Enforcing laws against illegal pornography

xxxlaw · 2012-03-23, 12:43 PM

Tickler - Look at DOJ's December, 2008 release of the current regulations and the commentary - and at page 77458 the economic inpact analysis, required by law, is set out. That's DOJ's attempt to comply with a federal law that requires agencies to lay out the economic cost to business owners of regulatory action. You'll find that on xxxlaw at http://www.xxxlaw.com/section-2257/promulgation.pdf. It's linked on the page http://www.xxxlaw.com/section-2257/index.html and at many other places on the site. I heard both Jeff Douglas and Paul Cambria rattle some sabres about that economic argument at the time, but so far as I know, the argument of economic impact has not make its way into any of the litigation against Section 2257. The lawyers handling that may have concluded that DOJ adequately discharged its duties under the law and that there was no advantage to going down that road. You'd have to check with them.

tickler · 2012-03-24, 10:18 AM

@xxxlaw

THX

I knew that I had read something about that costing, but couldn't find the exact reference!!!

2012-03-23, 12:43 PM	#1
xxxlaw Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: On the shores of Lake Michigan Posts: 22	Tickler - Look at DOJ's December, 2008 release of the current regulations and the commentary - and at page 77458 the economic inpact analysis, required by law, is set out. That's DOJ's attempt to comply with a federal law that requires agencies to lay out the economic cost to business owners of regulatory action. You'll find that on xxxlaw at http://www.xxxlaw.com/section-2257/promulgation.pdf. It's linked on the page http://www.xxxlaw.com/section-2257/index.html and at many other places on the site. I heard both Jeff Douglas and Paul Cambria rattle some sabres about that economic argument at the time, but so far as I know, the argument of economic impact has not make its way into any of the litigation against Section 2257. The lawyers handling that may have concluded that DOJ adequately discharged its duties under the law and that there was no advantage to going down that road. You'd have to check with them. __________________ JD Obenberger

2012-03-24, 10:18 AM	#2
tickler If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste! Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,177	@xxxlaw THX I knew that I had read something about that costing, but couldn't find the exact reference!!! __________________ Latina Twins, Solo, NN, Hardcore Latin Teen Cash