Adult Industry Attorneys - Why Have Non Of Them..

[Lee]

Said what these new regulations actually entail?

Instead, they choose to use wording such as 'I beleive', 'We beleive', 'Potentially', 'Possibly'.

Right now, if you have paid an attorney ANY amount of money over the new 2257 regulations, you pretty much wasted your money.

The fact of the matter is, we are no further towards knowing what these new regs entail than we were 6 months ago, its all guess work at this moment in time and, realistically, its all guess work until such a time as someone gets tried and convicted of breaking the new 2257 regs.

Just throwing some fact out there for you all.

Regards,

Lee

[thetwink]

The fact of the matter is, we are no further towards knowing what these new regs entail than we were 6 months ago, its all guess work at this moment in time...

I'd venture to say, this is exactly why they word things the way they do.

[Lee]

I'd venture to say, this is exactly why they word things the way they do.

Course it is.

They get people worried that they may be breaking the law thus, people call them and, they get new paying clients LOL

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

i guess regarding this, i'm not that cynical... how often do i get to say that?

i wanted an assessment of the POTENTIAL threat regarding the old 2257 and the proposed regs. i got very good info regarding the existing 2257, and stated mostly definitely, but sometimes there is a blurry line because judges may see things differently.

it isn't the lawyers responsible for the vague replies - it's the law.

like what makes content sexually explicit. since lascivious changes from person to person, and judge to judge, a lot of content is sexually explicit only to some people. or business hours - for a while, that was open to the judge's interpretation, too. or "reasonable" amount of time. it was finally defined in a case as 15 minutes, but before that, it could be 2 minutes to one judge and an hour to another.

so there is no absolute way to answer questions regarding things like that. it's too bad our laws don't clearly define everything.

[Lee]

so there is no absolute way to answer questions regarding things like that. it's too bad our laws don't clearly define everything.

Patti,

Thats exactly my point

Even when these new regs are published, its still open for interpretation (read as guess work) on the lawyers parts. Until someone becomes the test case, nobody is able to tell you what is right and what is wrong, all they can do is advise you of their best 'guess'

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

to an extent, that's true - and it's annoying. why can't we make laws that fucking give us the bottom line?

[t0miie]

Said what these new regulations actually entail?

Instead, they choose to use wording such as 'I beleive', 'We beleive', 'Potentially', 'Possibly'.

Right now, if you have paid an attorney ANY amount of money over the new 2257 regulations, you pretty much wasted your money.

The fact of the matter is, we are no further towards knowing what these new regs entail than we were 6 months ago, its all guess work at this moment in time and, realistically, its all guess work until such a time as someone gets tried and convicted of breaking the new 2257 regs.

Just throwing some fact out there for you all.

Regards,

Lee

I don't think trying to protect my business and livelihood is a waste of money.

We have a fair idea of what they WANT to be put in these new laws, and if they do go into effect as they are, it's going to be a very rude shock for the people that don't understand the full ramifications and haven't prepared themselves.

Regardless of what industry a business might be in, if they were facing possible new laws, the first thing they they would do is seek advice from a lawyer.

[Lee]

I don't think trying to protect my business and livelihood is a waste of money.

We have a fair idea of what they WANT to be put in these new laws, and if they do go into effect as they are, it's going to be a very rude shock for the people that don't understand the full ramifications and haven't prepared themselves.

Regardless of what industry a business might be in, if they were facing possible new laws, the first thing they they would do is seek advice from a lawyer.

You are missing my point completely.

Of course protecting your business isnt a waste of money.

What is a waste of money though is paying people for nothing more than their 'opinion' i can give you that for free

After Tuesday, it will be interesting to see how many of these attorneys opinions change from what they were this last week, thats all im saying, anything you have been told up until this moment in time, is worthless legally when it comes to these new 2257 regulations.

That is a FACT.

