2257 Changes working through Congress - GoFuckYourself.com

chadknowslaw · 03-08-2006, 07:05 PM

Yesterday a bill passed through the House of Representatives that will make changes to 2257 and then ADD a section that would require 2257 data be maintained for "simulated sexual conduct". [2257 A ]

Many of the arguments in the FSC case hinge on the theory that the Attorney General cannot define "secondary producers" because that goes farther than the law [which Congress makes] allows. If Congress includes "secondary producers" under 2257 then the best argument against it would be that the law is overbroad or unconstitutional in some way, a more difficult argument to win.

The language in the bill is confusing, and I still have not come up with a good interpretation as to what its effects would be. The most important section is Section 602.
The bill is House Resolution 4472

BoyAlley · 03-08-2006, 07:11 PM

CHAD! You're gay homosexual: You need to be talking about this over gaymainstreet.

http://www.GayMainStreet.com

Inquiring fags want to know!

StickyGreen · 03-08-2006, 07:13 PM

they need to leave secondary producers alone...

chadknowslaw · 03-08-2006, 07:22 PM

From what I have read so far, it doesn't bring in secondary producers. However, the part about requiring producers of "simulated sexual conduct" might just require every mainstream movie and TV program and magazine that shows "simulated" sex to keep a 2257 database.

I know the Repubs hate Hollywood, so this might be an indirect payback for all those Hollywood-types raising money for the Dems....

03-08-2006, 07:05 PM	#1
chadknowslaw Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 343	2257 Changes working through Congress Yesterday a bill passed through the House of Representatives that will make changes to 2257 and then ADD a section that would require 2257 data be maintained for "simulated sexual conduct". [2257 A ] Many of the arguments in the FSC case hinge on the theory that the Attorney General cannot define "secondary producers" because that goes farther than the law [which Congress makes] allows. If Congress includes "secondary producers" under 2257 then the best argument against it would be that the law is overbroad or unconstitutional in some way, a more difficult argument to win. The language in the bill is confusing, and I still have not come up with a good interpretation as to what its effects would be. The most important section is Section 602. The bill is House Resolution 4472 __________________ ChadKnowsLaw

03-08-2006, 07:13 PM	#3
StickyGreen . Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 13,076	they need to leave secondary producers alone... __________________ Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

03-08-2006, 07:22 PM	#4
chadknowslaw Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 343	From what I have read so far, it doesn't bring in secondary producers. However, the part about requiring producers of "simulated sexual conduct" might just require every mainstream movie and TV program and magazine that shows "simulated" sex to keep a 2257 database. I know the Repubs hate Hollywood, so this might be an indirect payback for all those Hollywood-types raising money for the Dems.... __________________ ChadKnowsLaw

03-08-2006, 07:11 PM	#2
BoyAlley So Fucking Gay Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 19,714	CHAD! You're gay homosexual: You need to be talking about this over gaymainstreet. http://www.GayMainStreet.com Inquiring fags want to know!