What are you going to do about this 2257 shit?

[xxxjay]

The new 2257 regulations go in effect in less than a month. My question is: What are your plans to comply?

[Cleo]

Some |potleaf|
Then I'll watch everyone run around in circles.
Then more |potleaf|
Then I'll watch the dust settle.
More |potleaf|
Then I'll think about what I need to do after I've watched what everyone else did.
Then a little more |potleaf|
Then I'll think about what if anything I need to do.
Time for some |potleaf|

[Surfn]

Originally posted by Cleo
Some |potleaf|
Then I'll watch everyone run around in circles.
Then more |potleaf|
Then I'll watch the dust settle.
More |potleaf|
Then I'll think about what I need to do after I've watched what everyone else did.
Then a little more |potleaf|
Then I'll think about what if anything I need to do.
Time for some |potleaf| I'll watch you. lol

[DangerDave]

I will be borrowing Urb's foil helmet for the duration |shocking|

DD

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Cleo
Some |potleaf|
Then I'll watch everyone run around in circles.
Then more |potleaf|
Then I'll watch the dust settle.
More |potleaf|
Then I'll think about what I need to do after I've watched what everyone else did.
Then a little more |potleaf|
Then I'll think about what if anything I need to do.
Time for some |potleaf|

What if the person they come down on is you?

[Cleo]

What if a meteorite hits me in the head?

Seeing as the new rules are all but impossible to completely comply with subject to how they are interpreted I don't see any reason to change how I have been complying.

If I should have the bad luck to be the victim of our religious right wing zealots on their witch hunt I don't see any benefit to have tried to comply more then I always have.

I'm only an imperfect being living in an imperfect world who keeps imperfect records. Knowing this I take comfort in the fact that no matter how hard I might try I would never be able to live up to the angelic perfection of these religious right wing zealot's values.

[Surfn]

Well said Cleo |shake|

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Cleo


I'm only an imperfect being living in an imperfect world who keeps imperfect records. Knowing this I take comfort in the fact that no matter how hard I might try I would never be able to live up to the angelic perfection of these religious right wing zealot's values.

Try that speech on a jury - the judge might go easier on you.|bananna|

[Surfn]

Originally posted by xxxjay
Try that speech on a jury - the judge might go easier on you.|bananna| Where did you get your legal training?

Where do you practice if you have any?

[Cleo]

So Jay since you seem to be loved by those who wear blue about as much as they love me what are you planing on doing?

[BigJohn]

Well maybe I'm interpreting things incorrectly but from what I saw, anything PRIOR to the magic date is grandfathered unless you have to update that models file for any reason. If I update ANY info on a model then I must make that models records compliant (which basically means I purchased more of their content or shot them again in which case I'll easily be able to get the info).

The only tedious part that I see from my sites perspective is that when I update a models records I now need to provide a URL in her records to every place on my sites where her explicit pictures exist. Hopefully I'm interpreting the exact url thing incorrectly and only need to provide a base url but hopefully that will become clearer. While this is tedious, time consuming and a royal pain in the ass..... it's far from impossible. The ones that will get hit hard on this one are the folks who produce and sell content. It will be nearly impossible for them to keep track of the all the URL's since it's doubtful that the purchaser will report back every gallery, free site, banner, etc that they use it on.

Keeping track of all the models stage names is going to be difficult as well. If I shoot a model today and she's using Casey and someone else shoots her a 4 months from now and she calls herself something else, or she moves away and gets married there's no way to know that information. Hell I've had models I shot one week and when I called them back for another shoot the next week they had moved and were unreachable! I plan to be as up to date with this as possible but I'm not going to worry about it. If my records are as straight as they can be, I'm not going to fret about now knowing that some model got married and didn't tell me, can't worry about things I can't do anything about.

[T Pat]

I'm in a wait and see mode and not sweating it and not doing sqwat.

I only shoot soft core
The girls I photograph are all card carrying Mexican Sex workers working in Brothels, The Brothel Owners aren't going to risk prison for employing girls under 18

If I feel forced to comply I'm giveing my Whore sites to my favorite hooker and going to work for her. (I did it with my Escort site)

All the girls will give you a quick glimpse at there sex worker cards but there is no way in hell I'm going to get them all to let me photograph there ID's
because there are two things you can bank on when it comes to Mexican Whores,
1, there using a fake name
2, there lieing about there age

[Horny Dude]

TJPat...that is scary because we have run into alot of girls over there who are 14+ and will do anything and tell you anything to earn money.

My records are about the best I can hope for. I have my forms in order and that is about the best I can do. If they come to me and want to start something then fine, I'll deal with it then. I can't run around screaming, it won't help. If you keep good records like you are supposed to then you shouldn't have to worry. If most of your content is from KaZaa and newsgroups then you are fucked and should be shut down.

My two bits!

[RawAlex]

TP: Basically, your content is not 2257 compliant at all. Being based in San diego, it applies to you - as soon as you take a picture of the girl full nude, you need 2257.

How do you know the girls are 18? You have no proof - if Assclown or one of his merry band ask you, you won't have it.

That is NOT a good way to do business.

Alex

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by RawAlex
TP: Basically, your content is not 2257 compliant at all. Being based in San diego, it applies to you - as soon as you take a picture of the girl full nude, you need 2257.

How do you know the girls are 18? You have no proof - if Assclown or one of his merry band ask you, you won't have it.

That is NOT a good way to do business.

Alex

I agree with that.

[RawAlex]

Oh yeah,giving the business to one of the girls after the feds show up doesn't get you out of the KP charges.

Alex

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Cleo
So Jay since you seem to be loved by those who wear blue about as much as they love me what are you planing on doing?

LOL - yes they do, yes they do. :)

I still haven't decided 100%. I have been talking to lawyers a good bit and researching. I just hired the lawyer who got Max Hardcore off the hook and am meeting with him 8/9. I would rather be more proactive than reactive about this becasue I am probably a good target for them. How do you think they are finding all of this free xxx and porn?

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=xxx

I started this thread to see where everybody stood on this thing.

