VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 23:18:53 12/30/21 Thu
Author: an0n
Subject: Re: Donny Long using FAKE 2257 - 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 filing...
In reply to: an0n 's message, "Donny Long using FAKE 2257 - 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 filing..." on 01:36:41 12/30/21 Thu

- http://justpaste.it/2fcgl

>...using a false address for legal 2257 18 u.s.c. CFR
>75
> - http://justpaste.it/2fcgl - http://archive.is/tadj9
>
>Publisher of http://pornwikileaks.com and
> - http://adultfyi.com rogue websites.
>All models, actors, actresses and other persons that
>appear in any visual portrayal of actual sexually
>explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in
>this Website were over the age of eighteen years at
>the time the visual image was created.
>All other visual depictions displayed on this Website
>are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section
>2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said they do not portray
>conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section
>2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of
>non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of
>simulated sexual conduct, or are otherwise exempt
>because the visual depictions were created prior to
>July 3, 1995.
>With respect to all visual depictions displayed on
>this web site, whether of actual sexually explicit
>conduct, simulated sexual conduct or otherwise, all
>persons were at least 18 years of age when said visual
>depictions were created.
>The owners and operators of this Web site are not the
>primary producers (as that term is defined in 18
>U.S.C. Section 2257) of any of the visual cocks
>contained in the Web site.
>The images contained on this site were published,
>republished, reproduced or reissued.
>The original records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
>section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 for materials contained
>in the website are kept by the appropriate Custodian
>of Records as follows:
>The records required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
>2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 for materials contained in the
>Website are kept by:
>E. EICHLER
>3107 AYCRIGG AVENUE
>PASSAIC, NJ 07055
>
>xxxfilmjobs AT hotmail .com - http://donnylong.com
> - http://getrichcash.com/2257.html -
> - http://xxxfilmjobs.com/ - http://asacp.org/ASACP.php
>Billing Support For: http://heatherdeep.com -
> - heatherdeepxxx AT gmail .com
>
>How I keep minors from viewing our sites:
>This entire domain, and all of its code, has a
>voluntary rating. I have labeled our site with all the
>following labeling services: http://icra.org,
>http://rsac.org, and
> - http://safesurf.com. In addition our labeling
>compatible with the free, built in, cocks filtering
>function of internet explorer.
>Here is an explanation on how to enable it on your
>browser.
> - http://icra.org - http://safesurf.com -
>http://rsac.org
>
>2257 Reporting Requirements
>Under a federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2257, producers of a
>"visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in
>actual sexually explicit conduct" are required to keep
>records showing the ages of the models. It does not
>cover images produced before July 3, 1995, or
>depictions of virtual sexually explicit conduct not
>involving action human beings.
>
>The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act,
>codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2257A, extended record
>keeping requirements to "simulated sexually explicit
>conduct" and "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
>pubic area of any person" beginning March 18, 2009.
>Section 2257A also creates a safe harbor certification
>process for television and movie producers of
>simulated or lascivious depictions. The certification
>does not apply to other types of depictions covered by
>§ 2257. New regulations issued December 8, 2008 cover
>these changes.
>
>The current regulations are available at
>http://www.zei2257.com/FR-28CFR75-20081218.pdf
>
>Required Records
>Producers are required to maintain records of the
>legal name and date of birth of each performer, any
>other name ever used by the performer, a copy of photo
>identification issued by a government entity, a copy
>of the depiction, the date of original production, and
>the URL associated with the depiction if it is
>published online. Revised Regulations for Records
>Relating to Visual Depictions of Sexually Explicit
>Conduct; Inspection of Records Relating to Depiction
>of Simulated Sexually Explicit Performance, 73 Fed.
>Reg. 77,470 (Dec. 18, 2008) (codified at 28 C.F.R. pt.
>75).
>
>The records must be indexed by name and
>cross-referenced to other names used and title or
>identify number of the book, magazine, film,
>videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image,
>digital image, picture, URL, or other matter. Id. at
>77,470.
>
>A statement of the location of the records must be
>affixed to every copy of depictions that fall under
>the record-keeping requirements. For online
>publishers, the statement must appear on every webpage
>that contains a depictions, but can be a "separate
>window that opens upon the viewer's clicking or
>mousing-over a hypertext link that states, '18 U.S.C.
>2257 [and/or 2257A, as appropriate] Record-Keeping
>Requirements Compliance Statement.'" 73 Fed. Reg. at
>77,471.
>
>Producers must keep copies of these records for seven
>years, and maintain them for five years after the
>producer is out of business. Id. at 77,470.
>
>Producers must allow Attorneys General or their agents
>to enter their business premise and inspect the
>records or keep the business records at with a third
>party custodian that provides for access during
>regular business hours or at least 20 hours a week
>with no advanced notice and no requirement of
>suspicion. Id.
>
>Penalties
>18 U.S.C. § 2257(f) makes it a crime for a person
>fail to create or maintain records, "knowingly to sell
