Quote:
|
Originally Posted by airdick
In the same place it has always been exempt, at 18 USC Section 2257(h).
What has happened is that the DOJ ammended the regulations (28 CFR 75.1 through 75.8) used to implement 18 USC Section 2257, but the wording of 2257 remains the same.
|
Hmmm, ok. But...the only place I can find the complete language of Sec. 2257 is at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...7----000-.html
where, for example, it states that
Quote:
|
(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 5 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.
|
And yet the 28 CFR Part 75 rule states:
Quote:
The statute requires the producers of
such matter to ``ascertain, by examination of an identification
document containing such information, the performer's name and date of
birth,'' to ``ascertain any name, other than the performer's present
and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name,
alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,'' and to record this
information. 18 U.S.C. 2257(b). Violations of these record-keeping
requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for not
more than five years for a first offense and not more than ten years
for subsequent offenses. See 18 U.S.C. 2257(i).
|
So either Gonzalez is misquoting existing law regarding the first- and second-offense penalties for violation, or else the changes to Part 75 themselves serve to amend existing law, or else the law has been amanded by Congress in the past year without anyone (including Cornell Law School) noticing.