New 2257 Regs Posted In Here! You Saw It From The Fag First!

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

It specifically excludes the use of "pop-ups" and "links" and specifically states that your name and address must appear on each page of the site where there's explicit material.

Magazines aren't required to do this. If they are show me the regualtion.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by jigga

wow eh, if this passes than there will be a ton of US webmasters closing up shop.

No there will be a ton of US webmaster that will not do shit and hope they don't get busted.


Thankfully I stopped dealing in content awhile ago. So this doesn't affect me.

[D]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

ok just making this clear, these are PROPOSED right? Not law yet.

Originally Posted by GatorB

No these are the new rules.

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

No these are PROPOSED rules. There's a period of public comment now before they're entered into law.

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes I know.

Non Sequitur

[Compdoctor]

This is interesting

The rule therefore applies only to depictions whose original production date is on or after July 27, 2006. That is, records are not required to be maintained either by a primary producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction of lascivious exhibition, the original production date of
which was prior to July 27, 2006. In the case of a secondary producer,
this means that even if the secondary producer ``produces'' (as defined
in the regulation) such a depiction on or after July 27, 2006, he need
not maintain records if the original production date of the depiction
is prior to that date.

[Tom_PM]

I dunno, it says previously you could have a link from the domain root, or major known entry point ONLY to a page with location of records. In other words if you had 1000 pages of images, all you needed was the link on index.html.
Now they want it affixed to ANY page with sexually explicit images specifically. I think this is not clear yet if they mean you have to type your name and address on every page with an image. That is overburdensome and by now, they know it'll be challenged on that point!

[IllTestYourGirls]

and how does this protect children?

[Sebastian Sands]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

"affixed"? Is linking "affixing"? Why not?

How about a mouseover tooltip ballon? It's in the code, it's on the page, it's affixed isn't it? hmmmm..

Good thinking. I am wondering that one myself. I will ask it at the seminar at Xbiz that starts in an hour.

Sebastian

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by D

Non Sequitur

I don't drink tequila.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Fuck these bullshit rules. I hope someone sues the government after this is all passed( and you kow it will be ) and ties this is court for years like COPA. No way secondary prodcuers should have to keep records.

Ok so say Scene 1 from Ass Fucked BIATCHES #87 is on 1000 sites. Why would the government bother checking 1000 sites who had NOTHING to do with making of this movie, when it would be easier to check the records of the ORGINAL PRODUCER who actually made the product in the first place? Seems like an incredible waste of time, manpower and money.

Dont try to use logic when it comes to the US gov.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Compdoctor

This is interesting

That only applies to pussy shots. Not hard core.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

and how does this protect children?

It doesn't because those that actually make CP are not going to ask for ID.

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

The new regs specifically includes COMPLETELY CLOTHED individuals that are posing in a sexually suggestive manner.

Also now includes simulated, not just actual, sexually explicit conduct.

This is going to get interesting. I kind of take that to mean that ANYONE that is posing in that manner will have to have the docs if they want to display the images on the internet. I have seen some WILD ass photos from weddings that would qualify.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Like someone said making an exception for Hollywood would make this law unconstitutional but then again bush is still in office.

[MrPinks]

Well, I guess the whole pay for protection bullshit from FSC for secondary producers is out the window. Nothing has changed in our favor and things have gotten worse. Is the FSC really doing anything for us?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Well, I guess the whole pay for protection bullshit from FSC for secondary producers is out the window. Nothing has changed in our favor and things have gotten worse. Is the FSC really doing anything for us?

How much money did you waste joining the FSC?

[Quick Buck]

I like this part the most:

In accordance with current law, the proposed rule retains July 3,
1995, as the effective date of the rule's requirements for secondary
producers. (The current regulations, published in 2005, adopted July 3,
1995, as the effective date of enforcement of section 2257 based on the
Court's order in American Library Association v. Reno, No. 91-0394 (SS)
(D.D.C. July 28, 1995)).

