"Porn" is still constitutionally protected art.
 

This 2257 stuff sure seems to have a lot of people spooked. :uhoh

Forgive my ignorance, but has anybody ever been prosecuted soley for keeping inadequate records? While it's obviously better to stay on the good side of the law (especially when it's easy enough), I don't believe a conviction on only a 2257 technicality could ever stand up to appeals. Under the 1st Ammendment, no form of art should be able to be regulated by the government.

Also, 2257 tries to place the burden of proof on the defendant, which is not the way our legal system works. It is up to the state to prove that a child was abused. Since when does an absence of evidence assume guilt? I would think there is a strong case to be made that this is an unlawful law.

it doesn't have anyone spooked....people are just making up threads to sell lawyer consulting sessions

I'm spooked - you should be too.

Laws and regulations are drafted by lawyers to keep lawyers in business.

Why do you think they make the wording so confusing? They don't want anyone to be able to understand laws on their own without having to consult with an attorney.

It won't be protected by the First Amendment if the Radical Right are successful in stacking the federal judiciary with their ideologues. They have a name for all erotica:
OBSCENITY.

obscenity is NOT protected by the first amendment. also, earlier this year the powers that be were trying to redefine porn as an addiction, making it a medical problem - also not protected by the first amendment.

as far as burden of proof, if a law says you must have a certain disclaimer on each page of your website - or must have i.d. organized in a certain fashion, that is the law you are violating - not the age of the models.

There is so such thing as "obscenity"; that is just an undefinable nonsense word used to try and exempt undesirable or unpopular types of expression from constitutional protection.

And I am suggesting the government has no right to make a law regulating how art can be produced or distributed. While it's obviously smart to keep proof that you didn't violate a minor, incase you have to defend yourself against that charge, a law (2257) specifically created to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant cannot be constitutional.

And I would wonder if the government doesn't already know that? If noone has ever been prosecuted for breaking their 'prove you're not a pedophile' law.

wake up. this is the new america. you have no rights.

When the far right controls the entire U.S. court system, and they are getting close, the Constitution will be worthless. Those people hate the Constitution.