Heres How 2257 Should Be Addressed

[gonzo]

PHILADELPHIA—In the modern age of digital cameras, cell phones and the internet, sometimes it's easy to lose sight of how far sexual content has come, and how ubiquitous it's become, since Congress passed its first version of 18 U.S.C. §2257, the federal recordkeeping and labeling law, in the late 1980s.

Fortunately, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) remembers.

"At some point in the past, the kind of sexual content that Section 2257 regulates may not have been typically created by the average American," the introduction to EFF's amicus brief in support of Free Speech Coalition's anti-2257 lawsuit states. "But times have changed, with respect to both social mores and technical abilities. Digital cameras and videocameras and the Internet have combined to make it easy and inexpensive for people to take photos and videos of themselves while nude or in sexual situations and to share those images with others ina wide variety of ways."

As the brief's authors—EFF's Matthew Zimmerman and prominent Philadelphia atorneys Carl A. Solano and Edward J. Sholinsky—point out, nearly two-thirds of Americans now own digital cameras, more than a third own video cameras, and nearly three-fifths use their cell phones to take and share digital pictures—any of which can be used to create sexual content. What's more, about three-quarters of all Americans can now access the internet, and about a third of them haved posted content online.

And what that means, according to the EFF brief, is that the "millions of adults [who] exchange or share personally-produced sexually-explicit depictions" are now subject to all the onerous requirements of the 2257 regulations, including a vast but incalcuable number who "merely take sexual photos or videos of themselves in the privacy of their own homes."

And what that means is, "Section 2257’s record-keeping, labeling, and inspection requirements infringe the rights of individuals to participate in anonymous expression, a problem of expanding scope as more and more individuals utilize what are increasingly ubiquitous communications technologies," the EFF attorneys charge.

The brief goes on to summarize some of the legal and social precedent involving protections for anonymous speech, noting, "Courts have long recognized protection under the First Amendment for the right to engage in anonymous communication—to communicate, listen, and/or associate anonymously—as fundamental to a free society. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right to speak anonymously in a variety of contexts, noting that '[a]nonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority ... [that] exemplifies the purpose [of the First Amendment] to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation ... at the hand of an intolerant society.' ... Adult sexual communications, if not obscene, enjoy First Amendment protection for all the reasons that animate the right to anonymity."

The EFF brief argues that, if for no other reason, the "wide [and growing] swath of individuals" creating sexual content, who would therefore be subject to the more onerous requirements of 2257—such as being available for records inspections for at least 20 hours per week, and revealing the content creator's name and home address for the world to see—the courts should take as "considerable cause to scrutinize the First Amendment impact of this law."

Read the rest of the brief summary and join the EFF today! (http://www.eff.org)

http://business.avn.com/articles/37506.html

[Toby]

The reasoning seems sound to me, but then I'm not a judge or First Amendment attorney. I'd be interested to read the reaction of someone with a little more knowledge in that area.

[tony404]

Im pretty sure 2257 isnt for people taking pics for shits and giggles. It's for commerce.The point of 2257 is to protect no one its to bust balls. It could be handled with a folder of ids.

[dirtysgoindown]

There is a simple way that 2257 could be implemented without exposing producers or talent's sensitive personal information. IF 2257 is sincere in ensuring that minors do not perform in sexual material, the government could either through themselves, or a private clearinghouse, create a process where someone who wishes to get in adult goes through a process in which they obtain a license through age verification done by someone other than the producer.

Some states force the adult dancers in their area to apply for a license so they can dance. The model could be assigned a ID number that producers could simply enter into a database and verify that the talent has passed age validation. With so many models changing their looks routinely, this not only ensures the model is of legal age to participate in sex commerce but it also provides a level of protection to the producer as the age has been verified by the government or independent party.

What about the cost? The cost could be similar to those that get tested for disease before entering the adult business. The cost of this service could pay for itself with the application fee.

Producers could be required to enter their ID each time they work with a talent so if by some chance, a talent was to use false documentation that was erroneously approved, those producers could be notified and have the content removed immediately.

