Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government User Journal News

Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites 359

Posted by kdawson
from the wouldn't-know-about-that dept.
How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites

Comments Filter:
  • So does this mean there's no mandatory retirement age for porn stars? Granny will want to hear about this.
  • by conner_bw (120497) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @08:50PM (#21094471) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone remember the Leisure Suit Larry [wikipedia.org] age verification questions? As a kid who couldn't get into the game, I sure do.

    Adult natured games in 16 color EGA for the kids of yester year, gonzo orgy divx on demand for the kids of today.

    The future is fucked.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by 427_ci_505 (1009677)
      Hello, double entendre.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by spellraiser (764337)

      Bah, that was easy. There was a limited number of questions, and I think four possible answers given for each one, so you just kept guessing away until you could map out all the answers to all the questions.

      There's a nerdy solution to every problem.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by empaler (130732)

      Does anyone remember the Leisure Suit Larry [wikipedia.org] age verification questions? As a kid who couldn't get into the game, I sure do.

      Adult natured games in 16 color EGA for the kids of yester year, gonzo orgy divx on demand for the kids of today.

      The future is fucked.

      You think you had it rough? Try for not even being an American. At least you cannucks can just shout over the border and get answers.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by wedgiesaurus (815742)
      The majority proceeds to hold the statute facially over-broad...

      Do judges really refer to their *ahem* as a 'statute'?

      Ah! So that's what they do behind closed doors.
      • by WGR (32993)
        That is statute not statue. Check a dictionary for difference.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by intthis (525681)
      my buddy and i knew the answers to all of the questions when we were 8... and does anyone remember the prophetic

      O.J. Simpson is:
      a. no one to mess with
      b. something
      c. something about juice
      d. under indictment

      so depending on when you played the game, there were two answers to that one...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "Why do they even bother putting an age restriction on these things when all you have to do is click 'yes- I am 18!' Even a seventeen year-old could figure that out."

  • Well duh (Score:5, Funny)

    by spellraiser (764337) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @08:50PM (#21094475) Journal

    While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net.

    Of course not. People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?

    • by Stripe7 (571267)
      Dang, and I do not have any mod points to mod you up today!
    • Re:Well duh (Score:4, Funny)

      by VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:02PM (#21094573)
      You're right. The sentence needs to be reworded:

      While the average reader here has never come to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net.
      There. That's better. I feel vaguely dirty, though...
    • Re:Well duh (Score:5, Funny)

      by techno-vampire (666512) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:26PM (#21094777) Homepage
      That's only half the problem. Most slashdotters stay away from those sites just in case their mom comes down to the basement at the wrong time and gets a good look at what's on the screen.
      • and the rest of us know our hotkeys. :) alt tab, alt f4, ctrl t and any number of others with modified kde shortcuts
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Kalriath (849904)
          Pfft. According to research, half of them use Quicktime, Flash Player, or some other browser control nonsense which would slightly delay the minimisation or exit of the program, resulting in what you are watching being plainly visible for several seconds. My research indicates both Opera and Firefox are TERRIBLE for this.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            Ctrl+Alt+Right Arrow to get to the next workspace ;)
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Barny (103770)
            Three letters.... K V M
            • by Kalriath (849904)
              Nah. Remote Desktop or VNC to a "headless" PC does the trick. Oh wait, did I say that out loud?

              (Holy crap things about porn get moderated up fast)
          • meh. alt f4 closes my firefox in less than 1/4 a second accourding to my research. then again, having the taskbar set to close a window on middle click and the ability to minimize all windows nearly instantaneously helps too.
            • Alt+F4 can have some lag time in my experience; of course I usually have 36 tabs or so open at any given time.

              On the other hand, [Windows+R] -> "pskill firefox" -> Enter takes surprisingly little time to type, and the effects are instant. Now I just gotta find the *nix equivalent from Alt+F2 without needing to look up the PID...
              • with that many tabs, it would be easiest to just witch to another tab, especially if you already renamed the tabs/hid their names to your liking. of course shutting off the monitor works too
              • by mr_exit (216086)
                I have a "killall" program on my linux box. Looks to be a standard GNU one.

                "killall firefox.bin" works perfectly.
    • by rubycodez (864176)
      I've never been to a pay porn site either, what with the internet being a free porn spigot and all
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      While the average reader here has never been to such a site
      And behold, on the third day of 1997 it was written thusly: if Mohammed will not go to the mountain, then the mountain must be emailed to Mohammed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ultranova (717540)

      People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?

      They do on sex [asstr.org] story [greyarchive.org] archives [adultfanfiction.net].

  • Rumors (Score:5, Funny)

    by David Gould (4938) <david@dgould.org> on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:01PM (#21094559) Homepage

    While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net.
    Yes, I, too, have heard rumors of such things... can it really be true? Is this technological wonder known as the Internet really being used as a vehicle for pornography? No hearsay, please -- does anyone here have a definite answer, from a credible source?

    • by Trogre (513942)
      You won't get it. It's just another urban myth, that basically states that any sufficiently successful technology was invented for, and became successful due to, pornography.

    • Re:Rumors (Score:4, Insightful)

      by petrus4 (213815) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:10PM (#21094635) Homepage Journal
      While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net.
      Yes, I, too, have heard rumors of such things... can it really be true? Is this technological wonder known as the Internet really being used as a vehicle for pornography? No hearsay, please -- does anyone here have a definite answer, from a credible source?


      While it might be untrue that the Internet owes its' existence to the porn industry to the degree that is claimed, it is true from what I've read that the porn industry and the material's distributors generally are early adopters of new technologies, particularly in such relevant areas as media storage. (DVDs and such)

      When you think about it, this is actually extremely logical. It follows that individuals who are broad minded in at least one category of their thinking are more likely to thus be similarly broad minded in others.
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by E++99 (880734)

        While it might be untrue that the Internet owes its' existence to the porn industry to the degree that is claimed, it is true from what I've read that the porn industry and the material's distributors generally are early adopters of new technologies, particularly in such relevant areas as media storage. (DVDs and such)

        When you think about it, this is actually extremely logical. It follows that individuals who are broad minded in at least one category of their thinking are more likely to thus be similarly br

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Pfhor (40220)
        it is not even that. They are following the money. Porn is dealing with the lowest common denominator and lowest barrier to entrance. Instead of a passionate love story, lets just show the 'good' parts. They went to VHS because they saw that it was allowing for lower cost films, faster turn around time and private home viewing. You had a broader audience and you got to cut out the theatre distribution chain. Since they were always a marginal aspect of society (there isn't a XXXMPAA to push laws for them) th
        • (however I wonder if some of them backed the age verification requirement, knowing that the smaller sites would crumble under the paperwork)


          Um. Zero. Because it's just not that hard to keep the paperwork. We're not talking rocket science here. Jesus a single form that the model fills out, hits a couple of check boxes, you photograph their drivers license and SSC with your digital camera and you're done.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jollyreaper (513215)

      Yes, I, too, have heard rumors of such things... can it really be true? Is this technological wonder known as the Internet really being used as a vehicle for pornography? No hearsay, please -- does anyone here have a definite answer, from a credible source?
      Reminds me of the old computer store gag about the old man coming in yelling about all the porn on the internet. "I'm sorry, is it offending you?" asks the computer guy. "No! I'm pissed because I can't find it!"
  • Illegal? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by clamothe (704740)
    For you lawyer-types: Does this make it illegal for the Federal government to do this ? Or does it make it illegal for any government to enforce these requirements? Basically: Can the state of oregon say that they want to regulate this, or does this ruling make this illegal?
    • Re:Illegal? (Score:5, Informative)

      by The Only Druid (587299) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:44PM (#21094943)
      This is a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, i.e. the highest federal court in the Sixth Circuit before you reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

      It declares this law to be unconstitutional due to overbreadth (to simplify quite a bit), which means that within the Sixth Circuit, this law is unenforceable.

