First 2257 Offender goes to prison... [Archive]

Cleo

2005-06-03, 08:08 PM

Martell's photographs, featuring five girls between the ages of 13-17, were first reported by a film processing company, which filed a report with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in January 2004.
This goes well beyond just not having the proper paperwork.

sue-fl

2005-06-03, 08:24 PM

Umm sorry but he deserved to go to prison. 13-17 year olds is just sick.. |angry|

Greenguy

2005-06-03, 08:26 PM

Yeah, but if you throw "2257" into the title of the article, well.....

|skyfall|

Greenguy

2005-06-03, 08:28 PM

...and let's get another thing clear - this is NOT the 1st "2257 offender" Any fucktard that's gone to prison for taking CP pics in the past came before this assclown.

quest

2005-06-03, 09:38 PM

I can't even understand how he was sentenced under 2257, it's cp...

Though it would show Current 2257 laws work As They Are...

Ben

Agent

2005-06-03, 10:50 PM

I can't even understand how he was sentenced under 2257, it's cp...

Though it would show Current 2257 laws work As They Are...

Ben
2257 aka "Traci Lord's law". She was underage when she made her flicks.

amadman

2005-06-03, 11:08 PM

Good! This is what 2257 is supposed to be about. Lets just hope they only use it for such cases.

Useless

2005-06-03, 11:18 PM

Yeah, but if you throw "2257" into the title of the article, well.....

|skyfall|
Just more fear mongering from our pals at XBiz. He was prosecuted for taking nude pics of underage models. The 2257 was thrown in just to add more charges, the same way they add on a no seat belt charge when you kill someone while driving drunk. I hope people who read this thread realize that it has NOTHING to do with the updated version of 2257 and that no one simply knocked on his door one day, completely unsolicited, and asked for his fucking records. He's a 78 year old aspiring pervert, not an adult webmaster.

Next.

Torn Rose

2005-06-04, 12:25 AM

nothing to add that wasn't said already.... child porn is not 2257.....

Mr. Blue

2005-06-04, 02:50 AM

It's fucking jackasses that do that kinda shit that makes it bad for the rest of us.

Fido

2005-06-04, 03:25 AM

Most countries do not need 2257 to get such a people to the jail.

Boogie

2005-06-04, 03:37 AM

Ok one thing some folks are missing is this.

Throw aside the fact that he was a CP'er which pretty much stands to reason he is a fuckwit.

Aside from CP laws, they also struck him with 2257 violations. This is important because it shows that the law, as it stood BEFORE JUNE 23rd as applicable to printed pictures was enforcable and prosecutable.

that means get your shit in order if you're making CP so they have one less thing to throw the books at you. OF COURSE IF XBIZ IS FUCKING RUNNING THIS ARTICLE TO WARN ITS CP'ERS TO GET DOCUMENTATION THAT IS LUDICROUS.

Otherwise it only has one relevence. If you're producing and PRINT PUBLISHING adult material, 2257 is damned applicable. Especially if you're shooting CP :p

Soul/Rebel

2005-06-04, 04:46 AM

This goes well beyond just not having the proper paperwork.

true and he got only 3 years? Now that's fucked up

GunnCat

2005-06-04, 05:26 AM

They threw 2257 into this so when the government starts going after webmasters, they can say they have already prosecuted 1 child pornographer under the new 2257 regulations.

grzepa

2005-06-04, 05:50 AM

I'd say he went to prison for CP not for unproper 2257 paperwork...

Mishi

2005-06-04, 07:12 AM

I am ashamed of XBiz for hyping this as a 2257 violation. The article suggests a 2257 violation was involved (duh) but doesn't make it clear if that was the basis of the convition...I suspect NOT, what with the whole underage thing. It's not as if this jerk would have got off if he'd had records.

I am very unhappy with the state of our industry right now. I've been so proud when we've rallied around any one person who needed help - but when the entire industry is ailing, we fall apart.

SirMoby

2005-06-04, 07:47 AM

2257 aka "Traci Lord's law". She was underage when she made her flicks.
Traci Lords had valid government issued IDs. The new regs would not have stopped her from legally appearing in those flicks

Useless

2005-06-04, 08:46 AM

... they can say they have already prosecuted 1 child pornographer under the new 2257 regulations.
No, they can say they prosecuted someone under the old 2257 regs. The updated version isn't in use yet. We still have a couple of weeks.

