FBI Visits Diabolic Video to Check 2257 Records - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

UCH · 07-25-2006, 11:38 AM

Did Girls Gone Wild get a visit from the feds yet? Their videos are full of amateur content that I Can't believe they have a 2257 for every girl. Props if they really do though. I'd be worried if I were them.

Quentin · 07-25-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I am actually very happy if the hit 10 DVD companies (major producers) and find that all the records are in order. Then the FBI will go back in front of congress and be forced to say "there is no evidence that anyone in the mainstream adult buisness is using underage models or lying about model ages. It must be those fucking pedos filiming their 8 year old daughters fucking a dog that are doing it, but we are not sure!"

An expert witness for the Government conceded pretty much that precise fact on cross examination in a FSC v. Gonzales hearing.

Anyone with a brain, even within the beltway, realizes that there is no connection between the legitimate adult entertainment business and the underground CP business. The problem is, they don't care.... touting one's "family values" orientation is too big a winner, politically, and I doubt you'll find many politicians, actual or aspirational, who would argue that porn is "good" for families, or represents a "traditional value".

Sadly, I suspect that no amount of evidence supporting our legitimacy as an industy will alter the political calculus that makes our industry an attractive target for aggressive regulation and punitive legislation.

Speaking of which, the House of Representatives just hours ago passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, which is expected to be signed into law by Bush at a ceremony this Thursday.

I highly recommend that everyone in the industry familiarize themselves with the sections of this new Act that pertain to the adult industry, including the changes to 2257, the new section 2257 (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials) and the alterations to the forfeiture provisions for obscenity and CP-related offenses.

- Q.

Quentin · 07-25-2006, 11:51 AM

Correcting a typo in my post above...

where I wrote
"the new section 2257 (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials)...."

that should be
"the new section 2257A (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials)...."

C H R I S · 07-25-2006, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

Correcting a typo in my post above...

where I wrote
"the new section 2257 (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials)...."

that should be
"the new section 2257A (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials)...."

Quentin - Hit me up on ICQ - when you have a chance.

C H R I S · 07-25-2006, 12:40 PM

Story updated again:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=272407

Includes Statement to 2257 inspectors if you are a secondary producer - who is being inspected.

Jinx · 07-25-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0d3

I hope if they show up they dont show up in big black SUVs with FBI jackets on and shit cause all the office neighbors will wonder whats up....

Haha, that would be a riot...

C H R I S · 07-25-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx

Haha, that would be a riot...

Until its you....

L-Pink · 07-25-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx

Haha, that would be a riot...

Why is that? What if you have a home office is that Haha also?

scardog · 07-25-2006, 02:32 PM

Wasn't being a member of FSC supposed to cover everyone from inspection until the matter was solved? Now it seems that they are saying that only applied to secondary producers.

MrPinks · 07-25-2006, 02:40 PM

Not any more. In the new bill they slipped in shit that now includes secondary producers and that they must keep records.

Read this thread too

Quote:

Originally Posted by scardog

Wasn't being a member of FSC supposed to cover everyone from inspection until the matter was solved? Now it seems that they are saying that only applied to secondary producers.

gornyhuy · 07-25-2006, 02:41 PM

Yeah... fuck this. I'm done.

scardog · 07-25-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Not any more. In the new bill they slipped in shit that now includes secondary producers and that they must keep records.

Read this thread too

I was referring to the injunction against inspections of FSC members. It appears that was only for secondary producers? I don't think that is how it was sold, but if someone else remembers speak up.

C H R I S · 07-25-2006, 04:20 PM

Another interesting twist:

Senate Legislation: 20 Years for Disguising Porn Sites as Child-Friendly
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=272476

Quentin · 07-25-2006, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scardog

I was referring to the injunction against inspections of FSC members. It appears that was only for secondary producers? I don't think that is how it was sold, but if someone else remembers speak up.

I think there is some confusion between the agreement that the FSC had with the DOJ pending the judge's ruling on the FSC's motion for preliminary injunction and the terms and scope of the injunction that was issued by the judge in December.

After the judge made his ruling in the injunction, the FSC issued a press release that summarized the key effects of the ruling. This is an excerpt from that release, dated 1/3/06:

The FSC legal staff has made a few preliminary determinations regarding the ruling:

-------------
The Dec. 28, 2005 ruling by Judge Miller has resulted in a de facto ?status quo? situation for all Free Speech Coalition members and other plaintiffs in the case.

* The ruling does not define FSC membership according to join date. All up-to-date FSC members are covered under this ruling, whether they joined a year ago, today, tomorrow, or anytime up until a final ruling in FSC v. Gonzales.

* The U.S. Department of Justice is enjoined from enforcing 18 USC 2257 against ?Producers? under 28 CFR Part 75, unless they engage in activity that involves the ?hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participating of the depicted performer.?

In other words, FSC members and other plaintiffs who are ?Secondary Producers? are protected under the ruling from 2257 inspection or enforcement until a final ruling in this case.

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

The full release is still available on the FSC website here

So far as I know, this has always been the official position taken by the FSC with regards to the meaning of the judge's ruling as it applies to FSC members, and whether/under what cirumstances they are exempt from inspection pending the outcome of the case.

- Q.

