US webmasters ? If 2257 stands ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

t0miie - what if you're not there? what if your kid calls from school or your mom has a heart attack? probably the judge will understand, but if you get a judge who really hates porn, or who is strongly by the book...

---

if the worst they can get you on is not making the records available during reasonable hours, don't you think they would move on to the next sure fire prosecution?

I think a lot of webmasters should be more worried about how much content they have that will be un-usable under the new laws because they don't have access to all of the correct 2257 data. I know some that will have to throw away everything and start from scratch. It's definately going to change the way content providers and purchasers do business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fister

We are still waiting to see the new regulations.

---

Just quoting Fisters post.

As he said, as of yet, this is all speculation on the industry laywers parts, nobody knows what these new regulations entail because they havent been made public yet.

The sky isnt, hasnt, and potentially wont be falling.

At least wait until we know what we are going to have to deal with until proclaiming that as fact people.

of course industry lawyers want you to think the worst, thats how they make money, of course the FSC wants you to think the worst, thats how they get donations.

Why do we never hear from industry lawyers until THEY start the chicken little syndrome up? Could it be because it suits their finacial gains?

If you want to worry about these new 2257 regs, at least wait until they are published so you know what you need to be worried about, not what you are told by someone who GUESSED what you need to be worried about.

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

Huskyhunks - the courts may not have this at their discretion, but hopefully maybe... i think living in california is nice because of community standards, though ;)

thetwink - you are being fairly insulting - maybe because you don't like what i'm saying... i want to be very brief and clear:

the lawyers i spoke to said having your i.d. in order WOULD NOT be enough to have you in compliance with those proposed regs. period.

i am not a criminal. if these are the changes to the laws, i will follow them for that reason. following the herd? are you honestly suggesting that people should break the law? since 2257 already existed to protect children, the only reason for the new laws IS to harrass webmasters.

btw, i believe there is a five year manadatory sentence that can go as high as ten - that is, if your models are all over 18.

---

I apologize that you feel insulted by what I said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

Are you going to try to comply or will you try to set up in another country ? I know this is just hypothetical, but really, if they get their way, what are you going to do.

I'm seriously thinking about going to Canada. I don't want to give up my business because of these idiots.

---

my buisness and i will remain on "krypton!" , krypton is simply "changing it's orbit!"

i don't see leaving the U.S immediately , i have more than just the "net!" so i won't starve! ( it may cut into my traveling budget though! ) i will just have to see where this goes and/or get the "numbers!" worked out here!
if i were to leave the U.S it wouldn't be countries that are "U.S friendly" and/or "influenced" ( canada/philipines/puerto rico/etc. ) and it would have to have a "burger-king" cause i would still want it my way!

jim

Well I think you are wasting time mulling over a pure hypothetical. You can mull What If scenarios all day -- like what if the Jewish population of Los Angelas County showed up at Hamburger Mary's and ordered blintzes - there would be mass chaos. And it could in theory happen.

Amongst other things, the government cannot just invent a thousand imperious regulations over a business one day..... if the 2257 regulations are as onerous as some say, then that flat out equates to a taking.

If they are as far reaching as some claim, thay will be found unconstitutional.

And to those of you thinking about Canada, this is a nice time to point out that the USA's constituion far greater protects freedoms of speech then Canada's, and our bill of rights and judicial review process is far more mature then Canada's. We do not have censorship boards here. That means the KKK and Nazis can march down your main street, or, moving to another free speech angle, magazines and websites depicting gay sex can be published. (the neo-nazis cannot legally march in Canada, if memory serves, or something I forget)

Remember your political government class, a parliamentary government system can radically change laws... in theory. Compare that to the US system of checks and balances. Witness how 2257 was legislatively passed in the 1990s, but there has never been a single case of enforcement purely because of our constitutional process.

If the Canadian governemt passed something like 2257, I do not think the courts there would have the same power to review the law like the courts in the states can.

