2257 Owned
 

i just found this link a minute ago. not sure if it was posted but i'm sure some of you haven't seen it.

http://www.merchantboss.com/news/200...257_la w.html

Keep in mind, some of you have models who are over 18 but look much younger. All you need is one person to complain and if they come for you and you have no papers, you're fucked.

he did not violate 2257: he filmed minors.. big difference.. you must understand that

Duke

yes he was involved in child porn but
he was still in violation for not having proper papers.


paragraph 2

was found guilty of felony charges by a U.S. District Court judge for producing sexually explicit photographs of models and violating federal 2257 law that requires photographers to acquire and maintain proof of age.

He could not have proper papers either way, its a catch 22 and shows why 2257 has zero to do with CP.

once again

AND...violating federal 2257 law that requires photographers to acquire and maintain proof of age

even if they were found to be 21, he was still in violation.

i don't like the law but it still the law.

Stop being thick headed. 2257 for photographers is nothing new! It's been around since 1995 at least. It's 2257 regulations for "secondary producers" that is new!

Webmasters are concerned about being "secondary producers" even though they produce no content and that is the issue right now and the issue to be challenged.

He was owned in a few ways.

ok... lets be normal for a second. a guy was photographing minors. he was producing CP. he was doing it through the post office which is a whole other body of felonies.

how many government agencies are involved and how many charges would that bring?

use your head. he plead guilty to 2257 violation early on... obviously he is being charged with tons of felonies that he has not been tried for yet, including the production of CP.