Ashcrofts At It Again

[Lee]

WASHINGTON - Still glowing from last year's passage of the PROTECT Act, Attorney General John Ashcroft – on Flag Day, of all times – handed up to the House Judiciary Committee the Justice Department's report, as required by the Act, of its 18 U.S.C. § 2257 inspections. The report revealed that, as a practical matter, there had been none. But inspections will be coming, he strongly implied, bringing with him a 26-page proposal to address what it describes as the "need for more specific and clear regulations detailing the records and inspection process" required by § 2257.

While the proposal modifies every one of the applicable regulations (28 C.F.R. §§ 75.1-75.8), except the superfluous regulation that allows an exemption statement (§ 75.7), it turns a blind eye to the government's agreement with materially all of the adult video industry that the law's effective date is July 3, 1995, rather than the 1990 and 1992 dates found on the face of the statute and original regulations.

Under federal law and the terms of the proposal, once the proposed regulations are officially published in the Federal Register, there will be a 60-day period for public comment, following which final regulations will be issued.

A transcript of AG Ashcroft's prepared remarks follows:

Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Ashcroft
Protect Act Victories
House Judiciary Committee Hearing Room
Washington, D.C.
June 14, 2004 – 2:00 pm

Good afternoon. Chairman Sensenbrenner... Ladies and Gentlemen.

Last year, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Protect Act.

Thanks to the leadership and work of Chairman Sensenbrenner, this law has given the justice community critical new tools to protect children and to punish those who prey on the young and the innocent. The Protect Act has expanded the justice community's ability to prosecute child pornography, stop sex tourism, and prevent the obscene depictions and exploitation of minors.

An amendment added by Chairman Sensenbrenner to the Protect Act required the Justice Department to gather information and report on the number of inspections of pornography producers and distributors conducted since 1993.

By law, pornography producers and distributors are required to maintain records to prove the age and identity of the participants in their pornographic material. This aspect of the law is intended to ensure that participants are not minors and that children are not being exploited sexually.

In conjunction with the release of this report to Congress, I am pleased to announce that today I am signing proposed rules governing how such inspections will take place. These changes will put teeth into our efforts to ensure that children are not being used as performers in sexually explicit media. The inspection requirements will apply to all those who sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release books, magazines, periodicals, films, videotapes, computer-generated images, digital images, or other matters that contain a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

Congress has required specifically that certain records be kept to ensure that the performers are not children. These specific records are required to be created and maintained by law, and inspection is limited to those required records. The Justice Department believes that the government unquestionably has a substantial interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of minors.

The regulations provide direct and clear information on what identification records are required to prove age, how the records should be kept, and how the inspection process works. These regulations should be clearly understandable to all those working in the pornography industry.

There will be no excuses for anyone who takes part in abusing children for sexually explicit productions.

In addition to this critical step forward, the Protect Act has already proven itself to be indispensable to furthering our nation's efforts to protect children.

Sex Tourism
For instance, a provision of the Protect Act authored by Chairman Sensenbrenner has strengthened the law against so-called "sex tourists," making it a crime to travel to another country and then engage in sex with a minor. Before the Protect Act, prosecutors had to prove the dominant intent of a trip was for sex with a minor.

What this change in the law means for our culture and our children was made clear by the very first prosecution under this part of the law.

Michael Lewis Clark, age 69, was arrested last June in Cambodia for sexually abusing two Cambodian boys, ages 10 and 13. Clark pled guilty on March 17, 2004. Over the five years Clark spent traveling to Cambodia, he admits he may have molested as many as 40 to 50 children.

Truth In Domain Names
The Protect Act has also helped us prosecute new crimes against children. The law makes it a crime to use a misleading domain name on the Internet with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material that is obscene or with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful.

Thanks to the Protect Act, John Zuccarini was sentenced to 30 months in prison. Zuccarini used misspellings of child-oriented domain names, such as Disneyland and Bob the Builder. For instance, children who erroneously typed "D-I-N-S-E-Y-L-A-N-D.com" were taken to pornographic sites. Zuccarini used at least 3,000 such close misspellings of domain names to drive traffic to pornographic websites.

Lifetime Supervised Release
The Protect Act also permits lifetime-supervised release for child-exploitation crimes.

Allen Dwayne Coates was sentenced in April to 25 years in prison and, because of the Protect Act, the 37-year-old Coates will be under sex-crime supervision for the rest of his life. Coates admitted to traveling from Kentucky to a Target store in West Virginia where he forced an 11-year-old girl to engage in lewd acts. After his arrest, he admitted to possessing child-pornographic images, which were later found at his home.

These are just a few of the successes that are a direct result of the Protect Act.

Last week, millions of Americans observed the solemn and moving memorial services for President Reagan. President Reagan showed us that a single life – molded by faith and noble ideals – can change the world for the better.

The Protect Act expresses our nation's desire that every boy and girl grow up in freedom and safety – so, as adults, they can contribute to America's greatness.

