2257 and Linking

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Electra

Why go after some really big guy who has deep pockets enough to defend themselves and tie up the process when they can go after a bunch of small fry who can't fight back.

Small fry don't make much of a splash in the news.

[walrus]

But small fry's set precedence and that makes it much easier to go after the big fish. A bunch of small easy victories makes it much easier for them once they start after the big guys.

I'm not a "sky is falling" type either and am going to take a long wait and see approach but this does have the capability of changing the way porn sites are marketed!

[Linkster]

Electra - for the same reason they did when they went after L Flynt to test the waters on the obscenity laws when Charles Keating was the head of the President's commission on pornography under Nixon - (hmmm does that name sound familiar?? Later Keating was indicted on fraud and many other charges after the Lincoln Savings debacle)
and went after Flynt - of course we know that the obscenity charges were overturned but for some reason that is the type of publicity this "movement" within the government starting with the Cinncinati based Citizens for Decent Literature back in the 1950s and ever since. Its all about showing publicly to the right wing church supporters of the Republican party that they are doing something for them - thats why I think that low-hanging fruit in this case is the major producers.
Hanging a bunch of free site WMs out on a branch wont do anything major to stop the flow of pornography on the net - and that is after all the major thrust of all of these new changes in the regs.

[Linkster]

Alex - although I respect that opinion that Lassiter puts forward I still disagree with the concept that the DOJ would do something along those lines - that takes way too many resources away from actual c*p investigations - as well as the fact that there have been "big news" stories about the adult web played on CNN and others in the past that didnt last more than a day or two - and then faded - the government needs something that will last for a long time so that they have something to report to congress on their inspections (after all isnt that the whole reason the regs got changed after they got embarassed)

I guess its really a toss-up but I think that enough people out here already seem to have good plans in place for their records making it a little tougher if they would go the route of the little WMs.

And finally - I think that the point of little WMs has been over stated on some legal fronts to garner biz which to me just hits the wrong chord - its not that I dont know what direction it will take that bothers me the most - its the vultures out there yelling the sky is falling (ONCE AGAIN) that has me aggravated

[Useless]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Hanging a bunch of free site WMs out on a branch wont do anything major to stop the flow of pornography on the net - and that is after all the major thrust of all of these new changes in the regs.

Very true. Little webmasters, even by the dozens, don't produce big headlines. The DOJ is a political office. They want and need headlines, not little cases scattered across the land. I'm just not seeing this as all that everyone would like to trump it up to be.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Toby

Small fry don't make much of a splash in the news.

They'd make a splash if DoJ busted a few hundred of them in one week. The newspapers would headline with "Over 300 web porn operators were charged with violations of federal anti-CP laws in a nationwide DoJ dragnet." "Many of the charged pornographers were found to be operating out of suburban residences. Neighbors said they had 'no idea'..."

You can see where this could easily go...

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by lassiter

They'd make a splash if DoJ busted a few hundred of them in one week. The newspapers would headline with "Over 300 web porn operators were charged with violations of federal anti-CP laws in a nationwide DoJ dragnet." "Many of the charged pornographers were found to be operating out of suburban residences. Neighbors said they had 'no idea'..."

You can see where this could easily go...

Lassiter, you hit it exactly. It isn't about the truth, it's about the headlines. That's exactly how it will play, big picture cnn.com stuff.

Alex

[Electra]

Originally Posted by Toby

Small fry don't make much of a splash in the news.

This is true..but let me play devils advocate for a moment. It doesn't make much of a splash in the news, agreed but it will look good statistically when the DOJ can go to people and say "look..we have over 500 convictions..look how well this law is working." Maybe they aren't trying to make a splash in the news just building up an impressive conviction rate.

I'm in agreement with those who have posted that we all need to consider ourselves targets..at least until we can get better clarification of everything the 2257 law actually means. I still don't understand a big chunk of it.