. 2257 is not the tool they'll use if there are clear violations.

[mardigras]

Originally Posted by Bama

Damn it's good to see other voices of reason on this topic.

I can't stand to see the "they'll put us all in jail" - "all of our liberties are in jeopardy" cries. I swear to God they ought to teach common sense in high school cause there are alot of folks here that don't have any!

Let me spoon feed this to you:
CLICK HERE

[wtfent]

Originally Posted by Bama

Damn it's good to see other voices of reason on this topic.

I swear to God they ought to teach common sense in high school cause there are alot of folks here that don't have any!

Isnt that the truth.

[Dirty Dane]

The answer to this is pre-investigation and collection of data.

Remember it says in the 2257 that they can take copys of the datas and that way they will have a huge database themself. Can't really see why they should waste their time on a compliant site B, if they already checked legal site A with same models/sponsors.

[mardigras]

BTW, in reference the link to the thread I posted above, http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=479170
Don't just read the first few posts, scroll down and read ALL the information & links in regards to Mr. Trueman's activities and testimonies. There will be probably more prosecutions based on 2257 in the first year initiated by Mr. Trueman's organization than the DOJ will ever initiate themselves.

[Rochard]

Keep in mind that the DOJ has never done a 2257 inspection, and the only conviction they've ever gotton on a 2257 charge was a plea bargin.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by RocHard

Keep in mind that the DOJ has never done a 2257 inspection, and the only conviction they've ever gotton on a 2257 charge was a plea bargin.

Don't be so certain. Don't know if someone has gone to jail yet, but I know about one case going on in US right now, for violation of the old 2257. Pretty sure it is not CP, but over 20 missing records.

[dopeman]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Don't be so certain. Don't know if someone has gone to jail yet, but I know about one case going on in US right now, for violation of the old 2257. Pretty sure it is not CP, but over 20 missing records.

what kind of case is this? webmaster? primary producer?

[bigdog]

Originally Posted by RocHard

Keep in mind that the DOJ has never done a 2257 inspection, and the only conviction they've ever gotton on a 2257 charge was a plea bargin.

these days a lot of people have single girl sites these days where the girls look real young, maybe the goverment will rattle some cages now

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by dopeman

what kind of case is this? webmaster? primary producer?

Don't know the exact circumstances around that case, but they are (were) primary producers and paysite(s).

I also know about a NN producer that had inspection. Nothing illegal, and the girl was 18+, but he WAS inspected.

Thing is that we won't hear about it, except if it is in the news or they choose to tell it. Why should someone make it public, when it can hurt your business, even if you are innocent? Just look at Michael Jackson

[kernelpanic]

Americans

[Big Red Machine]

I am proud member of the F.S.C. atleast they gave us some breathing room.

[Heywood Jablome]

Originally Posted by Bama

Damn it's good to see other voices of reason on this topic.

I can't stand to see the "they'll put us all in jail" - "all of our liberties are in jeopardy" cries. I swear to God they ought to teach common sense in high school cause there are alot of folks here that don't have any!

Agreed!

The other thing that gets on my nerves is this sheep mentality that thinks that all republican voters are bible-thumping anti-porn zealots. I live in the heart of the 'bible belt', I know first hand that many republicans love porn! What they hate is having it shoved in everyone's face, whether they want to see it or not (hence can-spam, superbowl nudity, kid sites redirecting to porn sites, etc).

[bigdog]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Don't know the exact circumstances around that case, but they are (were) primary producers and paysite(s).

I also know about a NN producer that had inspection. Nothing illegal, and the girl was 18+, but he WAS inspected.

Thing is that we won't hear about it, except if it is in the news or they choose to tell it. Why should someone make it public, when it can hurt your business, even if you are innocent? Just look at Michael Jackson

the NN guy that had got inspected was his site where the model looks real young?

[reynold]

Fishermen always look for bigger catch.