this is the DOJ's response to the FSC's injunction:
http://www.monkeypoocash.com/dm.pdf
sounds like they're mad, but a lot of what they say sure doesn't seem to fit the reality i live in.
Printable View
this is the DOJ's response to the FSC's injunction:
http://www.monkeypoocash.com/dm.pdf
sounds like they're mad, but a lot of what they say sure doesn't seem to fit the reality i live in.
I need a summary...anyone?
cheers,
Luke
Just did a quick scan..so this is just what caught my attention the most after one read through:
(and I have to say..the government must KNOW they are going to lose this round as their arguments, imho are VERY weak).
DOJ is saying basically that these new regs are a VERY important tool in fighting child porno (their whole argument keeps going back to child porno in this brief) and without it, child porno is going to FLOURISH! (Like there aren't already NUMEROUS laws AGAINST child porno? And didn't republicans USED to say "we need to ENFORCE CURRENT laws..not make new ones!"?)
And they seem to be picking ONE company specifically to make their case as they refer to that company several times..about someone who has the capability to have 600 sites online, thus could be disseminating child porno big time. The DOJ "pooh poohs" this companies response that finding documentation for EVERY person on all their sites to be ridiculous because they are OBVIOUS computer geniuses...I mean..look, they have SIX HUNDRED sites so they know how to work a computer! (This 600 number comes up several times).
Haven't really read the secondary producer info very closely, but I did notice something in the DOJ's response that I missed in the new regs, that could frankly come back to bite them in the ass..more later after I read more.
Brought to you by..."Slade's Notes!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
The summary Luke is this:
It's already 6/23/05 in Australia..and before any settlement is reached in the USA..WE'RE COMMING TO GET YOU!! BWAAAAHAAHAAAA!!
Slade, right on! I will get the beers chillin' and the and the barbie warmin' - come on down and lets have a rocking party!
cheers,
Luke
You'll love our American jails..you get LOTS of sex there!Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilihost
Hmm..you are a bottom aren't you? lol
Oh, I forgot..you live on the Gold Coast..and like it hot eh?
Ok..it's GITMO for you! :D
I wanna make a new law BEC can I make a new law??? Please ~~
Since everyone else can make laws now - I wanna make one.
:light: Procam hereby decrees the following new law...
Amendment to the 18 USC 2257 Law
The DOJ and all other federal agencies shall effective June 23 comply with the following
" All Members of the department responsible for modifying laws shall post their home address telephone number and all email addresses, a link containing this information must be posted to the front of the DOJ website ....
They shall further be required to submit to drug and alcohol testing at random, and their homes shall be subject to exhaustive random searches for cp, drug para. and any other contraband we may happen to find while conducting a search.
These random searches may be conducted at all unreasonable hours of the day and night at the discression of the inspection teams.
:egypt: It has been decreed.
Interesting quotes from the DOJ's 35 page response... can you see where they're coming from?
interesting quote page 23 "To the contrary, as of the date of enactment of the PROTECT Act (five years after the Sundance decision), DOJ’s previously enacted regulations remained in effect. Indeed, even lead counsel for the plaintiffs was quoted in a Free Speech coalition article (attached as Exhibit A, see page 4) as saying, “All along I have advised my clients not to rely on Sundance; that any image they had in any book, magazine, video, or whatever, whether it’s amateurs or swingers or any of that stuff, that they should have the appropriate records.”
quote page 27 from the DOJ regarding foreign ID's "Defendant does not
interpret the regulations in this fashion, and has no intention of applying them in this fashion. Instead, all producers who fully complied with the old regulations regarding the proper forms of identification will not be precluded from distributing those works merely because such forms of identification will be insufficient going forward."
Page 31 "For example, plaintiffs express a concern that requiring performer records to be provided to secondary producers poses privacy concerns. Such information sharing, however, “is already required by the current Part 75 regulations,” and “none of the commenters [on the proposed rules] presented any evidence that a hypothetically possible crime, such as the stalking of a performer, was in any way tied to the dissemination of the information about a performer provided to a producer in compliance with Part 75.” 70 Fed. Reg. 29607, 29615. Plaintiffs likewise identify no instances of stalking that have resulted from the requirement and only a single instance of purported identity theft."
Page 32 "As a final note, plaintiffs have only themselves to blame for the purported “emergency” nature of these proceedings. DOJ issued the notice of proposed rulemaking for the regulations at issue on June 25, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 35547, and issued the final rule, which contained no additional requirements that were not in the initial rule, on May 24, 2005, one month prior to the effective date of the regulations. 70 Fed. Reg. 29607. Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition announced the next day that it intended to file suit to enjoin the regulations, but then waited three weeks to file, less than one week prior the effective date of the regulations. Even after they filed the
lawsuit, plaintiffs failed to file their brief in support of their motion for temporary restraining order and the supporting declarations until the next day.
wassup with this??
http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9236
Hey - go for it ... people seem to be making them up on a daily basis anyways!! LMAOQuote:
I wanna make a new law BEC can I make a new law??? Please ~~
Yours is pretty cool though ... :thumbsup: