Raw Alex writes on GFY: "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 impossible to operate one."
Crockett writes: " They are just doing anything they can to make this as hard as possible for a average webmaster to run his business."
One amusing thing in the comments is how often porners invoke violations of privacy. There is no legal right to privacy. It was something invented to legalize abortion but it is not in the Constitution and there’s no legal right to make porn and sell porn (or anything) and stay anonymous.
Mr. Cool Ice posts:
I enjoy my work and can’t wait for the hammer to swing on this issue simply because there are more in the industry who give us all a bad name than not. If you only knew what I knew about what really goes on at some of the studios, you would also be happy to see them fall.
This is about the laziest industry I have ever seen. Do you fucking paperwork, list what you have to list, link where you have to link and be done with it. So you have to list your name, address and phone number, then do it or find another line of work. What are you hiding?
EVERY industry has rules and regulations. Porn should not be exempt. YOU wanted to be the cowboy working in porn, so now YOU have to deal with the consequences. If this passes as is, you will either adapt or you will close your shop.
this is an email I got from the FSC…don’t start twiddlin in your boots quite yet….
Dear FSC Member:
This is an update on the newly-released rules and regulations related
to 2257. We will provide you with more information as it becomes
available.
First, it is important to recognize that the regulations that the DOJ
has set forth today are simply proposed regulations, issued for comment
and possible change.
FSC will extensively comment on the regulations, and we intend to
launch an industry-wide campaign to solicit your comments as well. We need
your partici¬pa¬tion in this process. In the coming days we will
provide details on how to comment.
Some of the points set forth were expected, and they represent the
modest gains that we have achieved through litigation thus far. Some of
the other points are troubling and represent the intransigence which we
have come to expect from Attorney General Gonzales and his associates.
On the critical subject of “secondary producers,” the Justice
Department is continuing to suggest that it has been right all along and
that Congress ALWAYS intended secondary producer to be included in 2257.
Therefore, they are consider¬ing the original legislation and
regulations issued in 1995 to be valid for “secondary” as well as
“primary” producers. We understand that for many of you it is simply
impossible to comply with the Justice departments demands, and that is one
of the reasons why we will continue the fight.
Unless the final regulations change radically from those proposed
today, FSC will continue our litigation at the appropriate place and time,
including seeking another injunction for “secondary producers” as
well as others.
At the end day, we will make sure that federal judges understand the
absurdity of these regulations, and we will not let up on our commitment
to you and to your rights.
“One amusing thing in the comments is how often porners invoke violations of privacy. There is no legal right to privacy. It was something invented to legalize abortion but it is not in the Constitution…”
IXth Amendment:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I don’t know about Australia, but that’s how we roll in the USA Duke.