[airdick]

I don't pretend to be a lawyer or an expert, but if you print out 28 CFR part 75, 18 USC 2257, 18 USC 2256, and the proposed changes and sit down at desk with a highlighting pen you have a good chance of getting a pretty good idea about what is already law, and the changes that will take effect 60 days after the final draft of the changes is published.

Here are a two points that seem important to me when I look at the regs:

This law already applies to any "visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct"

Mere nudity is exempt. The only content that is subject to 2257 is "''actual sexually explicit conduct'' (but not simulated conduct) as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256:

(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B) bestiality;

(C) masturbation;

(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse;


As has been mentioned before, the big changes are that adult webmasters will be considered to be "secondary producers", fewer forms of ID will be permited, and they have clarified where the notice regarding a custodian of records must be placed on websites.

I am not currently interested in acting as a custodian of records, so I'll stick to using only exempt content if the changes go through as-is.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. Once the dust settles it will be easier to make plans going forward rather than dealing with all of this uncertainty.

[eman]

I'm thinking of moving to the US so that I can feel your pain.

Ironic that the nation which spawned internet porn should now be facing controls which threaten to remove it from the arena.

Of course it will never happen ...

[Cleo]

Just about all the content that I have I've bought from the larger content suppliers and I keep good records both for this and for taxes and all the other fun bits of paper that we are required by our government to keep.

Now if I was TijuanaPat I would be worried, but I would have been worried even before this.

[Surfn]

We can all run around crying the sky is falling. I doubt that will solve anything. This thing will be sorted out in the courts, not here on the boards.

If you think these things will harm your way of doing bossiness get out. Go flip burgers, pump gas, pluck chickens. Those are all safe occupations If this is not what you want why rant and rave?

I do not presume to tell anyone how they should operate. If someone wants my opinion I give it. There are ulterior motives at play with all the alarmist reactions. I have no hidden agenda. I operate out in the open.

Pat has the right to his opinions like any of us. He's an adult and is aware of the consequences of his actions. Don't treat him like he's feeble minded.

[RawAlex]

Airdick, I got bad news for you, please look up the definition of sexually explicit conduct:

''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -

(A)

sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B)

bestiality;

(C)

masturbation;

(D)

sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;


E is the important one. Basically, if you can see the pink, it's sexual. Unless you are taking softcore images where the model doesn't show the coochie, doesn't touch her breasts, and doesn't similuate any sexual conduct, you are no exempt.

Girl sitting FULLY clothed simiulating masturbation needs the 2257 documentation.

A girl lying nude on a bed with her legs spread requires 2257 documentation.

Basically, if you are using it for promotion of adult materials, if you even suggest sex at any time in your website or other materials, you better have 2257 documentation.

There is no clear way to sneak out of it.

Alex

[Linkster]

Since I have no way of complying - all of the sponsors banners will need documentation if they fit those categories - I will continue doing what was already required, although I always have had the required documentation for any content I bought and used. I don't see a single sponsor running around worrying about how they are going to cover all of the free hosted galleries, free content or their promo material and I think they would be a much bigger target than any of us small WMs that just do free sites and LLs/TGPs. I also don't see the gov't going after us small fry, when for many years they haven't gone after one primary producer for documentation of 2257. As far as I am concerned, right now it is being hyped by the people that are going to try and profit from the paranoia - till a test case happens, I won't worry - and if I happen to end up being a test case, there's not much I can do about it - there are a lot of other things on the books they could already hit us for if they really wanted to.
In the meantime, Im sure the people that stand to gain the most "money" will keep up the ranting and fear mongering till they've made their bucks.

[Cleo]

Well I'm doing something about it right now.
|potleaf| |potleaf| |potleaf| |potleaf| |potleaf| |potleaf|

[RawAlex]

Linkster, so far with the exception of a very few, most of the people bringing up the subject are trying to sell tracking software or DRM type arrangements for content. There has been a ton of "the sky is falling" stuff.

Personally, I think the new "rule clarifications" are not that, but in fact new laws and amendments to laws, which, when taken to a court of law, will be thrown out because these new laws were not passed by the house, the senate, and signed by POTUS. While they can calify rules with these adminstrative orders, they cannot create new offences where none previously existed, nor can they create retroactive paperwork requirements for individuals and companies that were previously exempt.

A few will get nailed, but like Acacia, someone will take them to court and things will settle back down.

1 more reason for Americans to vote Bush and his bullies out of office.

Alex

[plateman]

Well said linkster - I am going to print out my 2257 docs. put in a folder and write on it where I bought it from with a email recipt..

And start doing free sites and watch the news when the time rolls around.. And this might go on for years..

And watch where I buy my content from..

Also us LL owners, Suppose we list a site that has bought pics. and the webmaster has 2257 docs. but not actual age proof..
and its a webmaster that is from another country.. We will have to check 2257 docs to be in comply ??

IMHO Adult webmasters should not bring attention on them selfs..

Look down a LLs gay or teen page and see all of the young guy or boy or young girl or young slut or young whore.. Now if I was working for Asscroft I would target those people first..

[airdick]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Airdick, I got bad news for you, please look up the definition of sexually explicit conduct:

E is the important one. Basically, if you can see the pink, it's sexual. Unless you are taking softcore images where the model doesn't show the coochie, doesn't touch her breasts, and doesn't similuate any sexual conduct, you are no exempt.


The way I read it, they left (E) out of 2257 on purpose.

Here is the critical part:

2257
(h)As used in this section -

(1) the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

You quoted 2256 (2)(A) through (E)
but subparagraph (E) is not included in 2257. It also seems to me that the words "means actual but not simulated conduct" clearly exempt simulated sexual conduct from considertion.

I would assume that they left this out in order to cut some slack for R rated moves, erotic art, mainstream men's magazines, etc.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Linkster, so far with the exception of a very few, most of the people bringing up the subject are trying to sell tracking software or DRM type arrangements for content. There has been a ton of "the sky is falling" stuff.

Personally, I think the new "rule clarifications" are not that, but in fact new laws and amendments to laws, which, when taken to a court of law, will be thrown out because these new laws were not passed by the house, the senate, and signed by POTUS. While they can calify rules with these adminstrative orders, they cannot create new offences where none previously existed, nor can they create retroactive paperwork requirements for individuals and companies that were previously exempt.

