Why use 2257 lawyers ?

[Huskyhunks]

I don't understand why everyone is saying to get your own lawyers. US laws apply equally to all parties involved according to the constitution. Is everyone's plight all that different ? Aren't we all obligated by the same regulations ? A primary producer in Arkansas is subject to the same regulations as a primary producer in Maine.

What is an attorney going to tell you that is more applicable to your situation than what the DOJ just spelled out. Someone enlighten me because the regulations are right there for you to follow.

[Matt 26z]

If you want to follow them as the DOJ intended, then yes, they are spelled out right there.

If you are looking for potential loopholes, then there's your reason to consult with lawyers.

[Huskyhunks]

That's interesting but none of the attorneys have even mentioned the word loophole. In fact, if anything, they are saying to comply to 100% of the regulations - to the letter of the law. Looking for a loophole seems like a game of russian roulette.

[Matt 26z]

The first question I'd ask any industry lawyer is if they are directly involved in any 2257 software solutions. I believe I read about one some months ago. This to me could influence how they interpret the new regs.

[basschick]

nothing is really cut and dried in the old 2257, but most of it has been hammered out. attorneys with experience know how all those court cases turned out, they have seen judgements regarding what is and isn't sexually explicit content, and they have familiarity with how the system works.

[Huskyhunks]

With regard to litigation, there is an obvious need to retain an attorney. I'm not saying that they aren't needed because Free Speech Coalition attorneys and members are basically the only defense we have. I'm very thankful for their services.

With regard to compliance, the information has been given to you by the number one counsel in this nation - our Attorney General, like him or not. Do you believe that an attorney is going to tell you not to follow the letter of the law on this one ? I can save you a few hundred bucks and say that he or she will tell you exactly this "comply 100% or else".

[chadknowslaw]

I find the new regs convoluted and they contradict themselves as well as rely on lost arguments from old cases {Sundance and Library Ass'n}. For some businesses, it seems almost impossible to comply 100% so I couldn't give a blanket recommendation of "just comply 100%". The only way to comply 100% is to shut down or move entirely outside the US [I mean entirely--pick up yourself, your family, your life and webiste and move to another country ].

I want to assume that the Free Speech Coalition will be successful in getting an injunction against enforcement, which will give us time to really study what these regs require and then the impending court cases that will TRULY interpret what compliance means.

Don't run for cover. Don't let them push good people out of a legitimate business.

[Huskyhunks]

Don't run for cover. Don't let them push good people out of a legitimate business.

I agree in principal to everything you have said. I would add that 2257 attorneys are gutsy, balsy individuals who deserve immense respect from this industry because it is David fighting Goliath and they've done a great job so far.

But... exactly how does one stand and fight after June 23, 2005 if these regulations stand and become enforceable law ? I believe that the period to fight was over last November. With Bush's reelection, no one should be surprised that this is happening now. They said they were going to do it and they have.

I'm a realist. I could see this coming a mile away. I planned and have my own strategy in place. To not have planned an exit or relocation strategy after the initial regulations were written last year is just plain bad business. Like all businesses in this country, the marketplace and the laws pertaining to them are constantly changing. We are all business persons. We should have planned accordingly.

[gaystoryman]

Why Use 2257 Lawyers?

Well because they are specialists in the field and as much as you or I or anyone can think we know what the regs mean or how they actually translate into what has to be done or not, we are slanted in our view based on our experiences. So unless you have lots of experience in how a judge will see the words laid out in the regulation, you need to seek the advice of someone who can tell you what those words mean from that perspective.

It is like do you really want your foot doctor doing brain surgery?
Want your car mechanic to fix your computer?

Now as much as you or anyone else thinks they know what the regulations mean for them, it is still your interpretation of those words. You might think you know how it applies to you, I might think I know how it applies to me, Basschick might know how it applies to her, but when we all sit down together we suddenly find we have three different views on what the same paragraph means. And even if we did agree, it wouldn't mean that is how a Judge will view it.

