2257 arguments

[Useless]

Linkster has brought up the most important point, which has been mentioned previously, but isn't really resonating the way it should. They aren't going to go out and just knock on random doors. If anyone ever gets a visit it will be for a damned good reason. Most of us can go on the way we always have, without a single piece of documentation, but those who promote questionable content will always be at risk.

[Wenchy]

Something has been bothering me and it's high time someone said it. The absolute bottom line is that the people the DOJ aimed the new regs at are not, have never been, and will never be the least bit interested in 2257, documentation, or legal content. I keep getting hung up on the idea that this was all done under the umbrella of keeping CP off the Net... but the CPers don't give two shits about laws or they wouldn't do what they do in the first place! Did they honestly think that creating a new set of regulations was going to suddenly scare the CPers into getting legal? Surely even our beloved gov'ment isn't that dense.

If what you say is true, UW, they didn't need this whole bloody shitstorm to accomplish their goals. Last time I knew anything about it, they don't call up the CP assholes who are under investigation and say, "Hi, this is the FBI. We're on our way over to bust you and all your fellow scumbags. Please be certain there is someone home when we knock on the door. Oh, and we'll need access to your computer while we're there so make sure the chair is empty."

Criminals are going to be criminals regardless of what laws/regs are on the books. All they've done is create a huge fucking construction zone on the adult internet commerce highway. Wonder how long it will take them to figure it out?

[docholly]

Since this is SinCity and its a 24/7 town, 9pm-4am are 'normal business hours'. on the remote possiblity that the doj should show up at my 'office' by the time they get to the back where its located they will be very mellow off the ganja contact high and the wicked back beat of the reggae band that plays there.

|rasta|

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Wenchy

If what you say is true, UW, they didn't need this whole bloody shitstorm to accomplish their goals.

You are absolutely correct, Wenchy. This new and unimproved version of the regs was completely unnecessary. I've always thought it to be a completely political move, just to show the right wing constituency that the DOJ is doing something for them. Nothing more. What their intentions are beyond that, your guess is as good as mine. But GW's regime makes a lot of hopelessly scary moves purely for political reasons. 2257 alone does not scare me. It's the big picture that has me in a bit of a panic.

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

A buddy has told me that he has placed his records on a laptop. He states that he has it by his door and that if an investigator shows up that he is going to hand him the laptop and tell him to have a seat on his front porch.

lol, I got a laptop for my record keeping...I was thinking of making them go to my basement with it...but I like the porch idea better.

[Mr. Blue]

You know, you could always write a script that changes that time when you'll be available for inspection. Here's how it works...on Monday, it shows you're available on thursday, friday, saturday for inspection...when you hit Tuesday, you're only available friday, saturday, sunday...etc, so forth and so on.

[Linkster]

Originally Posted by Tommy

Linkster we do argee :-)
I didnt start this thread to stir shit or spread fear

Tommy - I definitely was not referring to you my friend - you are far from a shit-stirrer (well - most of the time LOL)
I was thinking back to when all of this started and the "Oh my god - jump ship and grab a life-vest posts" made accross most boards including this one by a group of people that had no law background and really hadn't even put any thought into what they were saying at the time. They just seem to come out of the woodwork every time stuff happens around this industry - happened a few years back with COPA twice that I remember and has happened on a few occassions since I think they just get pleasure out of hearing themselves talk with authority and hoping that they get a little following behind them

BTW Tommy - forgot to ask ya when you called - hows that beautiful daughter of yours doing?

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Tommy - having been involved with government inspection processes before as you know, I look at it more from how things would really work if a business were to be brought up for inspection.