A few will get nailed, but like Acacia, someone will take them to court and things will settle back down.

1 more reason for Americans to vote Bush and his bullies out of office.

Alex

I have nothing to gain from posting about 2257, I just was wondering how the community felt about this.

Bottom line is: The reg will go into effect on 8/24. Then we have 30 days to comply, so that's 9/24. If on 11/3 Bush loses the election and becomes a lame duck -- Asshat will probably take a few parting shots at the industry before he goes back to losing elections to dead men. Then, maybe, the country will return to some sanity.

Vote Kerry.

[Alphawolf]

I'm sorta glad I'm just starting out if anything comes of the new regulation.

I've been picking up sponsor content last couple days and I'm much more attuned to needing the 2257 information. Then again, some of my first posts here were questions on 2257 and really not many people seemed to care too much.

The bottom line is that no matter what- unless you are the producer you have no way of knowing any document is truly legit. Digital copies can be easily faked in photoshop.

It's not possible to police the Internet.

If they wanted to go after sites, I think it would be the more explicit teen sites, 'drunken girls' sites, voyeur sites, sites with a lot of content based outside the US (but company based in US), and basically the sites that insinuate rape, crap like that.

Maybe content sites themselves will be the first to be scrutinized.

...if at all.

The druken party girl sites are the easiest target IMO.

Was that charge on the guy who did Girls Gone Wild regarding 2257?

[chilihost]

IF this does go thru, I have a 3-part plan:

1) as an Australian who hosts in the USA, I will try as much as possible to comply. I will compile my docos and keep them here at my AU business location. I will put up 2257 links on all my domains with my AU address, knowing it will be impossible to verify my compliance and therefore hoping they will not be able to shut down my sites.

2) as a webmaster running my hunkmoney, I will supply non-sexually explicit banners to my US affiliates.

3) as a webhost, I will have (non-us) offshore servers available so I can give any chilihost clients the ability to quickly move their hosting offshore IF they need to, with no interruption in the high quality service they are used to.

IMHO, all webmasters, webhosts and affiliate programs should have a plan in place, but I will not miss the competition of those that don't ;)


cheers,
Luke

[Useless]

Look at the thousands of sites out there that are not compliant with existing 2257 laws. Is anyone chasing them down? No. Why? Because there aren't any little red flags popping up. The DOJ isn't going to just start doing random audits of adult webmasters' records. If you have a site with obvious red flags (questionable content), you are up shit creek anyway. Bottom line - you will have to give the authorities damn good reason to break in your door and demand all of your records. We still live in a country where they must have probable cause to pursue us. They aren't going to chase their tails going after link lists and TGPs either. If they actually decide to enforce the new laws (which would be surprising), they are going to go after the content producers who provide us with the tasty porn in the first place.

I'm not telling anyone to use their 2257 docs as rolling papers. Just saying to use some common sense. Stay laid back and groovy. I'll get nervous when Cleo looks nervous.

[Linkster]

Jay - didnt mean to sound like I was intimating that you had anything to gain :) I know that you don't

The other point that I kinda left out in that last post - it would be cutting off their nose to spite their face if they did come after the LL and TGP types - knowing that at this board we are a gathering of the biggest LL and TGP owners stopping by all of the time, we are also the most significant tool that the Justice Dept has for fighting the thing they are trying to curb with these Regs - I know for a fact that we have helped the FBI on many occassions tracking down CP purveyors and without our reports they would have a much harder job, as well as the financial and vocal support that we give the ASACP to do its work in trying to rid the world of the junk that this regulation is designed as a investigative tool for - not smart biz to take away your biggest source of information in the fight against CP

And I still have no inkling of any sponsor that is doing anything out of the ordinary for their content and I really don't expect to see 80,000 FHG's get pulled the day that this becomes active. I also don't see anyone reacting to the banner question - sure they have always provided non-explicit banners - thats just good biz - but they sure haven't provided me any 2257 paperwork to have on file very time I put up a banner on my LL or a free site :)

[Surfn]

Just one point to consider...

Larry Flynt has built an empire on porn. He has demonstrated that he will not shrink in the face of the court system regarding diminishing his empire. He is not afraid of speaking his mind.

If you are still with me...how many press interviews have you seen him complaining about how unfair or illegal this issue is?

My opinion is that he has already spoken with his attorneys who are experts in this area and they have explained to him this is a non issue that they can beat it any time he chooses. With that in mine he has kept quiet so they don't get any more publicity than they are already receiving.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Surfn
Just one point to consider...

Larry Flynt has built an empire on porn. He has demonstrated that he will not shrink in the face of the court system regarding diminishing his empire. He is not afraid of speaking his mind.

If you are still with me...how many press interviews have you seen him complaining about how unfair or illegal this issue is?

My opinion is that he has already spoken with his attorneys who are experts in this area and they have explained to him this is a non issue that they can beat it any time he chooses. With that in mine he has kept quiet so they don't get any more publicity than they are already receiving.

I retained Max Hardcore's lawyer. If he can get that dude off the hook -- I should be no problem.

[RawAlex]

Surfn, Larry's company was also a VERY early signature to Acacia. In all fairness, his legal advise is also hinged on "dollar risk factors" - the costs of doing X compared to Y.

Most of us are looking straight at "do I do time in a federal butt slamming prison".

Jay, you make it sound like you feel you are going to get the knock on the door tomorrow. Do you have any insight the rest of us don't?

Alex

[Surfn]

I've given a couple of my personal opinions. Not legal advice. I have no more to say on this matter publicly. ;)

[Ramster]

What's this new law coming into effect? |jackinthe

I'm in a wait and see mode. I'll be sure to have 2257 records in place for what I have. For example, what about the thousands of sponsor content images I've used? How do I get records for that? I don't and I believe I only need to be complaint after the date so those should be fine right?

I think there might be some targets but it isn't going to be someone outside of the US at first, that's for sure so I'm safe...for now. If they come after me I'll move up north and built a nice two story igloo. |rasta|

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by RawAlex

Jay, you make it sound like you feel you are going to get the knock on the door tomorrow. Do you have any insight the rest of us don't?


