Fucking Clowns And 2257 BS They Are Spreading

[Lee]

Some of the BS being spread around about this proposed 2257 stuff is better than watching some daytime soaps lol

When are people going to learn if they want legal advice go to a lawyer and not to rely on articles posted by people to get traffic lol

Ah well.

Regards,

Lee

[gonzo]

I wondered when someone was gonna post that. Time to switch to eating pie now!

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Lee@Aug 23 2004, 11:16 PM
Some of the BS being spread around about this proposed 2257 stuff is better than watching some daytime soaps lol

When are people going to learn if they want legal advice go to a lawyer and not to rely on articles posted by people to get traffic lol

Ah well.

Regards,

Lee
I have watched this as well on other boards, it is pretty amusing....

A few people prance around like peacocks, pretending they know everything about 2257 - when in reality they are clueless as the people they make comments about.

[Lee]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Aug 24 2004, 07:31 AM
I have watched this as well on other boards, it is pretty amusing....

A few people prance around like peacocks, pretending they know everything about 2257 - when in reality they are clueless as the people they make comments about.
Mike,

Whats even funnier than that is the way some lawyers are actually telling webmasters that they do not need to worry about the propsed 2257 regulations so long as they use only softcore content.

Its just amazing at how webmasters will run around like a headless chicken proclaiming the sky is falling whilst telling everyone they need to comply to these new laws despite the fact that they havent gone into effect yet :rolleyes:

Regards,

Lee

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Lee+Aug 24 2004, 10:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Aug 24 2004, 10:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Aug 24 2004, 07:31 AM
I have watched this as well on other boards, it is pretty amusing....

A few people prance around like peacocks, pretending they know everything about 2257 - when in reality they are clueless as the people they make comments about.
Mike,

Whats even funnier than that is the way some lawyers are actually telling webmasters that they do not need to worry about the propsed 2257 regulations so long as they use only softcore content.

Its just amazing at how webmasters will run around like a headless chicken proclaiming the sky is falling whilst telling everyone they need to comply to these new laws despite the fact that they havent gone into effect yet :rolleyes:

Regards,

Lee [/b][/quote]


I saw a whole thread talking about 2257 and Obscenity. I actually laughed out loud some when reading it. This industry could use a good enema.

Serge wanna help?

:lol:

[RawAlex]

Mike, I am not sure which is worse, sticking your head in the sand or screaming that the sky is falling.

I did not attend the 2257 meeting in Florida, for the simple reason that at this point, the lawyers have little or nothing to go on, so they are basically providing high priced speculation. In some cases, I think they might be (intentionally or not) presenting the worst case scenerios in an attempt to rake in retainer fees from new clients.

Some people are making moves that are fairly wise (Madthumbs is doing something they feel is right, not sure how it will affect their business), while others are attempting to profit by creating all sorts of 2257 resources, programs, and "help sites"... in the end, they don't really know what is going on, so there is no way to know if the products will help or not.

Some people feel the rules are too similar to rules already rejected by the 10th circuit a number of years back.

Some people feel that the rules will be challenged (a la COPA COPAII) before they even go into effect. The potential for a restraining order is there, if someone does the challenge, due to the 10th circuit previous rulings. There is potential for a constitutional challenge (the executive / admin side cannot write laws, a key part of the 10th circuit's ruling).

Some people feel that this will only apply to content made after whatever the actual implementation date is. Some people think it applies to all materials defined in 2257.

Some people think softcore excludes them.

Some people think this means that "Girls Gone Wild" type material will be illegal.

I could go on and on.

it's fun.

Alex

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Aug 24 2004, 01:28 PM
Mike, I am not sure which is worse, sticking your head in the sand or screaming that the sky is falling.

I did not attend the 2257 meeting in Florida, for the simple reason that at this point, the lawyers have little or nothing to go on, so they are basically providing high priced speculation. In some cases, I think they might be (intentionally or not) presenting the worst case scenerios in an attempt to rake in retainer fees from new clients.

