I don't understand why Craigslist is exempt from 2257 laws. Anyone know why?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • clickhappy
    Confirmed User
    • Mar 2004
    • 4027

    #1

    I don't understand why Craigslist is exempt from 2257 laws. Anyone know why?

    How come Craigslist is allowed to post thousands and thousands of nude photos everyday in their personals section and not have to post any 2257 information?
  • L-Pink
    working on my tan
    • Mar 2005
    • 39151

    #2
    User submitted content.

    Comment

    • Eriic
      So Fucking Banned
      • Jan 2008
      • 2995

      #3
      Originally posted by clickhappy
      How come Craigslist is allowed to post thousands and thousands of nude photos everyday in their personals section and not have to post any 2257 information?
      Because they are not in the porn business and can not be held liable for personal ads

      Comment

      • clickhappy
        Confirmed User
        • Mar 2004
        • 4027

        #4
        Originally posted by L-Pink
        User submitted content.
        interesting.
        I'm asking because I have a personals site and was concerned with users submitting nudes.

        Comment

        • After Shock Media
          It's coming look busy
          • Mar 2001
          • 35299

          #5
          2257 does not necessarily cover just nudity. Though I seriously doubt "user submitted" BS protects anyone from the 2257 laws. Just because some tubes do it and such, does not mean it is how the law works. Then if you do fall under certain guidelines once you begin moderating crap your back on the hook again.

          Not sure why people either have not had lawyers explain the law or at least sat in on a few seminars at the shows.

          [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

          Comment

          • Snake Doctor
            I'm Lenny2 Bitch
            • Mar 2001
            • 13449

            #6
            2257 doesn't have the effect of law. NOBODY is currently subject to that law.

            It was struck down by a 3 judge panel in federal court as overly broad.

            The government requested an "en banc" rehearing, and that request was granted. Now the case will be heard again by the full 6th circuit (14 judges)

            There is no time limit, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took over 20 months to convene following oral arguments in the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition ruling. So for right now it's a dead issue, practically speaking.
            sig too big

            Comment

            • Kelli58
              Confirmed User
              • Aug 2006
              • 2260

              #7
              In the end anyone in the US who takes a picture and posts it is liable if the person is under 18 -- 2257 laws worked out or not.
              💎 Earn Money by Helping Content Creators Earn More. 💎 The most unique affiliate program in the game. There are more than 1.5 million OnlyFans creators. Here's your chance to make money from them!

              Comment

              • abadfish
                Confirmed User
                • Jul 2003
                • 1482

                #8
                I wouldn't bother putting any 2257 info on any of my sites if CCBill didn't require it.
                Reanna Mae

                Comment

                • Paul Markham
                  Too old to care
                  • Jun 2001
                  • 52942

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Snake Doctor
                  2257 doesn't have the effect of law. NOBODY is currently subject to that law.

                  It was struck down by a 3 judge panel in federal court as overly broad.

                  The government requested an "en banc" rehearing, and that request was granted. Now the case will be heard again by the full 6th circuit (14 judges)

                  There is no time limit, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took over 20 months to convene following oral arguments in the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition ruling. So for right now it's a dead issue, practically speaking.
                  One of the few tools we had to fight piracy we spent money to bring down. Just so we could put up more free porn. Anyone else see the irony?



                  Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
                  PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

                  Comment

                  • Mr. Cool Ice
                    Confirmed User
                    • Aug 2006
                    • 1289

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Paul Markham
                    One of the few tools we had to fight piracy we spent money to bring down. Just so we could put up more free porn. Anyone else see the irony?
                    We deserve it.
                    NUR COOL UND GEIL

                    Comment

                    • clickhappy
                      Confirmed User
                      • Mar 2004
                      • 4027

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Kelli58
                      In the end anyone in the US who takes a picture and posts it is liable if the person is under 18 -- 2257 laws worked out or not.
                      All my stuff is old people, clearly over 50.
                      I have no interest in anything teen or resembling teen.

                      Comment

                      • L-Pink
                        working on my tan
                        • Mar 2005
                        • 39151

                        #12
                        Originally posted by clickhappy
                        All my stuff is old people, clearly over 50.
                        I have no interest in anything teen or resembling teen.
                        Doesn't matter if it's a granny site or not.

                        Originally posted by Paul Markham
                        One of the few tools we had to fight piracy we spent money to bring down. Just so we could put up more free porn. Anyone else see the irony?
                        You really hit the nail on the head!


                        .

                        Comment

                        • JayAllan
                          So Fucking Banned
                          • Jan 2008
                          • 1148

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Paul Markham
                          One of the few tools we had to fight piracy we spent money to bring down. Just so we could put up more free porn. Anyone else see the irony?
                          You are absolutely correct Paul!

                          Comment

                          • Barefootsies
                            Choice is an Illusion
                            • Feb 2005
                            • 42635

                            #14
                            Originally posted by L-Pink
                            User submitted content.
                            Should You Email Your Members?

                            Link1 | Link2 | Link3

                            Enough Said.

                            "Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

                            Comment

                            Working...