No, I have no reason to think that, other than becasue I am easily found on the serch engines - that might make me an especially attractive target. I've had my share of legal problems in the past and would prefer to not have any more.

Originally posted by Ramster

I think there might be some targets but it isn't going to be someone outside of the US at first, that's for sure so I'm safe...for now. If they come after me I'll move up north and built a nice two story igloo. |rasta|

I've thought of that myself - list "your place of business" as the furthest spot away from airports, cities, and out in the sticks as possible. I doubt the G-men will be wanting to drive way the fuck out there.

[Bill]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I've thought of that myself - list "your place of business" as the furthest spot away from airports, cities, and out in the sticks as possible. I doubt the G-men will be wanting to drive way the fuck out there. [/B]

That's a big part of the reason I feel so secure. You guys living in the big cities will be the first to go. I'll have plenty of warning.

Not that I expect this even to be test cased.

This is targeted towards the cp and nonude and model site guys. I don't see it as an attack on hardcore in general.

Altho it's designed to be a big gun threatening everyone, I agree with that.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I've thought of that myself - list "your place of business" as the furthest spot away from airports, cities, and out in the sticks as possible. I doubt the G-men will be wanting to drive way the fuck out there.

Place of Business:

Somewhere in Alaska or:

http://geography.about.com/library/weekly/aa102700a.htm

:D

[Monkey Spanker]

I am too much of a small fry to get all flustered about it right now. If Cleo ain't worried then I damn sure ain't|rasta|

I notice on other boards and here as well where alot of non-US webmasters are looking for non-US hosts and are moving all of their stuff outside of America. Sounds intelligent at first if this will indeed all come to pass but a point was just brought up on another board so I thought I would ask it here also to see how the gang here responds to it.

What about .com, .net and .org? They are all governed by the US correct? So moving your host and all other facets outside of the country doesn't protect your domain if it falls into one of those categories correct? They may not be able to come and arrest you or check your records at your place of business but if you are not compliant they could possibly take your domain from you and shut it down.

If that is the case then it is not just US webmasters that need to worry because I do not know of any truly successful webmaster that doesn't have the bulk of their business on a .com, .net or .org

Any of the 2257 gurus have any comments on that?

[RawAlex]

Monkey Spanker, .COM is not a "us only" first level. It is an international one. If you were using a .us domain, there MIGHT MAYBE VERY SLIGHTLY be a chance.

If they cannot easily repossess .com domains from KP and other illegal sites, why would you think they would do it for a 2257 violation that they cannot legally check or obligate?

US law does not apply to non-us citizens.

Alex

[Monkey Spanker]

I never said that US law would apply to non-US citizens. The domain is US though and governed out of the state of Virginia for the US as is .net and .org so the domain itself would fall under US jurisdiction for 2257. non-US webmasters are free to do as they please as long as it abides by their countries laws but they might have to do it with a non US domain.

Ultimately the US controls the internet wether anyone likes it or not.

"The United States controls the root-file because the A-root-server is located in the United States and thus precluding other governments from physical access and NSI Verisign, which physically controls the root file is contractually obligated to secure written approval from the Department of Commerce before adding any TLD's to the root. This all gives the United States the power to threaten a country with the prospect of taking away all of it's domain names."

"ICANN, located in California controls the DNS and allocates IP's to regional internet registries, but still needs the defacto approval of the US to do so."

I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like they can pretty much do what the hell they want to when it comes to domains.

[T Pat]

Originally posted by Horny Dude
TJPat...that is scary because we have run into alot of girls over there who are 14+ and will do anything and tell you anything to earn money.

I'm a little twisted but I'm no sicko, I detest child porn and would never photograph a girl that I thought might be underage.
Sure you can get underage girls in TJ if you know where to look or who to ask, you can also get any drug or order an ass kicking or a murder, just because you can do something doesn't mean you have to.
All but three of the girls I've photographed were out of the two biggest brothels in TJ, the owners are not going to put there multimillion dollar operations in jeopardy or invite any more scrutiny by getting caught employing underage girls.
About 6 months ago an El Salvadorian girl described to my wife and I in detail how she was forced into being a sex slave in an underground pedophile brothel in LA when she was 12 years old and what it was like.
The Fucking Story Haunts Me! There isn't a day that goes by that I don't think about her story, and the pain you could see in her eyes and hear in her voice. Your hitting a raw nerve please don't insult me by insinuating that I might mistakenly photograph an underage girl.

[1freepornfinder]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I retained Max Hardcore's lawyer. If he can get that dude off the hook -- I should be no problem.

The problem is... how much with it cost you?...

I agree with your previous post.... vote Kerry..

[Cleo]

Originally posted by TijuanaPat
All the girls will give you a quick glimpse at there sex worker cards but there is no way in hell I'm going to get them all to let me photograph there ID's
because there are two things you can bank on when it comes to Mexican Whores,
1, there using a fake name
2, there lieing about there age
Not sure what other list sites think of this but I'm not sure if I should continue listing your sites. :(

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by 1freepornfinder
The problem is... how much with it cost you?...

I agree with your previous post.... vote Kerry..

$275 / hr...standard lawyer rates.

Yes, vote Kerry and it will take a lot of wind out of the sails of this thing.

[Bill]

Don't just vote - donate cash.

<rhetoric>
America has the best government money can buy - don't let the christian fascists and their corporate puppet masters buy your freedom to conduct this small business out from under you.
</rhetoric>

[T Pat]

Cleo all the girls I have photographed have had valid health cards which means they are over 18, By Mexican Law The Brothels can not hire girls under 18.
Once working in the brothels all the girls use fake names and 22 year olds claim to be 18 or 19 and 30 year olds claim to be 24 or 25. No one is or claims to be under 18.

This thread has made my mind up.
I don't see how anyone is going to comply with all proposed 2257 regs, and think this will all die down
I've had my sites setup to sell to a Mexican National (even though it's like giving my first born away) for a couple months.
I'll do consulting work for Tijuana Whores and consentrate on main stream for awhile
I've already posted more than I should have, this is my last post on this subject

[Alphawolf]

TP,

I think Cleo thought girls would lie about being 18, not about 18 or over girls shaving a few years off.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
TP,

I think Cleo thought girls would lie about being 18, not about 18 or over girls shaving a few years off.