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=106576

Remember folks.. this is the guy that spent 20k to cover up a statue with a sheet when as any good person knows... he could have gone to Target and picked a sheet up for $30

Regards,

Lee

[AusCoding Allan]

Here's an interesting question, I should probably seek legal advice but thought I should get comments first

As an Australian Company that runs an adult website, what sort of jurisdiction does the US have on my business operations. I'm not saying that I don't comply with the USC 2257 regulations - I do. But I would be interested to know what sort of powers they have in relation to prosecuting an Australian business for not complying with a US law.

Just a thought

Allan

[Chilihost]

For one thing, you are hosted on a US based server. You are also prolly dealing with US based companies for affiliate programs, content, etc.

But I know what you mean, I also wonder exactly what could happen (although I also comply with 2257!)

cheers,
Luke

[Lee]

From what i understand, and this is only based on questions i asked my lawyer in England a few years ago it actually doesnt matter whether you do abide by the US laws so long as those in your own locality are adhered to.

However, most of us do host, use sponsors, get traffic and content from US based companies which, if we didnt adhere to the US2257 laws we wouldnt be able to get otherwise.

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

talk to a lawyer and your host

[Matt 26z]

"The inspection requirements will apply to all those who sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release books, magazines, periodicals, films, videotapes, computer-generated images, digital images, or other matters that contain a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct."

Doesn't this mean affiliates will now have to keep 2257 records of every free sponsor set they have hosted on their own domain?

[Lee]

Matt pretty much yes.

Which isnt a bad thing in all honesty but its going to make it a lot harder for free site webmasters as they will either have to link to a page containing all the 2257 info on it or include it on all of their sites.

Regards,

Lee

[EmporerEJ]

Clearly another load of shit from the Administration designed to appeal to the religious right. (We do have an election coming you know)

Child pornography again? How much can we protect the children? Has there been a rampant display of children in our industry?
NO

Have there been advertised websites with Kiddie Porn?
NO

Anyone YOU know in OUR industry doing this?
NO
(I don't know any murderers, bank robbers, or torture teams either)

Those people lay low under the radar, and there IS no defense for them. Why would they think that record keeping is going to have anything to do with, or stop those people?

They think they are gonna find another Tracy Lords? Lest we recall SHE was the instigator of that. SHE provided false information and she didn't look underage to me. The record keeping laws wouldn't have applied there. They HAD records.(He got prosecuted anyway of course)

And lets see, why not throw Reagan in there too....just for a tear jerker. $30 Drapes? Yes, this outraged me too....more importantly BECAUSE he did it. Why did the artwork that has stood for centuries need to be covered up all of the sudden? Was Mr Ashcroft getting an erection or something? Scratch the surface...let's see what Mr. Ashcroft's fetishes are?

[shelmal]

ok forgive me because I just woke up and I'm half asleep and may have misread this, but whats the problem here? I hate to think im defending ashcroft..makes me sick to think i am but did i read it wrong? This is mostly about checking to see the ids of the models right? We already do it. And in terms of free sites I always have a 2257 link to where I got the content from whether I bought it or if its free from sponsor. As long as everythings up there and the model is of age again I dont see the scary part of this.

[EmporerEJ]

I think the "Scary" part of this, is, as it has always been, an erosion of our civil rights.

By virtue of the record keeping process to start with, we are ASSUMED to be breaking the law, and must keep "Proofs" around for any jack monkey with a wild hair fetish to come in and look at whenever he decides it's time to mug for the camera.

Let's see, I'm running for local sherrif...how can I get free TV Face time? I go around banging on doors of bad Porn places and demand to see their papers. And if they don't have their papers in order, on demand, I drag them away to prison.

(Wait, doesn't that sound a little bit like what the Nazis did to the Jews? You know, before they started killing them?)

I'm going down to the local supermarket and demand to see his ID keeping records for selling cigarettes....cause that's an 18 law too. then I'm going to the bar, and check his drinking records, you know, a copy of all his customers' IDs showing they are 21 that he keeps on file forever. It's on the sign attached to every door of his place telling where I can go to read these records at any time.

Oh, damn....that's right....this law ONLY applies to the adult industry, cause, you know, somehow we have been defined as "lessor" Americans.....not entitled to Th amendment protection.

[basschick]

if we are all forced to keep i.d. in the same way as the producers, it could be quite complicated since we are not provided with full i.d.
but with partly blocked - and therefore not legal - i.d.

also it means that law enforcement could show up at any time at the residences of those who work at home - who could be forced to put their home addresses on their websites.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally posted by basschick
if we are all forced to keep i.d. in the same way as the producers, it could be quite complicated since we are not provided with full i.d.
but with partly blocked - and therefore not legal - i.d.

also it means that law enforcement could show up at any time at the residences of those who work at home - who could be forced to put their home addresses on their websites.

And isn't that EXACTLY what they want?
Not so much to "save" any kids, but to have a chilling effect on the industry, and by extension, free expression.

That's the part that pisses me off.