Could 2257 finally get defeated?

[tony404]

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 ?

name four companies that are third party 2257? One company does not an industry make.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by tony404

name four companies that are third party 2257? One company does not an industry make.

Ummm... I named three in my post. There are two others that I know of but I dont remember their URLs. Perhaps 5 doesnt make an industry either but it makes it very difficult for the FSC to say that it doesnt exist at all.

I dont have ICQ... I am never in front of a computer for that long for it to be useful. Call me though (310) 666-3100.

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.

No insult taken. And I completely understand your point. However we arent settling. We are merely taking what the government has given and turned into a business model. We have monetized 2257.

While I understand your point that you want 2257 completely abolished, I really dont think that is going to happen. This is were we differ. I deal with other laws that are problematic. Laws that are unfair and unjust are common. Its not just 2257, there numerous state and federal laws not to mention case law that are not just. As an attorney we just take what is given to us and do the best with it. Thats what lawyers are trained to do.

As for the issue, its not whether the FSC should attack 2257. Its how. And if you read the complaint, the issue is whether their approach is the correct one. I have no issue with the FSC attacking 2257. Thats their job and mission.

However, if you are going to attack 2257 shouldnt it be with your strongest and best arguments ?

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

As an attorney we just take what is given to us and do the best with it. Thats what lawyers are trained to do.

That is precisely my point.
We don't need an appeaser, we need a hero.

(I'm not blaming you specifically, mind you, you just happen to be the guy in the room. I applaud you for standing and talking about it)

[MikeSouth]

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by MikeSouth

I'm not clear Mike......are you an FSC supporter, or not?