GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Barry-xlovecam · 11-03-2015, 12:50 PM

1. The government has a public interest is assuring the age of majority of performers depicted in explicit sexual content. I would expect that §2256 would withstand scrutiny.
2. The government may not be able to regulate adult content's location ** on the internet [added]but they don't now -- they do not prohibit internet use of certain domains for pornographic content as an example.

I don't see this as a good thing if the ruling goes either way. If §2257 was struck down Congress most likely would see fit to modify the law to suit the Court.

What I think would be fair would be to require valid identification at the time of production for the record and that is it -- the rest is just bullshit and an attempt to preempt otherwise lawful adult expression

Burden of proof should be on the government -- §§ 2256 - 2257A is in USC Title 18 -- that is criminal code.

11-03-2015, 12:50 PM
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	1. The government has a public interest is assuring the age of majority of performers depicted in explicit sexual content. I would expect that §2256 would withstand scrutiny. 2. The government may not be able to regulate adult content's location on the internet [added]but they don't now -- they do not prohibit internet use of certain domains for pornographic content as an example. I don't see this as a good thing if the ruling goes either way. If §2257 was struck down Congress most likely would see fit to modify the law to suit the Court.** What I think would be fair would be to require valid identification at the time of production for the record and that is it -- the rest is just bullshit and an attempt to preempt otherwise lawful adult expression Burden of proof should be on the government -- §§ 2256 - 2257A is in USC Title 18 -- that is criminal code.