[Elli]

Ok, here are the things that jumped out at me. "The Act" refers to the Adam Walsh Act of July 2006.

1.
First, the Act corrected an anomaly in the definition of `sexually explicit conduct'' to which section 2257's requirements apply.

List of factors for determining whether a visual depiction constitutes lascivious exhibition:

(1) Whether the focal point of the visual depiction is on the child's genitalia or pubic area;
(2) Whether the setting of the visual depiction is sexually suggestive, i.e., in a place or pose generally associated with sexual activity;
(3) Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
(4) Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;
(5) Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity;
(6) Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

only the third factor is necessarily dependent on the age of the person depicted. The other factors provide guidance as to the types of depictions that would constitute lascivious exhibition for purposes of section 2257 and part 75, as well, even though those sections apply to any performers regardless of age.

So looking coy but completely clothed would now be filed under 2257! Look out Facebook and Myspace!

2. Second, the Act revised the exclusions in the statute for the operations of Internet companies. Specifically, the Act amended section 2257 by excluding from the definition of ``produces'' the ``provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool * * * or the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication.''

So the ISP clause has been removed. (ie: sites with user-submitted content could claim that they were merely providing a service, not regulating the content that people supplied.)

3.
The proposed rule requires, per the statute, that the statement describing the location of the records required by this part be affixed to every page of a Web site (controlled by the producer) on which visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct appear.

So we can no longer have "find 2257 documentation here" links on our sites. The address and full 2257 statement itself needs to be on every single web page of the site.

4.
Finally, the Act confirmed that the statute applies to secondary producers as currently (and previously) defined in the regulations. Specifically, the Act defines any of the following activities as ``produces'' for purposes of section 2257:

(i) Actually filming, videotaping, photographing, creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being;
(ii) Digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or
(iii) Inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct * * *.

So if you insert a photo onto a site or service,that makes you a producer and liable for the 2257 documentation. There is a small exemption for photo processors like photo labs that have no profit from the material other than to process it.

5.
it clarifies that primary producers may redact non-essential information from copies of records provided to secondary producers, including addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and other information not necessary to confirm the name and age of the performer.

So we don't need to have addresses and contact info for a model, only her age verification info. This reduces stalking, I guess?

6.
the proposed rule clarifies that producers of visual depictions performed live on the Internet need not maintain a copy of the full running-time of every such depiction. Rather, they may maintain a copy that contains running-time sufficient to identify each and every performer in the depiction and associate each and every performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.

So even webcam broadcasts need to be recorded in order to prove which models appeared in which cam sessions.

7.
a U.S. producer who produces a depiction of sexually explicit conduct while located in a foreign country may rely on a foreign-government-issued picture identification card of a performer in that depiction who is a foreign citizen.

So US producers can now go to England or wherever and shoot with non-US models, using their non-US ID. US producers still can't shoot with non-US models in America, though.

8.
the Department hereby clarifies that a producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a depiction that the producer produced but over which he exercises no control.

This seems to be the new version of the ISP exemption.

9.
The Department drafted the rule to minimize its effect on small businesses while meeting its intended objectives. Based upon the preliminary information available to the Department through past investigations and enforcement actions involving the affected industry, the Department is unable to state with certainty that this rule, if promulgated as a final rule, will not have any effect on small businesses of the type described in 5 U.S.C. 601(3).

So the "minimal impact on business" clause may NOT be met here, but they are saying the cause is great enough to outweigh any inconvenience.

10.
Based upon the information available to the Department through past investigations and enforcement actions involving the affected industry, there are likely to be a number of small businesses that are producers of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct as defined in the statute, as amended by the Act.
Pursuant to the RFA, the Department requests affected small businesses to estimate what these regulations will cost as a percentage of their total revenues in order to enable the Department to ensure that small businesses are not unduly burdened.

