Extremely Important 2257 Matter
 

The Free Speech Coalition is helping us to help ourselves in this affront--see their two opening page articles, and PLEASE/PLEASE/PLEASE make it a priority to thoroughly read the article(s) and to make a submission to FSC and/or DOJ; their "Industry Headlines--Guide for Public Comments" was posted today, and is loaded with ammo for us to use. Today's FSC posting Guide is VERY important!

Please do it now--go to http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ .

Maybe it might be helpful if we also posted our submissions here, too? It might help us all garner valuable additional info to use in this fight?

Don't let yourself down (or the other GFY members) by putting this off, or not stepping up to the plate.

Secondary Producers could be (indeed "are", based upon the pending new 2257 Proposed Regulations) subject to DOJ 2257 attack just like Primary Producers presently are -- we ALL need to fight this. Let's get some hits, perhaps some home runs, but don't strike out by not being a team player in this attack upon American's Constitution and Adult Entertainment.

Fight this, fight it hard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Dave Cummings

P.S. Just in case any Court action by FSC ends up being applicable only to Free Speech Boalition members, perhaps everyone should be an FSC member and financially support this FSC action on our behalf!

Thank You Mr. Cummings, I will be joining today.

Thank you

reading now..

I'll check it out, but as a secondary producer, if push comes to shove, I'll just quit posting sexually explicit photos and videos on my site. Text links for the win! =)

Thanks for the reminder, we are submitting our comments.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...view&coid=1073

Good stuff :thumbsup

Is there a british equivalent to the FSC ?

I recommend that you email either [email protected] or [email protected] to ask that question; then, post the answer here for all of us to be informed, too. Thanks!

Dave

Wow. What a plan. What images are you going to use on banners? Thinkinb about running just "non-sexual" images? You could still get a 2257 visit and be asked to prove that the images don't come from a set that requires 2257, and that includes sexually suggestive, evne if the models are fully clothed.

Good luck. It's nice not to be American for this one.

Hi Dave.

Unfortunately the proposed "regulations" have nothing to do with whether or not secondary producers will be required to keep records and have them available for inspection.
Congress already took care of that by rewriting the law.

Unlike the 1st time, the DOJ is not overstepping it's bounds by trying to rewrite the statute, this time they are merely enforcing the statute based on congressional intent.

IMO the best we can hope for with our comments is to make the cross referencing and other such requirements less burdensome.

Thanks for posting this maybe you will motivate others.

bump this is important.

was I imagining their site being down last week??? :uhoh

Haha. Not American. Do you NON Americans really believe that this will NOT effect you??? If you do, then a rock has more brains. Just ask the guys that were the owners of the online gambling that was outlawed in the US. they lived in England, and now they are in jail in the US.

Because they were AMERICAN.

If you are not American and do not host or bill in the USA, like it or not, you will not be touched. They do not have the funds, recourses or authority to touch or inspect NON-US citizens. If you know anything about international law, you know this to be true.

Mock me if you will, but mark my words.

Can that be enforced by law? I mean isn't this regulation EX POST FACTO (after the fact) which is expressly prohibited by the United States Constitution...

Article 1, Section 9, United States Constitution says "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Bump...I am still drafting my comments........as a secondary producer this could seriously impact me............I'm still working on how to edit "THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!" into something more acceptable.

From the new regulations.


In accordance with current law, the
proposed rule retains July 3, 1995, as
the effective date of the rule?s
requirements for secondary producers.
(The current regulations, published in
2005, adopted July 3, 1995, as the
effective date of enforcement of section
2257 based on the Court?s order in
American Library Association v. Reno,
No. 91?0394 (SS) (D.D.C. July 28,
1995)). The one exception is that the
proposed rule would not penalize
secondary producers for failing to
maintain required records in connection
with those acts of production that
occurred prior to the effective date of
the Act. While the law would permit the
Department to apply the statute and
regulations to actions that occurred
prior to that date, the Department has
determined that the rule shall not apply
in such circumstances to avoid any
conceivable ex post facto concern.

This will never ever stand up in court. You can't hold someone else responsable for what someone else is doing.

If you think that's what this law does then I think you don't understand it.

I'd like to point out that I do not like this law and I wish it wasn't the law, but if you think it makes you responsible for what someone else does, or you think it's ex post facto, or you think the regulations that have just been proposed are "the DOJ attacking us" then you really don't understand the law and need to retain counsel. :2 cents:

...so much to read .....

The whole problem with 2257 altogether is that you are being forced to prove yourself innocent of a crime that never happened.

It would seem to me the whole thing is unsonstitutional on that basis alone.

