XBIZ breaking news - five 2257 inspections in Florida last week

[Quentin]

Very few details are available at this time, but the FBI has confirmed that their 2257 inspection team conducted five inspections of Florida-based producers last week.

Read the rest of the story here.

- Q.

[seeric]

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are so many churches in Florida. Bibles everywhere. I was scared living down there.

[will76]

Joyner said that all five inspections resulted in violations, but the FBI has no evidence of any minors being included in the content. Joyner said that one producer admitted that he did not keep any photo identification records prior to 2005, and a second producer failed to produce any photo identification records.

ouch, if this is a content producer, how in the hell can you not keep photo docs of your content, can't wait to hear which company this.... unbelievable.

[Nardimus]

inspections are starting up in force.. lots of peeps are gonna be muffed. get ready for bubba in cell block 5.

[JimmiDean]

Reminds me of Berlin 1939 and we are all wearing a yellow star.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by will76

ouch, if this is a content producer, how in the hell can you not keep photo docs of your content, can't wait to hear which company this.... unbelievable.

Well these could have been secondary producers, we have no real idea at this point. Remember what we consider a "producer" is entirely different from what the FBI considers one.

In adult we think of producers as anyone whom shoots content, so it's crazy to think anyone like that wouldn't have IDs. However the FBI thinks anyone whom builds a webpage, is producing content. So it's pretty common for some guy (maybe just an affiliate) to not have any IDs.

I do think these inspections make one thing perfectly clear. They aren't out there looking for CP sites and going after the real criminals. So far seems everyone they have inspected has been on the legit side of adult and IMO this is looking more and more as a way to go after people for record violations rather than actually fighting CP and protecting children.

go figure who would have thought....

[Quentin]

I have found out a little bit more information on the inspections conducted in Florida last week.

One of the companies that was inspected was CandidCam; earlier today AVN quoted Bill Fisher of Filthy Films as saying that VoyeurDorm was among those inspected, but according to their attorney, it was the records for CandidCam and not VoyeurDorm that the FBI was interested in.

More information in the updated article here.

[RawAlex]

At this point, it still appears that they are going after "primary" style producers, although cam sites may be somewhat different.

[pocketkangaroo]

Where are the GFY Republicans like DaddyHalbucks?

[seeric]

Candid Cam is in Tampa, not Miami. Lots of producers in Tampa area.

[BoyAlley]

Another violation involved having too much data with the records for a given title, Dolan said. In that instance, records for performers who had nonsex roles in the video were included in the records for the performers who did engage in sexually explicit conduct.

Talk about nit-picking cripe.

[MrPinks]

Yeah, seriously, I didn't know too much info could be a violation

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Talk about nit-picking cripe.

[BoyAlley]

More detail about the muck-a-muck:

"One more issue they addressed was that there was one title [for] which we had releases for every performer. Yet they wanted that one title broken out by scene, and they just wanted the IDs of the people who were performing sex acts in the title. We had IDs for everyone, including people who were clothed in the background, and they wanted us to break it down for them and tell them what scenes they were in."

Candid Cam was given a report and asked to respond to those items within a week, Dolan said.

Respond within a week or the FBI will getters you! This whole thing just "feels" so unamerican it's not even funny. I don't blame the FBI at all, they're just doing their jobs, and by all accounts, they've been very professional.

But the jackasses at the DOJ that are brining forth these mandates are just well beyond asinine.

[MrPinks]

FSC either dropped the ball on this big time and we are paying for it or they fucking sold us out, example - offers fees for protection yet protection doesn't exist with new law, now offering discount 2257 software which we wouldn't need if they killed this in the first place.

[Elli]

"Another violation involved having too much data with the records for a given title, Dolan said. In that instance, records for performers who had nonsex roles in the video were included in the records for the performers who did engage in sexually explicit conduct. Curing that violation involved merely removing the records for the nonsex performers, Dolan said."

I thought we had to have records for everyone if there was someone being naked/sexual in the frame pretty much? Now we only need the people being sexual?

[D-Money]

Anyone see the Deep Throat documentary? I was watching some of it yesterday. Just seeing the history of the porn biz struggle was very interesting.

On another note, I couldn't believe they showed Linda Lovelace actually deep throating. How did they get away with showing that on HBO?

