2257 Injunction has been filed

[MadMax]

New 2257 Home Page From AVN. Mainly for AVN advertisers, but there are a couple good things for all adult WM there.

http://www.avn.com/2257

[basschick]

Linkster - thank you

does anyone else here think that what our industry really needs is a publicist? seriously... gambling used to have a terrible rap, but then vegas people got together, had news stories and stuff put out, and now gambling is wholesome family fun.

most of us are careful to report cp when we find it, we never would use it on our sites, and there are some intellegent and articulate members in our community. also there are pornstars like nina hartley who not only are actors, but also directors and producers. the world doesn't see people like that. maybe it's time they did.

just a thought...

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by basschick

Linkster - thank you

most of us are careful to report cp when we find it, we never would use it on our sites, and there are some intellegent and articulate members in our community. ...

Ya know the worst part about the reporting that we do is that in the past I always thought that reporting it to ASACP would cover me - and I do still report and fully support them - but in reading through regs today I found out that if you do not report it to a specific center (The something Exploitation Center) then you are still committing a crime as you have not followed the regs for reporting it and you are not covered if you get hauled out for it.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Candy, you make a very good point.

[Jim]

I hate to think that "the sky is falling" mentality is what fuels the mainstream stories but it sure looks that way.

To me, the less said, the better.

[Maj. Stress]

koolkat,
The way an injunction ruling was explained to me was that the injunction covers the party(s) that brought forward the legal action. The judge may decide at that time, that the injunction should cover everyone (the entire industry in this case).
I have also been told that it is common practice not to enforce any law that has an injunction against it out of respect for the judge and his court.
Not sure since I'm not a lawyer. That's just the explanation I got.

[koolkat]

Originally Posted by Maj. Stress

koolkat,
The way an injunction ruling was explained to me was that the injunction covers the party(s) that brought forward the legal action. The judge may decide at that time, that the injunction should cover everyone (the entire industry in this case).
I have also been told that it is common practice not to enforce any law that has an injunction against it out of respect for the judge and his court.
Not sure since I'm not a lawyer. That's just the explanation I got.

I would like to know how the government could enforce a law if they were ruled against for someone else. I just don't see how Person A and Person B have identical websites, but Person A has an injunction ruling in their favor while Person B does not. How can Person B be charged in violation of the law if it has been ruled that the law can't be used against Person A?

[WannaShagg]

Has anyone given any thought to the indentity theft crisis in this nation? So you are asking to freely give out people's personal info all over the internet. So maybe you can prove you are not using underage models but is the FBI going to be here for me when I have a line of horny stalkers at my door, are they going to be there for me when my indentity is stolen and credit ruined? I think this is going to create a huge problem with identity theft, personal info is new age gold. Why don't they pass legislation on protecting personal info first? Further more, it is still pretty disgusting that any child can just say yes I'm 18, I'll enter this site. Now I may be biting off my nose to spite my face, but wouldn't it be a more meaningful crusade to make sure kids don't have access to this stuff in the first place? Just being the devil's advocate. I just labled all my sites with ICRA, http://www.icra.org/, and did a test on my own sites. No computer with child protection software can get into my sites period. I am also going to first pay to affilaite myself with ASACP, http://www.asacp.org/index.php, before I pay to be a part of the Free Speech Coalition. I am already entitled to free speech, I am not going to pay for it. I do not shoot any other models. The only material I shoot is of myself. If a producer of purchased content represents to me that the model is over 18 and they are not, let the fuck that took the pictures go to jail. I will not be responsible and would never knowingly use such content, as is the case with all of us I can be sure. To date I know I have not. But I can not be implicated in a crime I didn't commit.

[Linkster]

there seems to be some confusion based on the last couple of msgs in this thread - the FSC file a TRO (temporary restraining order) which is NOT an injuction - big difference - and the TRO probably does only cover their members - although Id hate to be the DA that tried to side step that one

[WannaShagg]

Why don't we focus on what we can change? As webmasters we can concentrate on the things we can change. Test your site to make sure kids can't get into it. I found a cool tool for this here: http://mtas.surfcontrol.com/mtas/CPTAS.asp

"God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
courage to change the things we can,
and wisdom to know the difference."

Let the producers and photographers worry about the age of the models they are using, becuase unless you are standing there with a camera, this is out of your control. Concentrate on what you can change. Start by making sure the little bastards can't get in your site. Thanks and have a great day.

[Lemmy]

While I'm willing to take reasonable steps to make sure kids can't access my sites this is first and foremost the parents' responsibility.

[Toby]

Yeah, the discussion has taken a bit of a left turn. Maybe we're all getting tired of discussing 2257?