2257 Injunction has been filed

[xxxjay]

DENVER - The Free Speech Coalition on Thursday filed a complaint and motion seeking temporary injunctive relief against enforcement of the recently revised federal regulations pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §2257. “Twenty-two fifty-seven,” as it is known colloquially, is the federal records-keeping and labeling act outlining penalties for failure to document the ages of models and actors who appear in sexually explicit imagery. The revised regulations, which specify how 2257 documentation must be kept, who must keep it, and how it may be inspected, were published in the Federal Register May 24 and will take effect June 23.

Since their publication, the regulations have been criticized by adult industry attorneys as vague, onerous, potentially self-incriminatory, and possibly broadly unconstitutional.

The suit, Free Speech Coalition v. Alberto Gonzales, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado late Thursday afternoon on behalf of the membership of the FSC. It outlines more than 20 separate claims on the basis of which the FSC is asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order.

Three legal firms represent the FSC in the filing: Colorado-based Schwartz & Goldberg PC, Ohio-based Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz LLP, and New York-based Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria. None of the attorneys involved in the filing were available for comment at press time, and other attorneys close to the case declined to comment, as well.

However, according to FSC spokesman Tom Hymes, the FSC’s attorneys expect the court will order a hearing on the motion before June 23. Attorneys H. Louis Sirkin, Paul J. Cambria Jr., and Michael W. Gross are prepared to present the FSC’s arguments to the court.

[xxxjay]

This was a very smart move of the behalf of the FSC. As it has been explained to me by a very competent attorney, face to face -- that fact that the injunction being filed in the 10th Circuit puts the FSC at a huge strategic advantage because a judge in the 10th circuit has already ruled an said the concept of “secondary producer” is unconstitutional. That is the crux of the revised 2257.

As it has been explained to me, The 10th Circuit HAS NO CHOICE but to go by their decision – even if the current judge thinks it was the worst decision on Earth…his hands are tied! To reverse the decision would be a very long and arduous process.

This is good news people – really good news. Stop worrying about 2257 and get back to work!

[Qon]

thanks for the update jay ;)



..

[Jel]

Nice move |thumb

[JohnnyR]

we can only hope... meanwhile yeah, back to work.

[Rocco]

thanks for the update Jay, really a nice move!

[Kinky]

the ball is rolling, everybody support the FSC, they really do know what they are doing

[babymaker]

Nice :D Thanx for the update Jay, very good move of them going to 10th circuit :)

p.s a new 2257 compliant site hehe i am sure they will love:

http://www.free-creampie-pics.com/asian-creampie/

:D

[Bill]

Good news.

Jay, Kinky, any of you guys who are interacting with the FSC, please ask them to get an online donation (and membership, ideally, but at least donation) system working again.

All lobbyists are shifty. All lawyers are shifty. That's a given. It doesn't fucking matter. These people are acting, they deserve our money.

Maybe we can get them to realize they need a system to take money online...

[MrYum]

Awesome news Jay...thanks!

Yep, back to work...launched a bunch of new free sites this morning :D

[xxxjay]

Good news.

Jay, Kinky, any of you guys who are interacting with the FSC, please ask them to get an online donation (and membership, ideally, but at least donation) system working again.

All lobbyists are shifty. All lawyers are shifty. That's a given. It doesn't fucking matter. These people are acting, they deserve our money.


I agree. My lawyer is the chairman of the FSC - I know, at least for him, he is well intentioned and really believes in what he is doing. I think the FSC deserves everyone's support.

Not that a lot of you guys will actually do this, but consult a good lawyer for yourself and don't really on the boards for legal advice. I repeated just about everything I've been told by my attorney -- now we just need to watch this play out.

So far this has gone just the way he said it would.

There are about 10 guys that are qualified to speak on 2257 with any degree of skill - you can email me jay@jqmedia.org and I can get you guys names and numbers.

[Jim]

Thank you for the update Jay.
http://www.javes.com :)

[CrazySy]

Hey Jay, thanks for the update |thumb

[Useless]

Booyaa! Got to love it when a plan comes together. ;) Perhaps this will dispel some of the doom and gloom that has been so rampant as of late.

I, for one, nearly popped a woody when I read it.

I still think we should attempt to reach a compromise with the DOJ. Instead of being 2257 compliant, we can promise to be Y2K compliant. |thumb

[Greenguy]

That is good news!

