The Ghost

It's been all over the boards, but I haven't seen any coverage of 2257 on CNN, FOX News, etc. etc. Then again, I am a dullard and out of the loop. Discuss.

__________________
ISLAND DOLLARS
1000's of Exclusive TS scenes / Constant Updates
Best TS Network your surfers will ever join

2HousePlague

good observation -- you have to wonder why there would be no consumer-directed PR/communications element, if the public benefits of 2257 are so self-evident -- hell, why not call it "traci's law" and go on 60 minutes -- why not?

because the adult entertainment industry is NOT a victimizer of minors -- look at our record. if the DOJ tried to make a case (on the public stage) for our wrongdoing as regards minors, the true (censorial) intent of 2257 would become apparent -- and the american public has shown little historical interest in censorship legislation when it is unglamourized by a celebrity body part --


2HP

__________________
tada!

kenny

2257 doesn't effect the vast majority of people watching the news. In fewer words.. nobody outside the industry really gives a fuck about it

__________________
7

fusionx

CNN had a brief entry in their news ticker when the regs were first published, but AFAIK, no actual story.

DarkBob

last night on fox news I saw something on their ticker about the FSC's lawsuit. They made sure to point out the the law was intended to protect children, and the adult industry was against it.

BrainCash JF

__________________
SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

basschick

notice how the title makes us look bad - the article doesn't make us look any better. i've asked this on a couple other boards, but why don't we hire a publicist?

"Porn Industry Sues To Prevent New Child Porn Rules
Regulations Require Pornographers To Keep Records Of Performers

POSTED: 11:20 am MDT June 17, 2005
UPDATED: 11:42 am MDT June 17, 2005

DENVER -- A coalition representing the porn industry asked a federal court Thursday to block new regulations requiring pornographers and distributors to maintain records of their performers, arguing the rules could stop the distribution of material produced since 1992.

The regulations, which were approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in May, requires producers to keep detailed information that verify the identify and age of their performers, including their date of birth, legal name, and copy of a picture identification card. The rules were approved in an effort to stop child pornography and ensure the performers are not minors.

Producers have 30 days to comply with the changes, which take effect June 23, or face up to 5 years in prison for the first offense and 10 years for each subsequent violation.

The Free Speech Coalition, its chapter in Colorado, a pornography distributor, and adult film producer filed the lawsuit seeking an injunction in U.S. District Court. According to court documents, the plaintiffs argue that the guidelines are unconstitutional and would do little to protect children. An enormous burden would be placed on producers and distributors, they said, to maintain unnecessary records of adult material dating back to July 3, 1995.

The regulations could stop distribution of adult material such as films, pictures, books, and magazines that were made since 1992, the plaintiffs argued.

It was unclear why the lawsuit was filed in Denver.

Jeff Dorschner, spokesman U.S. Attorney's Office, said he has not seen the case since it was filed late on Thursday.

"After we review it, we will file a response in due course with the court," he said.

An after-hours message left at the California-based coalition was not immediately returned.

The California-based Free Speech Coalition represents more than 600 businesses and individuals in the adult industry. The producer and distributor involved in the case are also from California."

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...16/detail.html

__________________
Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

After Shock Media

Its a typical Government tactic. Always name a bill, law, or anything you want just right. That way in the event anyone goes against it they automatically look bad. It is the perfect tactic in the short attention spam theater of 10 second sound bytes. Of course if this does not work, you must always attach your legistlation or whatnot to such a bill that is correctly named.

Hell they could squeeze past a law that allowed the police to anal fuck you during interogration as long as the bill was named something like The Civil Freedom Act.

__________________

The Ghost

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised that the News hasn't ran with it more. I guess all of their time was taken with Michael Jackson and the missing girl in Aruba. I just don't want to see a negative shit storm start, with all of the usual characters caught with their pants down (the Rob Blacks, Ron Jeremys, Jenna Jamesons, Sharon Mitchells, Mary Careys,etc, etc).

I hear all press is good press. I don't think it will be the case for this. It would be an unfair drinking game to 'drink' everytime the Adult Business and CP are mentioned together in the same report.

__________________
ISLAND DOLLARS
1000's of Exclusive TS scenes / Constant Updates
Best TS Network your surfers will ever join

2HousePlague

this is what's disturbing:

1. this is yet another piece of the puzzle that suggests they never expect to conduct 2257 jury trials -- potential juries would already be getting the rhetoric in some form or other -- they're not, in fact -- next time you're riding in an elevator with a non-industry stranger, ask them how they would keep underage performers out of porn -- 9 out of 10 people would say "check their IDs before production", and the odd, intelligent tenth person would say "issue licenses" -- in all cases, the instinctive approach would be PREVENTATIVE and PROACTIVE, not HISTORICAL and CLERICAL.

2. why would any jury in this country convict somebody for a 2257 compliance failure when the government has not shown that that failure was associated with an actual minor in an actual adult performance -- ? --

once a case goes to trial, the defense would have all the time they needed to find the model's ID and show her age at the time of production -- and if they can't find the ID, then all the government has is -- what -- an unconfirmed suspicion, a case without any moral orientation whatosoever and the egg on their face of being yet another example of lazy "law enforcement" that wants to pass-off all the work to the community being policed -- hmmm -- sound familiar:


concerned texas citizen #1 -- "damn mexicans, they're crossing the border by the thousands every night!"

concerned texas citizen #2 -- "there oughta be a law!"

texas law enforcement spokesman -- "we've found a solution -- since it's too expensive to actually patrol the border with personnel and provide a physical defense -- we've decided we're going to perform random spot checks wherever mexicans or mexican-looking people congregate. we'll make anyone who looks mexican have to get a special form of ID to be presented to officers whenever there's a raid -- this will make it a lot easier for us to tell the americans from everybody else -- and the best part is, it won't cost hardly anything -- we'll charge the mexicans to get one of these special IDs, and fear of random raids will keep the illegals out of america!"

concerned texas citizen #1 and #2 -- "YAY!"

a candian heckler in the back row who is quickly removed and arrested -- "but won't that just drive the illegals deeper undergrou..."


2HP

__________________
tada!