Government Brief Filed In FSC v. Gonzales

[tickler]

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=234374

Strange how these guys can get the news out first.

[cd34]

Tom Hymes, ex-Editor of AVN is the PR coordinator for the FSC.

He moved away from the hectic editing job of AVN to sit back and relax with the FSC when he was later thrown right into the fire.

[Adult Traffic]

Originally Posted by cd34

He moved away from the hectic editing job of AVN to sit back and relax with the FSC when he was later thrown right into the fire.

I bet his AVN desk is looking pretty peaceful right about now
.

[RawAlex]

I read their arguments closely as reported (I didn't read the original) but I think they missed the most important argument of all, the one that won sundance v Reno:

The DOJ cannot write new law - they can only enforce what is on the books already. The creation of new legal burdens (especially for secondary producers) is beyond the scope of the DOJ's regulating abilities. Quite simple, if 2257 is poorly written, then the house and senate need to write and pass a new version of the law, and the president needs to sign it into law. The DOJ cannot make up the rules it WISHES were on the books. That isn't their job.

I don't think we need an injunction against 2257 as written, I think we need an injunction against the horrible hatchet job the DOJ has done adding new rules and re-writing the text of the rules without the legal right.

Everything else is arguing their case instead of ours.

Alex

[Adult Traffic]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The DOJ cannot write new law - they can only enforce what is on the books already. The creation of new legal burdens (especially for secondary producers) is beyond the scope of the DOJ's regulating abilities.

Wow. That's very clear and makes perfect sense. I actually never realized that.

Yes, the DOJ is not a law making body. Heh..
.

[tickler]

Maybe I'm too much of a black and white logical type of person.

But, why write the law so bad, and then say we didn't mean that, or we don't plan on enforcing that, etc.

Makes one start to wonder where they got their law degrees.

[Wazza]

"The government's reasoning behind this is the proliferation of websites with ... "amateur" or similar terms implying youth in their URLs"

These people are determined to come across as idiots aren't they...

[spacemanspiff]

the mere existence of the recordkeeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, has protected minors from becoming involved in sexually explicit conduct

Oh yeah, prove that.

[Mister13]

Originally Posted by tickler

Maybe I'm too much of a black and white logical type of person.

But, why write the law so bad, and then say we didn't mean that, or we don't plan on enforcing that, etc.

Simple, even when the law is retracted and they know it will be, all the changes that have been made and the fear put into people will stay for awhile. Plus who is going to go back and re-invest all the time they put into their XXX tours on webpages and other stuff? Not many. Most people will assume, well Im compliant now, if anything changes I dont have to worry and scramble.

Its the classic misdirection and get them into a frenzy so we get what we want our Government has been doing for the last 5 years.

[Mister13]

Yea Im sure that all the child molesters taking snapshots of children in the basement were quivering in their boots just like we were when 2257 hit.

Yup..Im sure they did..when I went to www.Ifuckkids.com the assholes there were scared shitless and vowed to overcome their mental illness and keep the children out.