Fox News: 2257 Law "Misguided" for Girls Gone Wild - GoFuckYourself.com

edgeprod · 09-12-2006, 11:49 PM

From Hannity & Colmes. I rewound TIVO and am typing this manually, so please excuse any errors.

Colmes: ".... the federal law meant to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The creators failed to maintain age and identity documents for performers in the sexually explicit films they produced and distributed. Joining us now, Florida prosecutor Pam Bondi and criminal defense attorney, [some bimbo with big lips]."

Some bimbo with big lips: "This law really wasn't created for teenage girls on spring break who are knowingly flashing a video camera. This is really to protect younger children from exploitation. So I think this really was, sort of, really misguided and misdirected. But, they're trying to set an example here."

Neat, something good comes out of Fox News!

RawAlex · 09-13-2006, 12:40 AM

The problem is this: The "girls flashing on spring break" isn't an issue that i can see... the issue more centers around the "and more" part. Just filming stuff like mardi gras and showing people what you saw isn't an issue. But when you set things up, bring girls back to your hotel or into your bus, you are no longer just reporting on what is going on but in fact making porn. As soon as you cross that line, you have to be able to prove model ages, have releases, and all those other things.

Live and learn, right?

edgeprod · 09-13-2006, 12:46 AM

Eh, it's more of an issue of "oops, we pulled 2257 out on Girls Gone Wild."

Let's say they applied the standard (5 years in jail, mandatory, for each violation). The guy would have gone away for a long time, the public would have been like "wtf?" and people would finally learn about 2257.

Dirty F · 09-13-2006, 12:47 AM

Hey moron, how much longer before youre gonna put companies out of business?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=652574

You fucking idiot.

:1orlaugh

stickyfingerz · 09-13-2006, 12:48 AM

O'reiley said roughly the same thing. That this was a waste of resources, money, and time that could be spent on real problems.

Im not saying I dont think 2257 can do good things, I just think its pushed to an extreme at times.

edgeprod · 09-13-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

O'reiley said roughly the same thing. That this was a waste of resources, money, and time that could be spent on real problems.

Im not saying I dont think 2257 can do good things, I just think its pushed to an extreme at times.

That's the thing. I'm all for protecting kids, but clearly that isn't what it's being used for.

Paul Markham · 09-13-2006, 01:08 AM

How many times do I have to explain it to you?

2257 is not about protecting children from being shot in porn movies. It's about protecting porn producers/publishers from going to jail becasue they shot/published a 15 to 17 year old thinking she was 18, or she said she was and they believed her. Or the shooter said it was all over age and they believed him.

2257 ALLOWS ME TO INSIST I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE I PRODUCE OR PUBLISH PORN.

It will never stop some sicko shooting kids in porn.

GGW deserve everything they get, they flout the rules and get nailed.

edgeprod · 09-13-2006, 01:11 AM

We're agreed, Paul.

pr0 · 09-13-2006, 01:12 AM

dude snoop & the ggw owners are pimps with dough

they could set a national park ablaze & pay their way out of it

respect!

scottybuzz · 09-13-2006, 01:21 AM

bumpppppppp

Dirty Dane · 09-13-2006, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How many times do I have to explain it to you?

2257 is not about protecting children from being shot in porn movies. It's about protecting porn producers/publishers from going to jail becasue they shot/published a 15 to 17 year old thinking she was 18, or she said she was and they believed her. Or the shooter said it was all over age and they believed him.

2257 ALLOWS ME TO INSIST I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE I PRODUCE OR PUBLISH PORN.

However, insisting it would not necessary require a law. I think the law is about obligations, rather than protection.

marketsmart · 09-13-2006, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How many times do I have to explain it to you?

2257 is not about protecting children from being shot in porn movies. It's about protecting porn producers/publishers from going to jail becasue they shot/published a 15 to 17 year old thinking she was 18, or she said she was and they believed her. Or the shooter said it was all over age and they believed him.

2257 ALLOWS ME TO INSIST I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE I PRODUCE OR PUBLISH PORN.

It will never stop some sicko shooting kids in porn.

GGW deserve everything they get, they flout the rules and get nailed.

come on paul... 2257 could give two shits about protecting porn producers... 2257 re-write is about political agenda... nothing more and nothing less..

Datelines "To Catch A Predator" has resulted in more arrests in a shorter period of time than any other operation other than the FBI's "Operation Candy Cane"....

Child porn could be dramatically curbed overnight with a few simple measures. the govt seems to like to pass policy and not enforce it...

Look at GGW. For 2 million dollars in fines they avoided jail time... What kind of message does that send? "If you cant do the time, but can pay the fine, do the crime?" What the fuck is that? Its bullshit... I am willing to bet that anyone who cant pay 1 million plus fine would be sent to jail for the same violations... I am starting to realize that money can buy you out of just about anything in the good ole USA... its sad...

Tempest · 09-13-2006, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franck

Hey moron, how much longer before youre gonna put companies out of business?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=652574

You fucking idiot.

:1orlaugh

He'd rather continue letting everyone that deals with them get ripped off. Sets a good example for any companies he may trying to promote.

GatorB · 09-13-2006, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How many times do I have to explain it to you?

2257 is not about protecting children from being shot in porn movies. It's about protecting porn producers/publishers from going to jail because they shot/published a 15 to 17 year old thinking she was 18, or she said she was and they believed her. Or the shooter said it was all over age and they believed him.

2257 ALLOWS ME TO INSIST I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE I PRODUCE OR PUBLISH PORN.

It will never stop some sicko shooting kids in porn.