I'm glad I became a paid member of the FSC so that I could read about it on the board (their site has nothing on this that I can find - LOL)

[2msacras]

I like waking up to news like that. However, I'm not going to stop complying my 2257 info just yet.

[docholly]

*woot*..does that mean we will have an OTB tomorrow?? |bananna|

[Agent]

This is good to hear Jay.

I miss the radio shows. GG & Jim maybe already considered this but it would be kinda neat to have a phone interview on the radio show (a radio special) with a knowledgable lawyer about this 2257 stuff. I wouldn't want more people seeing it as a reason for watching the sky to see if it's falling but it would be educational. Maybe do another poll outlining our top 10 questions/concerns and present them on the show. That is, unless that lawyer wants to be paid for his/her time. That could be a little expensive.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Kewl deal Jay...thanks.

GG, so is it worth it to join the FSC?

[RedCherry]

Thanks Jay for the update, that is great news! I joined FSC too, plus got the komply software and have been working towards compliance what a pain in the butt.

I really hope the injunction goes through!

Rock on guys!

[Useless]

*woot*..does that mean we will have an OTB tomorrow?? |bananna|Just as long as no one mentions anything about 2257. |mml|

[Vink]

Thanks Jay. I'm still waiting to start deleting my pages.

[xxxjay]

That is good news!

I'm glad I became a paid member of the FSC so that I could read about it on the board (their site has nothing on this that I can find - LOL)

Yeah, I am considering donating webmastering services. They just emailed all members though.

[xxxjay]

Booyaa! Got to love it when a plan comes together. ;) Perhaps this will dispel some of the doom and gloom that has been so rampant as of late.

I, for one, nearly popped a woody when I read it.

I still think we should attempt to reach a compromise with the DOJ. Instead of being 2257 compliant, we can promise to be Y2K compliant. |thumb

Certian parts of it may stay - it probably won't be a full slamdunk for the FSC, but their best shot is striking down the secondary producer angle. Then there are the privacy issues, of course.

A lot of it may still stick, but it will apply mostly to the people that actually shot the content -- meaning now they will have some extra record keeping and indexing requirements.

As long a "secondary producer" requirements are held up again in the same court -- it will be back to business as usual.

[Linkster]

For those of you that havent seen it a write in the new world has filed a story about this and it is rather sad how she put it in the article - but its being picked up by every newspaper in the world now:

Posted on Fri, Jun. 17, 2005





Porn industry group seeks to block rules

KIM NGUYEN

Associated Press


DENVER - A coalition representing the porn industry has asked a court to block federal regulations requiring pornographers and distributors to keep records of their performers' ages and identities.

The regulations, approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in May, could stop the distribution of pornographic material produced since the mid-1990s, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Denver.

The regulations require producers to keep detailed information to verify the identity and age of their performers, including date of birth, legal name, and a copy of a photo identification card. The rules, which would take effect June 23, aim to stop child pornography and ensure the performers are not minors.

They would apply to adult material dating to July 3, 1995. Violators face up to five years in prison for a first offense and 10 years for subsequent violations.

The Free Speech Coalition, its chapter in Colorado, a pornography distributor, and adult film producer filed the lawsuit seeking to block the regulations. They argue that the guidelines are an unconstitutional burden and would do little to protect children.

Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said he had not yet seen the case

[Useless]

Jeezus! She makes it sound as if nobody will bear the burden of record keeping. Nice of her to tell only 1/8th of the story.

[rollergirl]

Very sloppily written article.

[Toby]

There is no way the mainstream media can get this story right. Those of us in the industry are having a hard time understanding all the issues involved, so there is no way that someone without any experience as an adult webmaster/producer/model can begin to comprehend this well enough to even ask the right questions.

[xxxjay]

For those of you that havent seen it a write in the new world has filed a story about this and it is rather sad how she put it in the article - but its being picked up by every newspaper in the world now:

Posted on Fri, Jun. 17, 2005





Porn industry group seeks to block rules

KIM NGUYEN

Associated Press


DENVER - A coalition representing the porn industry has asked a court to block federal regulations requiring pornographers and distributors to keep records of their performers' ages and identities.

The regulations, approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in May, could stop the distribution of pornographic material produced since the mid-1990s, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Denver.

