Diabolic gets an FBI visit - first enforcement of 2257.. who's next?

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by pam

Being a member of the FSC to stop the inspections is valid if they were being inspected for secondary producer. These are all primary producer inspections.

Exactly right Pam, and I missed that the first time I read the report. Diabolic are indeed 'primary producers' and thus have been subject to 2257 since they started producing their own content, since the law has been in effect since '95.

Just to clarify. If you are a webmaster and DO NOT produce your own content but purchase it from a producer or provider or use the free content provided by a sponsor, AND you are a member of the FSC, then you are immune to 2257 inspections due to the current injunction that was granted the FSC.

NOTE: I am not suggesting that just because you are a member of the FSC, you should ignore 2257 altogether. Frankly, I think that you should obtain the necessary documents from any producer you purchase content from and come up with a system for maintaining those records in a way that will allow you to access them quickly.

Further, since you cannot get the 2257 documents for much of the content and banners provided by sponsors, I would recommend either using softcore only, or being able to quickly change any hardcore content or banners out ASAP if it becomes necessary.

[pam]

I've never done hardcore content. 2257 came into being when I was a publisher so I'm intimately familiar with it. Before that I'd made the decision to steer clear of hardcore due to various laws around the country, and it was the best decision I've ever made.

People say you can't make money with softcore but I've literally made millions and will continue to do so, with softcore content.

On the Red Rose issue, have you ever seen the indictment? I haven't and want to, because I read that she had trading of CP in her forums. People on another board confirmed this -- but -- was she busted for that, or was it solely for the stories? Her meta tags at the time included "incest" which wasn't very wise, in my opinion. SHE claimed it was just stories, yet no on has seen any paperwork ....

People who do toons and think they are safe will find out someday that they aren't. I found this paragraph that may shock some toon artists who feel they're very safe, "A convicted sex offender, who pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography in 1999 and is due to be released from prison on April 1st, could spend the rest of his life in prison for downloading anime that depicted children having sex. According to a report on Richmond based WRIC channel 8 News, the man downloaded at least 20 images of anime pornography involving children being forced to have sex. The images were downloaded on a computer at the Virginia Employment Commission.

Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA), a 1996 law that banned virtual child pornography, were thrown out by the US Supreme Court in 2002 on freedom of speech grounds. However WRIC reports that this individual is the first to be charged under "a new child pornography law that can apply to cartoons." The report did not specify whether this was a federal or state law, however the US Attorney's Office was cited as being involved. If convicted, he could face life in prison."

Oh, members of the FSC are exempt from record-keeping inspections now, but if the new provisions are not overturned, they can still be prosecuted for having that content without the records.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by pam

I've never done hardcore content. 2257 came into being when I was a publisher so I'm intimately familiar with it. Before that I'd made the decision to steer clear of hardcore due to various laws around the country, and it was the best decision I've ever made.

People say you can't make money with softcore but I've literally made millions and will continue to do so, with softcore content.

On the Red Rose issue, have you ever seen the indictment? I haven't and want to, because I read that she had trading of CP in her forums. People on another board confirmed this -- but -- was she busted for that, or was it solely for the stories? Her meta tags at the time included "incest" which wasn't very wise, in my opinion. SHE claimed it was just stories, yet no on has seen any paperwork ....

People who do toons and think they are safe will find out someday that they aren't. I found this paragraph that may shock some toon artists who feel they're very safe, "A convicted sex offender, who pleaded guilty to receiving child pornography in 1999 and is due to be released from prison on April 1st, could spend the rest of his life in prison for downloading anime that depicted children having sex. According to a report on Richmond based WRIC channel 8 News, the man downloaded at least 20 images of anime pornography involving children being forced to have sex. The images were downloaded on a computer at the Virginia Employment Commission.

Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA), a 1996 law that banned virtual child pornography, were thrown out by the US Supreme Court in 2002 on freedom of speech grounds. However WRIC reports that this individual is the first to be charged under "a new child pornography law that can apply to cartoons." The report did not specify whether this was a federal or state law, however the US Attorney's Office was cited as being involved. If convicted, he could face life in prison."

Oh, members of the FSC are exempt from record-keeping inspections now, but if the new provisions are not overturned, they can still be prosecuted for having that content without the records.

Of course if you deliberately draw child porn or write about it you should be nailed. That's been running for a long time. In Japan or other countries it's considered LEGAL. That asshole who d/loaded it should have had his ass kicked.

It was a 1st amendment issue but it gets foggy. Bottom line is if you draw that shit INTENTIONALLY and INTENTIONAL is the keyword here then you should get nailed.

[pam]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Exactly right Pam, and I missed that the first time I read the report. Diabolic are indeed 'primary producers' and thus have been subject to 2257 since they started producing their own content, since the law has been in effect since '95.

I did, too -- and it was only the press release by the FSC that informed me otherwise.