GigoloMason · 07-25-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

best question of the thread

Why it's not even relevant, they were a primary producer as far as I understand it and therefore subject to the old 2257 regulations apply either way. The injunctive relief only helps the people that would have fallen under the definition of a secondary producer.

marketsmart · 07-25-2006, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GigoloMason

Why it's not even relevant, they were a primary producer as far as I understand it and therefore subject to the old 2257 regulations apply either way. The injunctive relief only helps the people that would have fallen under the definition of a secondary producer.

ok. but since this is a new bill, i am assuming that the fsc ruling only applies to that amendment and not to this new bill????

GigoloMason · 07-25-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

ok. but since this is a new bill, i am assuming that the fsc ruling only applies to that amendment and not to this new bill????

The preliminary injunction only applies to the initial attempt to redefine a secondary producer, and only to secondary producers as primary producers were required to keep the records on hand anyway prior to the proposed changes.

Although I haven't read through the new bill yet myself I wouldn't be suprised to see this attempt get tacked on to the initial FSC lawsuit if it really is simply the same attempt at redefinition over again. If you're really concerned ask your lawyer.

Either way I'm suprised that any major affiliate programs would still be rolling the dice on 2257 at this point in time with all the stuff that's been going down of late.

adultchica · 07-25-2006, 05:44 PM

I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later..

MaddCaz · 07-25-2006, 05:45 PM

holyshit!

fl_prn_str · 07-25-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Webby

True ms. In reality they have no interest in children other than to use them for votes. It's start that the FBI are now starting to check records - for a law passed almost a decade ago - also helps clear the air in the industry.

That?s right.....they could care less about kids.....if they did they would fund the actual legislation that they passed years ago to really help children.....example the "no child left behind act".

Big Red Machine · 07-25-2006, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scardog

Wasn't being a member of FSC supposed to cover everyone from inspection until the matter was solved? Now it seems that they are saying that only applied to secondary producers.

Seems it was an investigation not a inspection

C H R I S · 07-26-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quentin

I think there is some confusion between the agreement that the FSC had with the DOJ pending the judge's ruling on the FSC's motion for preliminary injunction and the terms and scope of the injunction that was issued by the judge in December.

After the judge made his ruling in the injunction, the FSC issued a press release that summarized the key effects of the ruling. This is an excerpt from that release, dated 1/3/06:

The FSC legal staff has made a few preliminary determinations regarding the ruling:

-------------
The Dec. 28, 2005 ruling by Judge Miller has resulted in a de facto ?status quo? situation for all Free Speech Coalition members and other plaintiffs in the case.

* The ruling does not define FSC membership according to join date. All up-to-date FSC members are covered under this ruling, whether they joined a year ago, today, tomorrow, or anytime up until a final ruling in FSC v. Gonzales.

* The U.S. Department of Justice is enjoined from enforcing 18 USC 2257 against ?Producers? under 28 CFR Part 75, unless they engage in activity that involves the ?hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participating of the depicted performer.?

In other words, FSC members and other plaintiffs who are ?Secondary Producers? are protected under the ruling from 2257 inspection or enforcement until a final ruling in this case.

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

The full release is still available on the FSC website here

So far as I know, this has always been the official position taken by the FSC with regards to the meaning of the judge's ruling as it applies to FSC members, and whether/under what cirumstances they are exempt from inspection pending the outcome of the case.

- Q.

Q- You are a wealth of knowledge!

Quick Buck · 07-26-2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

ok. but since this is a new bill, i am assuming that the fsc ruling only applies to that amendment and not to this new bill????

My guess is that the moment this new bill gets passed into law the FSC will probably try to get their case "updated" to include these new rules.

I'm no lawyer so I could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure the sky isnt falling ;-)

07-25-2006, 11:38 AM	#101
UCH Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 98	Did Girls Gone Wild get a visit from the feds yet? Their videos are full of amateur content that I Can't believe they have a 2257 for every girl. Props if they really do though. I'd be worried if I were them. __________________ Hello World!

07-25-2006, 11:51 AM	#103
Quentin Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 1,280	Correcting a typo in my post above... where I wrote "the new section 2257 (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials)...." that should be "the new section 2257A (covering "simulated sexually-explicit" materials)...." __________________ Q. Boyer

07-25-2006, 12:40 PM	#105
C H R I S Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Marina Del Rey Posts: 10,842	Story updated again: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=272407 Includes Statement to 2257 inspectors if you are a secondary producer - who is being inspected. __________________ C H R I S Retired Porn Veteran BH4L

07-25-2006, 02:41 PM	#111
gornyhuy Chafed. Join Date: May 2002 Location: Face Down in Pussy Posts: 18,041	Yeah... fuck this. I'm done. __________________ icq:159548293

07-25-2006, 04:20 PM	#113
C H R I S Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Marina Del Rey Posts: 10,842	Another interesting twist: Senate Legislation: 20 Years for Disguising Porn Sites as Child-Friendly http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=272476 __________________ C H R I S Retired Porn Veteran BH4L

07-25-2006, 02:32 PM	#109
scardog Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 886	Wasn't being a member of FSC supposed to cover everyone from inspection until the matter was solved? Now it seems that they are saying that only applied to secondary producers.

07-25-2006, 05:44 PM	#118
adultchica Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: usa Posts: 5,141	I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later.. __________________

07-25-2006, 05:45 PM	#119
MaddCaz Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Illinois Posts: 9,483	holyshit! __________________ BigCocks.com - MatureWomen.com - Tranny.com - DrunkGirls.com - TeenGirls.com - MonsterCock.com and many more... Click here to see them all!