Quote:
Originally posted by sexeducation
Assuming you are correct ... that 2257 refers to "ALL websites" ... then I would say that 2257 is unconstitional as it forces a magazine to reveal it's sources. If 2257 only refers to "pornographic websites" I can see that ... but I have no intention of revealing the majoritiy of sources for "textual content". Now with regards to graphic content ... I do try to to state the sources ... there may be some old articles I do not ... but I will endevour as a result of recent feed back to be more aware of this need....regardless of whether it is "the law" or not as it makes my website more acceptable to the general adult community. I will work on this issue with expeditious due dilligence (after my other job ..)
|
I don't think you understand 2257 at all. I think you badly need to talk to a lawyer, because you are trying to make sense of it based on what you think *should* happen, and the result is that you are breaking the law.
Please note that 2257 does not require you to reveal your sources. It requires you to keep documentation on file that proves the age of the models-- copies of their ID, and documents they sign stating they are 18 or older. You keep these on file. All your site needs to have is the name and address of the person who keeps the records.
You are only required by law to show these in the case of a model-age investigation, and can't be asked to share them just because someone wants your source. This means that if someone tried to get a journalistic source from those files, you could fight it under a first-amendment defense.