Question for the lawyers - 2257 and nude "Art"

[Rcourt64]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Im not paying him to post. Thats Just Blows Men that does that.

Really now? Your reply seems as if your offended by my above comment Mr.GonZo?
If anything, I would have found it to be a generosity form, of a famous board owner to offer such a service to it's membered and public viewing webmasters.
"Even more appreciated if the board owner was pocketing the bill for such services."
And I thought of it has a good idea "apart from a really good marketing strategy" for a legal form of representation to offer a few free legal advise & opinions to webmasters & others on a board like this.
But instead you seem offended with my suggestion? Hmm?
You guys really need to get out of this one track monkey see & do concepts.



Rcourt64

[pornlaw]

Hey? Are you getting paid to post here?
...Regardless, I see your based out of Cali.
Are your law services only Internet based related? Or can you offer legal representation, and/or legal council per individual U.S States or County enforced laws???

No $$$ to post here and I cant answer specific legal questions but can address broader issues. I have a firm of 4 attorneys and we are about to add another shortly. We handle a varied practice and I do have clients out of Cali and outside of the US, but my representation with those clients is limited.

Actually, I think that the sites most likely to get inspected are those that play in the grey.

I agree, however, I think the tube sites are going to be a bigger target for inspection. Free hardcore without any 2257 notices ? Wouldnt they make a better target in your opinion Raw Alex ?

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I agree, however, I think the tube sites are going to be a bigger target for inspection. Free hardcore without any 2257 notices ? Wouldnt they make a better target in your opinion Raw Alex ?

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Actually, no. For a tube site to get inspected, they would first have to declare it a publisher and not a hosting service (hosts have exemptions). A 2257 inspection would then as a result almost entirely lead to a long and drawn out court battle, the type of the DoJ is trying to avoid.

Also, hardcore porn is boring, and doesn't make the media get all giddy. "Site shut down for distributing legal hardcore porn" is a boring headline. "Most popular child porn art site shut down in massive sweep" is a much more positive thing.

You should know, not everything is done just to satisfy the laws, but also to satisfy the intents and desires of those who have power.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

"Most popular child porn art site shut down in massive sweep" is a much more positive thing.

If that were the case there are a ton of teen "modeling" sites that operate in the gray area 2257 by your definition. Why not start with them ? That would make a great CP headline.

Without revealing too much, I talked with Agent Joyner directly and tube sites are on their list. Further, I suspect we wont be seeing inspections resume anytime soon. 2257 enforcement is going to change in light of the 6th Circuit. I really cant go into specifics though. There are things going on in the background that I cant discuss in an open forum.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[RawAlex]

Having suffered the loss in the 6th circuit, it is very unlikely that any agency would want to base any inspections on the law. There is great potential that anyone inspected and not found in compliance for whatever reason could challenge the law in their circuit, using the 6th circuit as a basis for their arguments. DoJ isn't looking for more losses.

I wouldn't be shocked to see the FBI "raid" someone based on 2252.

[Rcourt64]

From where I stand? IT'S ART!
As a U.S legal standpoint? it's also "Art" or "Entertainment"....
...until any sort of physical contact or penetration becomes visible.
Is this correct, Pornlaw?

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Rcourt64

From where I stand? IT'S ART!
As a U.S legal standpoint? it's also "Art" or "Entertainment"....
...until any sort of physical contact or penetration becomes visible.
Is this correct, Pornlaw?

Not quite. Alex makes a lot of great points. I think we differ in so much that, while I have not reviewed the site, it might be exempt. Jeff is a strong attorney and well versed in 2257. He is not careless and would not put up that statement unless his decision was well supported.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

[Rcourt64]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

No $$$ to post here and I cant answer specific legal questions but can address broader issues. I have a firm of 4 attorneys and we are about to add another shortly. We handle a varied practice and I do have clients out of Cali and outside of the US, but my representation with those clients is limited.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com

Legalities are a main artery in the Adult Industry.
Thanks for taking the time & comments your offering here at Oprano

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Rcourt64

Really now? Your reply seems as if your offended by my above comment Mr.GonZo?
If anything, I would have found it to be a generosity form, of a famous board owner to offer such a service to it's membered and public viewing webmasters.
"Even more appreciated if the board owner was pocketing the bill for such services."
And I thought of it has a good idea "apart from a really good marketing strategy" for a legal form of representation to offer a few free legal advise & opinions to webmasters & others on a board like this.
But instead you seem offended with my suggestion? Hmm?
You guys really need to get out of this one track monkey see & do concepts.



Rcourt64

Ive been told that being underestimated is my greatest attirbute.