http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/19/...orn/index.html
I just read this article and while I applaud the intent to protect children, if I read the commentary correctly, the law potentially criminalizes films like "Titanic" since it portrays an underage child (17) engaged in sex acts, and potentially restricts legal speech.
Anyone have any thoughts?
from the article i read about it (url below) basically scalia feels that part of the law need not be applied, which is how he could agree with this law. that's lame - why not write a law where everything IS applicable to what you want to prosecute instead of allowing for future issues that will not only take time but will cost tons of money to sort out?
"The new law sets a five-year mandatory prison term for promoting, or pandering, child pornography. It does not require that someone actually possesses child pornography."
"Scalia, in his opinion for the court, said the law takes a reasonable approach to the issue by applying it to situations where the purveyor of the material believes or wants a listener to believe that he has actual child pornography.
First Amendment protections do not apply to "offers to provide or requests to obtain child pornography," Scalia said.
Likewise, he said, the law does not cover "the sorts of sex scenes found in R-rated movies.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/...tus_child_porn
I wonder if this could be used against webmasters who promote twink sites, even if proof of age is on file? If a jury saw the images of some of the young looking guys many of us promote from reputable sites, I wonder if they would conclude that we are pandering to pedophiles? Sure, they'd be shown the 2257 records but could just the appearance of these "boys" cause a conviction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc32803
No, it could not be used against a legitimate barely legal pornographer. If you put "All models were over the age of 18" statement on your site then it is obvious that you are not selling child porn nor are you implying that it is child porn.
I like using cocaine as an analogy. If I sell cocaine, that is illegal and I can be prosecuted. If I bag up baking powder in little baggies and tell people it is cocaine and sell it as cocaine, I can be prosecuted for the attempt to sell cocaine because a reasonable person would believe I am selling cocaine. If I bag up baking powder and put a label that says "Contents: 100% pure baking powder" and sell it as baking powder, I have done nothing wrong and cannot be convicted.
If you sell porn that only includes 18+ models and advertise it as legal porn, this law will not apply to you.
The FSC just sent out an email regarding this issue. They asked Reed Lee to provide an interpretation of what the Supreme Court said...like that's easy to do, but here is a portion of his comments:
"Thus, those who do not deal in actual child pornography and do not say that they do, have little to fear from yesterday's decision. Those who hope to make a sale of adult pornography by convincing a buyer that it might be illegal child pornography should have stopped doing that decades ago. They can now expect to go to jail if they continue".
As I read the decision and opinions I was a bit worried that if we used "boy" or "teen" in a title, we could have some problems. But after talking with an attorney friend of mine he pointed out, as Chad said, all of our box covers, films and disk printing contain the 2257 info which includes a statement to the fact that all persons participating in the film were over the age of 18 at the time, so we should have nothing to worry about.
Appears that as of yet, the sky is not falling!
Bill
what about people who market sites that might have a disclaime4r somewhere but call their models young boys and surround them with stuffed animals or something of this sort?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Foolish and not advisable but if the product has the statement that all models are over 18 at the time of filming they would not be breaking this law. However, someone that markets such content is bound to attract the attention of law enforcement and that kind of attention is always unwanted. Sure the webmaster may have a legal product but could that webmaster survive an investigation of his business? Only the most meticulous among us can survive an IRS audit (I have -- I had all in order and had to pay an additional $50 so they have never bothered me again) or other collateral government attack. I firmly maintain that if the government wants to get you, they will find something. Not attracting attention to yourself is the first line of defense, and showcasing young but legal models surrounded by toys normally associated with pre-pubescent children would be stupid.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
So in other words pubes are now de rigueur in gay porno except among the over 50 daddy crowd! :innocent: Oh in the straight side I guess pig tails,lollys and kneehigh socks are out? :bunny:
If a producer uses models that are 18 but appear younger that is not illegal, but it is just begging for closer scrutiny.
does anyone else see this as a loophole for pedophiles to exploit?Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
or is this a back handed way of outlawing XXX rated movies because this is not considered "the sorts of sex scenes found in R-rated movies" and is therefore covered by this law?
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying...
Chad, if we promote sites that have really young looking guys (even if we state they are over 18), your remark seems to imply that we might be drawing attention to ourselves and inviting an investigation. Am I reading that right?Quote:
"If a producer uses models that are 18 but appear younger that is not illegal, but it is just begging for closer scrutiny."
this has been linda common sense for the last ten years or so, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by sc32803
you shouldn't really need chad to answer that.
when you promote 18 year old models, particularly the ones who look younger, there's always going to be people questioning whether they are really 18 - and those people include law enforcement. tell ya what - if i was a clerk, i'd ask all 18 - 25 year olds for i.d. if they wanted to buy cigarettes. why? because there are plenty of 16 year olds who look 21 and plenty of 19 year olds who look 16. i.d. is the only way to know.
they've just allocated a billion dollars to fight cp, and realistically, there's no way to know whether a cute 18 year old really is 18 without seeing the model's i.d. and if you have several sammy case or jeremiah types on your site, it shouldn't be surprising that there will be more scrutiny on your site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc32803
Yep. It is like driving a beat up red Trans Am with a big marijuana leaf bumper sticker at the speed limit. You might not be breaking the speed limit, but the cops may follow you and pull you over for a broken tail light so they can take a good look at you and find out if you have a bag of weed in the car.Quote:
Originally Posted by sc32803
chad, i love your analogy :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
:-)
he he he
Most lawyers like to phrase things so that only other lawyers understand. I like to speak so that everybody understands.
It's appreciated, Chad.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
I've never understood why anyone would take legal advice and listen to someone that speaks only in jargon. That's a lot of trust to put into someone without knowing what the hell's going on.
What about if you sell a powdery white substance without telling anyone what it is? Some see it as cocaine. Others see it as baking powder.Quote:
Originally Posted by chadknowslaw
Likewise, what if a webmaster posts a promo page without saying all models are 18?
It sounds like it might be advisable to have an age statement on every single page now.
First... I don't think someone would buy a white substance without asking what it is. I've never heard of someone walking up and asking.. "Hey.. you wanna buy some unidentified powdered substance? Hit or miss.. do whatever you want with it.. It's a grab-bag of fun", or the other way around... "Hey man... you know where I can score some unknown white powder?"... somewhere along the way, there's going to need to be some clarification, or someone is being careless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt 26z
Likewise, I'm fairly certain there's not going to be a russian-roulette offering of "I have no idea how old this guy is"... Again, with the careless.
Plus, since nearly every website I've looked at in the last 9 months has had 2257 compliant plastered somewhere on the page, as well as the disclaimer that everything is 18+, I don't think it's that worrisome. It's been 'advisable' to state that all talent is of legal age for the last decade. All it takes is a single line of HTML, somewhere, and you're done. Situation clarified, crisis averted.