2257 updates??? - GoFuckYourself.com

will76 · 11-30-2007, 06:17 PM

Whats going on with 2257. I don't use nudity on my sites / promos so I haven't kept up with this.

What is the latest ?

will76 · 11-30-2007, 09:21 PM

interesting.... thanks for the info LOL.

Kevin Marx · 11-30-2007, 09:32 PM

did you read about the case in Ohio??? nothing really new since then

davecummings · 11-30-2007, 09:38 PM

Merely check out and always keep an eye out at www.freespeechcoalition.com --click on the link to 2257.

dave

After Shock Media · 11-30-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davecummings

Merely check out and always keep an eye out at www.freespeechcoalition.com --click on the link to 2257.

dave

And why would we do that again? They are about as productive as a setting up a cheese factory based on milking fleas.

Yup I sure remember reading on there all about how the Ohio case was going over the last year or two and then all the info when the verdict came down.

madleinx · 11-30-2007, 10:24 PM

A case in Ohio Federal Court struck down a bunch of 2257 as unconstitutional on its face, but not the whole thing. xxxlaw.net has a bunch of info. Anyway, the ruling is good news but it is just a part of the battle, certainly not the war.

JohnnyJames · 11-30-2007, 11:23 PM

At last check will76 said he had me on ignore, but I will share what I know anyway for others.

The 6th District ruled all of 2257 unconstitutional by a slight majority, based on a couple things:

It is overbroad and places too much burden on the secondary producers.

It would, on the face, require a husband and wife who shoot themselves having sex for their own enjoyment and not for distribution or sale, to maintain 2257 records of themselves or risk being imprisoned in the event that someone else accidentally found the recording and reported them.

2257 also infringes on both the 4th amendment and the 1st amendment according to their ruling, since it assumes that sexual acts are unprotected speech (obscene) when in fact that is a decision made according to local standards. If applied in a broad swath, and the material was determined NOT to be obscenity, 2257 impinges on free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The filing requirements impinge on the 4th Amendment AND the First Amendment by overlooking the right to practice free speech (First Amendment) in an anonymous fashion.

Previous case-law, established by the US Supreme Court, guarantees that you can practice free speech anonymously. According to 2257, you are required to give up that anonymity, which presumes that your recording or material is obscene before any such determination has been made.

The ruling only affects the 6th District for now, but looks promising. If other cases in other districts follow a similar path, it will be very good for the industry. However, the 6th District ruling can be appealed to a larger venue including all of the 6th District judges, and then on to the US Supreme Court.

Or it can be re-written by Congress to address these issues. So far, neither has been announced.

The 6th District ruling also made a very important distinction. It drew a clear line that the government had already established laws to protect against child porn and pedophiles and that 2257 really doesn't further either of these goals.

No one I have seen has suggested that producers in the 6th District should not continue to follow 2257. General consensus is, even though it is effectively no longer a law in that district, to continue as though it were, until the rest of the shakeout happens.

That's my understanding, don't crucify me for it. It is a complex subject at best.

WarChild · 12-01-2007, 12:41 AM

2257 for the lose.

will76 · 12-07-2007, 11:21 PM

any other info on this?

justFred · 12-07-2007, 11:39 PM

I'm going to mod that other dude's greasemonkey script to highlight business threads I think. cuz this 2257 title just fucking pops out like a sore thumb in the list doesn't it?

spam me with yaya blah
me and this dude were at this bar
lol at this pic
2257 updates???

{click}
sry tho will I got nothing on topic for you, just an observation.

mikesouth · 12-08-2007, 12:01 AM

ya forget the free speech coalition...those cocksuckers didnt even filean amicus brief in the case....and buy rhondee kamins a beer or whatever shee wants at aee/internext matter of fact im in favor of firing everyone on the fsc and turning it over to rhondee lock stock and barrel...the lady has guts...
And let us not forget jennifer kinsley and lou sirkin...seems like everytime our biz gets good news lou sirkins name is attached to it...the guy is the best.

L-Pink · 12-08-2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyJames

That's my understanding, don't crucify me for it. It is a complex subject at best.