So any violation would come from the government or clearinghouse that validated the age and issued a license and not on the producers or company.

Would this have stopped Traci Lords? Possibly. Would this have prevented Dirty D from filming Kelsie Cummings? It definitely could have. This does not absolve the producer of the responsibility of ensuring their talent is over 18 as they still have to check prior to shooting but it does prevent the opportunity for models to use multiple IDs from exposing companies and producers to breaking the law.

Producers would still be required to get their releases signed but it would be nice to know that some model even with a great fake ID that can fool a government agency will not be able to bring down a producer who in good faith is trying to follow the law.

Now in Dirty D's case, the ID Kelsie used where she looked nothing like the girl on the ID, would have been a glaring red flag. If this system was in place, he enters her sex workers ID and sees no verification, he can alert her to go get verified and come back later and he would not be facing the charges he is facing now.

As far as privacy is concerned, no model can nor should be assured that their information is kept private. All it takes is one shoot with authentic identification provided and their identity is out there for inspection or sharing. But having this clearinghouse where an ID is verified independently, producers can still continue to call their models whatever they want to help protect the model's identity from the public.

Just my thoughts and its far better than forcing all of these producers to maintain records and availability for inspection.

[TheEnforcer]

It's always a fight between the balance of government protection of it's people (and most especially in this case minors) versus the freedom and liberty the people are guaranteed by the constitution. Both are legitimate issues.

The broadness and anonyminity argument is a decent one IMHO but, maybe our resident Oprano lawyer can correct me of I am wrong here, didn't online anonyminity take a big hit in some recent cases for bloggers and what not? And if that's the case what makes them think that in cases that have nothing to do with sex that that aspect will fare any better here?

[Toby]

Regulations are only for those that want to follow the law. Those that willingly produce CP don't care about 2257.

Also, 2257 does nothing about models using fake or borrowed ID, which is rather ironic, since it was Traci Lords using fake ID that spurred this legislation to begin with.

To be clear, Dirty D's current legal problems are not about 2257. That case would remain even if 18 U.S.C. 2257 did not exist.

[dirtysgoindown]

Regulations are only for those that want to follow the law. Those that willingly produce CP don't care about 2257.

Also, 2257 does nothing about models using fake or borrowed ID, which is rather ironic, since it was Traci Lords using fake ID that spurred this legislation to begin with.

To be clear, Dirty D's current legal problems are not about 2257. That case would remain even if 18 U.S.C. 2257 did not exist.

Toby agreed. BUT IF and that's a huge IF what Dirty D is claiming is actually true (I dont believe it is), my idea could have prevented it from occurring provided D followed the law. Plus my solution would have prevented D from shooting this girl as there would have been no cleared identification, for Kelsie or the girl's ID she used.

[gonzo]

Regulations are only for those that want to follow the law. Those that willingly produce CP don't care about 2257.

Also, 2257 does nothing about models using fake or borrowed ID, which is rather ironic, since it was Traci Lords using fake ID that spurred this legislation to begin with.

To be clear, Dirty D's current legal problems are not about 2257. That case would remain even if 18 U.S.C. 2257 did not exist.

I would guess by the end of the week hes declared a flight risk if he doesnt show up in the States. Making bil pretty damn problematic... good thing hes rich!

However if this happens it makes the case stronger for them and easier to paint us all perverts and child pornographers.

[dirtysgoindown]

I would guess by the end of the week hes declared a flight risk if he doesnt show up in the States. Making bil pretty damn problematic... good thing hes rich!

However if this happens it makes the case stronger for them and easier to paint us all perverts and child pornographers.

Wasn't there a famous director who fled the country to avoid prosecution in a sex case?

[EmporerEJ]

2257 should be removed.
It's that simple.
When are we going to stop accepting governments demanding to "show me your papers" before we can enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to us by birthright?

Anything less is appeasement. And appeasement only makes the aggressor, more aggressive.
We must fight the fight. Stop "accepting" tighter and tighter restrictions.
They don't work anyhow. The criminals still break the law. All you are doing is hurting the honest people.

There is no way to "sensibly apply 2257," as it is unconstitutional. And it will always be so.

