yahoo-xxx-girls.com

The 2257 is the record keeping law; now the 4472 law is the "the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006".

The 4472 law covers the following.

1.) Expanding The National Sex Offender Registry.
2.) Strengthening Federal Penalties For Crimes Against Children.
3.) Making It Harder For Sex Predators To Reach Our Children On The Internet.
4.) Creating A New National Child Abuse Registry And Requiring Investigators To Do Background Checks Of Adoptive And Foster Parents Before They Are Approved To Take Custody Of A Child.

The White House
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060727-6.html

----

H.R.4472

Title VII: Internet Safety Act - (Sec. 701) Amends the federal criminal code to: (1) impose criminal penalties for participation in a child exploitation enterprise; (2) increase penalties for registered sex offenders who commit a felony sex offense against a minor; and (3) prohibit the embedding of deceptive words or images in a website to deceive an individual, including a minor, into viewing obscene material.

(Sec. 704) Directs the Attorney General to increase by not less than 200 the number of U.S. attorneys and assign such attorneys to prosecute offenses relating to the sexual exploitation of children.

(Sec. 705) Directs the Attorney General to increase by not less than 30 the number of computer forensic examiners within the Regional Computer Forensic Laboratories, and requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to increase by not less than 15 the number of such examiners within the Cyber Crimes Center, who shall be dedicated to investigating crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.

(Sec. 706) Directs the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to increase by not less than 10 the number of Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Forces authorized and funded under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.

(Sec. 707) Masha's Law - Revises provisions allowing victims of certain sex-related crimes to seek civil remedies to: (1) allow adults as well as minors to sue for injuries; and (2) increase from $50,000 to $150,000 the minimum level of damages.

Authorizes appropriations.

The Library of Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...:@@@L&summ2=m&


Related 4472 laws:

H.R.3132 ( Children's Safety Act of 2005 )
H.R.3133 ( Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act )
H.R.4905 ( Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act )
H.R.5773 ( Child Fingerprints Safekeeping Act of 2006 )

The Library of Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:HR04472:@@@K



H.R.3726 is the "Child Pornography Prevention Act of 2005

1. [109th] H.R.3726 : To enhance prosecution of child pornography and obscenity by strengthening section 2257 of title 18, United States Code, to ensure that children are not exploited in the production of pornography, prohibiting distribution of child pornography used as evidence in prosecutions, authorizing assets forfeiture in child pornography and obscenity cases, expanding administrative subpoena power to cover obscenity cases, and prohibiting the production of obscenity, as well as its transportation, distribution, and sale, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] (introduced 9/12/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 10/17/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

The Library of Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas


---

3. [109th] S.2140 : A bill to enhance protection of children from sexual exploitation by strengthening section 2257 of title 18, United States Code, requiring producers of sexually explicit material to keep and permit inspection of records regarding the age of performers, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. [UT] (introduced 12/16/2005) Cosponsors (30)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 12/16/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

The Library of Congress
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas


----

Now on to the 2257 record keeping law !

----

Legal challenges

In 1998, a company called Sundance and Associates sued the DOJ. A court later found that the DOJ was not authorized to create the definition of 'secondary producer'. While the DOJ did not strike that language from the regulations per the court?s decision, the DOJ did not launch any inspections.

In 2004, bound by the new PROTECT Act of 2003, the DOJ made sweeping changes to the 2257 Regulations to keep up with the proliferation of sexually explicit material found on the Internet. However, the "secondary producer" language not only remained in the regulations, but the DOJ created a much wider interpretation of who exactly was a "producer" of sexually explicit material and hence was required to comply with the new regulations. Anyone who touched explicit content in any way could arguably be considered a producer and be forced to maintain identification records of models along with a highly complex indexing system that many argue is impossible to implement. Under the current law, anyone who commercially operates a website or releases sexually explicit images of actual humans, regardless of the format (DVD, photos, books, etc.), is subject to penalties that include up to five years in federal prison per each infraction of the regulations. These regulations do not currently apply to explicit drawings (i.e, adult cartoons, hentai) as no actual humans are involved in such production. However the exclusion for such sexually explicit drawings are being confronted with changes to these laws in the recently signed Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act addendum to the adult record-keeping requirements now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2257A.[4] At this time, though signed into law, the portions of § 2257A which include simulated sex are not enforceable.

In June 2005, the Free Speech Coalition sued the Department of Justice to enjoin the regulations until they can be challenged in whole in court. In December 2006, a federal judge issued an injunction protecting secondary producers who are members of the Free Speech Coalition, but FBI inspections of these producers are still ongoing despite the injunction.[5]

On March 30, 2007, District Court Judge Walker Miller issued an interim ruling, which dismissed some causes of action and allowed others from the initial 2005 case to proceed in light of the Adam Walsh Act amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 2257.[6] The actual trial phase has not yet begun.

Wikipedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_P...nforcement_Act


There seems to be every effort as not to make the distinction between the terms "primary producers" those who create the actual adult content and that of those who are known as "secondary producers" who just display adult content.

This lack of clarity on the US courts part seem to complicate matters ... I have not read any law that have the two excepted terms equaling the same.

The issue is not the fact of the creators of such adult content keeping their records, but rather how third parties or "secondary producers" who link to such records display these records from the actual creators...

It is worth noting that every adult associate program; by how the law(s) are can be interpreted as running illegal operations ...

As law has it the "producer" has to be the "custodian of records"; and yes it is true when you write a web page and display it on the Internet you are publishing... The issue is who has the legal rights to hold the "custodian of records". The actors private info is protected under US law(s); such personal information cannot be freely handed out to members of the public and since "secondary producers" or publishers are required as to provide the "custodian of records" the only legal way is to point to the actual creators of such adult contents, by giving a statement in their 2257 record which by law they are required to display and have a statement on where to find the "custodian of records". This is the excepted practice of the adult community in whole.

I have not come across any US law indicating that adult online publishers who are "secondary producers" cannot just give a statement on where to find the "custodian of records" information within their required 2257 record(s).

The reason of the 2257 records in the first place is to make sure actors are of legal age and to provide a location as to check such hard records if an investigation where needed.

As I have said the 4472 does not void the 2257 nor does it rewrite the term secondary producer.

I have read through the required laws and I can not understand how sarettah can be so dense !

If there are any legal types here please feel free as to give your legal opinion . I am all for being current on this matter...

I would like to note that I am Canadian and that I am not required as to follow the US laws, however I do think that the laws are a good idea and should be practiced as best as possible.

PS.
I have posted this in Q&A.


Thanks for your time,

Jace

can you give us the short versions of what your legal issues are because I am sure there are hundreds of lawyers on gfy that are dying to help you out at no charge....because, after all, it has been shown time and time again, that GFY is the absolute best place to come for legal advice

fusionx

When is your new blog site freelegalanswersforgfyers.com gonna be launched, Jace?

cocofife

hr 4472 redefined what a producer is by adding:

"`(2) the term `produces'--

`(A) means--

`(i) actually filming, videotaping, photographing, creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being;

`(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or

`(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and..."

there was never any mention of the term "secondary producers" in the original 2257 law -- the term is a colloquialism. now that 4472 has redefined who a "producer" is, people known as "secondary producers" fall under the definition of someone who "produces" and are subject to the law (if they operate within the united states).

as a canadian, and if you're worried, talk to your lawyer. you may get free advice here, but you get what you pay for.

Jace

I expect it to be done any day now man, I have 123 lawyers on board all giving up their normal day to day routines....they will just sit in my new offices on the phone banks and on gfy all day and answer questions out of the goodness of their hearts

StickyGreen

Why do you guys always complain about people asking 2257 questions on here? It's not like they are going to stop just because you complain. And the people who all try to answer their questions probably aren't going to stop doing that either, so just get over it...

__________________
Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

Jace

I thought my responses were pretty damn funny so far

damn serious people always trying to get in the way of us jokers

DAMN YOU BUSINESS PEOPLE!

StickyGreen

I'm not just picking on you Jace. I see that type of shit in every 2257 thread. All people do is talk shit about the person being stupid for asking legal advice on a forum, but yet people continue to do it anyways. So just chill out and let them do it, because sometimes the threads can turn into an interesting discussion about 2257 and anything related to it...

__________________
Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

yahoo-xxx-girls.com

I understand your point very clearly, however the 4472 does not change the 2257 record keeping law terminology.

The 4472 makes clear the term produce and states that all producers are required to keep required records... It is agreed that the 2257 record is required... this is not in question... the link at the bottom stating 2257 compliance is not in question... The statement within the 2257 stating that the "actors" are of legal age is not in question.

What is in question is how can the US courts not make clear that adult webmaster who are third parties or "secondary producers" can just simply indicate within their 2257 record where to find the "custodian of records". The way that the courts have it worded is kind of strange...

Is there even a law that releases very personal information to the public as to make the required records available and is there a law that allows third parties, those who did not create the actual content, as to keep such very personal content on the "actors"...

For some reason I can't reason out why the US courts would state within the laws that there is no difference in the term "produce". The "primary producer" creates the adult content and by law is required to maintain the proper records, however third parties or "secondary producers", those who do produce websites and publish such pictures are not the primary creator(s) / producer...

So if we say that the term produce is equal to both primary and secondary producers then by law there could be no associate programs... Unless the US courts change the privacy laws, so that the public, namely the associate program members of adult companies, will have a federal legal right as to make new records and or to keep such personal information being protected under US law.

So what is the current legal requirements ?

Later,

.