THIS IS IMPORTANT! You need to write to them and tell them how burdensome these new regulations are! Put a dollar amount on your estimate of time/labour/etc that it will COST YOU and tell them!! These letters are what the lobbyists use to fight the law!

And that's my take on the new proposed regulations. NB: I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever claimed to be one. This is just how I see the situation. I could be wrong. You never know.

But hell, folks! If the French will riot in the streets for longer lunch hours, where's the uproar about losing your ability to conduct a legitimate business??

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

One definition of lascivious says: arousing sexual desire

Now how in the hell can you tell what arouses my sexual desire? lol

So if you post pics that arouse me, you better have docs. Or something.

Sears catalog use to " arouse my desire " ....

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Quick Buck

I like this part the most:

In accordance with current law, the proposed rule retains July 3,
1995, as the effective date of the rule's requirements for secondary
producers. (The current regulations, published in 2005, adopted July 3,
1995, as the effective date of enforcement of section 2257 based on the
Court's order in American Library Association v. Reno, No. 91-0394 (SS)
(D.D.C. July 28, 1995)).

Why? That means anything after 1995 you needs docs

[RawAlex]

I read them all. This pretty much puts us all back to the same place were were at the last time that the DoJ issued an administrative clarification as to the rules and the laws in place. The difference this time is that they have the Adam Walsh law on their side, which effectively makes the secondary producer thing a slam dunk. IMHO, the FSC failed on this one, and the current case in front of the courts has been "overtaken by events".

However, there are many issues here left unresolved. In many countries and regions, there are privacy laws that specifically forbid the distribution of personal information (even names, birthdates, and ID card info) without express written permission - and even with that permission, restrictions may still apply. Canadian and European producers may find themselves in a position of having to break the laws of their countries in order to satisfy the requirements of website operators in the US.

Further, if you read down the page, the DoJ estimates 500,000 websites and 5000 companies working in porn. They are really in for a shock when the true scale of the US adult industry comes into play. I think those numbers are likely to increase dramatically if the truth is told.

The way to fight this one? The paperwork burden and the costs (specifically to smaller businesses). If you produce a gallery for your membership site with 200 images, it might take you 20 minutes. The paperwork requirements to track each individual image of those 200 images might take you hours to do - including all the cross referencing of performer names, URLs, publication dates, and places where a thumb or reduced image may also appear on your site. Total time to publish a gallery would be 3 hours, with only 20 - 30 minutes actually going to generating the product and the rest of the time going towards regulatory paperwork.

Worse, if you are a TGP submitter, your standard 16 image gallery (on a premade template) might take you a few minutes to make, but the time required again to track all the URLs, locations, dates, and model info for sponsor provided content, plus the filing of that material in the required indexed formats might take you 10 times longer than the actual production of the gallery. 90% of your time could be spent doing nothing but filling out database records, filing papers, and printing IDs to be filed. For a small business, adding that much time requirement is essentially a death sentence for your business.

The burder could easily be removed with basic common sense. Content provided with a sworn statement from the program involved that the models are of legal age, unique image names, and easy to access online 2257 basic information for when the inspectors arrive would provide the same level of service without requiring a huge duplication (and multiple duplication) of the same model records over and over again.

Hopefully groups like FSC will move on to fighting the reality that is there today and stop fighting the fight that was long since lost.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Elli

So we can no longer have "find 2257 documentation here" links on our sites. The address and full 2257 statement itself needs to be on every single web page of the site.

Actually you've always had to have that info. Nobody understood that. That was put in when this shit came up 2 years ago.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Why? That means anything after 1995 you needs docs

Keep reading - they also say that for the purposes of enforcement, they won't do anything for material published before the Adam Walsh law was passed, mostly I think because they know they could end up losing in court on that issue, sending the entire legislation into question. The DoJ has lost way too many COPA / COPA II style arguments in the past, they are getting smarter about picking their fights.

The new 2257 laws are exactly like using zoning laws to get rid of strip clubs. You can't outlaw the clubs, but you can sure make it fucking impossible to operate one.

