2257 Update - GoFuckYourself.com

xxxjay · 08-14-2005, 07:03 PM

2257 UPDATE
CHATSWORTH, CA -- Certain of the confusing aspects of the federal recordkeeping and labeling act, 18 U.S.C. §2257 have been partially clarified as a result of interrogatories submitted to the Department of Justice by FSC attorneys. Key questions were answered in a July 18 letter from DOJ attorney Samuel C. Kaplan to FSC attorney Louis Sirkin.

The DOJ clarifications required yet more clarification by FSC attorneys before they started to resemble English for lay readers. Once translated, however, some reassuring aspects of how the DOJ plans to interpret and enforce the law?s provisions came to light. Some ?clarifications? appear to be significant concessions, especially pertaining to retroactivity, ?date of production? and shooting overseas.

The official position of the Attorney General on certain aspects of 2257 enforcement is now described as follows:

Domestic producers who travel outside the United States to record images of sexually explicit conduct may rely on foreign government issued passports.

The requirement that a ?copy of the depiction? must be maintained does not apply to materials recorded prior to June 23, 2005.

The requirement that the ?date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or re-issuance? be identified on the label is satisfied by stating the last date of filming, and characterizing that as the date of production.

Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations.

The term ?actually sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibition of the genitals? (i.e., mere nudity).

A website containing no depictions of ?actually sexually explicit conduct ? that provides hyperlinks to a third-party website that does contain such material has no record-keeping obligations.

From a copy of the DOJ letter posted on the FSC website
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/pdf/DOJjuly18.pdf
And from Kathee Brewer, AVN Online, 8/10/05
http://www.avnonline.com/articles/236344.html

BVF · 08-14-2005, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

The term ?actually sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibition of the genitals? (i.e., mere nudity).

Holy fuck. that's the BEST part of the whole thing!

After Shock Media · 08-14-2005, 07:05 PM

Great shit.
Love that they put back in lascivious exhibition of the genitals as an exemption.

davecummings · 08-14-2005, 07:11 PM

Thanks FSC!!!!!

Dave

JD · 08-14-2005, 07:14 PM

can we show pink?

crockett · 08-14-2005, 07:15 PM

is this the same thing that was released last week or is this something newer? Seems like the samething if I'm not mistaken.

08-14-2005, 07:03 PM	#1
xxxjay Tube groupie. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: LoScandalous, CA Posts: 13,482	2257 Update 2257 UPDATE CHATSWORTH, CA -- Certain of the confusing aspects of the federal recordkeeping and labeling act, 18 U.S.C. §2257 have been partially clarified as a result of interrogatories submitted to the Department of Justice by FSC attorneys. Key questions were answered in a July 18 letter from DOJ attorney Samuel C. Kaplan to FSC attorney Louis Sirkin. The DOJ clarifications required yet more clarification by FSC attorneys before they started to resemble English for lay readers. Once translated, however, some reassuring aspects of how the DOJ plans to interpret and enforce the law?s provisions came to light. Some ?clarifications? appear to be significant concessions, especially pertaining to retroactivity, ?date of production? and shooting overseas. The official position of the Attorney General on certain aspects of 2257 enforcement is now described as follows: Domestic producers who travel outside the United States to record images of sexually explicit conduct may rely on foreign government issued passports. The requirement that a ?copy of the depiction? must be maintained does not apply to materials recorded prior to June 23, 2005. The requirement that the ?date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or re-issuance? be identified on the label is satisfied by stating the last date of filming, and characterizing that as the date of production. Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations. The term ?actually sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibition of the genitals? (i.e., mere nudity). A website containing no depictions of ?actually sexually explicit conduct ? that provides hyperlinks to a third-party website that does contain such material has no record-keeping obligations. From a copy of the DOJ letter posted on the FSC website http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/pdf/DOJjuly18.pdf And from Kathee Brewer, AVN Online, 8/10/05 http://www.avnonline.com/articles/236344.html __________________ http://donttellmehowtoruinmylife.com/ - http://www.jmdigitalmarketing.com/my...s-and-reviews/ - http://www.wouldyouhitit.org - http://shinyobjectreviews.com/

08-14-2005, 07:05 PM	#3
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Great shit. Love that they put back in lascivious exhibition of the genitals as an exemption. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

08-14-2005, 07:11 PM	#4
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Yeah! Thanks FSC!!!!! Dave

08-14-2005, 07:15 PM	#6
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	is this the same thing that was released last week or is this something newer? Seems like the samething if I'm not mistaken. __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

08-14-2005, 07:14 PM	#5
JD Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 22,651	can we show pink?