      The Supreme Court may then either hear the case (and decide whether or not to affirm on the merits), or it may decline to hear the case (thus not issuing a decision as to the merits).

      However, Circuit Courts of Appeal are not binding on the district courts in other circuits (though they are heavily persuasive authority). Thus, the government may prosecute under this law in other circuits, and hope that the district courts there disagree with the Sixth Circuit. Eventually, other Circuit Courts of Appeal may hear this matter and issue their own decisions as to the validity of this law.

      Typically, the Supreme Court refuses to hear issues like this until more than one Circuit has issued an opinion on the matter. Even then, they have historically preferred not to hear the issue unless the various Circuits disagree. However, if the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional, then it is no longer a law, throughout the nation.

      As for a state regulating this: States are permitted to provide greater protection to rights, not lesser. Therefor, if a State attempted to regulate speech in a manner that violates the federal constitution, then that State attempt would be equally unconstitutional.

      As a final odd point: the philosophical question of whether it is "a law" once it is deemed unconsitutional is actually an unclear point. You can find legal scholars/philosophers who will refer to laws deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS as invalid, nullified, non-existent, etc.
      • Re:Illegal? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @11:24PM (#21095687)
        The Supreme Court will not hear the case unless it is appealed by the Government. (And, of course, could refuse to hear it even then. Having just read through the entire decision, if I were a Justice I would let it stand as-is.) And, considering how easily, clearly, and fully the court invalidated the statutes on Constitutional grounds, I doubt very much that the government will appeal. It would be a waste of everyone's time. Every single argument the government made in defense of the statutes has been previously invalidated in other high court cases.

        Also considering the above, I believe that this decision will be considered authoritative by the other circuits. There is no guarantee, of course, but the decision is very straightforward and solidly based.

        Remember that this is the first and only case so far challenging the 2257 statutes that has ever made it as far as even Superior Court. Having the statutes trounced so thoroughly on the very first case (even if it was appealed) is pretty significant, and probably indicative of what other courts will do if called upon.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Agripa (139780)
          The Sixth Circuit includes Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Couldn't the government just continue enforcing the law on producers and distributors outside of the Sixth Circuit? I figure that would essentially force those inside the Sixth Circuit to continue providing the documentation even if they do not have to maintain the records themselves and be subject to warrant less search.
    • First, Oregon is in the 9th Circuit, so this decision isn't binding, but Oregon has one of the nation's most powerful free speech clauses in their constitution. Practically any state or local attempt to restrict obscenity gets struck down in the state courts.

      Because of this:
      1) Localities can't prevent the creation of strip clubs with zoning laws.
      2) Can't bar live sex shows. [firstamendmentcenter.org]
      3) Can't bar someone from being nude on their own lawn. [oregoncatalyst.com]

      The first is why Portland has the highest number of strip clubs per capita in
      • by SatanicPuppy (611928) * <`Satanicpuppy' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday October 24, 2007 @08:52AM (#21099103) Journal
        The more you repress it, the more it spreads. Where I live in GA we have this massive number of "massage parlors" that (curiously) advertise heavily on the interstate with large billboards featuring scantily clad women.

        Now while you can probably also get a massage at these establishments, it is generally understood that this is not all you can get if you were so inclined. And the public outcry? Nil.

        Now, dancing, even "bikini" dancing, which is the only kind not zoned out in the county I live in, is the subject of vigorous public debate. Place just opened up a couple of months ago not far from where I live. "Massage" parlor (with unusually long hours) opened up next door at about the same time. Public outcry over the girls in swimwear? Vast. Public outcry over the suspiciously placed massage parlor? Nil.

  • by bextreme (37107) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:03PM (#21094585)
    The law that was struck down was about age verification and ID requirements for PERFORMERS in the porn. It had nothing to do with the age of the people VIEWING the porn.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jamstar7 (694492)
      Ah, so they'll still insist on my credit card number to 'verify' I'm in my 50's.