First off - the inspectors are going to schedule a visit for the inspection - if it were a normal inspection, to meet with the holder of records. That assumes that the person being inspected is just a routine look at records.
If the inspectors have a specific reason, which in my opinion is why this whole law came about, to look at someones records where they think that they already have a crime being committed, but just need to be able to prove it, then that would be a very different situation. In my little mind I have to look at why an agency would even draft a law like this, and looking back at my "other life" the times when they invoked a "show up at the door" surprise visit, is when they already had plenty of reason - and were usually right - they just needed to catch the organization in the act.
For us, where we already keep our sites clean, and report illegal stuff, if they really just wanted to inspect to fill their "quotas" which I highly doubt with all the illegal shit going on out there, then they are going to be business like with it. We used to get notified 3 months in advance for inspections, given a list of what they were going to inspect, and the regulatory guides to say "here's how we are going to conduct the inspection. And BTW here's the time we would like to do this and if thats inconvenient, please call us and schedule a different time."

The fear-mongers and "sky-is-falling" people in our industry have done a good job at making this into a gestapo/Orwellian type of situation mostly for their own benefit or because they thrive on the attention.

Tommy - if you remember our phone conversation - there are a lot of what I call "shit-stirrers" in this biz that just want to see everybody cower and hide or even worse - look up to them as "important people" so they keep posting BS that has nothing based in real-life situations. After sitting through numerous government regulator inspections personally, I can tell you that these guys are just civil workers getting paid a pretty low salary, and most (while very knowledgable) are just following a little guide book written by their agency that says step-by-step - here's what to look at and here's the questions to ask

For the minority of situations where DOJ really wants this law available (the guys they know are transporting CP and distributing it) for surprise inspections - I would have to say based on my opinions - they ought to have a tool of some kind to be able to do that - I just dont know what the constitutionally protected way is to accomplish that?

You nailed it. Good post

[Tommy]

Linkster I know you didnt mean me :-) and my daughter is doing great, walking, talking a little

that gets me thinking ....what about a single parent
cant go enroll your kids in school
cant go to parent teacher meetings
cant even drive your kids to and from school

what about jewish people
they have that holiday where they arent allowed to touch anything electronic
I guess they have to choose between viloating their religon or a federal jail sentance

the republicans Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales singled us out as a group
when he said he was gonna go after obsenity

and we cant get rid of him because with HIS law he makes it a federal crime for us to vote

[Linkster]

Tommy - you bring up a point that I havent seen posted anywhere - back in May this year the DOJ did something else that no one seems to care about - they formed a new task force called the OBSCENITY PROSECUTION TASK FORCE
and I havent heard word one on any board about any of the things they say they are going after - and I guarantee that they are looking to get into a lot more than this 2257 stuff
Talk about making myself a shit-stirrer LOL

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/May/05_crm_242.htm

[Wenchy]

I noticed that the other day reading through the whining crybaby diatribe that was the DOJ attorneys' "rebuttal" to the FSC filing... I remember thinking it was important at the time, but by the time I finished wading through all the self-serving, totally-avoiding-the-point bullshit, my brain had turned to mush and I completely forgot about it... until you mentioned it, Linkster.

I sure would like to know what's going on in THOSE meetings... or maybe I wouldn't |shocking|

[Mishi]

Originally Posted by Wenchy

Something has been bothering me and it's high time someone said it. The absolute bottom line is that the people the DOJ aimed the new regs at are not, have never been, and will never be the least bit interested in 2257, documentation, or legal content. I keep getting hung up on the idea that this was all done under the umbrella of keeping CP off the Net... but the CPers don't give two shits about laws or they wouldn't do what they do in the first place! Did they honestly think that creating a new set of regulations was going to suddenly scare the CPers into getting legal? Surely even our beloved gov'ment isn't that dense.

If what you say is true, UW, they didn't need this whole bloody shitstorm to accomplish their goals. Last time I knew anything about it, they don't call up the CP assholes who are under investigation and say, "Hi, this is the FBI. We're on our way over to bust you and all your fellow scumbags. Please be certain there is someone home when we knock on the door. Oh, and we'll need access to your computer while we're there so make sure the chair is empty."

Criminals are going to be criminals regardless of what laws/regs are on the books. All they've done is create a huge fucking construction zone on the adult internet commerce highway. Wonder how long it will take them to figure it out?

So right on all counts...and the scary thing is, it may be the 2257 BS that turns this bleeding-heart liberal into an NRA supporter. Suddenly, I get where they're coming from. Yikes!