Some people are making moves that are fairly wise (Madthumbs is doing something they feel is right, not sure how it will affect their business), while others are attempting to profit by creating all sorts of 2257 resources, programs, and "help sites"... in the end, they don't really know what is going on, so there is no way to know if the products will help or not.

Some people feel the rules are too similar to rules already rejected by the 10th circuit a number of years back.

Some people feel that the rules will be challenged (a la COPA COPAII) before they even go into effect. The potential for a restraining order is there, if someone does the challenge, due to the 10th circuit previous rulings. There is potential for a constitutional challenge (the executive / admin side cannot write laws, a key part of the 10th circuit's ruling).

Some people feel that this will only apply to content made after whatever the actual implementation date is. Some people think it applies to all materials defined in 2257.

Some people think softcore excludes them.

Some people think this means that "Girls Gone Wild" type material will be illegal.

I could go on and on.

it's fun.

Alex


I agree Alex.

Tie this in with Presidential politics, and it might get ugly.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Aug 24 2004, 11:02 AM


Serge wanna help?

:lol:
sure, but my specialty is trigonometry.....I'll be delighted to shed some light on sinuses and cosignuses
;-)))

[Rolo]

Yeah, 10 weeks to election... time is running fast, and they will only need some persons in prison suits walking past the press to get the effect at voters, that Bush & co. are doing something to protect the children... no need for a trial, conviction etc.

Shock and Awe :zoinks:

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano+Aug 24 2004, 10:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Serge_Oprano @ Aug 24 2004, 10:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Aug 24 2004, 11:02 AM


Serge wanna help?

:lol:
sure, but my specialty is trigonometry.....I'll be delighted to shed some light on sinuses and cosignuses
;-))) [/b][/quote]
I know what you mean Serge. I get a sinus infection every winter and they really suck. :lol:

[Lee]

Originally posted by The Hammer@Aug 24 2004, 03:41 PM
I know what you mean Serge. I get a sinus infection every winter and they really suck. :lol:
Speaking of 2257 clowns :groucho:

Regards,

Lee

[Mike AI]

Come on, I read on another board there is good news about 2257, something like they are going to suspsend it for 30, or 90, or 2,348 days.

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Aug 24 2004, 07:48 PM
Come on, I read on another board there is good news about 2257, something like they are going to suspsend it for 30, or 90, or 2,348 days.
No way Mike, you read it wrong. If you were born on the third Tuesday of any month ending in Y, it will not apply to you.

Unless of course you were born in an odd year, in which case it will apply to you with additional stipulations that have to be in compliance before they even sign it into law.

And that was the good shit that happened today ;)

As I see it, when Cambria and Douglas call and say it's a non-issue, then it's a non-issue ;)

[gonzo]

Originally posted by *KK*+Aug 24 2004, 11:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (*KK* @ Aug 24 2004, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@Aug 24 2004, 07:48 PM
Come on, I read on another board there is good news about 2257, something like they are going to suspsend it for 30, or 90, or 2,348 days.
And that was the good shit that happened today ;)

As I see it, when Cambria and Douglas call and say it's a non-issue, then it's a non-issue ;) [/b][/quote]
Sho do fuck up dat DRM pimpin! Hahahaha

KK your pimp hand was STRONG in Florida. I just stayed the FUCK out of the way!

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Lee+Aug 24 2004, 06:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lee @ Aug 24 2004, 06:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-The Hammer@Aug 24 2004, 03:41 PM
I know what you mean Serge. I get a sinus infection every winter and they really suck. :lol:
Speaking of 2257 clowns :groucho:

Regards,

Lee [/b][/quote]
Clowns try to be funny, like you. I'm dead serious about 2257.

I'm curious too, since you want to keep arguing the point that any nudity is covered, not just sexually explicit, why does your own 2257 compliance notice (from dilf.com) say the following?

Some visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

The part I'm curious about is where it says "Some visual depictions displayed on the website are exempt from the provision... because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct... but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct..."

So you're saying that you can show a picture depicting 'simulated sex' and be exempt? :lol:

Might you also enlighten all of us how it is that you argued with me on another board that a picture of a car could be considered sexually stimulating so any nudity or even people posed in a provacative way -- although fully clothed -- would require 2257 info to be displayed, when your own notice states that pictures on your site that show nudity, but not sexually explicit or showing simulated sex, are exempt?

