2257 On Trial In Philly

In truth this law should have been overturned a LONG time ago, it is patently unconstitutional on so many levels. But we finally may have something The FSC can win…MAYBE

Jeffery Douglas was  asked, if 2257 disappeared tomorrow, would the industry begin using minors in its productions? No, Douglas replied, both for moral reasons and because child pornography laws still exist—and attempting to recall thousands of DVDs because they contained an underage performer would be prohibitively costly, not just to physically recall the disks, but also to reimburse retailers and customers who’d bought the product. He also testified that for a company to have been found to have used an underage performer would hurt that company’s good will among retailers, who would never again trust that company’s product—and that besides, since all the performers in a movie are assumed to be adults, there would be no point in using an underage performer deliberately, since that person would be assumed to be an adult also; there would be no benefit to the producer.

DWB points out on GFY:

Except for he’s not telling the truth. I alerted ASACP years ago about a producer using minors from Thailand for DVDs being sold in the USA through a fairly large LA based company. Neither the ASACP, the company who was selling it, or the FBI did anything about it. I even spoke directly with FBI special agent Chuck Joyner who was heading the 2257 investigations at the time. Joan from ASACP told me that it was “pre-teen under 15” that was the problem. Not a single DVD was recalled even though it had 15 – 17 year old girls having sex in it. So as usual, someone speaking on behalf of the industry is totally full of shit. Can’t say I’m surprised.

And has everyone forgotten that not too long ago Met-Art used to be full of underage girls, and CCbill billed for them? No one had a moral issue with that at the time. They only changed when 2257 rolled around and they had to. If there is no 2257, do you honestly think those types of people who had no problems with it in the first place wouldn’t do it again? This business is a laugh a minute.

DWB is correct but that doesn’t negate the fact that 2257 is, on it’s face unconstitutional and should be overturned…Too bad The FSC didn’t jump on this bandwagon back when Rondee Kamins got it rolling….It would have been over by now.

76210cookie-check2257 On Trial In Philly

2257 On Trial In Philly

Share This

3 Responses

Leave a Reply