Right On, FSC Challenges Proposed 2257 Rules
 

FSC Challenges Proposed 2257 Rules
By Eddie Adams, AVN

Posted: 4:10 PM PST Sep 14, 2007

CANOGA PARK, Calif. ? The Free Speech Coalition has released a three-pronged strategy for challenging the Department of Justice?s (DOJ) proposed 2257 rules and regulations, developed and implemented during the public comment period that ended Sept. 10.

The FSC commissioned an economic report from Georgetown Economic Services and hired a DC firm experienced in challenging legislative regulations to write a statement bringing to light the DOJ?s disregard for established law and policy in the development of the proposed 2257 proposed regulations. This report can be found on the FSC?s website (www.freespeechcoalition.com) in the 2257 page.

The FSC has submitted its own 32-page comment, drafted by First Amendment attorneys, Jeffrey Douglas and Reed Lee, pointing out the flaws of the regulations, its logistical impossibilities, and constitutional violations as well as offering a viable record keeping alternative to the proposed regulations. This document can also be found at www.freespeechcoalition.com in the 2257 page.

For the entire article, link below:

http://avn.com/index.cfm?objectID=70...3C3BB618701E8A

Nice! :thumbsup

good !;;;;;

Hopefully good news for all of us.

Their comments on the burdens are correct & their recommendation is great, all depending on what the costs of maintaining the records would be. **whomever this *for profit* company should be** It's got to be cost efficient for the little webmaster too.

link to recommendations page:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...view&coid=1081

hell yea very cool

and wasn't it just these past 2 weeks someone was busting the FSC's balls?

this is some good news

This is exactly what FSC should be doing, addressing the issues that could restrict the freedom of speech of webmasters and DVD producers alike.

I look forward to reading more press releases and updated information on this subject from FSC in a timely manner.

:thumbsup

Bravo read all three, good work.

Excellent work! I wonder what the % of ppl on GFY actually are members of the FCS?

It's sad that they want to go after the way we keep records organizing our records

Pedophiles don't keep records, what do they think a pediphile would do? Take a photos of an underage girl, photograph her ID (two forms of it), underage kids wont even have ID for them to take copies of. As if some crazy reason he was going to follow 2257 laws.

Real Adult entertainment companies are not in business to make films that are going to land them in jail. They are not out there filming underage girls, It would cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If by mistake someone shot someone underage and it was discovered that the id was fake, they would have to recall all of that distributed product and destroy it. thats not cheap.

A pedophile does not press DVDs and Sell them in bulk to stores. They are not going to keep records of where they uploaded them so that if the FBI came to their door and wanted to see 2257 they could look it up cross referenced by every name she has been called.

2257 is flawed and it will never save a child because those bastards dont follow any form of record keeping.

You mean they got off thier asses and came back from a paid vacation and did something???

Oh wait. let me guess. if they win it will ONLY apply to the people who paid them!!!! Ha Fucking Ha.

Tanker, the good news is that the "new" 2257 rules are so broad and so onerous that they are likely to fail specifically because they fail to advance the government's stated intentions. Creating massive duplications of records, pointless cross referencing, and encouraging the widespread distribution of personal ID information won't do a single thing to stop the spread of CP.

That some are suggesting that social networking aites such as facebook or any of the dating sites might be required to maintain 2257 records make this all the much more fun - remember, the new rules don't require the model to be naked or showing "skin" to be subject to 2257. I have seen plenty of images on facebook that would likely require 2257.

It will be interesting.

They know this, this is to bust balls nothing more. They have to keep the promises they made to the Christian extremist's.

Wait is someone trying to backdoor a for profit record keeping company?

I caught that too but its not a bad idea. I would gladly pay a monthly fee for someone to deal with the bullshit.

Um think before you leap. A monopoly would be a bad bad thing.

Thanks for posting Rob

Good points in there. I really hope something is done about the whole secondary producer deal.

How ? Its not like processing where I have really no choice. If I was unhappy or they started charging too much. I would go back to do it myself. It would have to be one that was lawyer owned or was a partner. Im not going to just send my records to anyone.I did a post I tracked my 2257 link for 3 days on one of my sites and it was click 57 times and its way on the bottom of the page.

I am just being careful and watchful. I would not mind seeing a third party option. I just want to make sure it has competition.

Their balls needed to be busted.

This is the kind of news we need to hear and be informed of. This is for sure a step in the right direction by the FSC. That's all most of us want, is for them to focus on 2257 issue and free speech in reguards to adult.

regarding the third party option, I'll soon be moving my office from home to a rented office shared with a law firm.. I was thinking of offering services as 3rd party custodian..

I would only hold records & be available for inspections, & will not offer services to updating or writing the records, only allow persons/companies to use firm name & address as custodian on condition that records be remit to me every time they're updated or changed..

Your taking a big chance put your ass out there and your not the one updating or writing the records. Remember the custodian is the one who goes to jail if they are fucked up.

OH, well then.. fuck that.. Fuggedaboutit