I agree - it was a bit foggy.

[Cleo]

Thanks for clearing that up. :)

[RawAlex]

TP; It isn't about this current 2257 thing blowing over - I can tell you without a doubt (and I know lawyers that will back me up on this) you are operting illegally, your content is not in line with EXISTING US law, and you are taking a mighty huge risk that cannot be removed by "giving the company to one of the girls".

You must be able to prove your models are 18. "They showed me a card once" isn't proof. You need to have a copy of those IDs on file along with full model releases. Read 2257 as it sits. Your not following the law even BEFORE the administrative clarifications. More importantly as the photographer (based in the US) you need 2257 paper work for any images you take and then allow use of on the site. You can't get out of it by transferring control.

Basically, your screwed up, you didn't understand the law, and now 100% of the content YOU have created to date is not legally usable.

I won't be listing your sites, and I have removed anything of your I found.

Get a lawyer... you'll need one someday soon.

Alex

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by RawAlex
TP; It isn't about this current 2257 thing blowing over - I can tell you without a doubt (and I know lawyers that will back me up on this) you are operting illegally, your content is not in line with EXISTING US law, and you are taking a mighty huge risk that cannot be removed by "giving the company to one of the girls".

You must be able to prove your models are 18. "They showed me a card once" isn't proof. You need to have a copy of those IDs on file along with full model releases. Read 2257 as it sits. Your not following the law even BEFORE the administrative clarifications. More importantly as the photographer (based in the US) you need 2257 paper work for any images you take and then allow use of on the site. You can't get out of it by transferring control.

Basically, your screwed up, you didn't understand the law, and now 100% of the content YOU have created to date is not legally usable.

I won't be listing your sites, and I have removed anything of your I found.

Get a lawyer... you'll need one someday soon.

Alex

Ouch!

RawAlex does make a good point.

TP posting what you do on the boards is a bad thing as well. The DOJ reads these boards...I know that for a fact.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex
as soon as you take a picture of the girl full nude, you need 2257.


Not true. "Sexually explicit content" is defined in Sec. 2257 rules as anything described by 18 U.S.C Section 2256 (2) (A)-(D). You can see the full definition of "sexually explicit conduct" here:


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html

but note that Sec. 2257 regulations do not include Sec. 2256 (2)(E)! Further, they make an exception if the conduct is merely simulated and not actual.

(h)

As used in this section -

(1)

the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;




So neither simple nudity, nor even spread beaver shots, are subject to Section 2257. Now, as soon as she puts a vibe in her pussy, voila! You are now subject to all 2257 rules regarding that content.

The biggest problem for a lot of folks is that you used to have to allow inspections "at all reasonable times." Whereas under the new language, there must be an authorized employee present at the physical location of the records at all times between 8am-6pm local time, seven days a week! If you go to lunch or take off for InterNext, and the DoJ shows up while you're gone, (and you know they'll try to do just that) you can get up to 5 years for violation, and they don't even have to look at your records!

Screw recordkeeping - even if it's all perfect, if you're a one-person operation, you can never leave town at all, or even your home except at night.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Cleo
Not sure what other list sites think of this but I'm not sure if I should continue listing your sites. :(

Ethics aside, and just talking legality regarding 2257, there is nothing in the regulations regarding off-site linking.
As long as no explicit images are actually stored on your domains or websites, you are nor repsonsible for 2257 recordkeeping. So a text-only TGP is totally exempt from 2257, whereas one that captures explicit thumbnails is subject to 2257.

I see a lot of talk about LLs & TGPs not linking to sites without 2257 info, but my attorneys say mere linking (to anything other than obvious CP, which is always an exception) is not an issue under 2257.

If anyone has in fact been told differently, please advise what language in the rulemaking would make a webmaster responsible for what is on another webmaster's domain?

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Useless Warrior
Look at the thousands of sites out there that are not compliant with existing 2257 laws. Is anyone chasing them down? No. Why?

Because it was never made clear what agency was responsible for doing inspections. Now congress has clarified that it's the Dept. of Justice, and having come under major fire from the Religious Reich for not doing inspections, Ashcroft intends to do lots and lots of 'em.

The new language was specifically drawn up to make it almost impossible to be in actual compliance, and it's easy, and better "good press," for Ashcroft to bust a bunch of little webmasters who can't afford to fight back ("1500 porn peddlers busted nationwide in CP crackdown!") than it is to comb through Larry Flynt's files.

And again, remember you don't even have to be in violation of your recordkeeping. All they have to do is wait until you're not home, since you must have someone present at the location between 8am-6pm seven days a week.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by lassiter


The biggest problem for a lot of folks is that you used to have to allow inspections "at all reasonable times." Whereas under the new language, there must be an authorized employee present at the physical location of the records at all times between 8am-6pm local time, seven days a week! If you go to lunch or take off for InterNext, and the DoJ shows up while you're gone, (and you know they'll try to do just that) you can get up to 5 years for violation, and they don't even have to look at your records!



It sounds extreme, but you are really being held prisoner in your own office.

[Useless]

Lassiter, those are some excellent posts. Very informative.

[RawAlex]

lassiter, if you are willing to stake your life and 20 years of time in a butt slamming federal prison on that, well, more power to you. If your planning your business on the distinction between sexual and non sexual, well, why not just run some "molly model" sites too?

No model releases, no 2257 info - I won't list him.

Alex

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex
lassiter, if you are willing to stake your life and 20 years of time in a butt slamming federal prison on that, well, more power to you. If your planning your business on the distinction between sexual and non sexual, well, why not just run some "molly model" sites too?



Those sites may well be covered under some other type of law, but we're talking about specifically what types of materiual come under 2257 regulations, and only actual sexually explicit content is covered, under the specific wording of the law.

No model releases, no 2257 info - I won't list him.