GGW deserve everything they get, they flout the rules and get nailed.

And that's fine for PRIMARY PRODUCERS. I have no issue with that. If you are going to shoot content then yes better make sure the girls are 18. The Secondary Producer clause is pure bullshit. No such thing as a "secondary producer"

Do convenience stores have to have 2257 info when they sell a dirty mag? No. Do video stores have to have 2257 info when they rent a dirty movie? No. Does my cable company have to have 2257 info on any of the porn they show on their XXX PPV channels? No. Does Cinemax have to have 2257 info on the soft core porn the show at 2 AM? No.

If I'm a "secondary producer" because I provide content that was produced by someone else on my site then how are these guys I just mentioned any different.

crockett · 09-13-2006, 06:12 AM

Not that I agree with it, but wasn't 2257 inspections pretty much a given with ggw? After all they did have that case last year with the under age girl. So one would have to be an idiot to think they wouldn't get checked on after that.

The important question is when did the inspections take place? With them already having a judgment seems like this happened way before this recant group of inspections.

So was this a inspection case on it's own or was it linked in with the previous case with the known minor from last year?

Jack_Daniels · 09-13-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

How many times do I have to explain it to you?

2257 is not about protecting children from being shot in porn movies. It's about protecting porn producers/publishers from going to jail... blah, blah, blah

Good God man, are you still spewing this stupid drivel???

It was pointed out to you months ago that your argument only applies (maybe) to the old 2257.

Anybody with half a brain knows the new 2257 was designed to be impossible to comply with for the sole purpose of misleading the public and getting easy pr0n convictions.

Buy yourself a clue dude.

09-12-2006, 11:49 PM	#1
edgeprod Permanently Gone Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,019	Fox News: 2257 Law "Misguided" for Girls Gone Wild From Hannity & Colmes. I rewound TIVO and am typing this manually, so please excuse any errors. Colmes: ".... the federal law meant to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The creators failed to maintain age and identity documents for performers in the sexually explicit films they produced and distributed. Joining us now, Florida prosecutor Pam Bondi and criminal defense attorney, [some bimbo with big lips]." Some bimbo with big lips: "This law really wasn't created for teenage girls on spring break who are knowingly flashing a video camera. This is really to protect younger children from exploitation. So I think this really was, sort of, really misguided and misdirected. But, they're trying to set an example here." Neat, something good comes out of Fox News!

09-13-2006, 12:47 AM	#4
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Hey moron, how much longer before youre gonna put companies out of business? http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=652574 You fucking idiot. :1orlaugh Last edited by Dirty F; 09-13-2006 at 12:49 AM..

09-13-2006, 01:08 AM	#7
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	How many times do I have to explain it to you? 2257 is not about protecting children from being shot in porn movies. It's about protecting porn producers/publishers from going to jail becasue they shot/published a 15 to 17 year old thinking she was 18, or she said she was and they believed her. Or the shooter said it was all over age and they believed him. 2257 ALLOWS ME TO INSIST I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE I PRODUCE OR PUBLISH PORN. It will never stop some sicko shooting kids in porn. GGW deserve everything they get, they flout the rules and get nailed. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

09-13-2006, 01:12 AM	#9
pr0 rockin tha trailerpark Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: ~Coastal~ Posts: 23,088	dude snoop & the ggw owners are pimps with dough they could set a national park ablaze & pay their way out of it respect! __________________ __________ Loadedca$h - get sum! - Revengebucks - mmm rebills! - webair (gotz sErVrz)

09-13-2006, 01:21 AM	#10
scottybuzz Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: May 2006 Location: NY Posts: 14,800	bumpppppppp __________________ $$$$$ MAKE HUGE MONEY IN CAMS - CLICK HERE $$$$$

09-13-2006, 12:40 AM	#2
RawAlex So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: In a house. Posts: 9,465	The problem is this: The "girls flashing on spring break" isn't an issue that i can see... the issue more centers around the "and more" part. Just filming stuff like mardi gras and showing people what you saw isn't an issue. But when you set things up, bring girls back to your hotel or into your bus, you are no longer just reporting on what is going on but in fact making porn. As soon as you cross that line, you have to be able to prove model ages, have releases, and all those other things. Live and learn, right?

09-13-2006, 12:46 AM	#3
edgeprod Permanently Gone Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,019	Eh, it's more of an issue of "oops, we pulled 2257 out on Girls Gone Wild." Let's say they applied the standard (5 years in jail, mandatory, for each violation). The guy would have gone away for a long time, the public would have been like "wtf?" and people would finally learn about 2257.

09-13-2006, 12:48 AM	#5
stickyfingerz Doin fine Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 24,983	O'reiley said roughly the same thing. That this was a waste of resources, money, and time that could be spent on real problems. Im not saying I dont think 2257 can do good things, I just think its pushed to an extreme at times.

09-13-2006, 01:11 AM	#8
edgeprod Permanently Gone Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,019	We're agreed, Paul.

09-13-2006, 06:12 AM	#15
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	Not that I agree with it, but wasn't 2257 inspections pretty much a given with ggw? After all they did have that case last year with the under age girl. So one would have to be an idiot to think they wouldn't get checked on after that. The important question is when did the inspections take place? With them already having a judgment seems like this happened way before this recant group of inspections. So was this a inspection case on it's own or was it linked in with the previous case with the known minor from last year? __________________ In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator. Last edited by crockett; 09-13-2006 at 06:13 AM..