ADVISORY TO FREE SPEECH COALITION MEMBERS
 

As you may already know, an inspection for 2257 records was conducted on Monday on a prominent FSC member company. (See AVN.com story for further details.) FSC members are advised that additional inspections are expected. With that possibility in mind, we offer the following advice to our members:

STATEMENT TO FSC MEMBERS:

If your business is a secondary producer ONLY, and not a primary producer (please confirm with your lawyer) you may print the following information and present it to would-be 2257 inspectors. Be advised that misinforming a federal official about your status pertaining to 2257 inspections could result in criminal prosecution, so please confirm your status with your lawyer.
---------------------------------------------

STATEMENT TO 2257 INSPECTORS:

All businesses operating at this address are "secondary producers" within the meaning of the term in the preliminary injunction in the matter entitled Free Speech Coalition, et al. -vs- Alberto Gonzales, Case No. 05cv1126 -WDM (U.S.D.C., D., Colo). As members of the Free Speech Coalition, the businesses located here are not subject to inspection by the any agent of the Department of Justice pursuant to the preliminary injunction issued in that above matter. If there are any questions, please call attorney NAME OF YOUR LAWYER - PHONE NUMBER.

Printing now...

ty for the update :)

Why are people so surprised by this - these primary producers have been subject to these inspections for 10 years - just because the DOJ hasnt done any inspections shouldnt all of a sudden trigger any new widespread panic - damn I hate people that take advantage of peoples fears

I think the mere fact that they have made their first inspection(s) since the law was enacted signals a significant change in the way the DoJ will be approaching this in the future. While I think any panic right now would be considerably premature i think it is important to know exactly what the response should be if the men in black come calling.
For better or worse the FSC is giving some people a clear course of action to follow and thats kind of comforting :)


spaz

spazlabz - the point I was making is that the inspection requirement has been in effect for over 10 years - this isnt something based on the changes they made last year - the inspections have just not made the news till now - if they even did any since the first law came out. The reason there was such a big reaction last year was they were trying to change that inspection rule to include secondary producers - the primary producers like the 10 they are inspecting have always been under those requirements and Id say based on their films and dvds - they have always met those requirements. This isnt the first inspection ever done under 2257 - its just been publicized this time - and in my mind to start a little more scare "fun"

And really, if the DOJ would simply use their resources to regularly inspect the primary producers to ensure that the content which they are producing and selling is up to snuff, it wouldn't be necessary to place the burden of 2257 record keeping on secondary users (I currently refuse to call us "producers" ;)).

EDIT -
Maybe they could create a system of compliance for European producers so they could legally sell us content produced overseas, while not forcing us to perform the record keeping. They can't inspect records abroad, so I guess they are forced to inspect secondary users of foreign content.

LOL I have absolutely no coherent reply to this--
well, ok, except to say that you and i are addressing two entirely different but related topics and that I quoted you in error and obviously misunderstood your point :)

spaz

Amen...

I am much more afraid this go around than I was during the last bout of 2257. I'm not even sure why. Maybe it's a combination of all the shit that is going on - which isn't really much, but it's more than usual. I KNOW that I don't have a solid reason to be afraid - and somehow that distresses me even more. |crazy| I don't promote extreme sites. I've never produced content. I've purchased very little, and that's all Paul Markham's stuff, so I'm not worried about it at all. I've used a lot less sponsor content than active free site and gallery builders do. And though I cannot get the 2257 docs on that stuff, I have the sincerest of doubts that any judge or jury would put me in a butt-pounding prison for simply not having the documention on someone else's verifiably legal content. Yes, that alone is what they wish to criminalize - I just don't see it as realistically ending in a jail sentence.

I'm not afraid of anyone busting in my door. Hell, it might just fall off the hinges on it's own. I'm not too sure which would be worse; having the local media embarass my wife and children, or having to lead well-paid federal agents through this shit hole I live in.

Amen! Is it time for another membership drive?

IMO. Since most of us here are secondary procducers, our concern should not be on inspection. However, if you are not up to snuff on 2257 and are a secondary producer you might want to take a close look at HR 4472 in which Congress is attempting to do an end run around the courts. If Bush signs 4472 into law, secondary producers are back to square one on federal record-keeping requirements.