So unless a person has loads of court time, before making a business decision to quit or move on, might be an idea to check with the folks who best know how the system will work, can work, does work. Simply good business practise in my view. As much as I like to think I know certain things, I at least know that I am no expert on certain things, such as interpreting government double talk.

But just my opinion.
Ian

[Huskyhunks]

There's only a handful of attorneys that have *ever* been involved in a 2257 court case and those are the attorneys for Sundance. That means that all the attorney's that were not involved in that case do not have first hand knowledge of a 2257 court case. That's about 99% of all 2257 lawyers who are relying on other people's experience just as we are.

It is my understanding that 2257 attorneys do not have a thorough understanding of these new laws themselves. Most of them have stated that - just as Chad has stated above that 2257 attorneys need more time to "study and interpret".

Does this make anyone feel comfortable that even 2257 attorneys don't have a grasp of what exactly it is going to take to comply ? And, you want advice from someone that tells you up front, "I don't have a thorough grasp of the new regulations and I cannot interpret them with much certainty but I can tell you... doesn't sound too grounded in business principal does it.

[gaystoryman]

They may not have specific trial experience on 2257, but they have far more trial experience than you or I do.. so they will see things we can't or won't... or at least be able to better point out those areas that we might have missed... so yes that is good business sense.

It is so funny how so many webmasters who have zilch trial experience, zilch legal experience profess to know more than someone who spends all their time at it. Boggles the mind at times.

In my mind words mean certain things, taken out of context they will have different perceptions of meanings. Take the TGP issue. Some are saying that if you take free content or whatever and simply put them into a web page you become a secondary producer required to have 2257 documentation, yet there is a part of the regs that say if you are merely displaying the material but don't alter them materially you aren't.. so which is it? To me that means I am not, to you it might mean that by thumbnailing them you are materially altering them, but a 2257 lawyer can best interpret what a JUDGE might consider 'materially alter' to mean.. which could make us both wrong... because it isn't what you or i think the words mean, it is what a judge will, and someone who spends their time before a judge, dealing with such parsing of words can best help me determine if I need those docs or not.. because it isnt what meaning i put to the words that counts.

Sure, they may not have trial experience, not like there have been tons of cases for them too, given that Ashcroft didn't pursue it so there could be, but Gonzales seems intent on doing that. So to me, I'd want a good legal viewpoint before making up my mind, if it affected me. The lawyer is one who can best apply a legal view to the regs, my view is geared to what I know, which is writing stories, yours may be to whatever your biz model is, and bottom line is, it is the judges view that counts. And like anything, no one can predict exactly how that will go, but they have better insight into how it could go than you or I do.. simply because that is their field just as writing stories is mine.

But hell, just my opinion and everyone is so far still entitled to have their own opinion.

Ian

[gaybucks_chip]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that some of the larger players have been involved in discussions and negotiations with Justice staff on some of the issues, and therefore have some insights into the mindset behind the regulations.

A lot of this is, in my book, being able not only to comply with the letter of the law, but also trying to ascertain the intent behind the regulations. If the attorneys who have been involved in the comment process have had interactions with the people writing the regulations, they are very likely to have greater ability to interpret the sometimes vague language of the regs. Not to mention having extensive experience studying the specific regs as well as the broader torts, statutes, and other elements of law that play into this sort of thing.

I don't know about anyone else, but for us, trying to interpret these regulations ourselves, possibly guessing wrong, and getting an all-expenses paid trip to the pokey as a result is simply not an option.

[Huskyhunks]

If you read the regulations in their entirety, the DOJ goes point by point through the regulations and public comments where applicable. You get a very good idea of what they are thinking and how they arrived at their conclusions. In essence, their "mindset" is written in black and white, along with their legal defense on literally hundreds of decisions and how they arrived at them.

They want to destroy this industry. I don't see how anyone could arrive at a different conclusion than that.