Nice post, thanks

MrPinks · 12-08-2007, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

ya forget the free speech coalition...those cocksuckers didnt even filean amicus brief in the case....and buy rhondee kamins a beer or whatever shee wants at aee/internext matter of fact im in favor of firing everyone on the fsc and turning it over to rhondee lock stock and barrel...the lady has guts...
And let us not forget jennifer kinsley and lou sirkin...seems like everytime our biz gets good news lou sirkins name is attached to it...the guy is the best.

Sounds like a good idea, fire them all and start over!

11-30-2007, 06:17 PM	#1
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	2257 updates??? Whats going on with 2257. I don't use nudity on my sites / promos so I haven't kept up with this. What is the latest ? __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

11-30-2007, 09:21 PM	#2
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	interesting.... thanks for the info LOL. __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

11-30-2007, 09:38 PM	#4
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Merely check out and always keep an eye out at www.freespeechcoalition.com --click on the link to 2257. dave __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

12-01-2007, 12:41 AM	#8
WarChild Let slip the dogs of war. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Bermuda Posts: 17,263	2257 for the lose. __________________ .

12-07-2007, 11:21 PM	#9
will76 Making $$$$ w/ ClickCash Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 18,037	any other info on this? __________________ ICQ: 86364801 Email: will [at] innovativeassets [dot] com PROGRAM SHIT LIST - DO NOT PROMOTE (click link for gfy thread) FNCash \| Media Revenue

11-30-2007, 09:32 PM	#3
Kevin Marx Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 1,888	did you read about the case in Ohio??? nothing really new since then

11-30-2007, 10:24 PM	#6
madleinx Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Refugee Posts: 102	A case in Ohio Federal Court struck down a bunch of 2257 as unconstitutional on its face, but not the whole thing. xxxlaw.net has a bunch of info. Anyway, the ruling is good news but it is just a part of the battle, certainly not the war.

11-30-2007, 11:23 PM	#7
JohnnyJames Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 621	At last check will76 said he had me on ignore, but I will share what I know anyway for others. The 6th District ruled all of 2257 unconstitutional by a slight majority, based on a couple things: It is overbroad and places too much burden on the secondary producers. It would, on the face, require a husband and wife who shoot themselves having sex for their own enjoyment and not for distribution or sale, to maintain 2257 records of themselves or risk being imprisoned in the event that someone else accidentally found the recording and reported them. 2257 also infringes on both the 4th amendment and the 1st amendment according to their ruling, since it assumes that sexual acts are unprotected speech (obscene) when in fact that is a decision made according to local standards. If applied in a broad swath, and the material was determined NOT to be obscenity, 2257 impinges on free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The filing requirements impinge on the 4th Amendment AND the First Amendment by overlooking the right to practice free speech (First Amendment) in an anonymous fashion. Previous case-law, established by the US Supreme Court, guarantees that you can practice free speech anonymously. According to 2257, you are required to give up that anonymity, which presumes that your recording or material is obscene before any such determination has been made. The ruling only affects the 6th District for now, but looks promising. If other cases in other districts follow a similar path, it will be very good for the industry. However, the 6th District ruling can be appealed to a larger venue including all of the 6th District judges, and then on to the US Supreme Court. Or it can be re-written by Congress to address these issues. So far, neither has been announced. The 6th District ruling also made a very important distinction. It drew a clear line that the government had already established laws to protect against child porn and pedophiles and that 2257 really doesn't further either of these goals. No one I have seen has suggested that producers in the 6th District should not continue to follow 2257. General consensus is, even though it is effectively no longer a law in that district, to continue as though it were, until the rest of the shakeout happens. That's my understanding, don't crucify me for it. It is a complex subject at best.

12-07-2007, 11:39 PM	#10
justFred Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 922	I'm going to mod that other dude's greasemonkey script to highlight business threads I think. cuz this 2257 title just fucking pops out like a sore thumb in the list doesn't it? spam me with yaya blah me and this dude were at this bar lol at this pic 2257 updates??? {click} sry tho will I got nothing on topic for you, just an observation. __________________ Vote Bill Cosby 2012

12-08-2007, 12:01 AM	#11
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	ya forget the free speech coalition...those cocksuckers didnt even filean amicus brief in the case....and buy rhondee kamins a beer or whatever shee wants at aee/internext matter of fact im in favor of firing everyone on the fsc and turning it over to rhondee lock stock and barrel...the lady has guts... And let us not forget jennifer kinsley and lou sirkin...seems like everytime our biz gets good news lou sirkins name is attached to it...the guy is the best. __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.