[Sarah_Jayne]

(3) Whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in
inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;
(4) Whether the child is fully or partially clothed, or nude;

Those are the timebombs that will make is pass...now..if the child word means that fully clothed adults aren't an issue that is one thing but of course you have to prove they are an adult.

But then they drop the world 'child' and say:

(5) Whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a
willingness to engage in sexual activity;
(6) Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to
elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

Which just leaves me dumbfounded. With the difficulty in defining obscenity I love the idea that 'coyness' can be legally defined.

It does make me feel a bit better about being in the UK because there is no way that I can see the UK allowing the gov't of another country to inspect the homes of their citizens based on fully clothed coyness. Mineaswell let the Islamic countries come in and inspect for burkas.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Ill wait to make any changes till they are law. Thanks for the update.

Good business plan , as usual .....

[crockett]

Originally Posted by GatorB

"In addition, by confirming that the statute and
regulations apply to ``secondary producers,'' the revised proposed rule
will make it more difficult for the purveyors of such material to
access the market."

Is that in the actuall regulations? If so, that seems to be all the proof that would be needed, to show the govt has mal-intent via producing regulations that are overly burdensome.

Sorry I haven't had a chance to read them all but is that in the regulations?

[MrPinks]

Raw Alex is right. FSC dropped the ball. And Raw Alex is correct by stating "The burder could easily be removed with basic common sense. Content provided with a sworn statement from the program involved that the models are of legal age, unique image names, and easy to access online 2257 basic information for when the inspectors arrive would provide the same level of service without requiring a huge duplication (and multiple duplication) of the same model records over and over again."

This is redicuolus for secondary producers when they should go straight to the source, the primary producers for records.

[Flu]

clothed whores looking like whores is now actionable under 2257? goodbye myspace, facebook and all social networking, and almost all message boards! :D

[MrPinks]

I doubt myspace and sites like that are going anywhere. I think they are exempt somehow due to it being user submitted. I might be wrong but it looks like this is just targetting adult sites and leaving out Hollywood and myspace.

Originally Posted by Flu

clothed whores looking like whores is now actionable under 2257? goodbye myspace, facebook and all social networking, and almost all message boards! :D

[rockbear]

so is it time to change thumbs site for text site only?

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by crockett

Is that in the actuall regulations? If so, that seems to be all the proof that would be needed, to show the govt has mal-intent via producing regulations that are overly burdensome.

Sorry I haven't had a chance to read them all but is that in the regulations?

Yes it is.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by rockbear

so is it time to change thumbs site for text site only?

Not yet, but I'd have a text version made up just in case. Also these rules would apply to ANY images you have on your site. including banners etc.

[Violetta]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

A ton of them, yes. Here's the first I've come across so far:



The new regs specifically includes COMPLETELY CLOTHED individuals that are posing in a sexually suggestive manner.

Also now includes simulated, not just actual, sexually explicit conduct.

Now THAT is stupid!

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Flu

clothed whores looking like whores is now actionable under 2257? goodbye myspace, facebook and all social networking, and almost all message boards! :D

Here is the funniest one:

Many of today's magazine and runway models are under the age of 18. They appear in photos, in videos, and in print ads all over the country. They often have a "sexual coyness" about them, showing large amounts of skin, tight shirts without bras, or pants with the top button undone (for example). Based on the 2257 regulations, they would require proof that these models are over the age of 18.

The entire fashion industry is fucked.

Further, all those "junior Miss" pageants are fucked as well. The Jon-Benet case made it clear that many of those children appear in public, on videos, and in print wearing clothing that isn't appropriate for their age, and often posing in provocative or semi-provative ways. Again, they would all require 2257 documents with proof they are over 18. They aren't so they will have to stop.

Further, the music industry is in for a shit kicking. Remember Britney Spears "hit me baby one more time" video? Schoolgirl uniform, cleavage, sexual overtones galore. She was 16. The new 2257 regulations would require a full model release to show her over 18, which wouldn't happen.

