Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
Here is a link to a copy of the complaint filed by the FSC ....
http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/...older-2257.pdf
The most interesting aspect of the complaint, at least to me, is Paragraph 55. Which reads in relevant part...
It does appear that the graveman of FSC's argument is that producers of adult content need to post their name and address on the compliance notice as well as the need to be available for 20 hours per week and open one's home or business to a warrantless search.
With that in mind, I have to ask -- with the advent of third party record keepers such as www.2257Safe.com and other services like it, ( http://www.informationlaw.com http://www.heliosdatasystems.com/ ) how can the FSC expect the US Attorney's Office not to know that there are third party record keepers and if they do - not to use that as a potential defense to this complaint and request for an injunction ?
The statement that there are no viable third party record keepers now commercially available for the use of the plaintiffs in this case may be considered misleading by the court.
Why not make the attack in a way where victory appears to be more easy achieved ?
Are there not better arguments that can be made against 2257 that can get around the new regs and changes allowing third party record keeping ? |
I understand you are promoting your new business segment, and I don't really have a problem with that.
And from a practical standpoint, the bulk of the industry will roll over and sign up for a service like that because it's easier.
So, I think that's great for you, and I don't mean to attack you in any way on this.
But the thing that pisses me off about lawyers is their immediate desire to "settle." Your business model is a "settlement" of what the government wants, and something much worse: the creating of a new specialty business to "comply" with the government's censorship.
I'm sorry, I just don't bend that way. It would be the easiest thing in the world to say, "Ok, the government has offered us a way out, we'll sign up for this service. Then we can sleep at night." And even if their is a tiny flaw in the wording of the law, (and here's where I make a sales promotion for you,) the customer that DOES have a lawyer service for compliance is Waaaaaaayyyy down on the list of the government's people to attack. They will go after the extreme edges in a bid to win their case. So, while people may slice and dice your service as not protecting them from "sub paragraph 23, subsection U, line 256, word 58," the simple fact is, your service will make people safer from prosectuion risk.
But you understand, it's still a compromise. And this is one of those things I feel is either right, or wrong.
2257 is wrong. It is an assumption of guilt, where there is none, and in the history of the adult industry, (At least since 1983 when I've been in it) I have NEVER heard of an intentional case of using underage performers by any of the "industry" people.
There are NO other industries that can make such a claim. For shit's sake, there's a movie in the theaters about corruption in the genetically engineered food industry. IF the fed is looking for someone to chase that breaking real laws, and hurting people, they would do better to pursue other industries. The fact is, we are a fairly safe industry, that polices itself. We deserve to be treated with respect.