2257 Hearing for TRO scheduled Thursday at 1:30 PM
 

http://www.co.uscourts.gov/calendars/current/wdm.pdf

The hearing will be held 13 1/2 hours after the regulations go into effect.

What to do what to do?

We had a bunch of stuff we were planning on deleting if there was no injunction issued, now we don't know whether to delete it or not.

There is that 1 in a million chance the feds knock on the door here a few hours before the court hearing.

Fuck em, they can suck my hairy cock if they bother me.

Remove it but save it. If you get the injunction...start uploading.

woof woof

Hmmm...my business hours that I'll post on my 2257 page are 9pm to 5am.

The hearing ought to be over by then :winkwink:

LOL....it would take me weeks to upload everything again.....1000's of galleries from the past 5 years.
Not to mention I'd be blacklisted by most of the places linking to those pages anyways....so it wouldn't make sense to reupload them.

Kill the link so that people can't access it until the hearing is handled.
WG

Watch CNN?>

Nah...I'd get blacklisted because the page would 404 for anyone linking to it.

So if I delete them they'll just be gone, no two ways about it.

Maybe I can just unplug the servers for a few hours....hahaha

Be complaint on June 23rd.

If you are not, and the courts eventually rule against our lawsuit, the DOJ can come back against everyone they inspected from June 23rd onwards.

Just because the regs are temporarily unenforceable due to a TRO or permanent injunction, the orders may not stop inspections.

Be ready for anything.

Why not put up a page with a "Temporarily out of Service" notice or "Updating Servers" notice.

Take the day and do some serious maintenance, upgrades and backups to your systems.

I gotta say, I'm just waiting to see about the injunction, if it goes thru--back in biz.


Dear god, I miss porn!

I have been removing old galleries for weeks. It sucks, but most were dormant pages anyway. Any traffic was coming from se's

htaccess the imgs

Here's my thought and I will probably be called stupid or something for even saying it ... Who is to say that they will show up at your house or work or whatever on the 23rd? Who is to say that they don't have a team of computer junkies with list of porn sites/programs that they go through (on the 23rd or whenever) and find non-compliancy and THEN come after you at a later date?!?

be compliant or dont cry when bubba is fucking u in the ass

exactly, better safe then sorry

meow :evil-laug

i sure won't call you stupid!

an archived version of your site showing that you didn't have your stuff in order on the 23rd could hurt you later.

Awww, thanks! :winkwink:

But the more I think about it, the more truth it could be ... I think more programs are going to find themselves in a world of hurt if they wait past the 23rd.

You have to keep copies of every page and every subsquently changed page that you have online from June 23. So even if the injunction - which in itself is anyway only a temporary restraining order - is successful, you are taking a risk if you wait to get your stuff in order until the eventual outcome of any challenges to 2257. You may figure the risk is very small, but even if the odds are as good as a million to one, someone unlucky bugger is going to be the "one" :)

And yes, Kristin... a TRO will only postpone prosecutions. It will not stop whatever investigations the DOJ may have planned or for that matter, already have under way.

since i 100% do NOT want to be a custodian of records, i've already started my delete-a-thon. i was surprised how much stuff we have after 9 years.

The injuction is going to be granted -- face it Lenny2.

My doors are booby trapped... bring it on.

We all need the Larry Flynt bedroom ...

You Of All The Motherfucking People On Here Should Know That It's Already Too God Damned Late! The Pain In The Ass Regulations Are For Content Published After June 23rd But The Regulations For Shit On Before Then Are Retroactive To 1995. They Could Have Arrested You Today, Yesterday, Or 3 Weeks Ago And They Can Arrest You In A Year For Shit You Had Up Today, Yesterday, Or 10 Years Ago.

Fucking Asshats Do You Ever Hear A Fucking Thing??????????????/

Edit: And yes this post was in all fuckin caps, GFY ate it.

