Question for the lawyers - 2257 and nude "Art"

[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

[KevinG]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

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

I think this relates well to the 2nd question in my original post:

2. What advice would you give in this area to a new site, smaller business, not yet established that has very similar content to Met Art?

The reason I asked that is because while I do not believe they are exempt, I believe they have the resources to put up a good fight if they need to. Like you said Michael, "Jeff is a strong attorney". That's one resource. They most likely have some decent financial resources as well.

Look at my question #2 again and think about a new operator in this business that has more limited resources and they are producing and publishing the same type of content.

I would advise them to comply with 2257.

Also, think of the saying, it's not what you know, it's who you know. Jeff might have some good connections in the legal system.

I saw a clip on the news last night of a school principle that got pulled over for drunk driving. He was 3 times over the legal limit for blood alcohol.

The officer drove him home and he wasn't charged.

The school principle is friends with the Chief of Police and he called him from his cell as he was being pulled over.

Based on that, I still do not think it is good advice to tell someone in that town that they can get away with drunk driving. (I forget where it was.)

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by 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

Would it not also be important to know when those statements were made? If I remember correctly, that quote has been on their site since about 1999. With all the changes, challenges, and rulings made since then, would it not be something that would need to be re-examined from time to time?

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Would it not also be important to know when those statements were made? If I remember correctly, that quote has been on their site since about 1999. With all the changes, challenges, and rulings made since then, would it not be something that would need to be re-examined from time to time?

The best way to get to the bottom of this is to simply go to the source. I will call Jeff on Wednesday and get some insight from him. If that statement has been up since 1999 without being altered or changed in anyway, I too would be concerned. But again, we can speculate but Jeff has the answers.

As for what advice I would give, my black letter law advice would be to comply. If you have full nudity have the statement up and keep the records. But there are certainly gray areas to 2257 and the Adam Walsh Act. What most people in the biz don't realize is that as the law currently sits almost everyone is in violation. Most dont even realize it.

Every client has their own comfort zone in regards to risk. Perhaps Met-Art is willing to push the limits. Each client has to be told the black letter law but also given options as well based upon their level of risk adversion. I suspect there's a reason to the statement. Again, I will ask Jeff on Wednesday.

Michael

http://www.adultbizlaw.com