[Toby]

Wasn't there a famous director who fled the country to avoid prosecution in a sex case?

Roman Polanski

[dirtysgoindown]

2257 should be removed.
It's that simple.
When are we going to stop accepting governments demanding to "show me your papers" before we can enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to us by birthright?

Anything less is appeasement. And appeasement only makes the aggressor, more aggressive.
We must fight the fight. Stop "accepting" tighter and tighter restrictions.
They don't work anyhow. The criminals still break the law. All you are doing is hurting the honest people.

There is no way to "sensibly apply 2257," as it is unconstitutional. And it will always be so.

What do you propose exactly? The reality is you are one person. You cannot defeat the government. Even if 2257 gets struck down, they will just draft up and pass something else.

This is not like the start of our country where if we disagreed with the way we are run we can organize a rebellion and fight a war. The government will never give in and they make the rules. Unless you can overthrow the government and redefine the law and judicial process, you will always have to deal with it.

I admire your conviction but I would think there are more pressing issues that need fighting than 2257.

[dirtysgoindown]

Roman Polanski

yep thats the guy. Thanks for the help.

[EmporerEJ]

What do you propose exactly? The reality is you are one person. You cannot defeat the government. Even if 2257 gets struck down, they will just draft up and pass something else.

This is not like the start of our country where if we disagreed with the way we are run we can organize a rebellion and fight a war. The government will never give in and they make the rules. Unless you can overthrow the government and redefine the law and judicial process, you will always have to deal with it.

I admire your conviction but I would think there are more pressing issues that need fighting than 2257.

Yes, I'm one citizen. But not alone. And my constitutional right, the 1st one on the list, trumps 300 million other's desire to take that right from me.

Have you READ the constitution? Or are you a "non-American," arguing about something you have no right to argue about?

I propose we eliminate 2257, and stop wasting time trying to restrict people's freedoms. I didn't start the fight, and I don't want it. But the usurpers of freedom have brought it to my doorstep. I swore an oath to defend the constitution. Not just when I had time, or when it was convenient. But whenever is was under attack, by whomever was attacking it, foreign or domestic.

And if they draft something else, we'll fight that as well. One fight at a time.

[dirtysgoindown]

Yes, I'm one citizen. But not alone. And my constitutional right, the 1st one on the list, trumps 300 million other's desire to take that right from me.

Have you READ the constitution? Or are you a "non-American," arguing about something you have no right to argue about?

I propose we eliminate 2257, and stop wasting time trying to restrict people's freedoms. I didn't start the fight, and I don't want it. But the usurpers of freedom have brought it to my doorstep. I swore an oath to defend the constitution. Not just when I had time, or when it was convenient. But whenever is was under attack, by whomever was attacking it, foreign or domestic.

And if they draft something else, we'll fight that as well. One fight at a time.

One citizen or many citizens does not bring change. How else can one explain how taxes still exist in this country as this one the major reason for the war of independence.

Look I am right there with you on many issues. But the fact will always be that you cannot beat the government. Even when you do, they just rewrite a law and the cycle begins all over again. In the mean time, you have to spend your resources trying to find a way to beat the man. The man will always win in the end.

This "freedom" that was conceived with the birth of our Constitution has dwindled over the years because power and money hungry politicians saw more advantage in the control of thought than the freedom of it.

[EmporerEJ]

One citizen or many citizens does not bring change. How else can one explain how taxes still exist in this country as this one the major reason for the war of independence.

Look I am right there with you on many issues. But the fact will always be that you cannot beat the government. Even when you do, they just rewrite a law and the cycle begins all over again. In the mean time, you have to spend your resources trying to find a way to beat the man. The man will always win in the end.

This "freedom" that was conceived with the birth of our Constitution has dwindled over the years because power and money hungry politicians saw more advantage in the control of thought than the freedom of it.

Exactly as I thought. a "non-American.'
I'm sorry for you. It is difficult to discuss a topic without a common frame of reference.
The thing about our form of government, IS the form of government. Here, if we don't like the form, we change it. I have personally chosen to change it from the inside. I currently hold 3 political offices in my local government, and am doing my part.