I know 2257 has yet to be challeneged in a real criminal case and Im not sure exactly where the FSC stands ot trying to get the whole thing tossed.

I think if the FSC wants support they should be a bit more forthright with their books and recordkeeping. Almost every complaint I have heard about them is based on the notion that there is no fiscal accountability.

The government could also ask to inspect your colon to make sure there are no images hidden there, but at some point --probably when they might ask for documentation on non-sexually explicit images --it becomes so ridiculously unconstitutional and absurd that a first year law student could prevail against the government.

Your very right but I doubt they will ever arrest someone just on a clerical error. The girl is of age but the person forgot to cross reference the one extra time, I cant see them going thru the expense and hoping a jury will convict. It seems they are using it to add a cherry to a bunch of charges.

I agree, there are constitutional challenges to be made against the statute based on the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments.

However, until those challenges are made this law is what we have to live with.

Thanks Dave:thumbsup

thanks for the info... :)

Here's the Bump back to page 1.

FSC Equivalent In England
 

The closest thing the Brits have to Free Speech Coalition, since they have no constitutionally-guaranteed free speech rights, is Feminists Against Censorship. A good person to ask about it is Avedon Carol, who I believe is an officer of the group. Her excellent website, through which you can contact her, is The Sideshow ... which I'm not allowed to post the URL of, since I don't post here often.

Mark Kernes

Re: Extremely Important 2257 Matter
 

FSC will be filing a lawsuit to "get the whole thing tossed" for, among other reasons, the very one you state above, as soon as the new regulations are in final form. It will also file for an injunction against enforcement of the requirement that secondary producers keep IDs, since secondary producers do not deal directly with performers.

Mark Kernes

Re: Extremely Important 2257 Matter
 

FSC's future lawsuit will be against 18 U.S.C. §2257 itself, since the Adam Walsh Act changes have been incorporated into that law. The lawsuit will attempt to get rid of the entire recordkeeping and labeling law, or at least the criminal penalties attendant thereto, in part because it creates an unconstitutional shifting of the burden of proof onto the (prospective) defendants, who must prove that their performers are not minors.

Mark Kernes

bump again...

people who live abroad and think that this does not affect them are foolish. Sure, you wont have the feds knocking on your door but they might knock on the door of the sponsor you promote, the tgp you trade with or the webmasters that you work with.

As the 2257 panel of lawyers and experts said at Xbiz, this has nothing to do with CP. Out of the 1500 or so inspections so far, NOT ONE SINGLE CP violation has been sighted. They are out to destroy us and make our lives miserable. And this is just means to an end..

Please understand this, no matter where you are or what you do..

It's nice to see and have the expertise and legal acumen of Mark Kernes posting here, especially on this ultra-important matter. IMO, Mark is one VERY sharp and well-informed person, and someone who has a gift for translating the legal stuff into understandable info for us folks.

Thanks, Mark!!!

Dave

Very good thread. I think it's about time the industry shifted in any way it can out of the USA, to places where Government will let us run our legal businesses without fear of going to jail. We've always known to follow the laws, but this is getting out of hand.

We've already seen many European and Canadian webmasters adopting 2257 anyways, even though they're only connected by business and aren't US citizens. I'd still rather that, so if there are any small clerical errors or a missing document, there's no fear of jailtime.

That's great news, I'm very glad to hear it.

That's great news, I'm very glad to hear it.

Ok thanks Dave I have emailed Diane and am waiting for an answer, as soon as I get one I will post it here

Regards

Hi thanks for that Mark I will google it, see if I can get the website address and post it here

Regards

Ok here is the address

http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/


regards

Important update to the 2257 issue here!!!

Good article, good points raised

All I see is some music stuff--am I missing something (I'm not very computer-literate, so maybe I missed it)?

Thanks

Dave

Nah, I think you got "Rick Rolled"

Kids these days :1orglaugh

The FSC site says to comment on the costs associated with compliance. Shouldn't we also bring up things such as concern over interpritations that the full custodian of records address must appear on every single page and not just links?

Thanks a lot for sharing

Dave,

Can you tell us if you really believe that FSC has really done a good job fighting the 2257 and the Adam Walsh act? And if somehow you actually do think so - can you tell us what are the things that could be any worse than they are now if FSC never fought this?

Thank you!

Thanks Dave!

I was thinking the same thing. They are basically trying to hold a secondary producer libel for something he can not control.

The secondary producer never meets the model nor do they have a chance to inspect the models ID. For all we know a "scanned" ID was done in Photoshop.

That's like trying to hold walmart libel because Niki used child labor to make shoes walmart sells.

You're welcome:-)

Dave