Just what exactly do you consider a non-sexually explicit nude picture to be? And explain how your definition would be different than mine which was as long as the picture does not show an overt display of the genitals, simulated or real sex, s&m or masturbation, it would be exempt.

That's the same definition that Larry Walters used in the 2257 seminar in Hollywood by the way.


Regards,

Hammer


P.S. The argument you got into with me on the other board kind of made you a keyboard lawyer, didn't it. :awinky:

[Lee]

I'm dead serious about 2257.

Thats what makes it so funny dude.

I'm curious too, since you want to keep arguing the point that any nudity is covered, not just sexually explicit, why does your own 2257 compliance notice (from dilf.com) say the following?

Some visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

The part I'm curious about is where it says "Some visual depictions displayed on the website are exempt from the provision... because said visual depictions do not consist of depictions of conduct... but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct..."

So you're saying that you can show a picture depicting 'simulated sex' and be exempt? :lol:

You should ask out attorney because that was his interpretation of the law just as the attorneys you keep quoting are interpreting the law in a different way.

Might you also enlighten all of us how it is that you argued with me on another board that a picture of a car could be considered sexually stimulating so any nudity or even people posed in a provacative way -- although fully clothed -- would require 2257 info to be displayed, when your own notice states that pictures on your site that show nudity, but not sexually explicit or showing simulated sex, are exempt?

Come on dude thats not what i said at all, that was YOUR interpretation of what i said LOL

Just what exactly do you consider a non-sexually explicit nude picture to be? And explain how your definition would be different than mine which was as long as the picture does not show an overt display of the genitals, simulated or real sex, s&m or masturbation, it would be exempt.

My interpretation is what my attorney tells me it is, thats what we pay them for.. to make sure my version of the law is the closest to their version so if there are any problems we can hopefully have them resolved (hopefully) amicably with the minimum of fuss.

That's the same definition that Larry Walters used in the 2257 seminar in Hollywood by the way.

Your point being?


P.S. The argument you got into with me on the other board kind of made you a keyboard lawyer, didn't it. :awinky:

Um no LOL

Regards,

Lee

[Hammer]

So now you're saying that your attorney said that you don't need 2257 for photos that show 'simulated' sex, but you were all over me on the other board for saying webmasters didn't need it for playboy type, nude photos and actually used your car analogy to 'splain to me why I was full of crap and that they needed to comply even if the photo didn't show nudity but someone somewhere could say that it aroused someone? That makes a lot of sense. :lol:

[Lee]

Originally posted by The Hammer@Aug 25 2004, 08:07 AM
So now you're saying that your attorney said that you don't need 2257 for photos that show 'simulated' sex, but you were all over me on the other board for saying webmasters didn't need it for playboy type, nude photos and actually used your car analogy to 'splain to me why I was full of crap and that they needed to comply even if the photo didn't show nudity but someone somewhere could say that it aroused someone? That makes a lot of sense. :lol:
Hammer..

Simulated sex.. chick putting a dildo in her mouth.. why would i need 2257 for that?

Nude images... 'nude' being the operative word.. if you dont want to keep 2257 records for any 'nude' image you use on your site then fine. I will be keeping them, whether they are needed or not, our attorney has advised us we should keep records for any and all images depicting nudity in any form.

As for if the image doesnt show nudity but could arouse someone.. that is something you should bring up with one of the many attorneys you keep quoting to make your arguments seem more valid.

Of course what you want to do in respect of the new proposed 2257 regulations is completly up to you i prefer to work smarter not harder, what happens if, after all this fuss the regulation changes DONT get passed? Apart from yourself you will have scaremongered countless other webmasters into changing things that didnt need changing.

You are obviously correct in everything you are saying about these proposed 2257 changes, especially as you are taking the advice of attorneys who know no different to you or I at the present time.

Until any prosecutions relating to the current or proposed 2257 changes go through the court system nobody knows the legal standing on them.. that is a fact.

