Could 2257 finally get defeated?

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Notime

Can you drop me an email please about board advertising?
cybersales@|@hetnet.nl
Thanks,

Jack

Will do. :>))

[pornlaw]

Many of the plaintiffs are individual producers who work out of their homes, and the labeling requirement not only invades their privacy but also allows duly authorized federal representatives to inspect the records without notice or warrant and to seize even unrelated material under the auspices of plain-sight suspicion. Warrantless searches are bad enough, Murray said, but that federal agents can enter an individual’s home and seize materials on a whim is a clear-cut violation of the founding fathers’ intent to safeguard the sanctity of private residences.

In addition, individual artists, photographers, journalists and performers are hampered in their pursuit of employment by the regulations’ requirement that they make themselves and their records available for inspection at least 20 hours per week. Murray said some plaintiffs must travel extensively for work, and the 20-hour requirement forces them to choose between a job and federal law. Some have curtailed allowed professional speech because taking a job would mean they would not be available for the requisite 20 hours.

If this is the heart of their argument, they already lost. When the regs were amended to allow third party record keepers, all these arguments went out the window. I am sure this challenge was anticipated. I dont see this going anywhere. How do you get around the fact that with third party record keeping no one has to list their name or their address nor do thay have to open their homes to an inspection ? Further, the 20 hour requirement is also gone with third party record keepers.

I dont see this being the challenge they think it is.

[FSC Diane]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

If this is the heart of their argument, they already lost. When the regs were amended to allow third party record keepers, all these arguments went out the window. I am sure this challenge was anticipated. I dont see this going anywhere. How do you get around the fact that with third party record keeping no one has to list their name or their address nor do thay have to open their homes to an inspection ? Further, the 20 hour requirement is also gone with third party record keepers.

I dont see this being the challenge they think it is.

Really Michael?
Then allow me to explain,
The history of the government’s defense of Section 2257 indicates that the Justice Department will not make any real concession until its back is up against the wall in court. Litigation brought in the past by Sundance and continued today by Connections and FSC has already resulted in very substantial gains and improvements-(yes Michael, third-party record-keeping).

And we believe that there is plenty more where that came from.

So the first task of continued litigation will be to narrow or eliminate the remaining ambiguities and confusions. With a new administration and a track record of litigation-inspired government ‘clarifications,’ we may be in a position soon to clear up most of the remaining relatively small interpretation and implementation problems.

But even so, fundamental constitutional questions remain. Why does Section 2257 treat adult businesses so harshly compared to the way Section 2257A now treats Hollywood and other softcore (i.e. simulated) producers?

Does the First Amendment allow the government to force adult businesses to prove that their expression is constitutionally protected (in this case, not child pornography), or do our constitutional traditions place the burden of proof squarely upon those who suggest or suspect that particular speech is unprotected by the constitution?

Even if some minor requirements (such as ‘check all IDs before you shoot’) are trivial or unassuming enough to pass constitutional muster, just how far may a record keeping scheme go in burdening many tens of thousands of people and companies who have not had – and never would have – anything to do with child pornography?

I understand that the "2257 Safe" business model is reliant on the law continuing in it's overburdensome state. Nonetheless, FSC believes that saving the industry and its businesses literally millions of dollars is more than the personal self interest of those who profit from 2257.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by FSC Diane

The history of the government’s defense of Section 2257 indicates that the Justice Department will not make any real concession until its back is up against the wall in court. Litigation brought in the past by Sundance and continued today by Connections and FSC has already resulted in very substantial gains and improvements-(yes Michael, third-party record-keeping).

So I understand this correctly, you are stating that the FSC litigation efforts have resulted in numerous changes in 2257 and 28 CFR 75, one was to allow third party record keeping.

Okay. I can buy that.

However, now one of the FSC's challenges to 2257 completely ignores the positive change you just claimed was a victory. And attacks the law based on the notice requirements, the hours required and possible intrusion at the time of an inspection. Isnt this prior restraint argument offset by third party record keeping victory that the FSC won ? I am confused.

Why even bother with this argument ?