Ramster

2005-06-04, 09:14 AM

2257 aka "Traci Lord's law". She was underage when she made her flicks.

So did Alexandria Quinn didn't she?

This idiot really has nothing to do with the NEW 2257 law that may effect all of us.

spiceman45

2005-06-04, 09:45 AM

They threw 2257 into this so when the government starts going after webmasters, they can say they have already prosecuted 1 child pornographer under the new 2257 regulations.

How right you are. This guy was hanging fruit easy to nab and will be used as an example even though it is 2256 that he falls under.

Btw this asswipe need to be in jail.

MadMax

2005-06-04, 10:44 AM

Personal Opinion: The DOJ is desperate to be able to show congress that they're enforcing 2257, so they chose to prosecute this fuckwit under 2257 instead of a pile of other federal laws they could have prosecuted him for violating. Don't forget that prosecutors have an unbelievable amount of leeway in regards to what charges they actually file. Had they not prosecuted him for violating 2257, he would have been convicted as just another CPer and they wouldn't have gotten nearly as much free press.

GunnCat

2005-06-04, 11:17 AM

No, they can say they prosecuted someone under the old 2257 regs. The updated version isn't in use yet. We still have a couple of weeks.

I understand UW, but to John Q. Public that distinction will likely be lossed.

amadman

2005-06-04, 11:18 AM

Though it would show Current 2257 laws work As They Are...

Only because this dude actually took the pictures.
What about people that are making cp sites but did not take the pictures?

.... child porn is not 2257.....

But 2257 is to aid in preventing/prosecuting cp.
Granted the new changes open the doors a bit wide for comfort. |shocking|

I think the 2257 hype is just xbiz's slant.
here is another artical on this story:
http://www.uticaod.com/archive/2005/06/01/news/29758.html
It mentions id's and records being required but does not say '2257' specificly.

Tommy

2005-06-04, 11:44 AM

am I the only person who thinks these new 2257 laws arent that bad

The adult industry needed something like this

look at the paperwork the medical industry has to keep or the banking industry

Tommy

2005-06-04, 11:53 AM

Useless

2005-06-04, 12:15 PM

this article is a good dose of reality

this guy recurited the girls took the pictures and published the websites or whatever

he only got 3 years, I think he should have got at least 10 years

your content is legal, you have ids
the sky is not falling
Exactly. This dope was intentionally producing content with underage wenches and he got only three years. If the chicks were of age he would have gotten nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Of course, if they were of age no one would have ever investigated his wrinkled old ass anyway.

Sky is still firmly intact.

My wife's menstrual cycles scare me more than 2257.

Agent

2005-06-04, 12:16 PM

I just read the article and it reads like 2257 is what got them in the door, because he couldn't show documentation for these pics. Nothing new here. That's what 2257 was all about and this is how it should be used. This article has nothing to do with whipping up fear for the new 2257.

Tommy

2005-06-04, 12:20 PM

and he confessed

MadMax

2005-06-04, 01:03 PM

and he confessed

Yeah, it does tend to make it easier when they come out with their hands up :D

GunnCat

2005-06-04, 01:30 PM

your content is legal, you have ids the sky is not falling

My biggest problem as a paysite owner is the financial effects of not using the old content that is legal now but won't be next month, and as an affiliate well, there's no content in the world I can buy that will look like John Root's content or Petter Hegre, etc...
I mean how stupid is it that you are going to promote assparade with some content you buy from Paul Markham(no offense to Paul, who has damn great content).

madleinx

2005-06-04, 02:43 PM

WAIT!! This case is from 2004!! Saw this posted elsewhere, and here is the link to the official announcement on the DOJ website.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nyn/NewsReleases/2004/M200411291057.htm

I have no idea why XBiz is reporting this as if it happened yesterday....It has absolutely nothing to do with the new regs. |angry|

Linkster

2005-06-04, 04:26 PM

I have no idea why XBiz is reporting this as if it happened yesterday....It has absolutely nothing to do with the new regs. |angry|

Well - if you were in the business of recruiting new WMs and you put out an article that sounds like a scoop and "here's how we'll help you from ever being in this mess" while playing on the fears of everyone thats been riled up by the fucking ambulance chasers of this industry (including some on this board) - then you might just decide to report something like that as "brand new" news :)

pornrex

2005-06-04, 04:27 PM