Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-23 13:27:12
|
| You do realize that 18 U.S.C. § 2257 was passed in the 1980s, right? To prevent child pornography after Traci Lords started making videos as an underage teen lying about her age. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-23 13:28:56
|
Also, most adult websites already HAVE the information you're talking about, certifying that they keep records assuring all models are over 18.
Which is good, it helps protect US, the innocent porn fiends, from accidentally stumbling upon 12 year olds giving head. Juries of our peers tend not to believe such accidents happen, but with these disclaimers out there, we can reasonably rely upon them. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-23 14:01:30
|
Yes, but nothing about 2257 would or does prevent a minor from doing what Traci Lords did which is 1)forging an ID, 2) using the ID 3) Deceiving the law-abiding producer. In fact, using a forged ID to get work is a felony, but instead of Traci being punished, the producer felt the brunt of the effects. Traci, the person who committed the crimes was never punsihed and was made a celebrity.
Papers? Vere are your papers?
Where is this country going to? (And I'm a conservative republican saying that.) |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-23 14:46:29
|
I'm just glad that I live in a country where I'm so free, I can impinge on everyone else's freedom if I feel their behavior or actions are innappropriate.
Thank god, I can feel better about my own shortcomings by trying to fix everyone else's!
If this nation understood and respected it's own constitution, anything that didn't DIRECTLY harm another person or society would be fair game. Want to shoot heroine in the comfort and privacy of your own home? Shoot away. Want to smoke a joint after a long day at work, have at it! Want to screw a side of beef, hey that's your thing, not mine!
People who get so caught up in hatred of someone else's behavior forget one simple thing -- free will -- they aren't required to take part in or watch anything they don't want to. Don't like something being discussed on the radio? Change the channel! Smokey bars bother you? Find another one that isn't as smokey. I go to bars all the time where I dislike the clientelle. But I've never dreamed of trying to get a city ordinance banning the people I don't like from the bar. Fat people take up a lot of space at the bar, they're sweaty, sometimes they smell funny, and they just don't look very attractive. But since I'm one of the few remaining humans with free will, I can simply choose to go to another bar where the patrons are generally not as overweight.
Pornography is probably one of the purest forms of capitalism. It's as pure as prostitution and addictive substances, these are "frictionless" markets -- you don't have to convince anyone of the NEED for these things. They want it or they don't. Drug dealers don't need to spend millions in advertising to convince people they need that drug. The people that need it, WILL BUY IT. And those that don't, WON'T.
people are so damn stupid, and narrow-minded, and irrational.
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-23 16:58:49
|
| Very nicely said! |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-23 17:22:29
|
The answer to your question is...no it was not.
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-23 17:33:23
|
2257 was something the adult business thought of and enacted upon itself.
They are,{gov} trying to interupt the adult business plain and simple. If we can't bust you on obscenity, we'll kill you with paperwork.
The adult business helped the gov. bust the largest producer of child porn in the world.
The adult business despises child porn.
Must people in the adult business have kids, pay taxes, go to the YMCA and church and are hard working people...just like everyone else. The evil is the Bush administration, now here and abroad.
There is no reason to put these performers lives in jeopardy, and invade their privacy...Mr. Gonzoles{sic} has created a sea of quicksand for the adult business that should be parted and washed away. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-23 17:39:32
|
I thought I would point out that Traci Lords got busted on the set of a porno movie by the people making the movie when she brought her real I.D. by mistake, proving that these regulations are totally unnecessary.
Child pornographers aren't going to stop making kiddie porn because the government tells them they need to keep records. Real child pornographers work underground, entirely outside the the law. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-24 10:45:30
|
| In principle I agree with your points. Some of your arguements I have issue with though. Most particularly the public smoking bans that you are against. I do believe that people should have freedom to do as they please as long as they don't harm others, and I agree that most actions that I could take that could harm others the other people could avoid. The problem I have is that in many cases people don't have the option to be elsewhere. Smoking in bars does harm other patrons through second hand smoke, and the other patrons do have the option of taking their business elsewhere, but the workers at the bars, etc. don't. With the economy the way it is right now, bartending and waitressing are often the only available way to make money outside of the fast food industry. Using the free will arguement to defend all activities that you like can't hold water in situations like that. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-24 11:59:56
|
| This is the best synopsis of these new regs that I've seen, and I thank you for posting it. While the mainstream media is finally getting on board and writing about this, they should all take a look at this page to get a real idea of what's going on here. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-24 16:51:44
|
Apologies if someone else mentioned this, but with regard to Traci Lords, she had a legally-issued government ID that she fraudulently obtained and showed to the producer who asked to see it. So 2257 would have done nothing to keep her off the set. The same is true for the 3 other cases over the past 10 or so years where minors were discovered being used in adult videos.