I'm always amazed at people that say "oh, it's just awful about so and so." Then you ask them, "Did you vote? Have you served? What have you done to effect change?" and they say, No, I didn't vote, and I've done nothing. Then they wonder why it doesn't change. And they hide under the sofa, hoping the FBI doesn't pick their number.

[softball]

Roman Polanski
Have you seen his latest movie, Ghost Writer. It is very cool.

[DannyCox]

Exactly as I thought. a "non-American.'

No, he is probably very American. Unfortunately, too many Americans just don't know their own history! The real problem is ignorance as this dirty guy has shown.

Do you realize more Canadians know more American history (and geography) than Americans on a proportional basis? It does make it easier for the government to run roughshod over everything.

[EmporerEJ]

No, he is probably very American. Unfortunately, too many Americans just don't know their own history! The real problem is ignorance as this dirty guy has shown.

Do you realize more Canadians know more American history (and geography) than Americans on a proportional basis? It does make it easier for the government to run roughshod over everything.

Sadly, that may well be true.

[MikeSouth]

Allow me to correct y'all on one thing.

The reason nobody went to jail for Traci Lords is because her IDs werent fake. She had a real California Drivers license and a REAL United States Passport.

What happened was she did a con called "The paper chase" to essentially change her identity. This girl was no dumbass, even though only 15 when she came into the biz she had already taken care of the ID situation and shortly after turning 18 it is believed that she blew the whistle on herself leaving her with only ONE movie that she shot after 18 and guess who owned the rights to that movie...If you guessed Traci Lords, you guessed right.

Now you know the rest of the story

[dirtysgoindown]

Allow me to correct y'all on one thing.

The reason nobody went to jail for Traci Lords is because her IDs werent fake. She had a real California Drivers license and a REAL United States Passport.

What happened was she did a con called "The paper chase" to essentially change her identity. This girl was no dumbass, even though only 15 when she came into the biz she had already taken care of the ID situation and shortly after turning 18 it is believed that she blew the whistle on herself leaving her with only ONE movie that she shot after 18 and guess who owned the rights to that movie...If you guessed Traci Lords, you guessed right.

Now you know the rest of the story

Hey Mike. I am curious about your thoughts on what I proposed earlier. While I don't believe increasing government control is a good thing it could serve a good purpose of taking the obligation to verify age and documentation and place it on the government. That way a fake ID that sneaks through is on the government and not the producer.

[MikeSouth]

actually in reality I like the idea but not as a government entity but as a private enterprise, I know I could do it for a lot less than that it costs guys for a third party 2257 record keeper.

Im a hardcore Libertarian though

I'm toying with a run for the State House as a Libertarian of course, I have contacted them for assistance.

The key role for government first and foremost, I think, is to protect the citizens from the government, That is why we have The bill of rights, all of which limit the powers of government over citizens.

I Think the secondary goal and almost as important is to protect the citizens rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from anyone who would transgress on those rights.

as such I have some ideas as a candidate that I think would be positive.

First I would like to abolish the state income tax..outright. I believe it could be replaced with reasonable cuts in government spending.

If necessary MAYBE replace it with a hike in the state sales tax, a small one.

I would like to change the rules such that any tax increase requires a 2/3s majority to enact.

I would also like to make unconstitutional (state) any form of quotas for law enforcement. I think this is self explanatory, but if your police department exists solely as a revenue source from traffic fines, you don't need a police department.

I would like to see the police regain respect and be seen not as the enemy but as being helpful.

Im in favor of decriminalization of certain non violent crimes, particularly drug possession I think there is something very wrong when the penalty for possession of a drug does a person more long term harm than the drug itself.

On the flip side of that I am strongly in favor of increased penalties for any form of violent crime.

These are just starting points....but I think you understand my drift here.

[dirtysgoindown]

actually in reality I like the idea but not as a government entity but as a private enterprise, I know I could do it for a lot less than that it costs guys for a third party 2257 record keeper.

Im a hardcore Libertarian though

I'm toying with a run for the State House as a Libertarian of course, I have contacted them for assistance.

