URGENT notice from trafficcashgold

[Maj. Stress]

Originally Posted by rscott

Piccionelli added that the Jackson case could possibly have ramifications for the FSC lawsuit with the Justice Department if in fact Jackson was a minor when she performed in adult videos.

I'm not sure I understand that statement.
All I see is that someone underage somehow obtained illegal documentation. The focus on this should have nothing to do with 2257 issues but does raise a question as to how the illegal documents were obtained.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Maj. Stress

I'm not sure I understand that statement.
All I see is that someone underage somehow obtained illegal documentation. The focus on this should have nothing to do with 2257 issues but does raise a question as to how the illegal documents were obtained.

I'm guessing here but ....

If she obtained valid government issued IDs just like Tacy Lords then it's a good example of how 2257 does nothing to protect minors. On the other hand if they accepted something silly such as a school ID then it could give 2257 some traction.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Maj. Stress

I'm not sure I understand that statement.
All I see is that someone underage somehow obtained illegal documentation. The focus on this should have nothing to do with 2257 issues but does raise a question as to how the illegal documents were obtained.

The 2257 issue is that this shows that the 2257 regs do not, and can not, in any way prevent underage models from appearing in adult porn content. Presumably the primary producer and the sponsor have all their 2257 docs for this model in impeccable shape - so what? Nothing in 2257 prevents deliberate deceit on the part of an underage model.

I think the judge ruling on the validity of 2257 regs would have to look at this case as an example and agree with the FSC that the regulations do not and can not do what the DoJ claims for them (to prevent underage models from appearing in porn shoots), and therefore the claim that 2257 creates an "unnecessary burden" on producers and sponsors is a valid one.