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Elli

"Another violation involved having too much data with the records for a given title, Dolan said. In that instance, records for performers who had nonsex roles in the video were included in the records for the performers who did engage in sexually explicit conduct. Curing that violation involved merely removing the records for the nonsex performers, Dolan said."

I thought we had to have records for everyone if there was someone being naked/sexual in the frame pretty much? Now we only need the people being sexual?

My lawyer had told me anyone in the scene.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by D-Money

Anyone see the Deep Throat documentary? I was watching some of it yesterday. Just seeing the history of the porn biz struggle was very interesting.

On another note, I couldn't believe they showed Linda Lovelace actually deep throating. How did they get away with showing that on HBO?

What did the struggle have in common with now ? A republican was president but that doesnt matter according to the right wingers.

[tony286]

bump for important news.

[After Shock Media]

Ok shit now I have to seperate whom is sexually active and who is not by scene. Ok looks like it is back to my database and time to add in a new group. Oh well, my lawyer interpreted the first 2257 as needing everyone filmed.

Shit what if the person is nude only or... ok fuck it I will just have to break it down and put in groups of each act in each scene. Gawd damnit ok that is gunna be another few months of work.

[RayVega]

wow, this is scary shit.

[BoyAlley]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Ok shit now I have to seperate whom is sexually active and who is not by scene. Ok looks like it is back to my database and time to add in a new group. Oh well, my lawyer interpreted the first 2257 as needing everyone filmed.

Shit what if the person is nude only or... ok fuck it I will just have to break it down and put in groups of each act in each scene. Gawd damnit ok that is gunna be another few months of work.

I don't even think they have any clue exactly what the fuck being "in compliance" means. Talk about a clusterfuck of vaguely written governmental muck-a-muck. Everytime I see the FBI quoted about 2257 I see them saying "good point we'll have to get the DOJ to nail that issue down" etc. etc. blah blah.

If even the fucking FBI inspectors aren't clear as to what the fuck the 2257 regs say, how in the hell are all of us suppose to follow them?

The whole damn thing is so far beyond being ridiculous, that if the attorneys involved with the FSC can't get it all thrown out, they should find themselves another profession. Perhaps manufacturing playdough or something similar.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by tony404

My lawyer had told me anyone in the scene.

Same here. If they are "on camera" you need the documents.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

I don't even think they have any clue exactly what the fuck being "in compliance" means. Talk about a clusterfuck of vaguely written governmental muck-a-muck. Everytime I see the FBI quoted about 2257 I see them saying "good point we'll have to get the DOJ to nail that issue down" etc. etc. blah blah.

If even the fucking FBI inspectors aren't clear as to what the fuck the 2257 regs say, how in the hell are all of us suppose to follow them?

The whole damn thing is so far beyond being ridiculous, that if the attorneys involved with the FSC can't get it all thrown out, they should find themselves another profession. Perhaps manufacturing playdough or something similar.

Vague laws are the fuel of fascism. They allow you to arrest someone and jail them for virtually anything.

[Barefootsies]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Vague laws are the fuel of fascism. They allow you to arrest someone and jail them for virtually anything.

Much like the Constitution and the majority of the laws on our books.

[DBS.US]

[Corona]

Originally Posted by crockett

I do think these inspections make one thing perfectly clear. They aren't out there looking for CP sites and going after the real criminals. So far seems everyone they have inspected has been on the legit side of adult and IMO this is looking more and more as a way to go after people for record violations rather than actually fighting CP and protecting children.

So true.

Dateline gets more of these freaks in a month than the Feds will get in a decade.

[Quentin]

Details continue to emerge in this story - I've posted a new article after confirming additional facts with Chuck Joyner, who serves as the head of the FBI's inspection team.

Among other things, Joyner said that all five of the producers inspected last week were primary producers, and that the FBI currently has no additional inspections scheduled in the Florida area.

More info in the article linked above. I'll continue to update as more details come to light.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

If it happened last week its not very breaking news bro.

2CENTS.

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

If it happened last week its not very breaking news bro.

2CENTS.

We didnt hear of it, well Dave cummings posted earlier that he heard something (same day). So alas it is breaking news.

Then I figure wouldnt the FSC send out a newsletter to its members about it?
Then wouldnt those members come to gfy and quote it everywhere in lots of threads?

Neither happened and well story was given (broke) in this thread.

