2257 regs passed

[Boogie]

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/May/05_ag_272.htm

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales signed a final rule implementing provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, the Justice Department announced today. The rule requires producers of sexually explicit material to maintain records proving that performers in those depictions are not minors. It will be published in the Federal Register.

Minors are incapable of consenting to perform in sexually explicit depictions and are often forced to engage in sexually explicit conduct. For these reasons, visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons under the age of 18 constitute illegal child pornography. The record-keeping requirements, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2257, are crucial to preventing children from being exploited by the production of pornography. Violations of the requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for up to five years for a first offense and up to 10 years for subsequent offenses.

The rule signed today updates the section 2257 regulations and establishes a more detailed administrative inspection system designed to enable the federal government to ensure that children are not exploited in the production of pornography. For example, the rule ensures that the definition of “pornography producers” includes producers of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct published on the Internet. It also clarifies the means by which a producer must verify the identity and age of each performer and the manner in which records of these verifications must be kept. Additionally, the final rule establishes a detailed structure for conducting administrative inspections of pornography producers’ records to ensure that children are not being used as performers in sexually explicit depictions.

Although regulations implementing section 2257 were first published in 1992, the proliferation of pornography on the Internet required that the regulations be updated and strengthened. In addition, Congress recently made extensive amendments to the child exploitation statutory scheme in the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2003.

can someone who is more educated about 2257 break this down for idiots like me?

[Barron]

this article as written is incomplete. You cant understand it because it doesnt say what the changes are.

The big deal is the changes. If Gonzales adopted the proposed changes from last year, that means the publisher(webmaster) must keep detailed records. That is if he signed the part that redefines the meaning of the secondry producer to included the publisher.

I know what the proposed changes where, but without seeing what Gonzales actually signed, its hard to tell whats going on.

Has anybody seen or have a link to what he actually signed?

-

[Greenguy]

Yeah - the definition of "producer" as they see it needs to be seen before we all go into panic mode

[Boogie]

well surely one of us has to have a lawyer whose been keeping up on this

lets hope he's got some info for us. I'll be glued to this thread until then!

[Smutferret]

Hello all,

The Free Speech coalition has a run through in .pdf format that explains it pretty well.

This was written before it passed...

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/p...esentation.pdf

Regards,
SF

[Greenguy]

If their links are in order, that pdf file was written last year - we really need to know what Gonzales signed into law & not what everyone's read in the past.

[Boogie]

What greenguy said

that PDF file is the 'worst case scenario' there is no telling what specifics on the regs were applied today without seeing the law... which is not yet available on the DOJ site.

So its gonna take a little time before we know for sure whats what.

[MadMax]

Perhaps I'll have to get back to work on my database application....

[Smutferret]

It's true that is an oldish .pdf but it's hard to find current info and that was the best walk through I've seen on 2257 and I thought it might be helpful...

I found this at avn.com, thought it doesn't help with understanding anything it is interesting...

March 17, 2005
FSC Plans to File Lawsuit Challenging New 2257 Regulations
Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Michelle Freridge announced at tonight's FSC meeting that as soon as the new, more severe federal 2257 regulations are released, the FSC plans to file a lawsuit on behalf of the industry, seeking an injunction prohibiting any prosecutions under them. Freridge said the FSC will take a pro-active approach, and will not wait for any such prosecutions to be initiated before it files its suit. The new Federal Labeling & Recordkeeping Law regulations could be released by the Department of Justice as soon as next month, she said, stressing that the FSC is seeking financial support from the industry to fund the litigation. Further details of this story will posted on AVN.com on Friday.

Regards,
SF

[Boogie]

Xbiz article on it:
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8780

[Greenguy]

....none of which lists what exactly he signed. Don't get your panties into a knot just yet

[Boogie]

My panties stay entirely knotless 24/7

just figured we should keep our ears to the ground

[Greenguy]

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8780

...Obenberger went on to say that the next step now that Gonzales has signed the rule, is final publication in the Federal Register, although it remains unclear if the DOJ has taken any of the public's commentary to heart.

The Federal Register is similar to a newspaper that is published five days a week and contains all administrative news. Thirty days after publication in the Register, the amended rule becomes law, Obenberger told XBiz, unless a court enjoins its enforcement.

[Barron]

To late, everyone is in a panic already. I hope everyone remembers we still need to see what he actually sign.


-

[Steve]

Yep its panic time again. When the purposed regulations came out last year my attorney and I looked at them. One has to remember that those purposed regulations apply to the use of hardcore content only. Whatever the final published regulations say this will turn out to be a long drawn out court fight before we know for sure. Even assuming a worst case scenario we will still have have link lists and TGPs but they will probably be just softcore.

Since I did my first site in 1999 I've always put a link to a 2257 notice at the bottom of my index page even though I only use softcore pics. Perhaps we all should do that.

[Lunatic]

So I guess we're waiting for tomorrow's edition of the Federal Register? Or how long do these laws take to get put into it? Getting a legal primer here.

[Emperor]

Hi guys,

If I link to a gallery using a text link does that make me a "secondary producer" ?

I've been following this 2257 thing and I never see that point made, which is unusual considering how many sites contain nothing more than a set of external links.

Take care,
Emperor

[RawAlex]

Until we see the actual text of what was signed into "administrative law" (not an actual law, I should point out) then we have something to work from.

It should be noted that if the wording stays the same as it did originally, it is likely that there will be a lawsuit stopping enforcement until it can be heard by a full federal court, as the same wording was shot down in sundance vs reno in the late 90s.

This isn't an administrative clarification, it's an attempt to end run congress, the house, and the president by writing new law. The courts don't stand for it.

Alex

[Fido]

I understand if § 2257 forces content producers to keep records about models. Surely good thing. What I do not understand is why I sould have on my site 2257 page. How can that page will be helpful to someone? I see, lets say, some free site with a model that looks very young. I click a 2257 link on that free site and it will show me a list of, lets say, 50 content producers. Now what? What is that 2257 page good for, could someone clarify this to me, please? Thanks.

[SirMoby]

GG is right. No need to worry until we know what was signed. We all want to make sure that the models are of legal age and I'm fine with that. The last proposal wasn't about protecting minors from such things though. It was more about deciding what people could see and what they could not see by providing unrealistic regulations.

Let's wait until the actual documents can be read.

[Greenguy]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

...Let's wait until the actual documents can be read.

...and then we can all start to inquire about moving our families & hosting to Canada

[Jim]

Fuck these Republican Cocksuckers
They can all French kiss my hairy brown asshole.

[juggernaut]

Would this effect people from out of the usa? I mean we cant enforce a guy in the UK or Germany or anyother place to stick to USA internet laws can we?

[Tommy]

I ahve nothing to add at this time I just wanna be suscribed to this thread

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by juggernaut

Would this effect people from out of the usa? I mean we cant enforce a guy in the UK or Germany or anyother place to stick to USA internet laws can we?

While there are international treaties in place that could allow the US to extradite and prosecute a foreign national for selling illegal materials to people in the US (can you say, Noriega? ), this is messy and expensive and would be counterproductive except in cases of actual CP. It's doubtful European countries would play ball on recordkeeping violations unless there were something substantial to back up the CP allegations.