The key role for government first and foremost, I think, is to protect the citizens from the government, That is why we have The bill of rights, all of which limit the powers of government over citizens.

I Think the secondary goal and almost as important is to protect the citizens rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from anyone who would transgress on those rights.

as such I have some ideas as a candidate that I think would be positive.

First I would like to abolish the state income tax..outright. I believe it could be replaced with reasonable cuts in government spending.

If necessary MAYBE replace it with a hike in the state sales tax, a small one.

I would like to change the rules such that any tax increase requires a 2/3s majority to enact.

I would also like to make unconstitutional (state) any form of quotas for law enforcement. I think this is self explanatory, but if your police department exists solely as a revenue source from traffic fines, you don't need a police department.

I would like to see the police regain respect and be seen not as the enemy but as being helpful.

Im in favor of decriminalization of certain non violent crimes, particularly drug possession I think there is something very wrong when the penalty for possession of a drug does a person more long term harm than the drug itself.

On the flip side of that I am strongly in favor of increased penalties for any form of violent crime.

These are just starting points....but I think you understand my drift here.

Love the platform and you'd definitely have my support and vote. :okthumb:

[MikeSouth]

My ideology is pretty run of the mill Libertarian....If you like it...remember it when you see the (L) next to a candidate on the ballot

[softball]

actually in reality I like the idea but not as a government entity but as a private enterprise, I know I could do it for a lot less than that it costs guys for a third party 2257 record keeper.

Im a hardcore Libertarian though

I'm toying with a run for the State House as a Libertarian of course, I have contacted them for assistance.

The key role for government first and foremost, I think, is to protect the citizens from the government, That is why we have The bill of rights, all of which limit the powers of government over citizens.

I Think the secondary goal and almost as important is to protect the citizens rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from anyone who would transgress on those rights.

as such I have some ideas as a candidate that I think would be positive.

First I would like to abolish the state income tax..outright. I believe it could be replaced with reasonable cuts in government spending.

If necessary MAYBE replace it with a hike in the state sales tax, a small one.

I would like to change the rules such that any tax increase requires a 2/3s majority to enact.

I would also like to make unconstitutional (state) any form of quotas for law enforcement. I think this is self explanatory, but if your police department exists solely as a revenue source from traffic fines, you don't need a police department.

I would like to see the police regain respect and be seen not as the enemy but as being helpful.

Im in favor of decriminalization of certain non violent crimes, particularly drug possession I think there is something very wrong when the penalty for possession of a drug does a person more long term harm than the drug itself.

On the flip side of that I am strongly in favor of increased penalties for any form of violent crime.

These are just starting points....but I think you understand my drift here.
How do you feel about gun control and health care. As a Canadian we have both. However your guns cross our borders and your health care costs impacts our costs as well. We are, in many cases, joined at the hip.

[RawAlex]

Sadly, I suspect the courts will slice down the line between commercial and non-commercial speech, and come to the conclusion that commercial speech can be regulated in ways that are different from individual free speech.

The logic follows: While you cannot regulate an individual mowing his lawn, you can create a licensing and inspection protocol for commercial lawn maintenance companies. You can subject the equipment they use to stringent inspections that would not be required of individuals mowing their lawn.

A fine example is the transport industry. While all drivers require a drivers license, commercial use vehicles are subject to stricter standards, documentation, inspection, and so on. While an individual car owner is not required to identify themselves on their car (beyond the license plate) commercial carriers are often required to name the company and cite licenses, permits, and other items on the vehicle.

I am hoping that EFF's opinion on this is the winning card, or that the courts rule that the law is overbroad. But I suspect they will find a way to both not limit free individual speech while trying to maintain the government's interest in the deal.

[TheEnforcer]

2257 should be removed.
It's that simple.
When are we going to stop accepting governments demanding to "show me your papers" before we can enjoy the freedoms guaranteed to us by birthright?

Anything less is appeasement. And appeasement only makes the aggressor, more aggressive.
We must fight the fight. Stop "accepting" tighter and tighter restrictions.
They don't work anyhow. The criminals still break the law. All you are doing is hurting the honest people.