Keep spewing the shit you are doing if you feel you are right, it really is of no consequence to me what you do ultimately, i just want other webmasters to be aware that you know nothing about the proposed changes just as the attorneys you have been quoting do not, just as i will openly admit to not knowing about them.

Rumor, conjecture and interpretation does not equal fact especially where the law is concerned and especially when the said law changes havent even been passed yet $0.02

Regards,

Lee

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Lee@Aug 25 2004, 07:09 AM
QUOTE]Come on dude thats not what i said at all, that was YOUR interpretation of what i said LOLQUOTE]
Here is what I posted on the other board:

"By using pics that do NOT show full frontal nudity, simulated or real sex, masturbation, etc. you can completely avoid the need to comply with the 2257 regulations."

Here's your reply:

Hammer, no offence dude but you're talking crap. *ANY* image that can be construed as 'sexually explicit' MUST have the required US2257 documents in use whether you are showing cock, pussy, tits, or only ass.

So now you're telling me that your attorney tells you that you don't need to comply with 2257 for images that are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct, but you told me I was full of crap when I took it a step further and suggested to be safe it would be best to not show full frontal nudity?

Here's the car quote from that thread:

"Even a car could become sexual to the point where a surfer jacks off to it, just because an image is animate or not, doesnt make it any less sexual than a real person, this is the whole concept of a 'fetish'."

You came up with that analogy to prove your point that a picture didn't need to show nudity to be considered sexually explicit, even though now you say you are following your own attorney's advice and he says it's ok to show nudity and simulated sex. I guess you just wanted to argue with me and didn't really mean what you said.

Sorry, you can deny it all you want, but arguing with me in that thread made you one of the keyboard lawyers you're ridiculing, unless you have a law degree I dont know about. If you tell me I'm wrong and then give me reasons why but don't have the legal credentials to back your arguments up, how does that make you any different than anyone else that thinks they're right?

[spazlabz]

ok lets acknowledge the fact that I'm an idiot right up front.......
But, I believe that these 'clarifications' do not need to 'pass' anything. These are not new laws or new regulations, but as the DoJ sees it they are clarifications. Therefore, they tell Congress that they are doing it, then they proceed to do it. Thats why there is such a fuss. Because 30 days after the date given (8/24/04) they can start to enforce said 'clarifications'. The problem is that since these are not new laws passed by congress and all that, but that they will have the effect of criminalizing instantly 1st amendment protect content, and make webmasters who are complying with the older interpretations of the same law instant outlaws.
Thats my understanding of it.
It also appears to be the opinion of our lawyers as well.


spaz :matey:

[Lee]

Hammer..

Although the quotes by myself in the above post by you appear completely out of context without the full topic text being posted i will however offer you one further chance to prove you are correct with all of this 2257 nonsense you have been spouting as legal fact..

Can you please point me to any single instance where any of the facts you have pointed out have led to either ...

A ) A single arrest that led to a successful prosecution or;
B ) A case that was thrown out based on the proposed 2257 changes.

If you are able to do this then i will gladly accept the fact that you know much more than i do about the proposed 2257 changes and that all of the conjecture you have been posting on several message boards over the last few weeks were nothing to do with getting traffic or trying to make yourself be perceived as an authority on the subject at hand.

Regards,

Lee

[RawAlex]

Hammer, I suspect that if you use softcore pics to sell hardcore content, you will be asked to provide 2257 documentation, especially if the same model appears in the site in a sexual situation (the A to D list).

I would not hang my business (and my lovely virgin never been to a federal butt slamming prison ass) on the line based on a "technicality".

You can if you like, just puts you ahead of me in line to get Assclown's blessing.

Alex

[Hammer]

Alex, it's obviously up to all of us to do what we think is right and we should all be taking our attorney's advice on the matter. I am going by what the law says as I interpret it and what I have been told by my attorney. It does not matter one bit what you link to unless what you linked to is on your own server and in that case you would obviously need to comply. If, however, as was the discussion on the other board, you run a TGP and link to content that is not hosted on your server, you are not responsible for proving anything about the content on the page that you link to, only what is on your TGP. In the case of a thumb preview TGP, unless you used softcore images for the thumbs, you would be required to obtain the records from the webmasters that submitted the galleries to you which would be impossible. The solution is to use softcore only images for the thumbs and then, even if you do link to hardcore galleries, as long as they aren't on your server, you would not need to post any 2257 info on your own site or maintain the records.