Have there been other times when minors have been used? Maybe, but if so, each time it happened the producer made a record of a very serious felony; not the brightest move, and one that 99.9% of adult content producers avoid like the plague.
Child pornography is of course a heinous crime that deserves to be combated with every tool the government can muster, but 2257 has nothing whatsoever to do with CP. It's a weapon prosucutors will use in place of more burdensome and expensive obscenity prosecutions to go after companies and people they want out of business.
It puts producers who only use 30, 40, 50 or 60 year old performers at risk, and will put those same performers safety at risk by making it mandatory that their personal IDs and addresses will be proliferated throughout cyberspace to anyone with a few bucks to start up an adult website and become an affiliate webmaster. This from our caring, humanistic Justice Department.
Give me a break. These people are on record as saying they don't care about the personal safety of adult performers, and I for the life of me don't understand why more people aren't concerned about this administration's apparent eagerness to bypass the constitution in the service of its own hateful, intolerant ideology.
One solution?
Join the Free Speech Coalition! We're taking the battle to them.
Tom Hymes
Communications Director
Free Speech Coalition
tom@freespeechcoalition.com
www.freespeechcoalition.com |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-24 20:42:34
|
| I see links to 2257, but I don't see links to the actual regulations that are the issue here -- when I read 2257 itself I didn't see half the shit you claim is required. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-25 11:38:24
|
As has been pointed out, this is an attempt to stifle the porn industry, particularily on-line, by burying them in paperwork. As I read it, the burden on large producers will be relatively minor. However, the regulations will cripple small and medium-sized producers, and stifle the development of innovative business methods on-line.
The regulations are at FR Doc 05-10107 [edocket.access.gpo.gov]. (At the bottom of the page, after the responses to the comments. Warning: Legalese.) |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-25 13:02:16
|
The issue is not with the statute itself, but with the regulations for enforcing the statute. That is where the problem lies, and that is where all the cited material is coming from.
The Full Text Of The Rules [a257.g.akamaitech.net] |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-25 13:03:52
|
| Thanks for jumping in her Tom, I'm a member in good standing and thankful for everything you're doing :o) |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-25 15:05:17
|
Holy Crap!
I am a producer distributor of "regular" movies, not porn. But someone told me that since some of the characters or scenes in my movies show them fumbling through a copy of Playboy or the like, I can be arrested. What the Hell!!!! This is why I did not vote for George Bush. I blame this on all of you who voted for this man. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-25 18:36:33
|
I disagree with this law as much as anyone. Yes, the government is to blame. Unfortunately, George Bush was not in office when this law was being drafted or ammended. Bill Clinton was. Don't try to make this a political party issue. It is totally nonpartisan. There are members of both parties on each side of the fight.
You want to blame the Republicans, but just look at what the liberal Supreme Court did in New London CT yesterday. They gave the government the right to take away your property to increase the tax revenues. Your property belongs to you as long as the government doesn't see fit to let someone else have it and build upon it for a greater tax income for them.
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 02:38:43
|
| This law was pushed by Repubs when Clinton was around. If Clinton, or Kerry for that matter, was around this law would not have been passed. You know it and I know it. As for the CT incident, I am not familiar with it but it sounds like it is a "greed" issue and Demos and Repos are both guilty of that. By the way I am not a Democrat or Republican, I consider myself a "Free-Market Libertarian Capatilist" (A new party) in that I beleive in individual responsiblity, free will, small government, the environment, strong defense and making money. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 11:37:25
|
| This is the most Stupid law to come out of a country that is supposed to champion free speech. Its about time that Governments are stopped by the people for this petty and idiotic abuse of their powers |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 12:18:46
|
I completely disagree with this, it is a violation of free rights, and it is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Pornography is something people have always drawn, taken pictures both by video and still of, and looked at for a long, long time. Why would the statue of David exist, why would there be paintings of naked women?
Pornography also keeps people from doing things to hurt other people, I mean seriously, like rape or murder. Pornography or 'adult pictures' are supposed to be pictures created by adults, of adults, for adults.