[captain.g]

Looks like its time to move.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

If it happened last week its not very breaking news bro.

2CENTS.

That's one way to look at it.

Another way, perhaps, is to take the position that news is only news once it becomes known. When a story first comes to light, as this one did yesterday, that is when the news first 'broke,' under that line of reasoning.

Does that seem an unreasonable or indefensible position to you?

[tony286]

I read in avn they plan on doing a total of 17 inspections in fl.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Elli

"Another violation involved having too much data with the records for a given title, Dolan said. In that instance, records for performers who had nonsex roles in the video were included in the records for the performers who did engage in sexually explicit conduct. Curing that violation involved merely removing the records for the nonsex performers, Dolan said."

I thought we had to have records for everyone if there was someone being naked/sexual in the frame pretty much? Now we only need the people being sexual?

I have no words to express my feeling about this "issue". That's just... crazy

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by tony404

I read in avn they plan on doing a total of 17 inspections in fl.

According to Joyner, that is false.

As I recall, the AVN story quoted a producer who was not among those inspected as saying that there were 17 inspections scheduled in FL I'm not sure what his source for that claim was, but Joyner flatly denied it.

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

I have ACCIDENTLY stumbled across CP when on various link lists and shady TGPs. If they really wanted to find CP they can find it. It's all so transparent what they're trying to do.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Elli

"Another violation involved having too much data with the records for a given title, Dolan said. In that instance, records for performers who had nonsex roles in the video were included in the records for the performers who did engage in sexually explicit conduct. Curing that violation involved merely removing the records for the nonsex performers, Dolan said."

I thought we had to have records for everyone if there was someone being naked/sexual in the frame pretty much? Now we only need the people being sexual?

A few things here:

1) After gathering more info, my understanding is that the inspection team did not write up a violation for having records for people who participated in nonsex roles mixed in with those who engaged in sex acts; they were only interested in the IDs for those that engaged in sex acts, but it was not considered a "violation" that the other IDs/docs were in there.

2) Regardless of what the FBI considers to be a violation or not a violation, theirs is not the final say in all this. As far as how the law is interpreted for the purposes of prosecuting alleged offenders, that's entirely up to the DOJ. (That said, if the FBI does not cite you for a given "violation," even if the DOJ wouldn't agree that you were compliant on that point, it is highly unlikely that you would be prosecuted for the violation in question.)

3) Regardless of what the FBI, producers who have been inspected, or any of the adult media outlets and representatives say (myself definitely included) you should speak at length to an attorney with relevant knowledge and expertise about your individual situation, and get specific and detailed advice about what you need to do to be and stay 2257 compliant.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Much like the Constitution and the majority of the laws on our books.

You got it.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Quentin

A few things here:

1) After gathering more info, my understanding is that the inspection team did not write up a violation for having records for people who participated in nonsex roles mixed in with those who engaged in sex acts; they were only interested in the IDs for those that engaged in sex acts, but it was not considered a "violation" that the other IDs/docs were in there.

2) Regardless of what the FBI considers to be a violation or not a violation, theirs is not the final say in all this. As far as how the law is interpreted for the purposes of prosecuting alleged offenders, that's entirely up to the DOJ. (That said, if the FBI does not cite you for a given "violation," even if the DOJ wouldn't agree that you were compliant on that point, it is highly unlikely that you would be prosecuted for the violation in question.)

3) Regardless of what the FBI, producers who have been inspected, or any of the adult media outlets and representatives say (myself definitely included) you should speak at length to an attorney with relevant knowledge and expertise about your individual situation, and get specific and detailed advice about what you need to do to be and stay 2257 compliant.

Great points but at the end of the day my attorney said its all theory until someone goes to court for a 2257 violation that doesnt have to do with age.

[notoldschool]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

Nice.

[notoldschool]

Originally Posted by DBS.US

Nice.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by tony404

Great points but at the end of the day my attorney said its all theory until someone goes to court for a 2257 violation that doesnt have to do with age.

I think many attorneys would agree with him, in large part.

[davecummings]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

Talk about nit-picking cripe.

I wonder if it's a jailable "violation" if there's a spelling or typing error in the cross-referencings? I would hope a judge would quickly toss that out!

I can just imagine the looks on judge's faces when some of this gets to court!!

dave