New 2257 stuff again

[lassiter]

Has anyone thought through the implications of the new rule that an employee must be present at the "principal place of business" of any adult website during normal business hours, Monday thru Friday for DoJ snap inspections?

Aside from eliminating virtually all part-time webmasters such as myself (no matter how responsible and unflaky - and I consider myself to be a very mature unflaky and responsible webmaster), it also means essentially no one-person operations can function at all!

The obvious purpose of most of the new 2257 rules are based on webmaster harrassment - Ashcroft needs to show enforcment of the rules, and there need to be Examples made of people to shore up the Christian right before the election. Nothing sexy about showing up for a 2257 inspection and finding everything in order, so they're gonna target people who, for example, go to a webmaster convention. If you are the sole employee, and you go to Internext, and DoJ knows about it, then they knock on your door while you're gone for a 2257 inspection. No one home? Boom! Five years in jail just for attending Internext, boyo! "Pornographer charged with ignoring Child Porn regulations" will be the totally accurate, if totally misleading, headline in yer local paper.

Think it can't happen? I'd suggest that's exactly the type of thing Ashcroft's boys intend to do. The question is, what are we gonna do about it, if anything?


|skull|

[Greenguy]

That rule has always been in place as far as I know.

[lassiter]

Originally posted by Greenguy
That rule has always been in place as far as I know.

It's the pre-election active-enforcement plans that are at issue. So, given that it's been in place all along, how have 1-person operations dealt with being in violation of this Federal regulation in the past?

A maximum two years in jail for not being home is ridiculous enough, but a maximum 5 years in jail for not being home, as proposed, is even more surreal. Obviously the 4th amendment no longer is operative.

[RawAlex]

this is an attempt by the enforcement side to actually WRITE the rules. While they can issue executive orders that clarify the rules, this one looks like they are creating a whole new record keeping requirement.

They will nail a few people, someone will take them to court, and it will get struck down. The level of record keeping they are suggesting is burdensome and requires the dissemination of complete model information in violation of privacy laws.

It's not going to work... but they will try.

Alex

[lassiter]

Originally posted by RawAlex

It's not going to work... but they will try.

Some people (like on the "Porn Professors" show yesterday) are speculating that it will be a large sponsor entity that they go after first, but I doubt it. I think for the reasons you mention, they're gonna almost exclusively go after smaller operators who can't afford the high-end adult industry lawyers to defend them. Small busts can make big headlines, and the pressure to cop a plea and take a large fine and maybe a 60-day jail term (again, for what - picking up the missus right at the time the feds come knocking?) will be greater, so it may be a long time before this gets challenged successfully.

I admit when it comes to government, I'm a pessimist, but mainly because I have too much first-hand knowledge of how it works.

[plateman]

So what is being said here is print all of the models ids and contract info out and have on file ?? Right

[RawAlex]

The only good news in all of this is that it is July already, and Assclown only has a few months left before the people speak. Unless they move rapidly right after this comes into effect, they will almost certainly not get anything into court until long after ashclown is gone.

It is an attempt to shut down the porn industry by creating new record keeping that is retroactive to 1996. Hands up all the people who have individual unblocked (no black over names or address) model releases for all those 5000 picture mega disks you all bought.

Hands up all the content companies willing to provide this documentation in violation of privacy laws.

Just like Acacia, some will do whatever, some will ignore it, and some will end up in court fighting it. Thankfully I feel the legal issues are clear, the order as issued is not a claification but rather an attempt to write new law without getting it passed by the correct branches of government. I really think that it will get shot down when it gets to court, but it won't happen UNTIL it gets to court.

Alex

[Surfn]

Originally posted by RawAlex
I really think that it will get shot down when it gets to court, but it won't happen UNTIL it gets to court.

Alex

I agree. This is just politics and scaremongering. Once the election is over everything will return to normal.

Even if it were enacted there is no money to fund the manpower necessary to enforce it.

Originally posted by Surfn
I agree. This is just politics and scaremongering. Once the election is over everything will return to normal.

Even if it were enacted there is no money to fund the manpower necessary to enforce it.

Oh, the money is there. In all honesty, if they wanted to pursue this, they would, regardless whether the law is clear, right, wrong or flawed. ie Acacia..... The bottom line is change will happen in this industry every day. Either you do your due dilligence and operate to the letter of the law or you go down. It is that simple.