Quote:
Originally Posted by drjones
Not that I endorse this at all, I'm just legitimately curious.. all this information must be gathered anyways to comply with 2257... so how does this create much extra work, other than they want us to just send them the info, instead of them coming to our offices to inspect records?
|
The NY Post may or may not realize it, but this article
is about 2257.
There is no "new law" as the Post suggests - they merely screwed up the details of the story, something that sadly is quite common in media accounts pertaining to legal issues.
What the Post did here was take a theory forwarded by many adult industry attorneys - namely that the law really is not designed to abate the production of CP, but is part of an effort to create a database containing extensive info on all adult performers/companies - and they have run with that theory to the point that they are characterizing it as the explicit intent of Congress in crafting the relevant portions of the Adam Walsh Act.
There is nothing new in the NY Post story, and much of what the story states is flatly wrong.
The core of 2257 has existed for well over 10 years now, and the idea of a legal obligation to maintain ID records is not "new," and clearly was not first proposed under the Adam Walsh Act.
The "official list" they reference is the 2257 database maintained by the FBI.
Obviously, it is the FBI and
not the CEOS division of the DOJ that inspects records (CEOS likely would be responsible for prosecuting offenders, but they
do not conduct any record inspections).
In other words - you're right... to comply with this "new law" would be a function of complying with 2257, because the "new law" they reference
IS 2257.
- Q.