Comments on: 2257 Up or Go To Jail … Yes, I mean you porn stars doing content trades

By: Mike South

Fri, 20 Jul 2018 14:34:55 +0000

As I read the recent ruling on 2257 most of it was likely to be struck down but not the requirement on the primary producer to check the age of all participants and it appears that is exactly what Denemostier was charged with

” did not ascertain the performers’ identification or age, as required by federal law.”

It is likely that the warrant less searches, the requirements on secondary producers and the specifics of what info has to be kept will be struck down. In all honesty this should not have taken the FSC this long, I believe any first year law student with a C average could have had this disposed of years ago….even in the federal system, the law is, on its face, clearly unconstitutional.

]]>

By: LurkingReader

Fri, 20 Jul 2018 02:01:01 +0000

lol Karma kids are always gonna try and sneak into places and do stuff they know they’re not allowed to do…just cuz they aren’t allowed! Keeping them out is every adults punishment for once being a kid 😉

]]>

By: Karmafan

Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:35:28 +0000

There should be harsher punishment for the minors that sneak or fake their way into porn. This might deter some from trying to get into porn before they are of legal age. However there is no money in that (fines and such) so instead they always drop the hammer on the production companies.

]]>

By: mharris127

Fri, 20 Jul 2018 00:30:55 +0000

Interesting article. I also read Pornlaw’s linked article, most of it I already knew but I didn’t know that records from a production company that went out of business only needed to be maintained for five years after dissolution. I thought it was in perpetuity (meaning that if a producer died the onus to maintain records fell on his heirs). Five years is a lot more fair than in perpetuity. Of course the definition of “out of business” is up for discussion — is it five years after production ceases or five years after the videos are no longer sold? This would be germane to the discussion if one producer went out of business and sold the movie rights to another company or individual not actively producing content. I would suspect the latter but this question might come up on appeal for a section 2257 case.

]]>