Even further, channels like MTV will require (if I read the rules correctly) model releases for any performer that shows "sexual coyness", and would have to index and cross reference all performers, their real names, their photo IDs, and the dates of publication for these videos (and each replay).

The FSC needs to get on the phone with the fashion, print, music, and television industries to point out how each of them would be severely beaten down by these regulations, creating a massive burden for all entertainment industries.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by BoyAlley

It specifically excludes the use of "pop-ups" and "links" and specifically states that your name and address must appear on each page of the site where there's explicit material.

In other words they are going out of their way to make it unconformable for a normal person to do business. There is no reason at all that a simple link to a 2257 page should not be enough to get the required info.

They are just doing anything they can to make this as hard as possible for a average webmaster to run his business. I'd say the entire thing is unconstitutional and violates rights to privacy. Especially when they give special privileges to some (ie Hollywood but not others us)

[MrPinks]

Yes, time to go totally text until a new law is created to fuck with text sites.

Originally Posted by rockbear

so is it time to change thumbs site for text site only?

[»Rob Content«]

Originally Posted by Flu

clothed whores looking like whores is now actionable under 2257? goodbye myspace, facebook and all social networking, and almost all message boards! :D

Don't forget about dating sites, don't tell me that date.com. AFF, amateurmatch.com, and all the other major dating companies have full 2257 for every person that is looking for a date. Take a look around most dating sites, all them girls are trying to look sexy.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

I doubt myspace and sites like that are going anywhere. I think they are exempt somehow due to it being user submitted. I might be wrong but it looks like this is just targetting adult sites and leaving out Hollywood and myspace.

No, read through closely - they specifically killed that version of the ISP provision, and limited it down to only ISPs that don't edit or control the images in any manner. As Myspace and Facebook both do review and delete offensive material, they are in control of the content and therefore would no longer be exempt.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Fuck these bullshit rules. I hope someone sues the government after this is all passed( and you kow it will be ) and ties this is court for years like COPA. No way secondary prodcuers should have to keep records.

Ok so say Scene 1 from Ass Fucked BIATCHES #87 is on 1000 sites. Why would the government bother checking 1000 sites who had NOTHING to do with making of this movie, when it would be easier to check the records of the ORGINAL PRODUCER who actually made the product in the first place? Seems like an incredible waste of time, manpower and money.

This entire thing is not about, actually preventing CP as was the original intent of the law. This is nothing more than the govt harassing a business type they don't agree with.

[MrPinks]

I think MTV and Hollywood are exempt.

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Here is the funniest one:

Many of today's magazine and runway models are under the age of 18. They appear in photos, in videos, and in print ads all over the country. They often have a "sexual coyness" about them, showing large amounts of skin, tight shirts without bras, or pants with the top button undone (for example). Based on the 2257 regulations, they would require proof that these models are over the age of 18.

The entire fashion industry is fucked.

Further, all those "junior Miss" pageants are fucked as well. The Jon-Benet case made it clear that many of those children appear in public, on videos, and in print wearing clothing that isn't appropriate for their age, and often posing in provocative or semi-provative ways. Again, they would all require 2257 documents with proof they are over 18. They aren't so they will have to stop.

Further, the music industry is in for a shit kicking. Remember Britney Spears "hit me baby one more time" video? Schoolgirl uniform, cleavage, sexual overtones galore. She was 16. The new 2257 regulations would require a full model release to show her over 18, which wouldn't happen.

Even further, channels like MTV will require (if I read the rules correctly) model releases for any performer that shows "sexual coyness", and would have to index and cross reference all performers, their real names, their photo IDs, and the dates of publication for these videos (and each replay).

The FSC needs to get on the phone with the fashion, print, music, and television industries to point out how each of them would be severely beaten down by these regulations, creating a massive burden for all entertainment industries.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

I think MTV and Hollywood are exempt.

which is unconstitutional

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

I think MTV and Hollywood are exempt.