Lee, I am not giving legal advice. I never said I was an attorney or that anything that I said was a legal fact. I am simply stating some possible solutions to anyone that runs a thumb preview TGP or anyone that is concerned about listing their home address because they work at home.

I guess you still don't see the hypocrisy in accusing me of giving legal advice when you come behind me and refute what I say, even though you have no more legal right to claim your opinion is fact than I do.

The rest of your post is just plain nuts. Just because no one has been prosecuted under the current 2257 regulations doesn't mean someone won't be someday. It's quite obvious that the AG proposed these changes to rid the world of porn, since we all know this has nothing to do with protecting children. Does it really seem that hard for you to believe that if Bush is re-elected that they will then begin prosecuting webmasters?

By the way, when you posted the other day that you were all set up to take business offshore if it became necessary, did you realize that might be construed as giving the advice that moving your business offshore might be a possible solution to the problem? And since just moving your business offshore would accomplish nothing if you still maintained residence in this country, doesn't that seem to be bad advice?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but your aren't from the UK? Are you a U.S. citizen? Just curious, because if not, it's pretty damn easy for you to spout this crap and tell everyone that they're all over reacting if all you have to do is pack up and move back to the UK.

[Lee]

you have no more legal right to claim your opinion is fact than I do.

Glad to see you are now agreeing with me on this :)

By the way, when you posted the other day that you were all set up to take business offshore if it became necessary, did you realize that might be construed as giving the advice that moving your business offshore might be a possible solution to the problem?

Um.. how can saying what we are doing as a company be construed by anyone as advice on what they should do? I run my business how i see fit and i would expect others to run theirs how they wish.

since just moving your business offshore would accomplish nothing if you still maintained residence in this country, doesn't that seem to be bad advice?

It would be bad advice yes if that was what i was actually saying LOL


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but your aren't from the UK? Are you a U.S. citizen? Just curious, because if not, it's pretty damn easy for you to spout this crap and tell everyone that they're all over reacting if all you have to do is pack up and move back to the UK.

Who said i was moving back to the UK? Again Hammer YOU are taking comments i make and turning them into something that they are not lol

We already have a fully operational company in the United Kingdom and have had for close to 10 years so im not starting up a new company nor am i planning on moving out of the US anytime soon, i do appreciate your concern for me though.

The mere fact that i am able to shift my assets from the US to the UK at the filing of a single paper is neither here nor there in respect of the 2257 proposals. However it does give me some great tax benefits and less hassle about what happens when concerning the US laws.

Again as i pointed out to you on that other message forum, im glad you have concern for my business but i really would stay with being concerned with your own business rather than commenting on others businesses that you quite clearly know nothing about.

Either way im glad you are in agreement with me that neither of us know enough about the proposed 2257 changes to be giving out advice. If you had only agreed with me at the start on this the whole issue woud have been moot.

Regards,

Lee

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by The Hammer@Aug 25 2004, 02:21 PM
In the case of a thumb preview TGP, unless you used softcore images for the thumbs, you would be required to obtain the records from the webmasters that submitted the galleries to you which would be impossible.
Again, we come back to the discussion: Show me where the google exemption is, and we can work from there.

There has already been rulings regarding use of thumbs under fair use. If you can operate without a license, and without having to note anything about 2257 as it exists, I am not sure how the new (yet operating) rules apply in these cases. To state this as fact is giving people what may turn out to be very bad legal advice.

I would think you would need to be much more concerned with the image that appear in the banners and other advertisements on your websites. I think that would be a much bigger deal, unless (by your logic) you are intending to run 100% softcore banners (which would include no hardcore sites being promoted, because once you combine a softcore image with hardcore text, there is potential to be considered sexual in nature, which moves it all back into the A-D sections).

Please take your legal advice and run it to the end and see what it gets you. Think about it!

