Senate Agrees to Revamp 2257

[C H R I S]

Read it:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=272347

[BoyAlley]

YAY more draconian legislation to "protect children"! Cuz everyone knows the best way to protect children is by requiring obscure and convoluted filing systems!

[Rambozo]

Originally, this wasn't supposed to become law until September.
I'd be very interested in the FSC's official take on all of this. Their lawyer seems to think that this will not affect the current injunction on inspections of FSC member's records.
A lot of people's butts are on the line here. I would hope a post from the FSC would be coming soon.

[KRL]

Cliff notes . . .

[Joesho]

Does this mean that soon every affiliate will have to have ALL the records at their place of business for inspection too?

all free sites , tgp,s review sites, etc.....

what about newsgroups or sites like Guba ?

what about sites like friendfinder ?

[MissMina]

Blah....

[DaddyHalbucks]

Sheesh that is a legal nightmare.

[seeric]

OMG lets not start all this 2257 gossip and paranoia up again. we've debated this 100's of times all with the same outcome, no one knows.......

i'm not acting or pre-acting on anything that doesn't become law anymore.

they're taking pride in running everyone in circles. they will continue to do this. even if a law passes in our favor, they will make another law. etc. etc.

the only thing to do is bob and weave with them. they'll never stop porn, ever.

[AmateurFlix]

hmm, I wonder if this is going to encompass anything for softcore nude images

[seeric]

i've read that new law front to back, took me damn near an hour and a half. it has NOTHING to do with adult online. it has to do with CP.

CP has nothing to do with adult online.

if we kept it away, then the gov would stay an arms length from us. peple don't go to adult paysites for CP. those fuckers know where to get their goods, thats where they need to focus our tax dollars. its lunacy.

[Rambozo]

"OMG lets not start all this 2257 gossip and paranoia up again. we've debated this 100's of times all with the same outcome, no one knows.......

i'm not acting or pre-acting on anything that doesn't become law anymore."

Did you bother to look at the article? It is going to be signed into law on July 27th.

[seeric]

"OMG lets not start all this 2257 gossip and paranoia up again. we've debated this 100's of times all with the same outcome, no one knows.......

i'm not acting or pre-acting on anything that doesn't become law anymore."

Did you bother to look at the article? It is going to be signed into law on July 27th.

yes. i read it before i posted. you've misinterpreted what i've written.

[Rambozo]

i've read that new law front to back, took me damn near an hour and a half. it has NOTHING to do with adult online. it has to do with CP.

Maybe you missed this part-
"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct."

[seeric]

Maybe you missed this part-
"inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct."

this is exactly why its such a mess.

read further. there are laws stacked on laws that still are not ammended laws.

bureacracy at its finest.

" But the "digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct" is exactly what the Justice Department, in its §2257 regulations, has been referring to as the definition of a "secondary producer" ? and it's that definition, which had no basis in the original Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act, that was struck down by the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the famous Sundance Associates v. Reno case as being an unwarranted interpretation of the statute."

it wll be interesting to see larry, eric's and JD's views on this. btw, i'm not antagonizing you into a debate whatsoever. i'm fed up with armchair webmaster lawyering and the like. since i started in 99 this crap has been around. my whole point is that there will always be heat in some form we may as well get used to it and adapt.

so no offense if you are taking any.

[GatorB]

i've read that new law front to back, took me damn near an hour and a half. it has NOTHING to do with adult online. it has to do with CP.

CP has nothing to do with adult online.

if we kept it away, then the gov would stay an arms length from us. peple don't go to adult paysites for CP. those fuckers know where to get their goods, thats where they need to focus our tax dollars. its lunacy.

You don't read very well do you?

You'd think with all the problem going on withthis coutry and the world the republicans would something better to do than worry about than adults watching adult porn. Anyone that thinks this has ANYTHING to do with CP is an idiot.

[Rambozo]

this is exactly why its such a mess.

read further. there are laws stacked on laws that still are not ammended laws.

bureacracy at its finest.



it wll be interesting to see larry, eric's and JD's views on this. btw, i'm not antagonizing you into a debate whatsoever. i'm fed up with armchair webmaster lawyering and the like. since i started in 99 this crap has been around. my whole point is that there will always be heat in some form we may as well get used to it and adapt.

so no offense if you are taking any.

No offense taken at all.
I completely agree that it is a bureacratic nightmare and there is too much armchair lawyering going on.

[Kimo]

oh dang

[seeric]

You don't read very well do you?

You'd think with all the problem going on withthis coutry and the world the republicans would something better to do than worry about than adults watching adult porn. Anyone that thinks this has ANYTHING to do with CP is an idiot.

of course i read well. sometimes its pointless to make sense around here. i didn't start doing this yesterday, of course i can read through their ghey propaganda.

being antagonistic is futile. perspective.

its never been about CP.

[Snake Doctor]

Jeez, time for the lawyers to get rich again. God knows how many hours of counsel we paid for last time just so our attorney could explain this shit to us.

Now it's all going to change again.

[directfiesta]

It is not going to happen ...

Stickyfingerzdot net said so, because the gov makes money with porn ...

You can all go back to sleep now.

[minusonebit]

Religious Fruitcakes: +1
Porno Dealers: -9999999

[ajk_photography]

Thats sickness.. Already I have more documentation that content..

[UCH]

messed up

[aico]

You want to protect the children, then make laws against the parents.

[Dirty Dane]

lol

[tony286]

i agree with waiting before panicking

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

I am looking for long term business partners in Content Production and Design.

Laws and Change won't damage these sort of business relationships.

So Webmaster's get with a decent photographer and start up some new companies.

My phone is waiting

[Rolo]

It is not going to happen ...

Stickyfingerzdot net said so, because the gov makes money with porn ...

You can all go back to sleep now.

Yes, he also says he goes to conventions and hangout with Joesho The Manatee and stuff, so you know he is a player

[DWB]

does this mean we have to pony up more $$$ to the FSC? :-)

if so... can't they just set it up to bill out credit cards once a month?

[C H R I S]

In the entire time the 2257 statute has been on the books, there has not been one single inspection under the law. (Please correct me if I am wrong). The law as it is created was put there to throw a wrench into the the adult industry - and the constant changing of it is simply a way for the government to continue that.

That being said - it is important to keep up to date on the changing law and protect yourself and your business

[Rambozo]

So where are the industry lawyers and their opinions on this?

[L0rdJuni0r]

so what, is it gonna happen now?

[suzieg]

Well, I for one am worried this time.

If I read this correctly, this new law essentially supersedes the FSC lawsuit. By burying just a bit of the old 2257 stuff into this new law, which is a certainty to be passed, the stuff we are fighting about in the FSC lawsuit WILL become law in this new law called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

[MrPinks]

You know, I posted this news days agao and nobody gave a shit, except Boy Alley.

Read the article from a few days ago

Hollywood is off the hook when it comes to this because if they don't keep records, magically nothing happens to them.

"Also removed is language that would have subjected makers of movies and TV shows to specific criminal penalties for failing to maintain records of performers' ages."

Read the article from a few days ago

Well, I for one am worried this time.

If I read this correctly, this new law essentially supersedes the FSC lawsuit. By burying just a bit of the old 2257 stuff into this new law, which is a certainty to be passed, the stuff we are fighting about in the FSC lawsuit WILL become law in this new law called the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.