There is no way to "sensibly apply 2257," as it is unconstitutional. And it will always be so.

LOL

So you think you have the right to do whatever the hell you want without any interference from the government eh? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I don't disagree that 2257 as setup is bad but to say there is absolutely no call for it? That's a joke of epic proportions. Guess you believed the robber barons of the 19th century were sweet guys, Enron was a victim of the government and Bernie Madoff was a great investor. I mean those are shining examples of responsibility with lax oversight right?

[RawAlex]

LOL

So you think you have the right to do whatever the hell you want without any interference from the government eh? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I don't disagree that 2257 as setup is bad but to say there is absolutely no call for it? That's a joke of epic proportions. Guess you believed the robber barons of the 19th century were sweet guys, Enron was a victim of the government and Bernie Madoff was a great investor. I mean those are shining examples of responsibility with lax oversight right?

The current theory of 2257, extended to each of those examples would be like this:

everyone who ever gave a meal to a robber baron or who painted their house would be responsible for their crimes. The companies that purchase and resold energy, operated the power plants, and ran the electrical lines would be criminally responsible for Enron, and every Madoff investor would do hard time for Bernie's malfeasance.

Oh yeah, in each case, each person involved would be required to keep details and duplicate records of every transaction that occured. Power companies would have to be able to sort power usage by household to show exactly what power went to what house, etc.

oversight is what you do in production, not something that should be done at retail.

[TheEnforcer]

actually in reality I like the idea but not as a government entity but as a private enterprise, I know I could do it for a lot less than that it costs guys for a third party 2257 record keeper.

Im a hardcore Libertarian though

I'm toying with a run for the State House as a Libertarian of course, I have contacted them for assistance.

The key role for government first and foremost, I think, is to protect the citizens from the government, That is why we have The bill of rights, all of which limit the powers of government over citizens.

I Think the secondary goal and almost as important is to protect the citizens rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from anyone who would transgress on those rights.

as such I have some ideas as a candidate that I think would be positive.

First I would like to abolish the state income tax..outright. I believe it could be replaced with reasonable cuts in government spending.

If necessary MAYBE replace it with a hike in the state sales tax, a small one.

I would like to change the rules such that any tax increase requires a 2/3s majority to enact.

I would also like to make unconstitutional (state) any form of quotas for law enforcement. I think this is self explanatory, but if your police department exists solely as a revenue source from traffic fines, you don't need a police department.

I would like to see the police regain respect and be seen not as the enemy but as being helpful.

Im in favor of decriminalization of certain non violent crimes, particularly drug possession I think there is something very wrong when the penalty for possession of a drug does a person more long term harm than the drug itself.

On the flip side of that I am strongly in favor of increased penalties for any form of violent crime.

These are just starting points....but I think you understand my drift here.

I like everything you stated there. Just a little soemthing about taxes I'm sure you likely know about but others may not. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

That said, some libertarians, who I agree with on a lot about, sometimes take the non-government intervention too far. Government does have a role in protecting it's citizens from each other as well in the form of business and consumer protection laws and oversight. It's an extremely tough thing to balance, and maybe in this industry more than most it tilts too far one way at times, but we've seen what a completely laissez faire attitude towards that role does and as many great and trustworthy people I have met in this biz there are also the Enron types as well. Self policing only goes so far.

[TheEnforcer]

The current theory of 2257, extended to each of those examples would be like this:

everyone who ever gave a meal to a robber baron or who painted their house would be responsible for their crimes. The companies that purchase and resold energy, operated the power plants, and ran the electrical lines would be criminally responsible for Enron, and every Madoff investor would do hard time for Bernie's malfeasance.

Oh yeah, in each case, each person involved would be required to keep details and duplicate records of every transaction that occured. Power companies would have to be able to sort power usage by household to show exactly what power went to what house, etc.

oversight is what you do in production, not something that should be done at retail.

As I said, which you seem to ignore, is that the current 2257 setup is over burdensome. I was responding to someone who said that it should be scrapped period.