Hardly anyone blacklists for a 404, its generally the redirect that gets you booted

When was the last time you heard a law being retroactively enforced?

The law has been there for years. The DOJ refused to accept Sundance ruling and said it's been enforcable since 1995. The new regs. clearly state all content published since 1995. Did you actually read them?

Simple solution, use mod_rewrite and redirect that traffic to a safe page maintaining the the affiliate id passed in your links, and bam. they still get signups, and you don't get a bad rep.

Since when does the DOJ get to decide which rulings they will accept or not ?
They simply decided not to appeal, fearing they would lose.
Also, given the track record ( and high costs) of unsuccessful obscenity prosecutions, do you really think they will be prosecuting people for what they did prior to 6/23/05 ? There will be plenty of non-compliant people after that date for them to go after, if the whole thing isn't declared unconstitutional. And even then, they would have to get a jury to convict you, which is certainly not a given.

I believe the person seeing a potential blacklisting problem was thinking in terms of free sites and TGP submissons. Most of the checking software used by such sites will delete automatically any site/gallery which does not return a 200 (document found) header and if it tries to reach a gallery which has been removed and encounters anything but a standard 404 error, can automatically ban the webmaster and all his galleries, or at least suspend them pending manual attention.

Against that, most TGP and free site operators do not penalize submitters who remove sites and galleries without redirection, unless they do so too soon after submission.

Just because they say that the secondary producer was/is responsible for the records doesn?t mean they can change what is already written law. They can?t and wouldn?t retroactively enforce this; the ?old law? is pretty clear what the secondary producer must do. The DOJ can say since 1995 you need to be compliant but they can't step in and enforce law that wasn't in existence then. If this was true they would have already used it. Use your brain of logic and not your brain of fear.

Retroactive laws are prohibited in the USA. Google "ex post facto" to get more info on this or just read Article 1, section 9, clause 3 of the US Constitution.

Someone asked me today if I thought the Feds would be inspecting come 9AM Thurs. With this hearing set, I doubt they will be inspecting on Thurs. Look at the possible outcome. They come to a company, begin inspecting and potentially they stand the chance of having the TRO granted while in the middle of an inspection. In that case, the company could legitimately kick them to the street. Not only would it be a colossal waste of money (and make no mistake, the DOJ has ALWAYS been keen on a cost/benefit analysis in their prosecutorial effort against adult), but potentially they could be forced out of a building with egg on their face. I would have to believe that the DOJ will at the very least wait to see if the TRO is granted before proceeding with inspections.

scoreman - i also doubt they will be inspecting. the question is will they be archiving websites for prosecution later on.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from a thing done afterward" or "after the deed"), also known as a retrospective law, is a law that acts retroactively, affecting facts or legal relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. In reference to criminal law, it is an attempt to criminalize an action that was legal when committed; or to aggravate a crime, or make it greater than it was, when it was committed; or to change or increase the punishment that was prescribed for a crime when it was committed, such as adding new penalties or extending terms; or to alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for a crime more likely than it would have been at the time of the crime's commission.

A hypothetical example: someone commits a brutal murder, but people think the existing laws will not punish the murderer severely enough; so the legislative powers enact laws that will more severely punish those who have committed the crime of murder ensuring that this specific murderer will get a prison sentence longer than that prescribed at the time he committed the crime.

A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a law repeals a previous law, the repealed legislation no longer applies to the situations it once did even if such situations arose before the law was repealed. The principle of prohibiting the continued application of these kinds of laws is also known as Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali.

Generally speaking, ex post facto laws are seen as a violation of the rule of law as it applies in a free and democratic society. Most common law jurisdictions do not permit retrospective legislation, though some have suggested that judge-made 'law' is retrospective as a new precedent applies to events that occurred prior to the judicial decision. In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex post facto laws are technically possible as parliamentary supremacy allows the parliament to pass any law it wishes. However, in a nation with an entrenched bill of rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.