June 23rd is fast approaching, what are you going to do if ...

[Huskyhunks]

An injunction is granted ?

I guess I'll just keep on doing my main gig and try to get some momentum back. This is definitely getting old though.

An injunction is not granted ?

I will take down my main site and launch my new industry news site. See no point in trying to comply. It's virtually impossible not to mention excruciatingly tedious. Yuck.

I'd say the odds are about 50/50 for an injunction.

[Tristin]

I think the only effect it is going to have is people will move their sites off shore. Maybe it will end up in court at some point. But what do I know.

[basschick]

moving your site offshore won't change how the law affects you. the law doesn't talk about where your company is registered, but only where you are working.

if the injunction is not granted, i will pull all our sexually explicit stuff offline - hundreds of avs sites, many thousands of galleries. we have our first two non-explicit avs sites up and running (first sale on site number 2 yesterday). i have plans for two more, but they are not completed. also hopefully we can get our classic porn site up, but we are encountering a complication.

basically we'll be going from sex sites to sexy sites - no dick, no pussy, no touching of genitals with anything, not even water.

I think the only effect it is going to have is people will move their sites off shore. Maybe it will end up in court at some point. But what do I know.

[Slade]

I know the injunction is supposed to be filed sometime this week, but I'm wondering how long it will take for the judge to consider it, and should it be given a "yea"..how long the injunction will be good for.

1 month..2 months? What then?

In the meantime..does anyone know of (besides fsc) anyone actually mounting a legal case to have these regs totally tossed?

[Huskyhunks]

I'm disappointed that their hasn't been an injunction filed already but there doesn't seem to be anyone else that is willing to come forward and fight these new regulations. A small swinger group took the government to court in Sundance, maybe someone's gonna have to step up. Where are all the big sponsors on this. Seems like their absent, waiting for someone else to fight this ?

[Slade]

I'm disappointed that their hasn't been an injunction filed already but there doesn't seem to be anyone else that is willing to come forward and fight these new regulations. A small swinger group took the government to court in Sundance, maybe someone's gonna have to step up. Where are all the big sponsors on this. Seems like their absent, waiting for someone else to fight this ?

This is just my 2 cents on the subject, but from just reading some of the major message boards in the adult industry, there are a lot of vocal people talking about the new 2257 regs..there are several that are VERY involved in trying to stop it (those affiliated with FSC), but the ones VERY involved or even being just vocal about it on the boards are VERY VERY much in the minority.

It seems the vast majority don't seem to give a flying fu** about 2257.
That's either because they are really clueless or lazy or both..OR
do not think the regs will be/can be enforceable. (at least to any great degree).

So, while life will certainly go on after 6/23, it will be interesting to see if there really is a major crack down and the boards are filled with "WTF..THEY JUST SHUT ME DOWN!"..or life continues as it was before the new 2257 regs were issued, with very little changing in the way adult sites are run.

I dunno what it will be..it seems to be very calm with the majority of the webmasters frankly.

[desslock]

I know the injunction is supposed to be filed sometime this week, but I'm wondering how long it will take for the judge to consider it, and should it be given a "yea"..how long the injunction will be good for.

1 month..2 months? What then?

In the meantime..does anyone know of (besides fsc) anyone actually mounting a legal case to have these regs totally tossed?

Well this actual law has been on the books since 1989. So just do the math to discover how unweildy, difficult and complicated the process it requires to implement federal laws. (any law, and this one is obviously worse)

Actually probably the best thing for us would be for the DOJ to initiate a 2257 investigation and arrests. (not that I would want that to happen to anyone of course) but I think in those situations the courts have concrete grounds to review a law and how it is implemented. Otherwise everything is hypothetical.

For example, one reason the Supreme Court avoided overturning state sodomy laws in 1986 Bowers v Hardwick was because the case did not involve an actual prosecution. The 2003 court ruling that overturned all the state laws was different because it was drawn on a real case where Houston police cited two guys for breaking the law.

Steve

[Slade]

Well this actual law has been on the books since 1989. So just do the math to discover how unweildy, difficult and complicated the process it requires to implement federal laws. (any law, and this one is obviously worse)

Actually probably the best thing for us would be for the DOJ to initiate a 2257 investigation and arrests. (not that I would want that to happen to anyone of course) but I think in those situations the courts have concrete grounds to review a law and how it is implemented. Otherwise everything is hypothetical.

For example, one reason the Supreme Court avoided overturning state sodomy laws in 1986 Bowers v Hardwick was because the case did not involve an actual prosecution. The 2003 court ruling that overturned all the state laws was different because it was drawn on a real case where Houston police cited two guys for breaking the law.

Steve

I share much of the same thoughts that you put down in your post.
Until and if someone is arrested and brought to trial under the new 2257 regs, it's all a guessing game.