What the heck is it hurting of someone wants to look at a pornographical picture, (as long as the picture is LEGAL)? Who is that person really hurting?
I think no one is getting hurt. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 15:24:38
|
| The goverment thinks that they can dictate and tell us what to watch next we will need permission to breath what kind of crap is going on I thouhgt that we live in a free country. Since this scumbag became President everything is changing |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 15:53:51
|
i sick of tired of the damn law taking our right to do thing's . IT IS THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBLETY TO WATCH THERE KIDS.the law can not go agaist OUR RIGHTS OR FREEDOM BECAUSE IT CAN CAUSE A WAR IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL AS OTHER COUNTRY WENT THROUGHT
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 16:21:49
|
I wish the government would stop all the porno mail that i get that i don't want....I delete it right away...I was blocking it out in my mail filter...it is just too much of it....Please stop that...I like adult sites like jokeworm and etc....I just don't like all the garbage I get with companys advertising porno...plus the AIM chatrooms...what is the government going to do with all the little kiddies advertising them selves and the botts advertising to view their webcams...they are very bothersome..
instead...you are closing down adult sites that are harmless....go after the advertisers and the chatroom bots that advertise...they are your biggest problem.....probably too much work for the government..... |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 16:42:23
|
| You know, these people spend a lot of time trying to pass laws that say how *I* am supposed to spend my private life and enjoyment, and insisting that *THEIR* morals are the ONLY right and proper ones. In this vein, I truly wish we could pass a similair law that outlaws ignorance, hatred, and unreasoning predjudice. Then we wouldn't have to worry about such morons dictating our lives. This is why more and more people are turning away from Christianity: the idea they hold that THEIR way is the ONLY way, and you MUST be held to their religious convictions, regardless of your own. Problem is, even they can't agree among themselves. No one is right but ME, they insist!!! You must conform to MY IDEALS!!!! ---disgusted |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 18:05:54
|
| So what else could be expected of an administration whose Attorney General hung a curtain to shield from view an exposed breast on a statue which has stood in the Justice Department headquarters for 157 years? |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 18:06:25
|
It should be noted that reputable adult businesses do not use spam. All the porno spam you get is usually from fly-by-night scammers or people who are trying to install malicious software on your computer.
Every adult business I know of has a rigid anti-spam policy. They will cancel an affiliate account and keep the commission if someone is caught using spam to advertise. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-26 23:26:16
|
| Yep, George's motto: No one is going to have any fun until the next election. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-27 00:11:46
|
| I call BS on this entire law. This law isn't going to do a damn thing to prevent underground child porn rings... and THAT is where the real victims are. Do they really thing a company like VIVID is going to go hunting for small children to feature in their films? NO! It is a smoke screen, designed to give them a legal means to tell everyone what they should and shouldn't watch. In my opinion, the 15 year old Traci Lords of the world don't need to be protected from the production companies, the production companies need to be protected from them. If you can hold a minor responsible for MURDER, then you should also be able to hold them responsible for willfully and knowingly supplying false documents so they can be in porn. A lot of innocent people are literally going to pay the price for that sort of behaviour. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-27 02:21:08
|
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257info.htm
Copy of the Federal Register with comments and annotations CFR sec 75 Attorney General's Enforcement Rules for 2257 - this is what is at issue mainly
Copy of the FSC Complaint against the USA
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html
sec 2256
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
sec 2257
also see sec 2251A-2252B 2257 is an enhancement law for these they are related to understand the context of the law
|
Lawyer Update
2005-06-27 05:54:19
|
| I am the original poster. I was just told by my lawyer that I could be raided at any time and justly sent to jail because i am not 2257 compliant. Some scenes in the movies I distribute, like I said, contain some mild nudity from magazines and now I have to get a copy of that model's information from that particular issue and keep a copy of it (license, address, SSN, etc). If I was that model I am not sure I would want anyone to see that except for the person she originally posed for. This is really creepy. I cant beleive this is happening in the USA. Has anyone mentioned to these creeps that this is not IRAN. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-27 08:50:45
|
And yet it is thought completely acceptable to portray people blowing each others brains and guts out with guns in nearly every film and TV series to emerge from the USA?
THAT'S what pornography is, not two (or more) naked consenting adults making love!
Maybe The Bush Administration's motto is "Make War, Not Love"! |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-27 13:13:44
|
Good point. For a graphic illustration of this visit rotten.com.