The regulations require producers to keep detailed information to verify the identity and age of their performers, including date of birth, legal name, and a copy of a photo identification card. The rules, which would take effect June 23, aim to stop child pornography and ensure the performers are not minors.

They would apply to adult material dating to July 3, 1995. Violators face up to five years in prison for a first offense and 10 years for subsequent violations.

The Free Speech Coalition, its chapter in Colorado, a pornography distributor, and adult film producer filed the lawsuit seeking to block the regulations. They argue that the guidelines are an unconstitutional burden and would do little to protect children.

Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said he had not yet seen the case

Nice find -- about what I would expect from the AP.

[MadMax]

Nice find -- about what I would expect from the AP.

Too true, too true...

[2msacras]

Hey, I have friends that write for the ap. Definetly didn't write this article though.

[basschick]

Linkster - what's the url for that story?

[tickler]

Hey, I have friends that write for the ap. Definetly didn't write this article though.
Slip them this link for an inside scoop:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/FSC_2257_Comments.htm

[Leon]

by looking at http://www.javes.com i wonder :) is porn biz will be renamed to erotic biz ? :)

[Linkster]

basschick - on google go to the news tab and type in porn - then sort by most recent and you should see 100 different news organizations and newspapers that have picked up that story - and jus reprinted it with the exception of thjis one that seems to have embellished it a little :)
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4622216/detail.html

Looking over the list its getting some widespread play as Forbes, BusinessWeek the San Francisco Chronicle etc are reprinting the story - just my opinion here but it sure would have been wise for the FSC to file a news release when they did this so that the facts could get out there - especially since its so easy to do with the AP

[Mister13]

Guess after the failure of removing softcore from hotels they went to this.

So...uh...at least 3 more years of this Bullshit eh?

[Linkster]

Mister13 - you havent heard - theyve introduced legislation to go back to the extendable terms - so that a sitting president can go for more terms - of course with the alternative being one Haley Barbour - believe me Id rather have Bush :)

[babymaker]

Say it ain't so Linkster :( i knew that fuck would do whatever to be in more terms, what is the new legislation any links?? at the same time he might be impeached :D

[Toby]

Excellent article by AVN

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=231124

[Useless]

Excellent article by AVN

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=231124
An excerpt:
But the main charge in the suit is to the entire concept of 2257: that protected sexual speech has been burdened with a regulation that, in essence, requires it to prove itself innocent of using minors in its creation, rather than requiring the government to meet its constitutional burden of proving the speech guilty.
That's all we're trying to say. |headbang|
Good find Toby.

[MadMax]

Excellent article by AVN

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=231124

THAT's what I've been waiting for...a "meat and potatoes" explanation of what the FSC is doing. Now I feel much better about them having some of my cash :)

It's truly tragic that a trade organization for webmasters can't get their online billing to work, though....|couch|

[xxxjay]

- just my opinion here but it sure would have been wise for the FSC to file a news release when they did this so that the facts could get out there - especially since its so easy to do with the AP

I said the same thing face to face with Tom Haymes - I agree. The AP is getting hold of the wrong end of the stick.

[MadMax]

New 2257 Home Page From AVN. Mainly for AVN advertisers, but there are a couple good things for all adult WM there. |thumb

http://www.avn.com/2257

[Mister13]

Mister13 - you havent heard - theyve introduced legislation to go back to the extendable terms - so that a sitting president can go for more terms - of course with the alternative being one Haley Barbour - believe me Id rather have Bush :)
|bananna|
SWEET!

Cause I love complaining!

[basschick]

Linkster - thank you :)

does anyone else here think that what our industry really needs is a publicist? seriously... gambling used to have a terrible rap, but then vegas people got together, had news stories and stuff put out, and now gambling is wholesome family fun.

most of us are careful to report cp when we find it, we never would use it on our sites, and there are some intellegent and articulate members in our community. also there are pornstars like nina hartley who not only are actors, but also directors and producers. the world doesn't see people like that. maybe it's time they did.

just a thought...

[Linkster]

Say it ain't so Linkster :( i knew that fuck would do whatever to be in more terms, what is the new legislation any links?? at the same time he might be impeached :D

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hj24:
Introduced in the current session of congress in Feb - it actually repeals the entire 22nd amendment which includes the term limits for the president - it has been sent to subcommittee where it is being reviewed presently

[Linkster]

Linkster - thank you :)

most of us are careful to report cp when we find it, we never would use it on our sites, and there are some intellegent and articulate members in our community. ...

