Greenguy's Board

Greenguy's Board (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/index.php)
-   General Business Knowledge (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   First 2257 Offender goes to prison... (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=20409)

pornrex 2005-06-03 08:00 PM

First 2257 Offender goes to prison...
 
This guy fucked up - BIG TIME

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9002

Cleo 2005-06-03 08:08 PM

Quote:

Martell's photographs, featuring five girls between the ages of 13-17, were first reported by a film processing company, which filed a report with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in January 2004.
This goes well beyond just not having the proper paperwork.

sue-fl 2005-06-03 08:24 PM

Umm sorry but he deserved to go to prison. 13-17 year olds is just sick.. |angry|

Greenguy 2005-06-03 08:26 PM

Yeah, but if you throw "2257" into the title of the article, well.....

|skyfall|

Greenguy 2005-06-03 08:28 PM

...and let's get another thing clear - this is NOT the 1st "2257 offender" Any fucktard that's gone to prison for taking CP pics in the past came before this assclown.

quest 2005-06-03 09:38 PM

I can't even understand how he was sentenced under 2257, it's cp...


Though it would show Current 2257 laws work As They Are...



Ben

Agent 2005-06-03 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quest
I can't even understand how he was sentenced under 2257, it's cp...


Though it would show Current 2257 laws work As They Are...



Ben

2257 aka "Traci Lord's law". She was underage when she made her flicks.

amadman 2005-06-03 11:08 PM

Good! This is what 2257 is supposed to be about. Lets just hope they only use it for such cases.

Useless 2005-06-03 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenguy
Yeah, but if you throw "2257" into the title of the article, well.....

|skyfall|

Just more fear mongering from our pals at XBiz. He was prosecuted for taking nude pics of underage models. The 2257 was thrown in just to add more charges, the same way they add on a no seat belt charge when you kill someone while driving drunk. I hope people who read this thread realize that it has NOTHING to do with the updated version of 2257 and that no one simply knocked on his door one day, completely unsolicited, and asked for his fucking records. He's a 78 year old aspiring pervert, not an adult webmaster.

Next.

Torn Rose 2005-06-04 12:25 AM

nothing to add that wasn't said already.... child porn is not 2257.....

Mr. Blue 2005-06-04 02:50 AM

It's fucking jackasses that do that kinda shit that makes it bad for the rest of us.

Fido 2005-06-04 03:25 AM

Most countries do not need 2257 to get such a people to the jail.

Boogie 2005-06-04 03:37 AM

Ok one thing some folks are missing is this.

Throw aside the fact that he was a CP'er which pretty much stands to reason he is a fuckwit.

Aside from CP laws, they also struck him with 2257 violations. This is important because it shows that the law, as it stood BEFORE JUNE 23rd as applicable to printed pictures was enforcable and prosecutable.

that means get your shit in order if you're making CP so they have one less thing to throw the books at you. OF COURSE IF XBIZ IS FUCKING RUNNING THIS ARTICLE TO WARN ITS CP'ERS TO GET DOCUMENTATION THAT IS LUDICROUS.

Otherwise it only has one relevence. If you're producing and PRINT PUBLISHING adult material, 2257 is damned applicable. Especially if you're shooting CP :p

Soul/Rebel 2005-06-04 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cleo
This goes well beyond just not having the proper paperwork.


true and he got only 3 years? Now that's fucked up

GunnCat 2005-06-04 05:26 AM

They threw 2257 into this so when the government starts going after webmasters, they can say they have already prosecuted 1 child pornographer under the new 2257 regulations.

grzepa 2005-06-04 05:50 AM

I'd say he went to prison for CP not for unproper 2257 paperwork...

Mishi 2005-06-04 07:12 AM

I am ashamed of XBiz for hyping this as a 2257 violation. The article suggests a 2257 violation was involved (duh) but doesn't make it clear if that was the basis of the convition...I suspect NOT, what with the whole underage thing. It's not as if this jerk would have got off if he'd had records.

I am very unhappy with the state of our industry right now. I've been so proud when we've rallied around any one person who needed help - but when the entire industry is ailing, we fall apart.

SirMoby 2005-06-04 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK
2257 aka "Traci Lord's law". She was underage when she made her flicks.

Traci Lords had valid government issued IDs. The new regs would not have stopped her from legally appearing in those flicks

Useless 2005-06-04 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnCat
... they can say they have already prosecuted 1 child pornographer under the new 2257 regulations.

No, they can say they prosecuted someone under the old 2257 regs. The updated version isn't in use yet. We still have a couple of weeks.

Ramster 2005-06-04 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADK
2257 aka "Traci Lord's law". She was underage when she made her flicks.

So did Alexandria Quinn didn't she?

This idiot really has nothing to do with the NEW 2257 law that may effect all of us.

spiceman45 2005-06-04 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnCat
They threw 2257 into this so when the government starts going after webmasters, they can say they have already prosecuted 1 child pornographer under the new 2257 regulations.

How right you are. This guy was hanging fruit easy to nab and will be used as an example even though it is 2256 that he falls under.

Btw this asswipe need to be in jail.

MadMax 2005-06-04 10:44 AM

Personal Opinion: The DOJ is desperate to be able to show congress that they're enforcing 2257, so they chose to prosecute this fuckwit under 2257 instead of a pile of other federal laws they could have prosecuted him for violating. Don't forget that prosecutors have an unbelievable amount of leeway in regards to what charges they actually file. Had they not prosecuted him for violating 2257, he would have been convicted as just another CPer and they wouldn't have gotten nearly as much free press.

GunnCat 2005-06-04 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior
No, they can say they prosecuted someone under the old 2257 regs. The updated version isn't in use yet. We still have a couple of weeks.

I understand UW, but to John Q. Public that distinction will likely be lossed.

amadman 2005-06-04 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quest
Though it would show Current 2257 laws work As They Are...

Only because this dude actually took the pictures.
What about people that are making cp sites but did not take the pictures?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Torn
.... child porn is not 2257.....

But 2257 is to aid in preventing/prosecuting cp.
Granted the new changes open the doors a bit wide for comfort. |shocking|

I think the 2257 hype is just xbiz's slant.
here is another artical on this story:
http://www.uticaod.com/archive/2005/...ews/29758.html
It mentions id's and records being required but does not say '2257' specificly.

Tommy 2005-06-04 11:44 AM

am I the only person who thinks these new 2257 laws arent that bad

The adult industry needed something like this

look at the paperwork the medical industry has to keep or the banking industry


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© Greenguy Marketing Inc