So the first task of continued litigation will be to narrow or eliminate the remaining ambiguities and confusions. With a new administration and a track record of litigation-inspired government ‘clarifications,’ we may be in a position soon to clear up most of the remaining relatively small interpretation and implementation problems.

Okay. I can understand that.

But even so, fundamental constitutional questions remain. Why does Section 2257 treat adult businesses so harshly compared to the way Section 2257A now treats Hollywood and other softcore (i.e. simulated) producers?

I can understand that one as well.

Does the First Amendment allow the government to force adult businesses to prove that their expression is constitutionally protected (in this case, not child pornography), or do our constitutional traditions place the burden of proof squarely upon those who suggest or suspect that particular speech is unprotected by the constitution

I dont agree with this one. You cannot not prove a negative.

Even if some minor requirements (such as ‘check all IDs before you shoot’) are trivial or unassuming enough to pass constitutional muster, just how far may a record keeping scheme go in burdening many tens of thousands of people and companies who have not had – and never would have – anything to do with child pornography?

I cannot comment on this since I am not a producer. However I can tell you that we have had clients tell us that www.2257Safe.com has made their record keeping much easier, less burdensome and more affordable.

I understand that the "2257 Safe" business model is reliant on the law continuing in it's overburdensome state. Nonetheless, FSC believes that saving the industry and its businesses literally millions of dollars is more than the personal self interest of those who profit from 2257.

Then you dont understand our business model. Our business model is dependent on the fact that the third party record keeping aspect of 2257 remains in place. As for the other aspects that you refer to as overburdensome, they are not pertinent to us other than we might have to re-write some code when the law changes again.

Overall, I really think the FSC is being myopic in regards to 2257. Piracy is considerable more of a problem than record keeping. Piracy is quickly killing this industry. We will not even have to worry about 2257 in a few years if piracy isnt addressed. However I do not think piracy is an issue for the FSC though.

Quite actually I think 2257 might be a valuable weapon in challenging tube sites. Obviously, the DMCA will protect the theft of this industry's content. However, at least with 2257 and its record keeping and notice provisions, we can at least make a claim of unfair business practices. If Vivid didnt settle with Pornotube/AEBN we could have had a decision in this regard already.

Someone needs to step up and start using 2257 as a weapon. The government uses it as a weapon against us. We should take it from their hands and use it against our enemies.

The "overbudensomeness" you refer to can certainly be used to our advantage.

[DannyCox]

I really don't understand the problem some people seem to have with 2257, it's really just common sense. I'm in Canada, and I follow the 2257 requirements just because it's a good standard for a producer to follow. I've had to dig into my records on government request, and what I started years ago made everything so easy to find. And the records weren't even for 2257, but for Revenue Canada! Talent not paying their taxes again

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I really don't understand the problem some people seem to have with 2257, it's really just common sense. I'm in Canada, and I follow the 2257 requirements just because it's a good standard for a producer to follow. I've had to dig into my records on government request, and what I started years ago made everything so easy to find. And the records weren't even for 2257, but for Revenue Canada! Talent not paying their taxes again

Danny, this is one of those areas I simply can't understand you.....
And maybe, you can't understand me. It's probably cultural.

But here it is......I don't have a problem with 2257 as a guideline to running the adult industry. The problem starts when the government ASSUMES I'm breaking the law until I PROVE I'm innocent. THAT, is the problem.

If you've employed someone under 18, you should fry. But only if you intended to commit the crime. Lest we forget Traci Lords, and her little game. I could have easily gone to jail for life over that little deal, and i never intended to commit ANY crime. And who did they hang? The agent. Not her, and not her mom who produced false documents, and swore she was 18. But as a result of her INTENTIONAL breaking of the law, a man served 4 years (was it?) in prison, ruined for life, and this whole little wheel of misery got rolling. We had the meese commission, and ultimately, the 2257 regulation nonsense. People "of the web" forget this all got started from the video biz, not the internet biz.

In any event, in THIS country, I'm supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not Guilty, until I prove myself innocent.
And it's really that simple. That's where I draw the line. The constitution is very clear on this.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

In any event, in THIS country, I'm supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty. Not Guilty, until I prove myself innocent.
And it's really that simple. That's where I draw the line. The constitution is very clear on this.