[serenity]

Originally Posted by Cleo

I'm going to go take a shower now. I may even masturbate while I'm in there so it may be a sexual explicate shower. I will not have a 2257 statement shoved up my ass while I'm naked and showering so if anyone from the shrubbery administration wants to arrest me you can find me soaking wet in my shower.

I was just buying into the whole panic bit. Doing a little quiet freaking out...Then I read your post, laughed my ass off and feel better about it all. Thanks, Cleo, you are hilarious! Well said.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Mishi

So right on all counts...and the scary thing is, it may be the 2257 BS that turns this bleeding-heart liberal into an NRA supporter. Suddenly, I get where they're coming from. Yikes!

Hiya, Mishi!
I'd say it's quite easy to be both progressive and armed. All those Bill of Rights amendments were put in the constitution for a good purpose, and the 2nd amendment was put in not to protect "the rights of hunters" as the often-silly NRA would have it, but to allow the citizens to bear arms as an equalizing force against potential governmental oppression of the people.

[Linkster]

lassiter - that kinda glosses over what the real intent (as has been proven in actual supreme court cases over the last 200 years) of the 2nd amdn. really means - every case that has ever come up falls back to the right of the citizens (this was very important in the Dred Scott case as at that time the blacks were not considered "citizens") to possess arms that could be used in forming a state militia to protect the US, the people of the US from themselves - an insurgency , or against tyrannical government takeover. This has been decided in so many cases by the supreme court when it came to things like sawed-off shotguns (the court felt that these are not really military arms that could be used in a militia) and other arms that - again wouldnt be a normal military weapon.
Keep in mind that at the same time, there was no standing army - as a matter of fact that was prohibited by law - the idea was to have all male citizens between 18-50 available for an army if the need arose. It was also echoed throughout the states laws and in some cases, even more stringent.
It really was not singularly put in there for the protection against government oppression - it was there for any states' needs to protect itself.

[Ledfish]

Tommy, I think when it comes down to it, if the DOJ tried to go after someone for a 2257 violation where the only part of the law broken was not being available on a particular day for a specific reason, even though it was during the stated hours on the website, they probably wouldn't have much luck with a judge and jury. Further I don't think they would risk everything to go after someone because they were not available due to non-routine circumstances, like voting, doctors appointments, etc. Probably not even a vacation.

When the IRS is investigate an individual or organization, they still make an appointment and try and do it at the tax payers convenience because later on, if they show that they tried to be accomidating and you never accomidated them, then it makes you look more like you have something to hide, So I think with a 2257 inspection, if they tried to inspect multiple times and each time you conveniently were not available, then it might appear you were dodging them and they would probably have a good case against you.

I think Linkster makes a good point though about it being very business like and I even think that will apply unless they have already have a case against you for something really damning. I think even if something seems questionable, inspections will ultimately be handled very business like.

I also think the sky is falling in mentality is a bit hysterical. I don't think that the DOJ has tens of thousands of inspectors trained and ready to go all over the country, just waiting for the word to go start knocking on doors.....which is what some people would have you believe.

P.S. I like the front Porch idea. Personally I'd put them on my back deck. Since it is in the sun all day long, they better hope it's a cloudy day or they better make sure they have plenty of sunscreen.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Linkster

l(this was very important in the Dred Scott case as at that time the blacks were not considered "citizens")

Exactly - which is why every subsequent decision ruling against the right of free citizens to bear arms was based on the precedent from the tortured logic of an explicitly racist Supreme Court decision, not on the intent of the founders. Jefferson had quite a few things to say on the topic, including that of an armed revolution being necessary every 20 years or so to keep government power from becoming too entrenched or oppressive.

As for the states, the "National Guard" as the "militia" is another erroneous and tortured reading. The state National Guards were mainly formed in the early 20th century, not in the 1700s, as a way to get around the "posse comitatus" act that forbade the army from being used against the citizens. The Guards were formed to threaten and kill striking citizens who were protesting against working conditions in the factories and mines - again, not a militia of the "people" but merely another arm of state
oppression. And of course, since President Reagan and Congress federalized all state National Guards in the 1980s, they are essentially illegal and unconstitutional forces, since they are now de facto federal military forces used against US citizens in direct violation of Posse Comitatus.

