VERY Important Information From The DOJ Re:2257

[JustMe]

Greetings:

Ok, I'm not sure how many of you have read the government's latest filing in the 2257 lawsuit. Here's one VERY VERY interesting bit of information. I'm not sure which part of their ass they pulled this from, but apparently the DOJ is now saying that model privacy will not be violated when Primary Producers provide records to Secondary Producers, because Primary Producers have the option of censoring information on IDs that isn't necessary to verify age, aka their address etc. etc. Hell, you can even black out every part of their date of birth except the year, as long as the model wasn't 18 at time of production. Funny, I don't remember reading about this option in the regs? If the DOJ back peddles any faster their wheels are likely to fall off:

Plaintiffs assert that the regulations will violate the right to privacy of performers by requiring primary producers to provide personal identification information to secondary producers. Defendant previously pointed out that the constitutional right to privacy is wholly inapplicable in this context, and plaintiffs exaggerate the threat by exaggerating the number of producers that would have to be provided with this information. To avoid any potential risk to privacy, however, primary producers can simply redact information that is unnecessary to verifying a performer’s age from the copies that they provide to secondary producers. Unnecessary information would include a performer’s residential address and their day and month of birth (unless the performer is 18 as of the date of the performance)

[Bec]

So all this scrambling to get un-sanitized docs has been for naught???? Oi Vey :coffee:

[basschick]

bec - none of what is going on right now counts until someone has set it in stone. the new regs are quite specific, and we don't want to be caught in the middle while it gets figured out.

[chadknowslaw]

I agree with Bec. The idea that only complete and unaltered copies or images of model IDs could be transmitted to "secondary producers" was just an interpretation of the rules--an interpretation that I disagreed with. That interpretation came from a lot of experienced adult industry members and even some overly cautious attorneys--but it was still _just an interpretation_ that had not been tested in any court. That opinion that producers could only send non-redacted ID's was _just an opinion_.

The language in the filed brief shows that the DOJ agrees with me and the others that were bold enough to suggest that redacted model ID's could be transmitted to "secondary producers" and be in compliance with the new rules.

At this time, it would be very difficult if not impossible for the DOJ to charge someone with violating 2257 and its implementing regulations for transmitting redacted model ID's when the DOJ has put its own interpretation in writing--and filed in a court of competent jurisidiction--that states transmitting redacted ID's DOES comply with the law.

I would say this is a BIG win for the good guys.

[Squirt]

It's good to see a bit more clarity here. I am more concerned about the filing mechanism and paperwork then anything else. Redacted ID's, or not, it seems we can still goto jail for paperwork that is misfiled. :shifty:

I find it odd that I can get pulled over by a police officer and get a ticket for driving without my license, but then void the ticket by showing my ID at a later date... we should have the same kind of protection with 2257 and filing paperwork or providing ID's shouldn't we?

[Slade]

I find it odd that I can get pulled over by a police officer and get a ticket for driving without my license, but then void the ticket by showing my ID at a later date... we should have the same kind of protection with 2257 and filing paperwork or providing ID's shouldn't we?

That's why the new regs will never fly..at least most of them.