They've shut down their ratemyboobies and ratemyboner sites, but pictures of helicopter decapitations and meat-grinder accidents are still available. |
2257 will cause increase in CGI porn!!!
2005-06-28 01:45:18
|
I predict that if 2257 is enforced as is, it will cause in increase in Computer Generated Image porn, and Anime Porn, and other porn that does not include REAL models, because then they dont have to worry about all that record keeping, unless they want to records on who did the "voice acting".
At the very least, the government should make it so that only porn produced after this ruling would require records, and all porn produced before would be "exempt"... |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-28 05:27:02
|
| George Bush is satan in disguise. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-28 05:27:23
|
| George Bush is satan in disguise. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-28 08:41:07
|
*pukes* So does this mean that a Life of Brian-esque display of nudity has to wade through the Paperwork Sea before it can be legally used? Eurglesparfg.
Wait a sec.
How, praytell, are they expecting to enforce this perfectly? The Internet is a slippery, indistinct place, and slipping away into the infinity of cyberspace is easy as taking a breath. How do they expect to nail every porn sight out there? It's virtually impossible to enforce, at least on the Internet. It's like trying to enforce Prohibition, the government's just making itself look utterly daft. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-28 11:12:31
|
It's refreshing to see a person in main stream reporting understand the true nature of what this bill is intended to do.
If you ever need any information from the adult business side of things let me know.
Regards,
James
james@hotmovies.com |
2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-28 14:55:36
|
| I don't believe there is any way they can enforce the law. Take p2p how can you stop something like that. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-28 21:54:06
|
Understanding or even reading the effective 2257 nearly requires a law degree. This is a law that has been revised multiple times and has been subjected to case law as well.
If you read the Department of Justice's comments on how THEY plan to interpret the law (available at the edocket.access.gpo.gov link mentioned above, you can see that they state very clearly - they have no intention of making it where it is reasonably possible to fullfill the obligations of the law.
They even state that if you don't have the records which weren't even required until the 2005 revision, use of the pictures taken after 1995 will be considered a crime to be prosecuted.
I have no idea where a lot of my models are now so I either stop using (or allowing others to use) them or face prosecution under the newest revision. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-28 22:16:29
|
They don't have to stop every porn site. All they have to do is use it anytime they want to get headlines or improve their statistics.
If you irritate them, they come after you. Exactly the way they use tax evasion as a tool to get people who they want to bust but can't get evidence on. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-29 16:59:49
|
Let's remember...this is the same government that just said that a governmental agency can take my home and give it to another private concern. Not condemn for the public good...just take it to increase a tax base or whatever.
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-29 17:03:44
|
| well, eyestrain, maybe...just maybe.... |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-30 04:07:51
|
for crying out loud people ,, dose it really make a diffrence who started it ??? the fact is , we the people in this country DON"T have any say so anymore , how long is this crap going to go on tell we say NO MORE BULLSHIT !!! ,, this govermwnt is about the sneekiest and underhanded in the world , they don't care about the common person ,, all they want is tax money and don't care who they step on to get it
as far as Republicans or democrats are concerned ,, the way I see it BOTH are at falt for letting the goverment gain so much power over our "private life" what I do behind closed doors (in my own house ) is of NO concern of the goverment , as long as it dosn't hurt enyone else , this is no longer a free country ,, that stopped when the made it the law you have to ware a seat belt , I'm so glad our great goverment made that decision for me ,, sence I can't make it for myself ,, how far are you people willing to let these people called the goverment to go with taking away our rights as american people ??? |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-06-30 14:32:08
|
So what does this mean then? just that all the servers and websites move off US territory. Thus saving the Government tax revenue, and stopping people working in the industry in the US, and paying US income tax.
Figure that out Dubya, this bill will be costing your government machine money.
Once that sinks in I think that in the "interests of free speech and the republic", this act will probably sink without trace |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-01 06:52:19
|
| If an individual logs onto a site that advertises that there is adult matter on the site and they state that they are over 18 or use an AVS to access the site then the site should not be held responsible. It is stuff like people accessing this material and then complaining about it that makes the Government come up with more laws to help protect us from ourselves. I am over 18, work everyday, pay my taxes and am able to think for myself and take care of myself so I don't feel that I need some high faluting government official to tell me what's good and bad for me. It started with helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc. and if we don't do something quick it will never end until they control everything we do, have, or say. Hell, even Russia is a Democracy now. I look at it like this: God gave us 10 laws and man has to add 10 million more...now what's wrong with that picture? |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-02 17:15:13
|
| If everyone would boycott the video and movie theater industry, with parents renting or buying only children's videos then business could pressure the sanctimonious lawmakers into changing this Nazi style law. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-04 10:44:44
|
What's Next? The government sayes pictures of consenting adults is *BAD*? How can one person say what is good or bad for another adult.