Ya know the worst part about the reporting that we do is that in the past I always thought that reporting it to ASACP would cover me - and I do still report and fully support them - but in reading through regs today I found out that if you do not report it to a specific center (The something Exploitation Center) then you are still committing a crime as you have not followed the regs for reporting it and you are not covered if you get hauled out for it.

[WannaShagg]

2257 is supposed to be a deterant to CP. I can not see how. Producers of CP are criminals. Criminals do not abide by laws in the first place, obviously. So the only thing 2257 will do is exactly this. Which is make a lot of innocent webmasters, who are law abiding citizens, scramble and worry about how they are going to maintain their income. Which in most cases is way to meager to maintain life and needs to be supplemented anyway. 2257 is not going to impact people making CP in the least. It is a crock of shit. I myself am a producer and my sites primary model. As it is right now I do not divulge my physical address in my 2257 records. If and when the fed want to come see me, they know exactly where I am, what my business name is and what exactly it is that I do. I do not plan to take down anything and I also am not going to give out my identity and physical location. If they would like they can come and lock me up. I'll fucking rot in the cell they take me to and the people making CP will still be making it. 2257 is not going to do jack shit about the illegal production of porn using under aged models because the people are criminals and obviously pay no attention to the law anyway. Amen. Thanks and have a great day. |peace|

[tickler]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hj24:
Introduced in the current session of congress in Feb - it actually repeals the entire 22nd amendment which includes the term limits for the president - it has been sent to subcommittee where it is being reviewed presently
Oh great, el Presidente Bush for life.

Although it looks like they need 3/4 of the different states to agree.

[serenity]

Fox News Channel ran a quickie news item on their screen ticker about the coalition filing the lawsuit. Of course they got the facts wrong and it went by so fast it made my head spin. |dizzy|

I wish some of these "journalists" would have the balls to actually interview a couple of people in the industry for their take on the situation. It would be nice to have some facts for a change. Oh, I forgot that's too much like genuine unbiased journalism. :D

[GenXer]

Good news.

Jay, Kinky, any of you guys who are interacting with the FSC, please ask them to get an online donation (and membership, ideally, but at least donation) system working again.

All lobbyists are shifty. All lawyers are shifty. That's a given. It doesn't fucking matter. These people are acting, they deserve our money.

Maybe we can get them to realize they need a system to take money online...

I absolutely agree. What website doesn't have an online payment option? I want to join, but I hate having to "mail a check" or "fax shit". I'll join once they put up an online payment option.

Anyway, I'm glad someone is doing something on behalf of the adult industry. They'll get my 300$ as soon as they put an online payment option. Anyone who is on our side, deserves our support and $$$$

[koolkat]

While I think what the FSC is doing is great, I still have the problem with the fact that their injunction would only cover members of the FSC

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only the parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement.It makes me feel that if you don't join then they aren't looking out for you. And how exactly, if an injunction were issued, would myself (non-FSC member) and someone else(FSC member) be treated if we had exact duplicate webpages. They would not be required to maintain records while I would? That just doesn't make sense, and is the reason I haven't joined yet. If they are not looking out for all citizens, then I don't support that. If they were really seeking Free Speech, then they would do so for everyone, not just FSC members. |sad|

[Lemmy]

Koolkat, it doesn't make sense because it's BS. If the court grants an injunction against 2257 it will have effect for everyone who would have been subject to the law, that is, everyone in the United States.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Candy, you make a very good point.

[Jim]

Have you guys noticed that the little that the mainstream press is writing about this is about how we are panicking? And not a lot about the government coming after us.

[Jim]

I hate to think that "the sky is falling" mentality is what fuels the mainstream stories but it sure looks that way.

To me, the less said, the better.

[SirMoby]

Yeah, I am considering donating webmastering services. They just emailed all members though.
You should donate your services as a press secretary. A 15 minute phone call and a 5 sentence email to the AP would have had great impact on the public opinion which is badly needed here.

A press release should have been made notifying the public that the privacy of 100,000s of innocent Americans will be destroyed by this regulation. That we are fighting to uphold the 1st and 4th amendments because if we do not then we are one step closer to the thing that countless Americans have died to protect. If this passes then they could easily be next.