Regards,

Lee

[Squirt]

to an extent, that's true - and it's annoying. why can't we make laws that fucking give us the bottom line?

Because they want these particular laws to be as vague as possible so they have room to broaden prosecutions and expand the definition of obscenity through test cases.

Notice how they have no difficulty saying marriage is between a man and a woman... yet they can't tell you what specifically NOT to do so you can avoid being prosecuted for obscenity in the adult industry. The old 2257 regs were vague.. even the new ones are vague. I think they want people to say "It's so hard to tell if I'm breaking the law so I'll stop doing it all together".

I really hope their goal is to go after C*P etc. and not porn all together.

[t0miie]

You are missing my point completely.

Of course protecting your business isnt a waste of money.

What is a waste of money though is paying people for nothing more than their 'opinion' i can give you that for free

No I do get your point. And any honest (!!) lawyer is quick to tell you that it is only there opinion.. Thats not to say its a waste though, thats for sure.

[thetwink]

I think they want people to say "It's so hard to tell if I'm breaking the law so I'll stop doing it all together".

I think this as well... not their only goal, or intent... but nonetheless, it's an effective tactic... it's already worked on some webmasters... started working the day the proposed changes were posted last year, and will most definitely work on even more webmasters after the finalized changes are posted.

[EmporerEJ]

I would strongly encourage you to get on the JD Odenberger mailing list.

He is an industry attorney who is right on the ball. (No pun intended)
He keeps me updated, and the first thing I'd say to the feds if they came a knockin' is "Get me JD."

The new regs should be in the federal register Tuesday.
(If you were on his mailing list, you'd know that)

www.xxxlaw.net

Anyone wanting his most recent update, email me,/ICQ/etc and I'll forward it to you.

[basschick]

i think this is a forlorn hope - the 2257 already in place would have worked fine on cp.

EmporerEJ - amen! our industry lawyers know how to talk to judges, know precedents from other legal situations that can be used on current ones, and i respect their opinions as they are based on the knowledge of many situations and laws that are all involved in our industry.

I really hope their goal is to go after C*P etc. and not porn all together.

[EmporerEJ]

i think this is a forlorn hope - the 2257 already in place would have worked fine on cp.

EmporerEJ - amen! our industry lawyers know how to talk to judges, know precedents from other legal situations that can be used on current ones, and i respect their opinions as they are based on the knowledge of many situations and laws that are all involved in our industry.

Yes, I agree completely.....
I wrote an article about JD and listened to him speak. He's a real world guy, and doesn't jerk people around.

The 2257 they had, they never used, which makes this whole "need a new one" just ridiculous. It's all about crushing us.

[Dravyk]

First, no one is going to give totally free advice when they charge $300 an hour. Nor should that be expected.

Next, the regs aren't out yet. And when they are out, see above.

Not only are they not going to give advice for free because of the first "rule" above, but if they said something definitive and then it went to court and it went the other way, the lawyer would get sued, and publishing it on a board, in an article or saying it at a seminar, we're talking now just sued, but sued en mass; in short, they'd be out of business and bankrupt. So they have no choice but to play the game of telling you, and still not telling you, and couching it all in terms that this what they said was not necessarily their legally-binding recommendation because, like all of us, they have to protect themselves first.

Next, even if you pay an attorney, he'll give you, privately, a much, much better opinion, a more priviledged and experienced one, because hey that is what you are paying for!

But ... even then ... until or unless the lawyer, either at his own cost, or doing it for a client, takes the time to look up precedent and analyze things in depth (lots of time, money, etc.), no lawyer is going to be able to say "this or that" is the way this thing is going to go down.

And, the kicker, even if and when, for pay and after all that research, they then give you their best of all opinion on a matter ... the attorney could still be right or wrong, because unness or until it actually gets to court and he faces another attorney, it is all guesswork as to how it will actually happen, what ruling will or will not be made.

... And then comes the appeals process. LOL!

Might suck, but, that's life in legal land.