Dutch Porn sites do not have to prove model's age

[tickler]

It seems that the politicians over there actually realize how dumbass 2257 is.

I wonder if Stuveltje or somebody else can find more information on this.

Pornographic websites do not have to prove all the models they use are over the age of consent, justice minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin told MPs on Monday.

It would be 'very far-reaching' to require site owners to have a copy of the ID of every person who appears on their website, the minister was quoted as saying by news agency ANP.

Socialist and Labour MPs wanted more action on models' ages as part of a crack down on child pornography.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...ve_to_prov.php

[ArtWilliams]

I know in Canada there is no requirement to list a model's age. Our copyright and obscenity laws haven't been updated in years. Having said that, most Canadian pay sites give some 2257 type info as not to cause attention to themselves.

The statute (18 U.S.C.2257) also claims extraterritorial jurisdiction saying that if you have American traffic then you have to comply whether you are resident in the U.S. or not. None of which matters of course if your server and yourself are not in the U.S.

As I've said before, in order to comply with 2257 you must list the first initial of your first name, your last name and your real business address on your 2257 page. Plus, you must be there during regular business hours in case the FBI wishes to inspect your records. [IMHO, the real motivation behind this was to drive the solo girl sites out of business by making sex worker's addresses available to every nut bar with access to the Internet.] Many sites, especially smaller ones, use company names and P.O. boxes rather than make personal information public. Technically, this is a violation of the law.

All of the above is some what academic as the enforcement of 2257 is not widespread. The chance of an inspection of a foreign webmaster doing non-extreme sites is, for practical purposes, very remote.

P.S. I am not a lawyer. I just play one on the Interweb. My advice above is worth every penny you paid for it.

Originally Posted by tickler

It seems that the politicians over there actually realize how dumbass 2257 is.

I wonder if Stuveltje or somebody else can find more information on this.


http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...ve_to_prov.php

[Toby]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

The chance of an inspection of a foreign webmaster doing non-extreme sites is, for practical purposes, very remote.

I think the chance of an inspection of a US webmaster doing non-extreme sites strictly as a secondary producer is also very remote.

[reggs12]

Originally Posted by artwilliams

P.S. I am not a lawyer. I just play one on the Interweb.

You must have stayed at a holiday inn express last night.

[nate]

If the goal of of 2257 is to insure all models are over 18, then the intent is honorable. What bothers me is that it is prior restraint in that you have to prove something is legal before you do it. That is 100% at odds with the concept of "innocent until provn guilty", and if I'm not mistaken, even the concept of prior restraint has been found unconstitutional in America. It shouldn't be up to the accused to prove the legality of an action until charges are brought against him. If the law was more strictly enforced, it would drive thousands of honest and law abiding citizens out of the legal adult business because the overhead of managing records would be higher than the gross receipts, at least for the initial period the business exists.

I think it should apply only to primary producers and only AFTER they sell the images because at that point, they have profited off the images. If a primary producer has questionable images but has not sold them, then there are still laws on the books regarding the posession of illegal images, and it should be up to the DA or AG to prove the ages of the models, and not the other way around. Once again, "innocent until proven guilty".

It all leads back to the intent of the legislation, is it really there to protect minors, or is it there to have a chilling effect on what is a legal business?

[ArtWilliams]

Call me a cynic. I'll take door number 2, Monty.

Originally Posted by nate

... it there to have a chilling effect on what is a legal business?

[reggs12]

This is really just another way to keep a thumb on the porn industry. Everyone knows once you are charged and labeled as a "porn" producer or whatever you are essentially guilty in the jury's eyes even if the charges are wack(i.e. max hardcore.)

[stuveltje]

its true what you say they dont have to have the 2257 or age proof "on the site" thats because of our privacy rules, but the dutch still have some rules, even they dont have to proof it on the site, but if someone would ask , hey i doubt that girls age, then they still have to show the id to show proof of the right age and if not the right age then they are doomed, but and yes there is still a but, i believe here you can show yourself on those sites with age 16, we have the sixteen porn magazine also in the shops so, but even the 2257 hasnt to be on the site, they still have to show the id when they asked to proof the girls/guys right age, which is much lower age here in holland then in the usa.
To think of it, you cant drive a car here with sixteen, you cant vote with sixteen, for both things you need to be 18, but you may have sex and drink alcohol with 16 to fucking funny!

[tickler]

Here's a Xbiz article on it.

"The justice ministry already has the tools it needs to close down websites using underage models, Ballin(Justice Minister) added.
http://www.xbiz.com/news/109083

[stuveltje]

btw i just have checked some sites for the dutch laws, you may have sex with an 16 year old one, but you may only post pornografich pictures on the net when they are 18, thats a law which got change in 2002, only like i said, we have privacy rules, so no proof needed with all private info on the net. Only when asked they need to show it. I have read the news about it this monday, nothing special, dutch have all kind of strange rules for adult bizz, like scat and all is allowed, you cant compair those stupid dutch rules with usa rules.
Btw for me its the same like in usa, so i get a site submitted with a girl who looks younger then 18 but the 2257 sais she is 19.....if she looks to young, i wont list it or promoot the content, if a free site get submitted with the same content without 2257, same shit, if to young looking, i wont list it, i realy dont see a difference, i dont give a damn if the 2257 said she has the right age, if she looks to young , i wont promoot or list it.

[Allfetish]

Originally Posted by Toby

I think the chance of an inspection of a US webmaster doing non-extreme sites strictly as a secondary producer is also very remote.

The whole secondary producer thing is bullshit. Does Bing have 2257 for all the porn videos they are catching with their preview feature? People are saying that even if they remove the video Bing still has it cached. Technically THAT should be a violation of 2257 law, no?

A secondary producer should ONLY be required to keep records as to the source of the content, preferably a link to the primary producer's 2257 statement. That would make sense and is all that is needed to protect against CP. But Nooooo....