Where is the law is there a "you aren't a porn company so you are exempt" clause? I must have missed that one.

These rules read like the RICO act. Intended for one thing, but easily misused be overzealous DAs to attack almost any company that publishes images or videos.

[»Rob Content«]

What really blows the mind is that if the US Gov put as much money into fighting actual CP over just using CP as a way to hurt the adult industry they might actually put a dent into actual CP.

[MrPinks]

Of course it is, but does the Constitution really exist these days?

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

which is unconstitutional

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

No, read through closely - they specifically killed that version of the ISP provision, and limited it down to only ISPs that don't edit or control the images in any manner. As Myspace and Facebook both do review and delete offensive material, they are in control of the content and therefore would no longer be exempt.

if so then Google needs 2257 for it's Google Images. Unless Goolge is somehow classifed and an ISP now.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

and how does this protect children?

You should know better than that.. If this zazi fuckers wanted to protect children, they would be working with us instead of aginst us. Regulations like these will, do nothing but move most porn production overseas where there is less protection for children.

[tony286]

Its all bullshit because they know as well as we know.If some one is doing CP ,first they arent a legit business and secondly they are not going to keep fucking records. This is to bust balls,the sad part is most wont follow it as they dont now with the current rules.

[eroswebmaster]

While I don't agree with the whole secondary producer aspect of these new regulations, you guys debating over how this will stop CP are clearly missing a point.

It's not JUST to protect clearly apparent adolescents or children from being exploited, but it is to ensure due diligence on the part of producers from letting another Traci Lords slip through...you know..those 15-16 year olds who have the bodies of over developed 18 year olds.

[yahoo-xxx-girls.com]

Hi all,

I live in Canada and I think the 2257 is a good idea, however it has no real effect on Canadians who host up here rather then down south... Don't get me wrong there are laws, however they are a bit more relaxed in nature...

I have took the time as to read the your new 2257 record keeping requirements; just out of intrest... perhaps some of you have missed some of the basic statements... so for you adult webmasters of associate programs might find this intresting... These are direct quotes...


"Finally, although it is not necessary to change the text of the
regulations for this purpose, the Department hereby clarifies that a
producer need not keep a copy of a URL hosting a depiction that the
producer produced but over which he exercises no control."


The above states clearly that webmaster who are for example associates of a adult program need not be bothered with her or hers associate program 2257 legal requirement, because the associate program need to be the one who provideds such legal documentation... Since adult webmasters who only use associate program(s) content and who do not manufactor adult content; having no control on the associate program are released from legal obligation... as stated above.


"Pursuant to the RFA, the Department requests affected small
businesses to estimate what these regulations will cost as a percentage
of their total revenues in order to enable the Department to ensure
that small businesses are not unduly burdened."


The seem to have plans as to lay a new tax down on the US adult industry !


"All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional
information, should be directed to Andrew Oosterbaan, Chief, Child
Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (202) 514-5780. This is
not a toll-free number. Comments should also be sent to: Lynn Bryant,
Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Policy and
Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, Patrick Henry Building,
601 D Street, NW., Washington, DC 20530."


It was noted that they expected some input from the adult industry, but got none... Contact them !!!



Direct quotes taken from:

[Federal Register: July 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 133)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 38033-38039]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12jy07-19]

http://www.alleybucks.com/promo/E7-13500.htm

[MrPinks]

This is the funny part "As for those who intentionally produce material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, the statute and regulations either require them to maintain records of their crimes" So I guess the expect the criminals to keep records, hahaha, suuuuure.

Originally Posted by tony404

Its all bullshit because they know as well as we know.If some one is doing CP ,first they arent a legit business and secondly they are not going to keep fucking records. This is to bust balls,the sad part is most wont follow it as they dont now with the current rules.

[BoyAlley]

100 Unconstitutional Regulations