Your prerogative, naturally. But
I'm still looking for someone to explain where in 2257 your liability to list or not list comes in, assuming you aren't actually hosting his images on your domains. I'm not being argumentative - this is crucial to my staying in business myself at this point, since I cannot stay in my office without a break from 8-6 7 days a week between now and whenever I quit or die. Presumably you have a way to do this as well?

[lassiter]

Originally posted by lassiter
Those sites may well be covered under some other type of law, but we're talking about specifically what types of materiual come under 2257 regulations, and only actual sexually explicit content is covered, under the specific wording of the law.


And let me clarify I'm not taling about suspect content - I'm talking about simple nudity and spread shots from respected content providers, sponsor banners, etc.
I am advised that only actual "hardcore," masturbation, and BDSM are covered by 2257. Potentially underage Tijuana girls are not an issue I have any desire to defend. ;)

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Useless Warrior
Lassiter, those are some excellent posts. Very informative.

Yeah - Lassiter has been doing his homework.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by xxxjay
Yeah - Lassiter has been doing his homework.

Jay,

You see the lawyer tomorrow, right?

Do you have a list of questions you'll be asking him?

[lassiter]

Originally posted by xxxjay
Yeah - Lassiter has been doing his homework.

Well, I have to. But PLEASE, y'all, keep in mind that what I post here was advice I got from my attorney. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, so everyone here needs to get actual competent advice from their OWN legal eagles.

For me, it comes down to either eliminating all "actual sexually-explicit" content from my domains, specifically so I'm not liable to inspection, or making myself a literal prisoner in my home/office.
So knowing what I can do "safely" and what I can't is sort of important lol.

But someone else's lawyer may have a whole other interpretation of some of these issues, and if so, I hope they get shared here.

I've also been reminded that we still don't know what the final language will actually be on this new rulemaking. We'll all find out around the 24th of August, I guess.

[torone]

I don't do hardcore, so I'll just check for anything that looks too real; and should have no problems...

BTW, don't forget who signed COPA!

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Alphawolf
Jay,

You see the lawyer tomorrow, right?

Do you have a list of questions you'll be asking him?

I have two lawyers retained currently. One doing corperate stuff and another 1st amendment lawyer. I also have a friend that is the lawyer for Adultcheck that I've talked with a lot.

All of the major 1st amendment lawyers are meeting this week and are proposing a response to the new 2257 regulations that will include the economic impact to the US.

I am meeting with him (Max Hardcore's lawyer) on the 9th. Yes, I will have a long list of questions.

[Monkey Spanker]

Originally posted by torone
BTW, don't forget who signed COPA!

Bill Clinton

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by Monkey Spanker
Bill Clinton

I didn't know that. It's the AG that is really pushing this through.

[urb]

Originally posted by xxxjay
The DOJ reads these boards...I know that for a fact.

Along with the IRS, FBI and other three letter acronyms.

|waves|

[torone]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I didn't know that. It's the AG that is really pushing this through.

My point is that no politician is gonna come out in favor of porn; and that includes most beaurocrats. That's why the battle to save this business will be fought in the courts...

[Monkey Spanker]

Exactly. COPA was signed in late 97 or early 98 by Slick Willy and Janet Reno fought to uphold it in numerous lawsuits. Ashcroft is leading this new charge so those of you who think the Democrats are your friends are mistaken as ALL politicians will stand behind anything that can on the surface look like it is beneficial "for the children". Any politician who openly opposes this stuff will be made to look like he/she supports K*P from the other side of the aisle.

We basically stand alone on this issue and can only hope the letter writing campaigns but most of all the lawyers arguing against it can turn this whole mess into something more realistic.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Monkey Spanker
Any politician who openly opposes this stuff will be made to look like he/she supports K*P from the other side of the aisle.

We basically stand alone on this issue and can only hope the letter writing campaigns but most of all the lawyers arguing against it can turn this whole mess into something more realistic.

I agree 100%. The new regs, whatever their final form, will still be on the books under a Kerry or Bush administration. The best we can hope for there is that Kerry's attorney general will not spend a lot of manpower or money doing random inspections where there is no real reason to believe that KP is involved. But even if Kerry wins, it will still be several months before the dust settles and we have any real sense of where the new administration is going to go with this. And of course, if Bush is re-elected, it will continue to be guaranteed random searches for all.

[torone]

My logic says that, since Bush wouldn't be running again, he would be more likely to concentrate on the economy and the war on terrorism than on porn. If all these warnings, etc. are more than a tactic being used by the terrorists (their object IS to inspire fear!), Ashcroft might have his hands full.

Kerry, on the other hand would be trying to secure his own reelection while attempting to regain power in Congress for the Dems; and we all know that he will sa or do anything to secure that power. Face it, porn will always be a target. How many of us drive down the street with our porn url emblazoned on our car? Maybe those who have made it to the point where that car is a Hummer...

[1freepornfinder]

But Democrats are far more liberal than Republicans... (as a whole) so we should be less of a target with a Democrat in power. Vote Kerry :)

[Monkey Spanker]

I don't think you are getting the point. Democrats were the ones leading the charge then and the Republicans are the ones leading it now. Regardless of who is in office they will sell you down the river in a heart beat if it means they will get a few more votes next election or gain some power in congress.

Reno fought tooth and nail against the ACLU over this, all you have to do is a search for keywords copa and janet reno and you will find numerous case dockets and articles.

We are basically fucked regardless of the political party. Republicans are conservative and Democrats are only liberals on the surface when it might get them votes.

I say fuck them all and VOTE GREEN GUY FOR PRESIDENT!

[1freepornfinder]

try this search
"porn prosecutions janet reno"
most results call Reno and Clinton friends of Porn
and talk about how prosecutions halted under them.....

[Monkey Spanker]

OK, I will give you that(although most of those sites with articles are very conservative).

I still find it hard to call any politician a friend. I am doing a write in vote for Green Guy anyway =)

[1freepornfinder]

Originally posted by Monkey Spanker
OK, I will give you that(although most of those sites with articles are very conservative).

I still find it hard to call any politician a friend. I am doing a write in vote for Green Guy anyway =)

I think we agree with each other...
Green Guy would be the best choice....
but Kerry would be better than Bush...
(the lesser of two evils) :)

[airdick]

I say fuck them all and VOTE GREEN GUY FOR PRESIDENT!

