|
 |
|
|
|
 | | |
 |
|
|
|
05:33 AM EST, Tuesday Mar 09, 2010
|
|
 |
Any info anyone? 2257 for the general public? |
 |
|
This is the first I've heard of this, although I may have missed something (too busy having the freaky sex with Mass-Dad). 
www.eff.org
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09:56 AM EST, Tuesday Mar 09, 2010
|
|
|
The first you've heard of what?
2257 is, and always has been for ANYONE that creates a sexually explicit depiction. Those who publicly display the depiction must make available to proper authorities proof of age when properly requested. This has been true since the inception of the law.
And YES you would have to document your spouse is over 18 if the photo processor called the police and showed them the private stuff the two of you made for personal use.
The Bush years have seen additions made by various AGs that make things slightly more clear and a lot more burdensome. It clearly defines whom is exempt from record keeping and exactly how records must be kept. The government has the right to inspect these records. If you maintain them as part of a business, then anytime during business hours. If they are not your business than during reasonable hours. All without notice.
There is quite a long list of etc., etc., etc., and so on....
There are a number of serious errors in this article. You are not required to show the public private info of the actors. You are not even required to show the government private info beyond proof of age-name and birth date which if clearly the year is adequate to prove the actor is over 18, the rest of the birth date is not necessary. You may black out all the other private info.
The actors photo, date of birth and info about the government agency that issued the doc must be perfectly clear. That is all. The AG has cut back on this point in the rules to the point that it can not really be said the ID is for use beyond proof of identification (legal name) and age.
The ONLY thing that is new here-and what the article is about is: that organization's attorneys have added a legal document with their legal opinion to the pile of documents the Free Speech Coalition has submitted to the court in their ongoing battle over 2257 laws.
The 2257 laws have been used by the Bush admin to indite and convict such people as owners of comic books where it claims the cartoon character is underage and sexually depicted.
With such absurd abuses of the constitution, it's no wonder an organization of artists has become concerned. Of course they don't want to be burdened with all the record keeping bullshit!
What unfortunately is also not new, is how many people don't seem to give a shit!
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11:08 AM EST, Tuesday Mar 09, 2010
|
|
|
28 CFR Part 75
[If] a secondary producer produces a copy of the visual depiction, the secondary producer must obtain from the primary producer the records associated with that depiction. Finally, the visual depiction must be labeled with the location of the records. ...
28 C.F.R. Part 75 SMALL BUSINESS COMPLIANCE GUIDE
Revised Regulations for Records Relating to Visual Depictions of
Sexually Explicit Conduct; Inspection of Records Relating to Depiction
of Simulated Sexually Explicit Performance; Final Rule
28 CFR Part 75
These are US federal Laws affecting US persons and possibilly affecting content hosted on US based servers.
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > Section 2256
Section 2256. Definitions for chapter
www4.law.cornell.edu
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > Section 2257
Section 2257. Record keeping requirements
www4.law.cornell.edu
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > Section 2257A
Section 2257A. Record keeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct
www.law.cornell.edu
Attorney General's Enforcement Rules
Title 28 -- Judicial Administration
CHAPTER I -- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Part 75 -- Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990; record-keeping provisions ...
straylight.law.cornell.edu
_________________
Live Sex Cams XloveCam.com Adult Affiliate Program - AWCM - 30% Lifetime Revenue Share +more ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12:52 PM EST, Tuesday Mar 09, 2010
|
|
|
I guess Rock wanted me to include the etc., etc., etc., and so on part...
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
06:34 PM EST, Tuesday Mar 09, 2010
|
|
|
There was a case in Ohio (can't remember if it was part of Connections Distributing--but it might have been) in which a 3 judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee) ruled on basically the same point--that requiring a married couple who took pictures of themselves to maintain adequate documentation was rather silly.
So, for a while 2257 was not to be enforced in the 6th Circuit. The government, of course, appealed for an "en banc" hearing, and the whole court unfortunately reversed the 3 judge ruling. 
And yes, the restrictions as written are either rather silly or frighteningly unconstitutional, depending on your outlook.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10:09 PM EST, Tuesday Mar 09, 2010
|
|
|
Sorry guys, I should have been more clear.
My point was this is the first time I heard about this current case involving the EFF. I was asking if anyone else knew about it and any other details. Thanks.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02:34 AM EST, Wednesday Mar 10, 2010
|
|
|
If you read the article AND it was written so an ordinary person could understand it, you would have understood:
"The ONLY thing that is new here-and what the article is about is: that organization's attorneys have added a legal document with their legal opinion to the pile of documents the Free Speech Coalition has submitted to the court in their ongoing battle over 2257 laws."
There is no EEF case!
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02:50 AM EST, Wednesday Mar 10, 2010
|
|
|
"that requiring a married couple who took pictures of themselves to maintain adequate documentation was rather silly"
That WAS the Connections case but that was not the ruling. Connections was a swingers magazine. The case was about CONNECTIONS being required to maintain records of self submitted photos.
If the police knocked on your door and asked to see proof of age because you submitted your photo to Connections you are indeed required to provide it under title 18.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
02:55 AM EST, Wednesday Mar 10, 2010
|
|
|
Yes, the EFF filed an Amicus brief in the current FSC suit over §2257.
I haven't read the brief itself however it is encouraging that a more mainstream organization like the EFF has taken a supportive role.
www.eff.org the EFF's filing in the case
_________________
Live Sex Cams XloveCam.com Adult Affiliate Program - AWCM - 30% Lifetime Revenue Share +more ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
