Fox News: 2257 Law "Misguided" for Girls Gone Wild
 

From Hannity & Colmes. I rewound TIVO and am typing this manually, so please excuse any errors.

Colmes: ".... the federal law meant to prevent the sexual exploitation of children. The creators failed to maintain age and identity documents for performers in the sexually explicit films they produced and distributed. Joining us now, Florida prosecutor Pam Bondi and criminal defense attorney, [some bimbo with big lips]."

Some bimbo with big lips: "This law really wasn't created for teenage girls on spring break who are knowingly flashing a video camera. This is really to protect younger children from exploitation. So I think this really was, sort of, really misguided and misdirected. But, they're trying to set an example here."

Neat, something good comes out of Fox News!

The problem is this: The "girls flashing on spring break" isn't an issue that i can see... the issue more centers around the "and more" part. Just filming stuff like mardi gras and showing people what you saw isn't an issue. But when you set things up, bring girls back to your hotel or into your bus, you are no longer just reporting on what is going on but in fact making porn. As soon as you cross that line, you have to be able to prove model ages, have releases, and all those other things.

Live and learn, right?

Eh, it's more of an issue of "oops, we pulled 2257 out on Girls Gone Wild."

Let's say they applied the standard (5 years in jail, mandatory, for each violation). The guy would have gone away for a long time, the public would have been like "wtf?" and people would finally learn about 2257.

Hey moron, how much longer before youre gonna put companies out of business?

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=652574

You fucking idiot.

:1orlaugh

O'reiley said roughly the same thing. That this was a waste of resources, money, and time that could be spent on real problems.

Im not saying I dont think 2257 can do good things, I just think its pushed to an extreme at times.

That's the thing. I'm all for protecting kids, but clearly that isn't what it's being used for.

How many times do I have to explain it to you?

2257 is not about protecting children from being shot in porn movies. It's about protecting porn producers/publishers from going to jail becasue they shot/published a 15 to 17 year old thinking she was 18, or she said she was and they believed her. Or the shooter said it was all over age and they believed him.

2257 ALLOWS ME TO INSIST I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE I PRODUCE OR PUBLISH PORN.

It will never stop some sicko shooting kids in porn.

GGW deserve everything they get, they flout the rules and get nailed.

We're agreed, Paul.

dude snoop & the ggw owners are pimps with dough

they could set a national park ablaze & pay their way out of it

respect!

bumpppppppp

:thumbsup :thumbsup

However, insisting it would not necessary require a law. I think the law is about obligations, rather than protection.

come on paul... 2257 could give two shits about protecting porn producers... 2257 re-write is about political agenda... nothing more and nothing less..

Datelines "To Catch A Predator" has resulted in more arrests in a shorter period of time than any other operation other than the FBI's "Operation Candy Cane"....

Child porn could be dramatically curbed overnight with a few simple measures. the govt seems to like to pass policy and not enforce it...

Look at GGW. For 2 million dollars in fines they avoided jail time... What kind of message does that send? "If you cant do the time, but can pay the fine, do the crime?" What the fuck is that? Its bullshit... I am willing to bet that anyone who cant pay 1 million plus fine would be sent to jail for the same violations... I am starting to realize that money can buy you out of just about anything in the good ole USA... its sad...

He'd rather continue letting everyone that deals with them get ripped off. Sets a good example for any companies he may trying to promote.

And that's fine for PRIMARY PRODUCERS. I have no issue with that. If you are going to shoot content then yes better make sure the girls are 18. The Secondary Producer clause is pure bullshit. No such thing as a "secondary producer"

Do convenience stores have to have 2257 info when they sell a dirty mag? No. Do video stores have to have 2257 info when they rent a dirty movie? No. Does my cable company have to have 2257 info on any of the porn they show on their XXX PPV channels? No. Does Cinemax have to have 2257 info on the soft core porn the show at 2 AM? No.

If I'm a "secondary producer" because I provide content that was produced by someone else on my site then how are these guys I just mentioned any different.

Not that I agree with it, but wasn't 2257 inspections pretty much a given with ggw? After all they did have that case last year with the under age girl. So one would have to be an idiot to think they wouldn't get checked on after that.

The important question is when did the inspections take place? With them already having a judgment seems like this happened way before this recant group of inspections.

So was this a inspection case on it's own or was it linked in with the previous case with the known minor from last year?

Good God man, are you still spewing this stupid drivel???

It was pointed out to you months ago that your argument only applies (maybe) to the old 2257.

Anybody with half a brain knows the new 2257 was designed to be impossible to comply with for the sole purpose of misleading the public and getting easy pr0n convictions.

Buy yourself a clue dude.