[ScottMcGowan]

Mike and I usually agree on shit like this. As it pertains to this topic, there are only a couple of things that I feel compelled to mention.

First there is Mike's statement in regards to how FSC sold memberships by using the guise that secondary and primary producers would be protected under the injunction. I, for one, was never left with this impression and I think don't anyone with any sense of self-preservation or proper business practice lived under that delusion either. Granted, some of those chuckleheads over on GFY might have been misinformed, but that's just par for the course, right?

As far as the constitutional/philisophical argument about 2257 and how it should be enforced if at all, I look at it this way.

I don't mind the idea of producers being required by law to keep records. There are all manner of different types of laws requiring companies of all types to record all manner of transactions. It does create a certain reversal of the burden of proof concept, but it really can be spun either way. Frankly, without any self-regulation or laws to keep vigilant in making sure performers are of age, I feel like we'd end up with a new Traci Lords every year. I think this could largely be attributed to how readily available and inexpensive video technology is these days. Any half-wit with a few hundred bucks and a bottle of cheap gin can "make a movie" these days and plaster it all over the net. Sure, he may not be a pro, but the result ends up being the same should someone ever make the mistake of buying or selling it. The idea isn't that far out of the realm of possibility either when you take into account how careless and misinformed a lot of the motherfuckers in this business can be.

I don't like the idea of random inspections and as far as I'm concerned the section of the law that allows for an inspection without probable cause of wrongdoing is unethical and unconstituional when taking into account the 4th Amendment. Furthermore, I feel the penalties for record keeping errors are outageous as outlined in 2257. It's my feeling that if someone knowingly shoots a minor, they should be punished in the context of actual child abuse and child pronography laws, not laws requiring records to be kept. Enforcement as it is described in 2257 is just plain harrassment.