The Stupidest Thing You Could Ever Do is…

[xxxjay]

The Stupidest Thing You Could Ever Do is…

Try to look for legal advice on boards.

There is more misinformation and paranoia being spread because webmasters are either too cheap, lazy, or just wants someone else to consult with a decent 1st Amendment attorney for them.

I admit, I have been guilty of trying to play armchair lawyer in the past and have scanned to boards for possible legal tips. Now, I have a decent relationship with our attorney, so if I have a question – I just pick up the phone and ask. It might cost a few bucks, but it is so much better than basing big decisions off of advice from lennybaddogjedi2 on GFY.

Now, if I post anything that is legally oriented I ask for a letter from the attorney that I can reprint and will only repeat a comment or two that was relayed from him to me. If you don’t agree – ask your lawyer.

Sure, opinions will vary between lawyers, but at least they are EDUCATED OPINIONS and not the mindless drivel of some TGP owner who just did too many bong hits or scare tactics of a 2257 profiteer.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS IF YOU WANT GOOD LEGAL ADVICE CONTACT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

JEFFERY DOUGLAS
http://www.lawyers.com/jdouglaslaw/

Greg Piccionelli
http://www.gregpiccionelli.com/

JD OBENBURGER
http://www.xxxlaw.net


In fact, while I was writing this post I got this ICQ and this pretty much sums it up:

m****k (12:58 PM) :
hey jay, this is w***r - just spoke with **** and he told me to hit you up about the 2257 stuff
m****k (12:58 PM) :
what should I do?
Jay (1:05 PM) :
i say get a lawyer
m****k (1:06 PM) :
realistically, if I just go about my business, what could happen to me? I don't make enough to get a lawyer!! Haha
Jay (1:05 PM) :
i still say get a lawyer
m****k (1:08 PM) :
well, should I drop galleries that have no 2257 links? is that what this is about, or that I have to have actual physical proof of each model on each gallery I've made? Also, what about this :

People seem to be missing a major fact here......The regulations are retroactive back to 1995. You could close your entire operation down today but the DOJ still has a 5 year statute of limitations that allows them to come after you for anything you have done in those last 5 years......And if you are still in business then it's 7 years.

Jay (1:09 PM) :
putting 2257 links on galleries to the primary producer will not hurt
m****k (1:10 PM) :
if the law really comes after me, what is the penalty?
Jay (1:10 PM) :
i am not a lawyer
m****k (1:12 PM) :
Well, can I be arrested for leaving these up?
Jay (1:14 PM) :
i am not a lawyer
Jay (1:15 PM) :
see have the injuction goes
m****k (1:15 PM) :
Do you have a link to the complete 2257? So I can get a better idea of what this is all about?
Jay (1:18 PM) :
there are a bunch - google it
Jay (1:18 PM) :
it is very long and hard to read though
m****k (1:18 PM) :
Why is this happening?
Jay (1:18 PM) :
bush
m****k (1:21 PM) :
no, i mean, what is 2257 about? me, as a webmaster, by law, as of June 23rd have to physically possess the records of any model I have used to promote any sponsor, whether it's the sponsors content or not?
Jay (1:31 PM) :
again - i am not a lawyer, nor qualified to give legal advice - if the law goes though then yes
m****k (1:31 PM) :
so on the 23rd, it's decided, either things are cool, or not?
Jay (1:35 PM) :
we need to see what happens with the injunction - if it flops - then we have to get you all of that stuff - which we have access to and will provide if it comes down to it
m****k (1:36 PM) :
so the injunction happens on the 23rd and will be decided that day?
m****k (1:37 PM) :
I'm just trying to figure out what to do - realistically, couldn't I drop my galleries on the 22nd and if the verdict is cool, throw them back up on the 24th?
Jay (1:38 PM) :
i really want to help you, but i am not a lawyer - we posted our lawyers statement on the whole thing and that is where we are standing - if / when he tells us different - we will do what he tells us to do

[cd34]

You might add Larry Walters, http://firstammendment.com/ and Fred Lane, http://sexbizlaw.com/ as two other fairly knowledgeable lawyers.

[emmanuelle]

I'm not convinced that going with an attorney who clearly has a conflict of interest is a wise move.

[Mr. Blue]

Nice post Jay and just for your own sanity go to lawyer.

[Rocco]

I'm in a good position as a friend of mine is a lawyer ace for "adult law" here

[RawAlex]

Second worst thing you can do is select a lawyer based on scare tactic posts on a webmaster board.

Alex