Alex

[*KK*]

Hey Lee, 2257 has never been in the forefront before.

But if you're asking if there have been charges filed on people that having their documentation in order under the old, current actually, system, kept them from grief, the answer is yes.

Katherine Graham is the clue here.

[gonzo]

"...see how they run like pigs from a gun see how they run.
Im Cryin'................"

[Lee]

Kimmy..

Was more asking about prosecutions rather than charges. As that was what Hammer was saying his version of 'the law' should it be passed is going to prevent.

Gonzo..

Ill be the Eggman if youll be the Walrus ;)

Regards,

Lee

[gonzo]

Originally posted by Lee@Aug 25 2004, 11:36 PM


Gonzo..

Ill be the Eggman if youll be the Walrus ;)

Regards,

Lee
I am the Walrus!

I hear Vegas is going to be fruitful?

[Lee]

Yep vegas should be rocking this year :)

Got some good things happening :)

Should have full info in the next few weeks sometime hehe

Regards,

Lee

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by *KK*@Aug 26 2004, 12:53 AM
Katherine Graham is the clue here.
Damn! Someone has been ripping out the porn section of my Washington Post again. :unsure:

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Lee@Aug 25 2004, 08:36 PM
Kimmy..

Was more asking about prosecutions rather than charges. As that was what Hammer was saying his version of 'the law' should it be passed is going to prevent.

Gonzo..

Ill be the Eggman if youll be the Walrus ;)

Regards,

Lee
I'm guessing you just weren't thinking correctly when you wrote that, because I have no 'version' of the law and the law is not going to prevent anything.

I never suggested that anyone should not keep records for all of the content they purchase. That would just be smart even if the law doesn't change, especially for anyone that uses teen content.

I suggested that 'if' the proposed changes go through and 'if' you worked from home and didn't want to put your home address on your websites as the location of the custodian of records or if you ran a thumb preview TGP and hosted the thumbs on your own server, that there was a solution. That solution being to use softcore content that was not covered under the 2256 definition of 'sexually explicit' since you would not be required to comply with the 'new' 2257 rules if you did.

Simple concept really. Certainly there is a lot of grey area surrounding the definition of 'sexually explicit' and 'lascivious' and I've chosen to use Eric Bernstein's and Larry Walters definitions. European Lee's attorney appears to be even more generous in what he says is allowed to be exempt.

This will all be a moot point if the proposed changes don't go through as they are now written and we don't all become secondary producers that will be required to act as our own custodian of records. I sincerely hope that is what happens, but I wouldn't bet on it, and waiting to find out and then scrambling to comply just doesn't seem to be a smart plan to me, especially for webmasters that have thousands of images on their sites that you would need to be able to prove was posted prior to the date the possible new law went into effect. Either way, whether you have to find the records or show that you don't need them because you posted the content on your site prior to the final date, someone has shown up at your door that you'd much rather wasn't there.

Alex, we can argue the point of whether or not Google should be included, but I don't see what purpose that serves. Most attorneys I've talked to believe that much of the proposed rules are unconstitutional and would never make it through a court. The problem is that someone has to be the first to get wacked and take it far enough in the court system to prove that point, but do you really want to stand there at your door telling the feds that they can go take a hike because Google didn't have to keep 2257 records so you didn't either? Good luck with that legal defense.

[Lee]

Damn this thread contains more U-Turns than a UK Labor partys spin doctors portfolio :biglaugh:

Regards,

Lee

[*KK*]

Originally posted by Dravyk+Aug 25 2004, 11:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Dravyk @ Aug 25 2004, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-*KK*@Aug 26 2004, 12:53 AM
Katherine Graham is the clue here.
Damn! Someone has been ripping out the porn section of my Washington Post again. :unsure: [/b][/quote]
Hahaha, didn't the grey lady lose it's lady not too long ago, or am I just tired?

[RawAlex]

Hammer, consider that Ashcroft covered up the justice sculpture because her breast was showing. I don't think he feels that a topless girl promoting "hardcore slut fucking.com" is exempt. You might be able to prove it, but you are going to have to live through the legal battles to get that chance.

Alex