But I won't bore everyone with more of this - there's plenty of info to be found by Googling the topics.

[SirMoby]

I'm not supporting the fight against the law to stop record keeping. I do believe that better record keeping could lead to protecting children and I'm for that. This reg is whack and won't help at all. The first that I mentioned to my wife is that if this goes through then I can't take my daughter to school or even the hospital without first notifying the DOJ and vacations will no longer be possible.

Unfortunately the department has stated clearly that it's #1 goal is to fight obscenity. Since the budget for child exploitation and obscenity is linked every dollar spent fighting obscenity is a dollar taken from protecting children.

The next few months will show if our way of life continues or dies.

[RBC]

Some excellent posts here in this thread some funny, some succinct with the state of affairs.

The one thing that has a bug up my ass about 2257 is the major lack of efficient design in interpreting the letter of the law with regard to record keeping. After all, the one thing all the attorney's agree is the ambiguous design of 2257. Going after CP seems to me to be the mantra statement but in truth, don't think so.
More or less it's a witch hunt for whomever the DoJ really wants to go after. The law reads like bad improvised jazz and the DOJ wants to keep it nice and confusing so when the day comes its all about interpretation.

It will surely be interesting to see how this plays out.

[DementedWynter]

You know, you could always write a script that changes that time when you'll be available for inspection. Here's how it works...on Monday, it shows you're available on thursday, friday, saturday for inspection...when you hit Tuesday, you're only available friday, saturday, sunday...etc, so forth and so on.

[Tubey]

Hey all, I just pulled everything down and made copies....some of the content providers do not have a 2257 statement.....some do, but no content....people are saying alot of things regarding this and that... no clear cut this is what you need for a secondary producer this is what you don't.....some are providing content with his or her home address....how can I use that content? Just a bunch of confusion about what is really going on and how it affects us.... personally all my content was purchased but I am pulling everything until some definate answers come out....so I guess I could vote if my site is not active....Right???

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Tubey

....so I guess I could vote if my site is not active....Right???

Well they did say that they wouldn't be prosecuting post facto on model IDs in their filing against the FSC claim.

But, they were told in the comments that a lot of the stuff shows no proper dating. Yet, they still went ahead and wrote it anyways.

ie: I bought content last year that was valid. What happens next month if I use it, and the model IDs are not up to the new standards. Not really interested in tossing content, 'cause they changed the rules in mid-stream. And their 7 year record keeping rules probably prevent me from tossing it.

[Tommy]

Ledfish
I am 100% sure if they tried to prosacute you for not being there
no jury would convict you

your missing my point

are they allowed to pass laws that take away your right to vote and serve on jury
are they allowed to pass laws that make it a federal crime for picking your kids up from school

this whole thing could be done very easly
the doj gives out a user and pass or you regester one with them

you put a 2257 link on the bottom of your webpage that links to a page in a password protected directory
and on that page are the model ids for that shoot

this way they could be checked 24/7 by someone
no need to put investigators on planes, no need for any sort of traveling

1 person from the DOJ could check hundreds of sites a day

[mrMagoo]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Tommy - you bring up a point that I havent seen posted anywhere - back in May this year the DOJ did something else that no one seems to care about - they formed a new task force called the OBSCENITY PROSECUTION TASK FORCE
and I havent heard word one on any board about any of the things they say they are going after - and I guarantee that they are looking to get into a lot more than this 2257 stuff
Talk about making myself a shit-stirrer LOL

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/May/05_crm_242.htm

I think (very dangerous) but I'm not sure that the obscenity cases have been held up by the extreme associate case.

I heard the DOJ was going to appeal but haven't heard anything new.

Here is a link to an article:
http://www.peak.org/mailing-list/arc.../msg05988.html

[Dravyk]

I'd thought up a dozen different things wrong with 2257 that should get the sucker overturned ...

But I have to admit, you've come up a beauty, Tommy! And one I'd not seen elsewhere.

Good to see the Old School brains are still working.