Can I invite you to read the Revenue Code ? The IRS doesnt presume you to be innocent first. The idea that in America you are "innocent until proven guilty" has little to do with compliance law.

2257 is nothing more than a law requiring compliance. If anyone in this industry ever bothered to read some of the federal regs that deal with other industries they would be astonished with how relatively easy we have it.

Go look at what it takes to deal with the FDA... www.fda.gov to get cosmetics, medical devices or drugs approved.

How about throwing out some garbage... try dealing with the EPA and hazardous waste.... http://www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/regs-haz.htm

Wanna drive a truck across state lines, well here's the DOT's regs on whats required to be compliant ... http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regul...section_type=A

Trust me when I say all of those other industries have much more difficult regs to deal with than we do with 18 USC 2257.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

But only if you intended to commit the crime.

Noo... Commiting a crime isn't limited to the intention to commit, and indictments and judgments are passed all the time for guilty parties who "didn't intend" to commit whatever particular crime is up for review.

Drunk drivers don't set out to kill kids or grandparents or someone's mom. But it happens nonetheless, and manslaughter is the result.

I don't think we can use "well, I didn't *mean* to shoot an underage girl!" as a defense.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

In any event, in THIS country, I'm supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Sorry, I forgot THAT country, the United States, is the greatest country on earth and the only one to have "innocent until proven guilty"

But isn't THAT the same country that suspends Habeas Corpus whenever it feels like it?

ah, just F'ing with you.

But Michael does bring up a good point on how easy we actually have it in our industry when it comes to regulations and paper work. I came out of Aerospace & Defence and the hoops we had to jump through for any little thing we did was amazing! That's why I don't mind keeping up with these 2257 requirements, it's really a nothing thing.

I do agree that the way the US handles some of these cases like the Traci Lords fiasco is just backwards. In Canada, the underage person supplying the fraudulent documents would be the one charged, not the producers or anyone else caught up in the fraud. About 10 years ago, we had a girl come in for an audition, and things did get explicit. She has ID on her that showed she was 19 years old. We then shoot a scene with her and two guys and put it up on one of our sites. 2 months later, she comes back and this time givs us her correct ID! She had turned 18 the week before. We found out that on her first audition, she had brought in her sister's ID who looked exactly like her. We of course pulled the content, but did not destroy it. My lawyer took possession of it, along with the copies of the original ID and her proper one. He also took affidavits from those involved. If anything had come from it, we would have had proof she defrauded us, and we would have been just fine.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I really don't understand the problem some people seem to have with 2257, it's really just common sense. I'm in Canada, and I follow the 2257 requirements just because it's a good standard for a producer to follow. I've had to dig into my records on government request, and what I started years ago made everything so easy to find. And the records weren't even for 2257, but for Revenue Canada! Talent not paying their taxes again

When I just had to have a info sheet and a copy of an id in a file. I didnt have problem with it. They made very complicated for no other reason than to fuck with pornographers in the america. The point of 2257 is to fuck with us. If someone shot children they wouldnt keep fucking records and Traci lords who the law is called. She had a government issued passport and drivers license stating she was of age. How could you protect yourself from that? You cant. Our industry really hasnt pushed back hard enough that adult porn has nothing to do with CP. When some rightwing douchbag bag tries to connect us to cp, there should be responses calling him a uninformed liar. With all its money this industry has no more pr power then the guy who owns the candy stores on the corners its sad.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by tony404

when i just had to have a info sheet and a copy of an id in a file. I didnt have problem with it. They made very complicated for no other reason than to fuck with pornographers in the america. The point of 2257 is to fuck with us. If someone shot children they wouldnt keep fucking records and traci lords who the law is called. She had a government issued passport and drivers license stating she was of age. How could you protect yourself from that? You cant. Our industry really hasnt pushed back hard enough that adult porn has nothing to do with cp. When some rightwing douchbag bag tries to connect us to cp, there should be responses calling him a uninformed liar. With all its money this industry has no more pr power then the guy who owns the candy stores on the corners its sad.

Exactly!