I agree with protecting kids. I have three girls of my own and would kill for them. However, I also keep a close eye on what they do online. That is where the responcibility layes. With the parents, not the holier that tho assholes on the government. If parents are not smart enough to control what their kids do online, then take the f#$%^&g computer away from them. DO NOT expect the government to do it for you.
I was in the army, served in Desert Storm, and love my country for the right the Constitution and Bill of Rights has given me, and to this day I would die to protect this land. But with all these laws that do not have anything to do with the security of out country being passed, I have to ask one thing?
Is the security of this land so unimportant to people on Washington that they need to pass law makeing something they probably do themselves illegal. It begs the question "What are your priorities, President Bush?" Bush needs to know that we are all grown up and can take care of ourselves. His job should be to protect the country from threats that are real, not imagined.
Let us grown ups decides what to look at.
That is my two cents anyway. |
gnfptdor
2005-07-05 04:26:29
|
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-08 07:54:02
|
Moving the servers off shore does nothing to exempt the website author from the rules. They look to the person with editorial control who causes the image to appear.
Also, the rules are now in effect, it will take a significant legal challenge to turn them back. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-08 07:58:59
|
Enforcing it is as easy as pie.
1)You display an explicit image on a web page.
2)You do not possess compliant documentation for that image.
3)Game over, 10 years per offending image.
They can simply send agents up and down a street, essentially, and arrest any website owner that doesn't have the correct documentation for their images. It's explicit black-letter type stuff, no interpretation required. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-08 16:52:32
|
The problem is that there are quite a few unintelligent people in this country that vote. That's why things like this happen and no one gives a shit until its too late.
Pay attention next time!
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-10 15:19:52
|
"What the heck is it hurting of someone wants to look at a pornographical picture, (as long as the picture is LEGAL)? Who is that person really hurting?"
Therein lies the problem. Soon the only legal pornography avaiable will be in the bible. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-10 15:22:49
|
Actually, no.
Satan is described as being glib of tounge (ie, he speaks well, in a way that people enjoy listeing to and will belive in). Dubya is far from that.
Ronald Regan was closer, Dubya is just a lesser imp in the grand scheme of things; a puppet with a hot red hand up his ass. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-07-14 14:22:36
|
I'm all for this. I really hope it's upheld. I dunno, it may not be. I've not seen many updates as of late (on other sites).
People are complaining about all this free speech nonsense, well, start complaining when they completely take away the right. And no one is saying you can't distribute porn...just make sure you have the correct paper. If you can't do it, or it really is impossible then too bad for you. |
Re: family incest
2005-08-11 11:15:21
|
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-08-19 06:09:09
|
| Don't we have some real problems in this country that seem a little more important than if i want to see photos of consenting adults? |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-09-04 20:35:32
|
I just reviewed the law that you mentioned. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_110.html) As it turns out, it appears to me that you have exaggerated the facts. In reality, this law does not appear to relate to all porn & adult images, but rather to "SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN."
But even if you are correct, I wonder how the Feds plan to enforce this effectively and efficiently? If what you say is true, I can't see how anyone can possibly keep up with this cumbersome law. It just isn't possible for anyone to keep up with all the record-keeping requirements, and I'd like to see this challenged in court. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-09-11 12:15:54
|
| Why would you be all for this? Perhaps you don't make porn, fine, but do you really think it's going to stop here? If you wait til they COMPLETELY take away the right of free speech to complain, well, you'll be all by yourself, because all of the 'bad' people (read: the majority of american's, according to our gov't) will be in jail or completely stripped of our voice. So when they're taking your house away for tax purposes, or some stupid bs like that, you won't be able to stop them then, where you might have been able to make a difference earlier (like, say, NOW). At that point, all I would say would be.....too bad for you. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
By: Valkyrie
2005-09-25 14:25:21
|
| How does this affect independent escorts who have their websites up and have had for years. Also, apparently the law has been using Computer hacking statutes and promotion of child pornography laws to find a way to shut down legal porn sites and escort websites online. This has happened to a number a ladies I know in certain states, particularly Oklahoma, Dallas, and Texas. Is there an effort growing to stop this legislative BS, and what lobbyists are we using to get this changed?? |
Re:
2005-09-25 23:13:31
|
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-09-26 05:18:02
|
This is just a book I recommend if anyone is interested in reading. It kinda is in the same theme as this post. Here is the link if you would like to explore it. http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm
It is titled "Ain't nobody's business if I do"
Truly we lose our freedoms in this country everyday... and wasn't it Sr George Bush who once said; We cannot legislate virtue or morality? |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-09-26 05:19:33
|
WTF?? Is this spamming and hijacking of a really great thread?? What an idiot!!