The bottom line is if you are in this business your are going to keep 2257 records. Is it a pain in the ass but so is keeping records for IRS especially knowing that a national sale tax could destroy that agency.

"Evening ladies, welcome to Wal Mart" or "Would you like to upsize that?"

One can only hope.:D


until that time, there is always consular status.|headbang|


XXXJay, what significance do you see this precedent setting?

Or was it a premonition to those who participate in FSC?

Since 4472 affects more than just this industry, I seriously doubt Bush will ever sign it. It also affects both the entertainment and broadcast industries and with Fox already having stated they are opposed to it, do you really think the GOP will risk upsetting their propaganda machine? If Bush did sign it, it would immediately go to the courts so even then there would be plenty of time to prepare. To worry about it now seems pretty premature to me, but what do I know, I'm just a blogger! Oh, who also happens to work in the broadcast and entertainment industries...I'd be screwed!

And how, exactly, does a snap 2257 inspection accomplish that, as opposed to DoJ simply requesting a faxed copy of model release forms and IDs if there is a question about a specific performer? Does it keep the producers from hastily destroying all the records they presumably must have on file of their underage talent? |confused|

Exceptions have already been carved out for Hollywood. Mainstream producers get to make an appointment in advance to show their records (no surprise snap inspections) and there are no actual penalties for their non-compliance. |banghead|

I wouldn't be so sure thats true since, like I said, Fox has already gone public with their opposition. They wouldn't be doing that if they were not affected. Other than that, I say |bullshit|

And why, exactly, are you completely again 2257 inspections of primary producers? Is the IRS going to stop all spot audits when all of the proper documents could be faxed?

Why would anyone destroy documentation on an underage model? If they know that she or he is underage, they aren't going to document them. So, any documentation could only server to prove that the model committed fraud. And yes, as foolish as I think your assertion is, I do believe it would keep a producer from "hastily destroying" any documentation. I doubt that the FBI shows up and says, "Hey, we need to inspect your documents. We're going to go get some coffee first, so don't do anything foolish while we're gone. See ya in 20 minutes!"

Its not likely they will fuck with secondarys yet...not with the origanal version in court. It's mostly a primary's problem for the short run.

XXX Jay, given this article http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=16215 which states in part
Does it sound like we can still just hand them a form that we are secondary producers only?

ok now that 4472 is a reality does that mean that secondary producers now have to have docs for everything they have?
like immediately?


spaz

spaz - normally after a law is signed it has a waiting period before it is published in the Federal Register (90 days is what I remember - but dont quote me on it)
Once its published then it becomes law unless injunctions are filed and approved by a judge to prevent enforcement

thats what I thought as well but then i read this from J. D. Obenberger
and it made me go huh?|huh
of course everyone can check out his website here http://www.xxxlaw.net/


spaz

Well - I dont know what the effective date is - but the added section (503) which adds in the simulated sex requirements has this statement:
"The provisions of this section shall not become effective until
90 days after the final regulations implementing this section are
published in the Federal Register. The provisions of this section
shall not apply to any matter, or image therein, produced, in whole
or in part, prior to the effective date of this section"

Has anyone come across anything like a plain language explanation of what the secondary producers will have to do to comply, written for secondary producers, and not for lawyers?

I haven't.

Same as primary producers. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but what this new law does essentially is make anyone that publishes sexually explicit content a producer, no primary or secondary designation, just everyone is a producer and must keep the specified records.

They just keep making 2257 an even bigger mess. It's going to take some time and lots of money for lawyers, but I don't see much chance for most of this law, as it pertains to 2257, holding up under legal challenge. I think we'll see an injunction against this new part too.

I'd guess that it will be the major topic of discussion at the legal seminar during Internext.

That doesn't really answer the questions a secondary producer has to ask...

Is it retroactive?

What is the effective date?

Are there any differences between the records requirements of 2257 and 4472?

Any special specifications for record keeping added by 4472?

Will there be any changes in the types of records content producers provide?