Steve

PS: I'm not saying the United States is a panacea, but I'm just not the kind of guy who insists the glass is perpetually half empty. :elf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

what if the Jewish population of Los Angelas County showed up at Hamburger Mary's and ordered blintzes - there would be mass chaos.

---

LOL! Funniest shit I've heard all day!!!

Rocky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Well I think you are wasting time mulling over a pure hypothetical. You can mull What If scenarios all day -- like what if the Jewish population of Los Angelas County showed up at Hamburger Mary's and ordered blintzes - there would be mass chaos. And it could in theory happen.

Amongst other things, the government cannot just invent a thousand imperious regulations over a business one day..... if the 2257 regulations are as onerous as some say, then that flat out equates to a taking.

If they are as far reaching as some claim, thay will be found unconstitutional.

And to those of you thinking about Canada, this is a nice time to point out that the USA's constituion far greater protects freedoms of speech then Canada's, and our bill of rights and judicial review process is far more mature then Canada's. We do not have censorship boards here. That means the KKK and Nazis can march down your main street, or, moving to another free speech angle, magazines and websites depicting gay sex can be published. (the neo-nazis cannot legally march in Canada, if memory serves, or something I forget)

Remember your political government class, a parliamentary government system can radically change laws... in theory. Compare that to the US system of checks and balances. Witness how 2257 was legislatively passed in the 1990s, but there has never been a single case of enforcement purely because of our constitutional process.

If the Canadian governemt passed something like 2257, I do not think the courts there would have the same power to review the law like the courts in the states can.

Steve

PS: I'm not saying the United States is a panacea, but I'm just not the kind of guy who insists the glass is perpetually half empty. :elf:

---

Great post desslock but, this administration has done everything it can to bring this country back to a victorian frame of mind and destroy our freedoms and rights. And the courts, which were our allies, are now under great pressure to kowtow to this administration and start towing the party line. I guess I'm just a 'glass half empty' kinda guy. :(

I've always had a "fuck off" attitude towards the government, and the regulations, blah blah blah. To a certain extent I still do. The sky isn't falling, and Canada seems like a nice place to live and has it's own problems just like every country out there.

Unfortunately, I was born in the US and not quite as enthusiastic about it as Bruce Springsteen. If I could move in a day, I would. Probably to Europe, Amsterdam, Paris, those types of places but it takes alot of money. I also can't just tell my partner, "we're going to (some other country)" and pack your stuff.

So, alot of things keep me here in San Francisco. I'm learning to like it here and at least gays and lesbians have alot of say in what goes on in their world here. Maybe that will have to be good enough for me right now.

The aggressiveness and tone of this administration is gaining ground because this country is on a "moral" crusade right now. Practicing hypocrasy is so much more prevelent than democracy in this country. I don't see an end to it.

Well I guess I better work on complying as it pertains to my particular situation. The amateurs come down again, the boring models take center stage. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

i don't think i'm wasting my time considering alternatives and possibilities of things that the government has already expressed a strong interest in making the law.

if what i am most concerned about doesn't happen, cool. but some of it will happen, or there would be no changes to 2257 at all. since we have very little time, playing with each proposed change in your head lets you make some decisions in advance. 'cause we will only have 30 days from publicaction.

after all, that's what the free speech coalition is doing. they have most of their injunction already written AND are expecting to go with it - and they don't know for sure what will be changed in 2257.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

Unfortunately, I was born in the US and not quite as enthusiastic about it as Bruce Springsteen.

---

Don't bring Bruce into this. He has never been a 'rah rah USA all of the way' kind of guy. "Born in the USA" is a bittersweet song, not the National Anthem part 2.


Btw, I am NOT a Bruce Springsteen fan.

Ok, Xtr8, you have a point, but his patriotism in the song was based more on realism and definitely not "God bless America" type of idealism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xstr8guy

Great post desslock but, this administration has done everything it can to bring this country back to a victorian frame of mind and destroy our freedoms and rights. And the courts, which were our allies, are now under great pressure to kowtow to this administration and start towing the party line. I guess I'm just a 'glass half empty' kinda guy. :(

---

Well I'm relieved to hear everyone's comments. I certainly don't have anything against Canada. I just get tired of hearing folks criticize the United States constantly.