Editor: Sorry about that. I've cleaned all the spam out of this thread.
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-10-03 13:17:00
|
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-10-18 19:23:01
|
| This is what happens when we have a government that thinks they know what is best for us. next election get rid of these people that are trying to tell us how to live our life or maybe yet lets go to washinging and remove them with force, i have had enough of this people spending my money oh their hookers and drugs and golf and now i cant see tits on paper fuck you bush |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-11-07 21:20:47
|
| A great number of large hotel chains and fortune 100 companies like GE derive a significant revenue stream from porn via satelite pay per view channels. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-12-03 20:17:43
|
|
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-12-20 04:25:08
|
| Great article. I only want to add that it's not just men who get off on porn -- women do too. I'm one of them. |
Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2005-12-30 14:59:46
|
| kewl. is ron jeremy related murder chia vang? aren't adults suppose to be entertaining? did you know that if you aim at adding 22 + 35 + cooo = like 2275 or something. i trust the internet with my life. it's all facts and only the truth. by paul king kong of green bay wisconsin. my address is 548 farlin. thanks great world wide web. can i also give you my ssn and dob. citibank told me i should disclose my 16 digits online for the nice people. so what do you think. i love white house at whitehouse.com |
French Connection
2006-01-04 16:42:05
|
I have a production company based in France (http://advaloreminternational.com).
What if one were to base their "adult" business outside of the U.S.? I don't think that 2257 records would apply.
Remember in the book "Catch-22," the guy with the "apple cheeks?" While everyone else was trying to get out of the war by following the rules or fighting against them, he just bypassed the rules all together.
Instead of battling 2257, just move your virtual business out of the U.S.!??If this is the case, get in touch with me. Let's do business! My contact information is on the website. |
Re: Re: 2257 Aims Crush Adult Entertainment
2006-03-24 19:33:40
|
No, you are wrong. For one thing, the link you posted is to the original statute passed years ago, not the new amended statute. THAT statute is much more reasonable, though, as others have pointed out, still does absolutely nothing to prevent child porn, as real producers of child porn (as opposed to the porn industry) are ALREADY committing felonies by producing those materials, so they aren't going to care what sort of record keeping the law requires as they are already breaking the law. What the statute DOES do is place a record keeping burden on the lawful producers to prove they haven't committed a crime. (Which, last I checked, was not supposed to be the way American jurisprudence worked. In America, we are not supposed to have to prove our innocence.)
And the serious problem of the new amendment to the statute is the vast increase it creates in both the quantity of necessary paperwork and the scope of who must maintain such records. It is a clear and blatant attempt to have more ways of convicting legitimate producers of adult entertainment, create an immense burden that will discourage new people from getting involved in producing such entertainment, and completely eliminate all production of amateur porn. |
Re: French Connection
2006-05-11 16:44:10
|
| It does not matter if you site is not in the US. If you live in the US and take money or work on the site no matter where it is you have to do the 2257 crap. Now if you live in an other country...... |
By: FireWireHTH
2006-12-21 13:06:14
|
Can anyone email me a full A-Z list of every type of record i need to keep, I'm clueless as to what a well kept record should look like & trying to make out the legal babble is proving to be useless. if possible a copy of a well kept record would also be useful and you can whiteout or whatever the personal info on it. just kinda wanna get the idea of how much drama this law is gonna cause for me as I'm planing to start a live cam site. also i own an adult novelty store online and cant seem to figure out if i have to keep records or not since i am neither the primary or secondary producer of the content, so some inside on that would be greatly appreciated
Thanx
Ace Bedford
FireWireHTH@gmail.com |
XML/RSS/RDF Newsfeed Syndication: http://freeinternetpress.com/rss.php
