Commitment To Prosecutions by Mitt Romney
 

Great article posted on Xbiz today by Greg Picconelli:

Excellent Article!

Link to Article.

No Fear, Just Knowledge!:pimp

After a Manwin donation I am sure he will change his tune, again.

How is that a bad thing? Maybe it will reduce some of the free porn, causing people to actually have to pay to see pink ?

Pirates don't have 2257 and use the DMCA laws as a "legal shield"; therefore, I don't think the free content will be reduced at all by prosecuting legit content producers.

I have a feeling he would be a lot more moderate of a president than people think. His history shows him as a moderate and he only went to the right to appease the base in the primaries. He is back to being a moderate now.

He could still go after porn just to appease the right, but I have a feeling once he gets into office he is going to realize this country has a lot of problems that he would rather focus on.

douutful. they tend to try and change the definition of what is "obscene".

They probably won't prosecute porn too much, because they mostly lose. What they will do is disrupt the porn business like they did before, but only in the US giving a greater advantage to the rest of the porn companies outside of the states.

You don't get it. :error

With 2257 on the books, the prosecutors can bring dual charges of obscenity and 2257 violations to bear on content producers. If you beat the obscenity charges, you are still facing the 2257 violations which are mandatory 5 and 10 year sentences.

So, why would you fight the obscenity charges if you are going to jail for a long time anyways on 2257's mandatory sentences? There is no pleading innocent to 2257.

Your best option would be to plea bargain, make a deal, and plead guilty to obscenity for a lesser term having the 2257 charges eliminated or reduced to a single charge of 5 years.

Please note that the pleading guilty to obscenity would set a precedent for future prosecutions and allow forfeiture and seizure of all your assets that can be traced to the product if I recall correctly.

For content producers, this is a no-win scenario. For the government, they have boiler-plate prosecutions, avoid lengthy trials, get to seize a ton of cash, look good in the eyes of the ultra conservatives, and win-win-win their cases.:Oh crap

I've been through this before. 2 years in court that ended about 3 years ago.

I'll still vote for Romney, America is more important than my job doing porn. Also I doubt that they will do anything about adult. It's freedom of speech and the first thing Romney pointed out is upholding the constitution. They all say this stuff to gain votes.

Since the real problems are mostly not solvable, and certainly not by easy showy mediagenic actions, you could just as sensibly make the argumment that he will concentrate on lifetstyle and sexuality issues to get media exposure for "being strong" and to acheive easy but meaningless media victories.

But, the argument that porn prosecutions may help us by making porn less "free" (and increasing the sense of taboo and risk) might have some merit.

OK, so who would you throw under the bus?:disgust

Exactly how I feel..

Well, I'm not in favor of it, I'm just saying the argument may have some merit.

I think we all know the feds won't touch the tubes or the pirates.

And the feds are too big of pussies to go after the big producers.

So presumably they would target mid-level producers of the more unusual stuff. So, even tho I'm not throwing anybody under the bus - because I wont vote for either obamney or romama - I exoect it's some of the midlevel producers they will attack first.

You probably know that list as well as I.

The question is, will fed attacks on porn change the business models at all and encourage signups at the paysites and paying sponsors?

And it might. Probably not enough to make a lot of difference, but it might make some difference.

Or, it just wipes out more of the american webmasters - which is also very possoble.

Either way the religious and anti-sex base of the republicans is happy enough.

Oh yeah, every Presidents first response is to porn. I thought that was self evident.

You know, it does not bother me when kids have these idealistic, weird concepts of what a President will/can do; but when mature adults can't get it straight . . . . I do have concerns.

A lot of people threw away a shitlod of money on the 2257 scares under bush.

I didn't, because I figured we'd see the prosecutions coming from a mile away - and they never happened. But a lot of people wasted money and time.

Hopefully we are wiser now - but the big problems are much much bigger now, so the incentive for a president to go after low hanging political fruit would be higher.

I think the reason that there haven't been more inspections are two-fold:

1. Doing inspections is considered a shit job during the "war on terrorism".

2. The FSC's continuing litigation of the case has clouded the ability of the DOJ to foresee a clear result of 2257 prosecutions in light of the constitutionality issues presented.

As the 2257 case is back before the same judge that previously dismissed the case, hopefullly, there will be some final resolution next year.

Hopefully, the new President won't make the DOJ be as rabid on prosecutions as Ashcroft was before 9/11. 9/11 changed all the priorities of the Bush administration.

And two republican presidents followed thru. Are you that naive that you really think it cant happen again? FYI Mitt is a bishop in his church.

What magic do you think Romney will do? You really believe this douche bag who cant commit to anything (he is for, before he is against)is going to save america.

Good. I'd love to see some asses spanked. It is long overdue.

If you're a pornographer in the US. Get out now. LOL