>or otherwise transfer" any sexually explicit material
>that does not have a statement affixed, or refuse to
>permit inspection. Violations are punishable by up to
>five years for a first offense and 10 years for
>subequent offenses. 2257(i). Violations of 2257A are
>punishable by up to one year in prison. 2257A(i).
>
>Litigation Over 2257
>The initial iteration of 2257, first passed in 1988,
>mandated that producers keep records of the age and
>identity of performers and affix statements as to the
>location of the records to depictions. However, rather
>than penalities for noncompliance, the statute created
>a rebuttable presumption that the performer was a
>minor. Pub. L. 100-690. This version was struck down
>as unconstitutional in American Library Association v.
>Thornburgh on First Amendment grounds. 713 F. Supp.
>469 (D.D.C. 1989) vacated as moot 956 F.2d 1178 (D.C.
>Cir. 1992).
>
>After Thornburgh, Congress amended 2257 to impose
>direct criminal penalities for noncompliance with the
>record-keeping requirements. The same plaintiffs
>challenged the amended statute and accommanying
>regulations, but the new version was upheld by
>American Library Ass'n v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir.
>1994).
>
>In Sundance Assoc., Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th
>Cir. 1998), the Tenth Circuit rejected the
>regulation's distinction between primary and secondary
>producers and entirely exempted from the
>record-keeping requirements those who merely
>distribute or those whose activity "does not involve
>hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise
>arranging for the participation of the performers
>depicted." 18 U.S.C. § 2257(h)(3).
>
>In 2005, the Department of Justice issued regulations
>that expand the definition of a "secondary producer"
>of sexually explicit material. As of June 23, 2005,
>federal regulations apply the 2257 record-keeping
>requirement to these secondary producers, and defines
>them as including anyone who "inserts on a computer
>site or service a digital image of, or otherwise
>manages the sexually explicit content of a computer
>site or service that contains a visual depiction of,
>an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated
>sexually explicit conduct." 73 Fed. Reg. at 77,468.
>
>However, the regulations clarify that those who merely
>provide general services to producers, such as
>distribution, film-processing, or web-hosting are not
>producers and are not covered by the regulations. Id.
>
>In Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales, representatives
>of adult entertainment companies challenged the 2005
>regulations, and the plaintiffs obtained a preliminary
>injunction for some aspects of the regulations,
>including application of the record-keeping
>requirements as to secondary producers, as mandated by
>the holding in Sundance. 406 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (D.
>Colo. 2006).
>
>The DOJ argued that ALA v. Reno "implicitly accepted
>that the distinction between primary and secondary
>producers was valid" and that "the requirement that
>secondary producers maintain records was not a
>constitutionally impermissible burden on protected
>speech." See 33 F.3d at 91.
>
>However, after 2257 was amended in 2006 by the Adam
>Walsh Act, the court ruled that Sundance's
>restrictions no longer applied to the amended statute
>and generally ruled in the government's favor on its
>motion for summary judgment. Free Speech Coalition v.
>Gonzales, 483 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (D. Colo. 2006).
>
>The regulations imply that secondary producers are
>limited to those involved in commercial operations.
>This would seem to limit the recording requirements of
>secondary producers to material intended for
>commercial distribution and exclude noncommercial or
>educational distribution from the regulation. 73 Fed.
>Reg. at 77,469.
>
>The Attorney General has also stated that the statute
>is “limited to pornography intended for sale or
>trade,” 73 Fed. Reg. at 77,456, though the text of
>the statute does not make this distinction. The
>Attorney General stated before the 6th Circuit en banc
>panel in Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder that
>the regulations “does not apply to images that an
>adult couple produces of its own intimate activity for
>the couple’s private enjoyment at home.” 557 F.3d
>321, 339 (6th Cir. 2009) (en banc), cert. denied 2009
>U.S. LEXIS 6926 (Oct. 5, 2009). The comment section of
>the regulations makes the same conclusion. 73 Fed.
>Reg. at 77,456. The Sixth Circuit accepted this
>interpretation and ruled for the government.
>
>However, the regulations do state that recording
>requirements for primary producers do apply to those
>who create depictions for non-commercial purposes, and
>in response to comments, implied that individuals who
>take pictures of themselves to post on a dating
>website or trade pictures with potential partners must
>adhere to the record-keeping requirements by taking
>down their own information, making a photocopy of
>their own driver's licenses, and opening their homes
>to inspection without notice or paying a third party
>to hold onto everything. See 73 Fed. Reg. at 77,459.
>Furthermore, such a individual would have to either
>disclose his home address publicly or pay another
>business to store records in order to maintain
>privacy. The Attorney General affirmed this
>interpretation in briefing in Free Speech Coalition v.
>Holder. Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to
>Dismiss at 15., No. 2:09-cv-04607 (E.D. Pa. filed Feb.
>22, 2010).
>
>In 2009, along with several individual artists,
>journalists, educators, and performers, Free Speech
>Coalition challenged 2257 and 2257A on primarily First
>Amendment and Fourth Amendment grounds, and the case
>is ongoing. Free Speech Coalition v. Holder, No.
>2:09-cv-04607 (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 7, 2009).

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.