Here is the other take direct from the FCS:

BILL WOULD EXPAND GOVERNMENT POWERS
WASHINGTON, DC -- A bill (H.R. 3726) by Representative Mike Pence (R-Ind), which would greatly expand the reach of obscenity law and U.S.C. 18 §2257, the federal record-keeping law, has passed the House, sailing through committee hearings and a floor vote with virtually no debate shortly after it was introduced and attached as an amendment to the Child Safety Act of 2005 (H.R. 3132). In effect, H.R. 3726, the “Child Pornography Prevention Act of 2005,” was a done deal in the House almost before the adult industry or civil liberties groups knew it existed. The fast-track nature of the process, along with the key characters involved, has led some observers to speculate that the Justice Department, perhaps embarrassed by their lame defense of the 2257 law against adult industry attorneys in FSC’s challenge, have teamed up with legislators to up the ante and possibly to shore up what they see as loopholes in the law (See Mark Kernes’ report at AVN.com).
H.R. 3726 covers the waterfront well beyond changes to 2257. It also amends other title 18 criminal code sections, including sections 1467, 3486, and 1465.
The 2257 amendments insert new language which, according to an initial ACLU analysis, seems to require 2257 documentation for digital images of sexual conduct even though no actual person is involved. In addition, it strikes the word “actual” from the phrase “actual sexually explicit conduct” in U.S.C. 18 §2257, thereby appearing to expand the law to apply to simulated sex such as might appear in R-rated mainstream films. It broadens 2257 to apply to “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area,” which, of course, could be construed to apply to most nude models in adult entertainment materials, and perhaps even some clothed ones. It also strikes the language in 2257 which excludes “mere distribution” and other activities not involving work with the actual performers from requirements for 2257 documentation, substituting language which appears to rope in a much broader range of activity. Under H.R. 3726, for example, 2257 record-keeping would be required for managers of computer sites or services that contain a single visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct (including, under this bill, simulated sexually explicit conduct).
Not satisfied with this exponential expansion of the 2257 law, the bill goes on to amend the following sections related to obscenity law:
U.S.C. 18 §1467 is amended to expand the reach of federal assets forfeiture laws to include 2257 violations and obscenity convictions.
U.S.C. 18 §3486 is expanded to include obscenity charges under administrative subpoena powers previously dedicated to child pornography cases, making it easier for the government to compel a person to appear or to obtain records in a legal proceeding without having to demonstrate probable cause before a judge.
U.S.C. 18 §1465 is amended to prohibit the production of obscenity as well as the transportation, distribution and sale of it. Under this change it would be illegal to produce obscenity with the intent to transport, distribute or transmit in interstate or foreign commerce. According to the ACLU analysis, this would amount to prior restraint on speech. The only way to determine if material is obscene is to have a completed product for a judge or jury to evaluate under the Miller test for obscenity.
Regarding any potential impact H.R. 3726 might have on Free Speech Coalition et al v. Alberto Gonzales, the Free Speech Coalition’s current legal challenge to 2257, FSC Board Chair Jeffrey Douglas said, “This action by the House of Representatives does not have any direct impact on the pending FSC lawsuit. If this horrific bill were to become law in its current form, it would change some of our arguments, indeed strengthening several. For the purposes of the awaited ruling on our preliminary injunction request, it should have no effect whatsoever.”
FSC attorneys and FSC Legislative Affairs Director Kat Sunlove are preparing a complete analysis of H.R. 3726, which will be posted on the FSC website (www.freespeechcoalition.com) as soon as it is ready.
From an FSC press release, 9/15/05
And from an ACLU “Talking Points” paper -- URL not available
And from Mark Kernes, AVN.com
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=240327
__________________________________________________________

You can't have it both ways. You can either have your god with a capital G blessing you or you can have freedom. Pick your poison.

My last post on this topic.

There is a huge difference between proposing legislation and enacting legislation.

Wake me up when the judge rules on the injunction hearing.

I was referring to the bitches in D.C. who dream up this shit.

and we pay them too......

I've got just one question for all you US webmasters:

How many got off your ass and voted last election?

I did. May the rest of you catch ass herpes.

I voted for the first time in NOV

it is important that we all get out to vote
a lot of you are thinking it wouldnt have made a difference

maybe if the race was a little closer bush would smarten up

the best thing is to tell your friends, neighbors and family
to vote Democrat, keep up the bush bashing:-)

This little amendment was attached as a rider to something that will pass based on its name alone. There's no stopping it because it was introduced in a way that avoids any discussions.

In 9 months we've seen The Energy Bill, The Highway Bill, the responce to Katrina, the admitting that there were no ties to terrorism or WMD and now this attack on freedom of speech. We have 3.3 more years of this.

We can vote and try educate those that are allowing these fascists to take over.

There must be millions of WWII veterans rolling over in their graves to see that after sacraficing so much to defeat facism in their time now our country is quickly succombing to a religio-facist minority |angry|

some one must take care of bush... hehehe... but must look like an accident.
I mean, take alcohol, two trannys and a picture camera. Get bush drunk and take pictures with the trannys. Dick on his mouth, all the hardcore stuff... but it must look like an accident!

:D

hey, face it... bush is hitler's rencarnation.
How can more than half america vote for that pice of shit?????

|angry|

i have a question. i have a forum like this one. where a lot of my members post their own personal pictures. ive seen this on numerous other sites. am i responsible to get them all(4000+) to send me release forms and copies of ids or do i need a disclosure.

thanks

sounds like a good idea I will open presidentialporn.com to upload the images who is taking them now? Some pissing on the white house rose garden wouldn't hurt either and make the tranny pics in the lincoln bedroom ;)

It depends. If you're worried about someone getting pissed because thier photo is on your site then you need a disclosure.

If you want to be 2257 compliant then you need unblocked photo IDs and a date stamp of when the photos were taken. Basically there is no way that your site could possibly comply with the proposed changes in 2257.

so i am better off taking down the site. thanks

I'd take that site down in a second if I were you. Just my opinion and I wish you the best.

Linda |angry|

Actually, you are violating them. You list a corporation as your custodian of records. But don't worry, you'll have a hell of a "selective prosecution" argument if anyone ever hassles you about it. Damn near ever single adult site, even if they have model releases and IDs and a 2257 statement, lists their company and mail box number. Me too! |waves| And that's not about to change any time soon so far as this hairy ho goes.

My corporate attorney informed me to not sweat an actual custodian name as long as the company is legit and the address is not some made up post office box, or warehouse. The custodian, "Hairy Fishnuts" didn't want his name to be released. :)

Understandable, I don't really worry about it either, but we still are violating federal laws.