GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   New York Man Sentenced, Fined for Violating 2257 Law (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=476422)

TheDoc 06-03-2005 09:01 PM

New York Man Sentenced, Fined for Violating 2257 Law
 
ok, the guy needed to get busted for being a sick ass pedo.. But I don't get is why he wasn't nailed on CP laws...

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002

Juicy D. Links 06-03-2005 09:04 PM

wow............

Harmon 06-03-2005 09:04 PM

"Several of the girls involved gave affidavits to federal agents saying Martell was sometimes naked when he photographed them..."

"His books include "When Does the Fun Start?" and "Never Stop Dancing."

LOL!

I am guessing that he wasn't nailed on the CP charge because the evidence of the women allegedly lying was too thin... maybe :disgust

Walrus 06-03-2005 09:05 PM

What a dumbass.

sixxxthsense 06-03-2005 09:06 PM

o so this is the FIRST guy, its supposed to make everyone shit themselfs and panic even more... great here we gooo......


this guy was a pedo for real though?

Sly 06-03-2005 09:07 PM

They needed to prove that the 2257 laws worked. Now they can use this case in court as proof, 2257 took a dirty CP guy away. Hooray.

TheDoc 06-03-2005 09:08 PM

Valid bust though.. no reason to panic, please go back into your homes.

pornstar2pac 06-03-2005 09:08 PM

so, what does this mean?

tony286 06-03-2005 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly
They needed to prove that the 2257 laws worked. Now they can use this case in court as proof, 2257 took a dirty CP guy away. Hooray.

My guess too it looks from the article they have been watching him for awhile

TheDoc 06-03-2005 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornstar2pac
so, what does this mean?

Means people need to get shit into order, probably sooner than later.

tony286 06-03-2005 09:13 PM

I confused those pics werent published anywhere if they are not published you dont need 2257. It was cp not 2257 weird, I guess for him it was better to convicted of 2257 than cp but he is 78 so five yrs can be a life sentence.

Sly 06-03-2005 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404
I confused those pics werent published anywhere if they are not published you dont need 2257. It was cp not 2257 weird, I guess for him it was better to convicted of 2257 than cp but he is 78 so five yrs can be a life sentence.

I don't understand that either. According to the article he was only taking pictures, the developer reported him, and bam. Of course he could have been doing other things, but I fail to see how this ties into 2257.

Pleasurepays 06-03-2005 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly
I don't understand that either. According to the article he was only taking pictures, the developer reported him, and bam. Of course he could have been doing other things, but I fail to see how this ties into 2257.

it is sloppy and incomplete writing and just bad journalism. there is obviously more to the story and its obvious that more charges were filed. the article says he was taking sexually explicit photos of minors. not having proper ID would only be one of many charges.

the article apparently was written to incite adult webmasters.
:2 cents:

studio 06-03-2005 10:20 PM

If a photographer takes sexually explicit photos or Video he/she must keep 2257 records... Even if they are not published...

Shoplifter 06-03-2005 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

the article apparently was written to incite adult webmasters.
:2 cents:


Looks that way from here. It just doesn't make sense.

But on the other hand 2257 may have been the only thing that was provable in the court, and due to his age they may have thought the penalties sufficient.

It would be nice to get another take on the story from a different news source.

tony286 06-03-2005 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by studio
If a photographer takes sexually explicit photos or Video he/she must keep 2257 records... Even if they are not published...

THat is not true a guy takes a video of his old gf and him fucking , he still has the video he doesnt need 2257 for that. 2257 only covers published material. He isnt a pro he is a old pervert

NTSS 06-03-2005 10:36 PM

Quote:

.....
But I don't get is why he wasn't nailed on CP laws...


His age probably had a lot to do with it.

Sly 06-03-2005 10:38 PM

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/NewsRe...0411291057.htm

Here's more information. Doesn't say much besides XBiz though.

tony286 06-03-2005 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/NewsRe...0411291057.htm

Here's more information. Doesn't say much besides XBiz though.

if he had a lawyer they wouldnt of gotten him for 2257 ,it looks like they made a deal. Its for published work 2257 is not for anybody who shoots dirty pics. You shoot your gf sucking for your personal use going to have to get 2257 now?

xxxice 06-03-2005 10:45 PM

Oh my :Oh crap

Mr.Fiction 06-03-2005 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by studio
If a photographer takes sexually explicit photos or Video he/she must keep 2257 records... Even if they are not published...

I don't think that's true. Doesn't it have to be for commercial purposes to fall under 2257?

tradermcduck 06-04-2005 12:03 AM

that article is bullshit...

webcrawler 06-04-2005 01:33 AM

nothing was mentioned if he used those photos for.

ModelPerfect 06-04-2005 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404
THat is not true a guy takes a video of his old gf and him fucking , he still has the video he doesnt need 2257 for that. 2257 only covers published material. He isnt a pro he is a old pervert

The law as it was in effect during this time:

---
Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made after November 1, 1990 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:
---

Sounds to me like he did indeed have to keep the records, even if he never intended to publish the pics.

V_RocKs 06-04-2005 02:15 AM

It proves that it is being used as it was intended.. To stop child porn... Since law enforcement doesn't have the resources to SHUT DOWN the adult internet, they go after things EVERYONE (us included) will want them to go after, CP!

Applause for getting this guy off the street... fucking retard.

ModelPerfect 06-04-2005 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V_RocKs
It proves that it is being used as it was intended.. To stop child porn... Since law enforcement doesn't have the resources to SHUT DOWN the adult internet, they go after things EVERYONE (us included) will want them to go after, CP!

Applause for getting this guy off the street... fucking retard.

I agree that it's great they got this guy off the street, but I disagree that the new 2257's intent is to stop CP. There's no way it's overly burdensomeness is required to stop CP to any magnitude greater than a more simplistic approach would accomplish. CP is just a convenient excuse and means for it's implementation.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123