2257; Online vs. Retail = No Difference

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GLBTcity

Well, according to the new regs, if the cover and/or back contain explicit images, I'm supposed to keep records.

So why in the heck shouldn't a brick/mortar?

That's my point EJ.

Granted the DOJ is trying to be slick on about trying to remove "smut" (porn) as they would call it from the web...

BUT, because they have stated their case as to the reasoning for these new regs, they have left the door open for a good argument in court regarding WHY brick/mortar adult shops are exempt. I feel strongly about this as you can tell.

Fair is Fair...

PapaBear

---

I hear ya!
I'm on YOUR side, remember?
:D

Personally, I think the entire 2257 thing is crap.
Hopefully, we wil prevail, but I'm not holding my breath..

i think you should talk to a lawyer - i believe you have a serious thing happening here, and that of all of us, you really are a distributor as they are defining it.

You don't need records for the front and back of a video cover if you run an online store as you're a distributor and not any type of producer.

GLBTcity -

Well you have clearly demonstrated yet one more reason why the definition of "secondary producer" is nonsense. That is what the courts are for.

Obviously the lawyers who drafted this up had very little understanding of the modern technology. Might I also suggest that federal agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission or the Securities & Exchanges Commission routinely issue regulations that the effected industries see and litigate because they are either illegal or absurd.

For example, the Sarbanes Oxley act passed a few years ago has dramatically added the recordkeeping burdons on any company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange.... all for the good sounding purpose of protecting the stockholders. Here the federal law was passed to protect minors.

Maybe this 2257 experience will give webmasters a taste of the kind of arbitrary regulatory process that other corporate owners have had to deal with for years.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

GLBTcity -

Well you have clearly demonstrated yet one more reason why the definition of "secondary producer" is nonsense. That is what the courts are for.

Obviously the lawyers who drafted this up had very little understanding of the modern technology. Might I also suggest that federal agencies, like the Federal Communications Commission or the Securities & Exchanges Commission routinely issue regulations that the effected industries see and litigate because they are either illegal or absurd.

For example, the Sarbanes Oxley act passed a few years ago has dramatically added the recordkeeping burdons on any company that trades on the New York Stock Exchange.... all for the good sounding purpose of protecting the stockholders. Here the federal law was passed to protect minors.

Maybe this 2257 experience will give webmasters a taste of the kind of arbitrary regulatory process that other corporate owners have had to deal with for years.

Steve

---

While I certainly agree with you in principle...I'm not sure you can equate the two items.
There's no constitutional guarantee for trading stock, but there is for "free expression."

i am pretty sure you're right, but who wants to have to prove that in court?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick

You don't need records for the front and back of a video cover if you run an online store as you're a distributor and not any type of producer.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

While I certainly agree with you in principle...I'm not sure you can equate the two items.
There's no constitutional guarantee for trading stock, but there is for "free expression."

---

Well in my limited knowledge, I know that constitutional rights when applied to businesses are not as sacred as to those when applied to individuals. Businesses are up for a lot less 4th amendment search & seizure protection. For example - Phillip Morris must affix labels to their advertising for cigarettes, despite whatever it is they want to talk about regarding smoking. Drug companies must write lots of disclaimers on their ads for drugs. That certainly infringes on their right to expression. That is why 2257 is very clever - it doesn't stop the expression, it regulates the business .

Actually when I first really read through the 2257 regulations, it reminded me of one of my friends who is a mutual fund broker, and how his office must remain open all business hours for any Sec & Exchanges Commission records inspection. And he talked to me about all the paperwork he has to keep for such a possible federal inspection.

Steve

It's still not the same thing....
In the case of 2257, the act assumes you are doing something illegal until you PROVE otherwise by means of age identification.

It does constitute prior restraint:

an attempt to prevent publication or broadcast of any statement, which is an unconstitutional restraint on free speech and free press (even in the guise of an anti-nuisance ordinance). Stemming from the First Amendment to the Constitution, the ban on prior restraint allows publication of libel, slander, obvious untruths, anti-government diatribes, racial and religious epithets, and almost any material, except if public security or public safety is endangered (false claim of poison in the reservoir or exhortation to commit a crime like a lynching) and some forms of pornography. The theory, articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Near v. Minnesota (1931) is that free speech and free press protections have priority, and lawsuits for libel and slander and prosecutions for criminal advocacy will curb the effect of defamation and untruths. Most other nations permit prior restraint by court order or police action when the material appears to be defamatory (hurtful lies), salacious (nasty), or "improper, mischievous, or illegal" (in the words of Sir William Blackstone).

hmmmmmm. very interesting! Ok - here is a million dollar question for ya.... how often has the current Rehnquist court cited Near v. Minnesota for such instances?

I mean - I can cite Plessy vs Ferguson (seperate but equal is ok) as something the Supreme Court once wrote too, that doesn't make it something currently observed in the law.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

hmmmmmm. very interesting! Ok - here is a million dollar question for ya.... how often has the current Rehnquist court cited Near v. Minnesota for such instances?

I mean - I can cite Plessy vs Ferguson (seperate but equal is ok) as something the Supreme Court once wrote too, that doesn't make it something currently observed in the law.

Steve

---

Well, it was recently cited in the FSC case. (prior restraint)