 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-22, 05:48 PM
|
#1 |
|
Took the hint.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,597
 |
I think there is a possiblity of not asking about 2257 records by name, but the typical police "bet you are using underage models". The only reference by webwoman is "i have all my legal paper work as far as taxes 2257 and zoning ect." (I searched the thread for 2257)
No matter WHO knocks at the door, possession of child pornography is always an issue. Why technically only the DoJ can ask for 2257 records, regular and local police could in theory charge you with possessing child porn, and your proof that it is not child porn is your 2257 records. They don't have to ask to see the records, they just can put in you a place where you have to show them to prove the point. NOTE! This doesn't appear to have anything to do with this thread / raid - just an observation. Alex |
|
|
|
2005-11-22, 06:50 PM
|
#2 |
|
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sex Delta
Posts: 5,084
 |
Alex - I was actually asking the question because it was brought up by robwebster who I guess is involved with this - and didnt know what the significance of the two paragraphs about it was??? I also noted that the theme of linklists and theyre containing "content" keeps getting brought up - again I believe in a "fear factor- stir the pot" type of way - since we all know that linking to other sites is not covered by the current 2257 (the one thats been around for 10 years) and I just was asking the question as I dont understand why its being interjected into a discussion about prostitution and purient sex laws???
I believe that most states - and Im sure their state does also - define BDSM as a prohibited sexual act - so it would be up to how it was being disseminated as to whether a charge could stick or not - but then a webmaster board would not be the best place for legal advice anyway  |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