Instead the press just announced that we’re a bunch of lazy fucks and the American public should support new regulations.

[SirMoby]

Anyway, I'm glad someone is doing something on behalf of the adult industry. They'll get my 300$ as soon as they put an online payment option. Anyone who is on our side, deserves our support and $$$$
They deserve our support but they don't deserve a fax? They can take your money. In order for them to get an on-line system working they will need to spend money, my money on the system and right now I would rather have them focusing thier attention on what really matters.

Send the damn fax and stop bitching.

[Linkster]

SirMoby - you would think with the senior members they have on their board of directors from AVN and ASACP that they would have planned to do that - which is just another reason that I still believe they have no concern here with the "lowly" webmasters but are just worrying about the top production companies and their distributors - and have stayed completely away from any communications with us - even the ones that are members

[Useless]

Send the damn fax and stop bitching.Gee, you've won me over. Where do I sign up?

[koolkat]

Like I already mentioned, the fact that they are saying that any legal action they take will not affect non-members, so basically if I want it (injunction ruling in favor of webmasters) to cover me, then I need to join. Last time I checked, an injunction on a law covers everyone, not just the parties that filed for the injunction.

I could understand something like if a person got a speeding ticket, and the judge found the person not-guilty, it would affect only that one person, not everybody. But there are instances where the one person requests the calibration logs and finds out that the officer didn't calibrate his radar properly, so then the judge throws out all the speeding tickets that were issued by that officer. The latter would be the case here.

[Maj. Stress]

koolkat,
The way an injunction ruling was explained to me was that the injunction covers the party(s) that brought forward the legal action. The judge may decide at that time, that the injunction should cover everyone (the entire industry in this case).
I have also been told that it is common practice not to enforce any law that has an injunction against it out of respect for the judge and his court.
Not sure since I'm not a lawyer. That's just the explanation I got.

[xxxjay]

Have you guys noticed that the little that the mainstream press is writing about this is about how we are panicking? And not a lot about the government coming after us.

I agree, the DOJ can look at any webmaster board (I know for a fact that they are) and see this.

I'm sure they love it.

[koolkat]

koolkat,
The way an injunction ruling was explained to me was that the injunction covers the party(s) that brought forward the legal action. The judge may decide at that time, that the injunction should cover everyone (the entire industry in this case).
I have also been told that it is common practice not to enforce any law that has an injunction against it out of respect for the judge and his court.
Not sure since I'm not a lawyer. That's just the explanation I got.I would like to know how the government could enforce a law if they were ruled against for someone else. I just don't see how Person A and Person B have identical websites, but Person A has an injunction ruling in their favor while Person B does not. How can Person B be charged in violation of the law if it has been ruled that the law can't be used against Person A?

[WannaShagg]

Has anyone given any thought to the indentity theft crisis in this nation? So you are asking to freely give out people's personal info all over the internet. So maybe you can prove you are not using underage models but is the FBI going to be here for me when I have a line of horny stalkers at my door, are they going to be there for me when my indentity is stolen and credit ruined? I think this is going to create a huge problem with identity theft, personal info is new age gold. Why don't they pass legislation on protecting personal info first? Further more, it is still pretty disgusting that any child can just say yes I'm 18, I'll enter this site. Now I may be biting off my nose to spite my face, but wouldn't it be a more meaningful crusade to make sure kids don't have access to this stuff in the first place? Just being the devil's advocate. I just labled all my sites with ICRA, http://www.icra.org/, and did a test on my own sites. No computer with child protection software can get into my sites period. I am also going to first pay to affilaite myself with ASACP, http://www.asacp.org/index.php, before I pay to be a part of the Free Speech Coalition. I am already entitled to free speech, I am not going to pay for it. I do not shoot any other models. The only material I shoot is of myself. If a producer of purchased content represents to me that the model is over 18 and they are not, let the fuck that took the pictures go to jail. I will not be responsible and would never knowingly use such content, as is the case with all of us I can be sure. To date I know I have not. But I can not be implicated in a crime I didn't commit. |thumb

[Linkster]

there seems to be some confusion based on the last couple of msgs in this thread - the FSC file a TRO (temporary restraining order) which is NOT an injuction - big difference - and the TRO probably does only cover their members - although Id hate to be the DA that tried to side step that one

[WannaShagg]

Why don't we focus on what we can change? As webmasters we can concentrate on the things we can change. Test your site to make sure kids can't get into it. I found a cool tool for this here: http://mtas.surfcontrol.com/mtas/CPTAS.asp

"God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference."