I'd go for that, or maybe Larry Flynt in the Whitehouse. :)

For those of you that are Bush apologists, here is something to keep in mind before you vote republican again: The Supreme Court justices that voted to rule COPA unconsitutional were Democratic appointees, whereas the judges that supported COPA are right-wing extremists that the GOP appointed.

[RawAlex]

Every time someone says "don't vote democrat, they aren't friends of porn either" I have to laugh.

Republicans BY DEFINIITION are against porn. They have a whole christian religeous core group that just flips over porn.

Neither side is a "friend" of porn... the republicans are enemies, that is for sure. The democrats are "neutral to not happy" about porn. It's easy to see which side will try to screw you out of business.

Alex

[guitar riff]

Jay Glad ya posted this I just wish more spons would let us Know Exactly what they are doing about this so we all arent running around like a goose with his head up his ass when its time to get all the stuff in order.

[Useless]

Originally posted by guitar riff
Jay Glad ya posted this I just wish more spons would let us Know Exactly what they are doing about this so we all arent running around like a goose with his head up his ass when its time to get all the stuff in order.

Perhaps the sponsor's attorneys have ordered them to remain tight-lipped about this until a final decision has been hand down. They do make feel a bit left out in the rain though.

Where does candidate GreenGuy stand on foreign affairs? Is it truly an affair if she doesn't speak English?

[RawAlex]

[
Your prerogative, naturally. But
I'm still looking for someone to explain where in 2257 your liability to list or not list comes in, assuming you aren't actually hosting his images on your domains. I'm not being argumentative - this is crucial to my staying in business myself at this point, since I cannot stay in my office without a break from 8-6 7 days a week between now and whenever I quit or die. Presumably you have a way to do this as well?

Lassiter, it is not just "my perogative" but a requirement for everyone in this business: We need to feel comfortable that all the models we link to, send traffic to, whatever are over 18. I wouldn't like to KP knowingly, and based on what has been said in this thread, I have no way to know that the images that TP is promoting are legal. Therefore, it is GOOD BUSINESS and totally logical for me to not link to it. I would be willing to be actual dollars that at least one of the girls there is not of legal age - and i would never lose the bet because TP can't prove it. If he can't prove it to me, he can't prove to the police / feds/ whoever might want to check those things.

Alex

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by guitar riff
Jay Glad ya posted this I just wish more spons would let us Know Exactly what they are doing about this so we all arent running around like a goose with his head up his ass when its time to get all the stuff in order.

I agree. They have been quite silent on this issue. Especially considering their affiliatees can not send traffic from jail.

[eman]

Originally posted by xxxjay
I agree. They have been quite silent on this issue. Especially considering their affiliatees can not send traffic from jail.

Which point begs the question - how important are affiliates?

[lassiter]

Originally posted by airdick
I'd go for that, or maybe Larry Flynt in the Whitehouse. :)

For those of you that are Bush apologists, here is something to keep in mind before you vote republican again: The Supreme Court justices that voted to rule COPA unconsitutional were Democratic appointees, whereas the judges that supported COPA are right-wing extremists that the GOP appointed.

Not totally. David Souter voted against COPA, and he was an appointee of George I.

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by eman
Which point begs the question - how important are affiliates?

In a business that revolves around them: Very Important.

Does the industry really was to re-shape it's whole business model?

It may have to.

[Alphawolf]

Jay,

Anything to share with what you discussed with the lawyer?

[chilihost]

Originally posted by guitar riff
Jay Glad ya posted this I just wish more spons would let us Know Exactly what they are doing about this so we all arent running around like a goose with his head up his ass when its time to get all the stuff in order.

I totally agree, I have already outlined how I am going to help my hunkmoney affiliates and my chilihost hosting clients....and I am not even in the US, I just care for my affiliates and clients! This lack of info from all other sponsors is a real worry.


cheers,
Luke

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by chilihost
This lack of info from all other sponsors is a real worry.

I wouldn't really expect them to state anything until it is set in stone what they are doing.

Sponsors don't want to spook affiliates.

[RawAlex]

When it comes to things like banners and such, you start getting into the legal "never never land" of "paid promotional space", and are you in fact a publisher of the banner or are you merely using provided promotional materials in return for payment?

Sponsor hosted galleries are a no brainer, you are not the publisher, they are.

Sponsor content would, normally, require a full model release to be used. I think that single model programs (like lightspeed, example) might be VERY hesitant to let their models real names and info loose on the net. The personal security issues and rights to privacy far outweigh the 2257 records requirements. So far I have not seen or heard about any of the great legal minds looking at it from the privacy side of things. I am sure someone has, just haven't seen it yet.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Alex

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex
When it comes to things like banners and such, you start getting into the legal "never never land" of "paid promotional space", and are you in fact a publisher of the banner or are you merely using provided promotional materials in return for payment?


That's why I'm gradually swapping out my hardcore banners for soft, even though it means possibly switching out some of the sites I promote as well. I doubt there are going to be any model releases forthcoming for the people appearing in those banners.

I think that single model programs (like lightspeed, example) might be VERY hesitant to let their models real names and info loose on the net. The personal security issues and rights to privacy far outweigh the 2257 records requirements. So far I have not seen or heard about any of the great legal minds looking at it from the privacy side of things. I am sure someone has, just haven't seen it yet.

Yes indeed - it will be interesting to see how major sponsors end up playing this.
I presume many of them are waiting to see what the final language of 2257 looks like after the comment period ends before deciding on a policy/strategy. Of course, that means affiliates won't have any lead time at all. As usual. |pissed|

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by lassiter

Yes indeed - it will be interesting to see how major sponsors end up playing this.
I presume many of them are waiting to see what the final language of 2257 looks like after the comment period ends before deciding on a policy/strategy. Of course, that means affiliates won't have any lead time at all. As usual. |pissed|

What a lot of people have not considered is that there is a period after the comment where the comments will be considered. If the DOJ just blows this off, then all the 1st ammendment lawyers will file suit against the goverment for not considering their opinion. There is a possibility the comments will be considered and then there will be another comment period of shorter duration. That is why you are probably seeing the flim-flamming on the part of the sponsors. They probably won't do anything till they have to.