Note here that people instantly jump from the 2259 issue to a larger, but seperate, one on how they feel the Bush administration "destroys our rights."

Ok - I'll say this again: I would argue one of the most significant and broad reaching protections of our rights happened two years ago when the Supreme Court ruled a first-time-ever right to privacy in the bedroom by invalidating the Texas sodomy law. Why is this never mentioned? I happen to think that this simply is "not news" to gays because we insist on living as victims at every opportunity. Everyone certainly has a lot to say about the negative.

Not only has the Supreme Court ruling assers a constitutional right that trumps anything a legislature might do, but it also paves the way for further equal protection rights that we also seek --- like same sex marraige.

Now obviously we have a good way to go on the marraige issue, but you are not going to overturn two thousand years of engrained custom overnight. Frankly I am astonished - I remember a time say 15 years ago when any discussion of gay marraige would have been ludicrous. Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts now have pretty serious domestic partnership laws. (more examples of recent rights advancement)

And I would suggest that if 2257 is enforced in the onerous way some folks are predicting, then I say fight back.

The government cannot effectively take away a legal and legitimate business under the pretense of "protecting minors." (well on the other hand the government can force you to tear up your building to make it handicapped accessible so who knows....) I say fight 'em - the constitution is on our side, and in the marketplace of ideas, ours will prevail.

Steve
:roadie: :roadie:

This is maybe the 6th or 7th revision so far on my response to the comments here made about my country, poor old Canada.

Let me just say that 2257 is a USA problem, leave us out of it please. Our laws are our laws, you don't know how they work or why they are there, just like most of us outside the USA can't begin to fathom how 2257 even comes close to protecting minors from sexual exploitation... fact is it doesn't but some of you thinks it can.. how I have no idea but hey, like I said, it is a USA problem, not mine.. so I stay out of the debate, so do me the same courtesy, don't bash the laws of my country when you really don't know what they are or how they are applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

This is maybe the 6th or 7th revision so far on my response to the comments here made about my country, poor old Canada.

Let me just say that 2257 is a USA problem, leave us out of it please. Our laws are our laws, you don't know how they work or why they are there, just like most of us outside the USA can't begin to fathom how 2257 even comes close to protecting minors from sexual exploitation... fact is it doesn't but some of you thinks it can.. how I have no idea but hey, like I said, it is a USA problem, not mine.. so I stay out of the debate, so do me the same courtesy, don't bash the laws of my country when you really don't know what they are or how they are applied.

---

Anymore Canadians wish to weigh in on this issue and explain to us how the law there works and/or is restrictive? I, for one, would love to hear how Canada functions regarding their child protection laws (which 2257 is NOT, by the way... it is a means of authentication to make sure the performers are adults, not those who view the content), as well laws on how they verify age of their models.

Rocky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaystoryman

This is maybe the 6th or 7th revision so far on my response to the comments here made about my country, poor old Canada.

Let me just say that 2257 is a USA problem, leave us out of it please. Our laws are our laws, you don't know how they work or why they are there, just like most of us outside the USA can't begin to fathom how 2257 even comes close to protecting minors from sexual exploitation... fact is it doesn't but some of you thinks it can.. how I have no idea but hey, like I said, it is a USA problem, not mine.. so I stay out of the debate, so do me the same courtesy, don't bash the laws of my country when you really don't know what they are or how they are applied.

---

I appreciate your view. I certainly don't want to give the impression that I would bash Canada. For example, in the United States we have laws that clealy discriminate against gays like myself - our Don't Ask Don't Tell prohibition immediately comes to mind. I would also add that the United States and Canada are both countries that allow us to live more openly and honestly in ways that gay people a generation earlier could not have imagined.

I still think it is a fair comment to compare the constitutional protections that US citizens enjoy with other countries, especially since the subject of those protections and potential remedies are constantly being discussed.

Steve