Let the producers and photographers worry about the age of the models they are using, becuase unless you are standing there with a camera, this is out of your control. Concentrate on what you can change. Start by making sure the little bastards can't get in your site. Thanks and have a great day. |headbang|

[Lemmy]

While I'm willing to take reasonable steps to make sure kids can't access my sites this is first and foremost the parents' responsibility.

[Toby]

While I'm willing to take reasonable steps to make sure kids can't access my sites this is first and foremost the parents' responsibility.
True, and by placing the ICRA pic-label meta on your pages you've provided a simple and effective means for parents to do that. Also, if it ever becomes necessary, I can show the judge that I've made a concerted effort to keep my content away from minors.

[Linkster]

I hate to piss in your wheaties here - but 2257 has nothing whatsoever with keeping kids away from porn sites on the net - that is a completely different legislation that was killed by the supreme court a few years back
And actually I think you will find most WMs do use the PICs label on their larger sites that would normally get into search engines etc

So I guess Im a little confused about what the hell all of this talk about PICs labels and joining the ASACP has anything to do with filing the 2257 TRO (not injunction as the thread states) Im not trying to be a jerk as I think they are both worthy causes and deserve their place in seperate threads

[Toby]

Yeah, the discussion has taken a bit of a left turn. Maybe we're all getting tired of discussing 2257? ;)

[WannaShagg]

I hate to piss in your wheaties here - but 2257 has nothing whatsoever with keeping kids away from porn sites on the net - that is a completely different legislation that was killed by the supreme court a few years back
And actually I think you will find most WMs do use the PICs label on their larger sites that would normally get into search engines etc

So I guess Im a little confused about what the hell all of this talk about PICs labels and joining the ASACP has anything to do with filing the 2257 TRO (not injunction as the thread states) Im not trying to be a jerk as I think they are both worthy causes and deserve their place in seperate threads

I understand what it's about. I also have a right to privacy by not disclosing my personal info. I am a webmaster and a producer of my own images. I also have an affiliate program. So it is not that I am unaware of what this is all about. I am directly affected and will not give out my ID. It is also my contention that the burden of making sure a model is of age has been grossly misplaced. Ultimately a producer can make a fake ID, the model can give a fake ID. How am I supposed to know what I am looking at. So if passed to me, all might look just spiffy, when in reality it may not be a legitimate document. So if it is not real am I still going to jail? Furthermore, unless you are taking the pics you will be hard pressed to stop use of under age models. Suppose the reason the FSC is pursuing this issue is because they feel similarly. And in the end the adult webmaster should not bear the burden of verifying the legitimacy of a models age or documents as they can well be bogus. Instead, we should concentrate on what we can change like making sure under age surfers can't access our sites. The 2257 needs a good swift rethinking. On one had you have the right to privacy, what it's all about. And then the same supreme power that maintains you have this right, is trying to take it away. Place the burden of 2257 back where it belongs and let us worry about keeping minors out of our sites. If a shaddy producer is shaddy, then what would it matter to them what the age of the model is, or if they are providing us with credible documentation. This is why I say 2257 is putting the burden quite wrongly on people that have nothing to do with it. Focus on what is in our control, like ICRA lableing. And stop trying to violate my rights. Additionally FSC feels that thier rights are being discriminated against. So as citizens, we all have the same rights. So now the FSC is discriminating against anyone not supporting them. It's all a totally double edged sword. And all of us can be 2257 compliant to the nines, and it will not stop the use of under age models, becuase the crimianls doing it are no where near this board or 2257. Unless you are holding the camera you should not have to prove models ages. What you can do is make sure minors do not enter your sites. And of course use reasonible discretion and record keeping to ensure you are not knowingly distributing pics of minors. The ultimate responsibilty is the producers not mine. Thanks and have a great day. |peace|

[koolkat]

Injunction... TRO... it doesn't really matter. The point is that the FSC is playing the "sky is falling" scenario, and that if we don't pay money to join them, then we would are screwed because we can still be prosecuted, even if their members win. I think that is the biggest crock of shit, and as long as they are only doing this for their "members" and not all webmasters, then I will not give them one penny!