If the crackdown does come - it will be interesting to see how affiliate programs will be surviving without affiliates.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by xxxjay
What a lot of people have not considered is that there is a period after the comment where the comments will be considered. If the DOJ just blows this off, then they will file suit against the goverment for not considering their opinion.

I wish I could believe that would happen, but taking on the Feds over regulatory stuff would require a hell of a lot of money, would take a long time (possibly a couple of years) to be heard, and would require a unified, cooperative effort.

Given how totally "every entity for itself" the industry was, and still is, over Acacia, I don't see a remote possibility for any effective industry counteraction.

I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, though. |jackinthe

[gt68lt70]

How does sponsor banners work out with 2257?

Do we just list our sponsors as the custodian of record on the 2257 page?

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by lassiter
I wish I could believe that would happen, but taking on the Feds over regulatory stuff would require a hell of a lot of money, would take a long time (possibly a couple of years) to be heard, and would require a unified, cooperative effort.

Given how totally "every entity for itself" the industry was, and still is, over Acacia, I don't see a remote possibility for any effective industry counteraction.

I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, though. |jackinthe

Respectfully, this is the first time I feel I have to disagree with you on this one. As we speak, there is a massive meeting of the all the top 1st ammendment lawyers and they WILL issue a comment on 2257.

The DOJ (by law) is not even allowed to READ the comments till after 8/24. Aftter that they have it has to be considered. If they just ignore this (or even give that impression) -- the 1st amendmant guys will take action by way of a suit against the goverment.

It is their world and we are just living in it, but never underestimate the top legal minds in the US. They are not working for the DOJ...they are driving expensive cars in Beverly Hills and they work for us.

[1freepornfinder]

Originally posted by gt68lt70
How does sponsor banners work out with 2257?

Do we just list our sponsors as the custodian of record on the 2257 page?

It works the same as your own content....
If it is totally totally softcore (look at lassiter & xxxjay's posts) then you don't need 2257.
If the banner isn't softcore then under the new rules (unless they change them) you have to have the 2257 info and have it avail. for inspection. :( lassiter, xxxjay chime in if you think I'm wrong... but this is what my Lawyer said....

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by 1freepornfinder
It works the same as your own content....
If it is totally totally softcore (look at lassiter & xxxjay's posts) then you don't need 2257.
If the banner isn't softcore then under the new rules (unless they change them) you have to have the 2257 info and have it avail. for inspection. :( lassiter, xxxjay chime in if you think I'm wrong... but this is what my Lawyer said....

The definition of softcore is kind of nebulous. From what I know - if it shows pink and genitals. You need 2257.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by xxxjay
The definition of softcore is kind of nebulous. From what I know - if it shows pink and genitals. You need 2257.

Nope. the definitions from Sec., 2256 are as follows:

(2)

''sexually explicit conduct'' means actual or simulated -

(A)

sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;

(B)

bestiality;

(C)

masturbation;

(D)

sadistic or masochistic abuse; or

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

HOWEVER, Sec. 2257, even under the proposed new language, exempts both simulated sexual activity, and Subsection (E) of the above definitions.

(h)

As used in this section -

(1)

the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

So I'm told that pussy is ok as long as nothing is going into it. And "simulated" masturbation and hardcore are also exempt, though that is where it gets tricky, since you may not want to try to make the case that it was really simulated and not actual. Best to avoid any penetration of anything by anything.

[1freepornfinder]

I think we have to be very careful about masturbation... any touching could be considered masturbation....

[Useless]

Originally posted by 1freepornfinder
I think we have to be very careful about masturbation... any touching could be considered masturbation....

I agree...shake it more than 100 or so times and you are playing with it.

[xxxjay]

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

-- Could mean about anything but tits IMO.

[Alphawolf]

Originally posted by xxxjay
(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

-- Could mean about anything but tits IMO.

If you've got pink you should have the ink. :D

[1freepornfinder]

Originally posted by xxxjay
(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

-- Could mean about anything but tits IMO.

you're right .... it's not cut and dried at all.... :(

[security_man]

my understanding is that E is not part of 2257 - its only A through D, or did i missread it?

[lassiter]

Originally posted by security_man
my understanding is that E is not part of 2257 - its only A through D, or did i missread it?

No, you have it right. (E) is not included in 2257 regulations.

[rollergirl]

I'm sure I missed this somewhere, but I can't find the info on if this is retro active (ie: being secondary producer needs actual docs) or if it's new content added after the date this goes into effect.

I have a few reputable providers I've purchased from who flat out won't give me the docs I requested because it's too much work to go dig them out of the back room.

If the sites prior to the change are grandfathered, how would you document that?

I also haven't seen posts by anyone who owns toplists like nastyfriends as to what they will be doing. It seems too broad as to if an is called from another site (fpa or banner, button) if you are responsible. I agree text links are probably safest, but I'd love to know what the expectation is.

I know this thread is old.. I need to get up to speed if anyone has anymore info or could point me to a resouce that has this info.




|waves|

[RawAlex]

Rollergirl, that is one of the many things about these new "clarifications" that is not clear. It is really hard to figure out what the heck is going on... if anything.

Alex

[xxxjay]

Originally posted by RawAlex
Linkster, so far with the exception of a very few, most of the people bringing up the subject are trying to sell tracking software or DRM type arrangements for content. There has been a ton of "the sky is falling" stuff.

Personally, I think the new "rule clarifications" are not that, but in fact new laws and amendments to laws, which, when taken to a court of law, will be thrown out because these new laws were not passed by the house, the senate, and signed by POTUS. While they can calify rules with these adminstrative orders, they cannot create new offences where none previously existed, nor can they create retroactive paperwork requirements for individuals and companies that were previously exempt.

A few will get nailed, but like Acacia, someone will take them to court and things will settle back down.

1 more reason for Americans to vote Bush and his bullies out of office.

Alex

I agree. Everyone should be dilligent, but these new regs are so burley that it is not likely they can be pushed through as is.

In a few months - you will have a chance to put this away for good by voting Bush out of office.