      I'm thinkin this is a good excuse to nail people for 'kiddie porn' if there's no age verification of the performers, especially in the US. Where's the 'Think of the CHILDREN' in this ruling????????????

    • by jsse (254124)

      The law that was struck down was about age verification and ID requirements for PERFORMERS in the porn. It had nothing to do with the age of the people VIEWING the porn.

      oic, so the performers aren't required to click on "Yes, I'm 18" before acting anymore?

      Oh wait...
  • by bazald (886779) <bazald@zenip e x . c om> on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:05PM (#21094605) Homepage
    Note that this ruling is not about the questions you get asked when visiting a website. (e.g. Are you at least 18/21/whatever?) This ruling is on the rules for storing proof of age of the people recorded in sexually explicit photos or videos.

    It makes sense that the overly broad ruling made earlier would be overturned due to its potential to conflict with the 1st amendment. It would have become exceptionally difficult to post sexually explicit content without fear of violating the law. Expect a less sweeping law to be put forth shortly. (IANAL)
  • by Scareduck (177470) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:08PM (#21094625) Homepage Journal

    While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net.
    Cmdr Taco: I am the owner of the site Slashdot Readers: And a right good owner, too. Cmdr Taco: It's very, very good, and be it understood, Cowboy Neal keeps the site afloat. Readers: It's very, very good, and be it understood, He keeps the site afloat. Cmdr Taco: Though some think it may be queer, On this site I have to steer The conversation away from porn I don't look at sites With girlflesh so white And I never peek at holes of corn... Readers: What, never? Cmdr Taco: No, never! Readers: What, never? Cmdr Taco: Hardly ever!
  • by e9th (652576) <e9th@NOSpaM.tupodex.com> on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:11PM (#21094649)
    In their summary, How Appealing notes that the requirement was struck down as "facially unconstitutional."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:16PM (#21094679)
    A lot of people are posting with obvious confusion about what was actually struck down.

    Title 18 USC 2257 has absolutely nothing to do with verifying the age of a web site's surfers. It imposes record keeping requirements on the web sites. Requiring them to keep and make available records of every performer's age and identity etc.

    The law has always been controversial in the adult industry due to privacy concerns it raises for the performers and for the web site operators (you may notice on many porn sites at the very bottom they'll have a link called "legal" or "18 USC 2257" which links to a name and address where the records can be obtained ... problem is the law is completely undiscriminating and many amateurs who run their sites from their homes are forced to publish their full names and address etc. for legal purposes. Not to mention that many feel that such documents regarding their performers identity should be kept confidential and only be obtainable via court order).

    The full text of the law can be found at here [cornell.edu]

    In other words it's not about verifying surfers age. It's about verifying performers.
  • hold your guns... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jax9999 (919336)
    This ruling wasn't about putting AVS on sites so as to prevent people from seeing the pics. This was a controversial change to the 2257 laws that were going to basically make it illegal to have any sort of adult oriented image online anywhere unless there was a verified with US ID and current contact information for the model. the law was semi insane, as not only would the original site need to have the name, address, phone numbers and so on of the models. but so would everyone else down the chain. the
  • by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:20PM (#21094725) Homepage

    ...And yea, the word came down from on high:
    "Thou shalt not filter on the date of birth,
    for that censors the rights of the children."
    And the heathens cheered, as their ranks would swell,
    while the righteous cursed, as the children would be corrupted.

    -- Book of the Internet, Chapter 72 verse 17.

    Of course, this ruling doesn't have a ton of effect. After all, it's not like a fourteen year old can't select "I was born in 1972" in a drop down. Those pages were basically worthless. I'm not surprised the court ruled as they did. Probably the right decision. I'm not sure that a click-though page is really censoring free speech, but I understand why they did it (conspiracy theories aside).

    I'm surprised that it this lasted this long, but if I were running a site I would keep the page up for plausible deniability and because we all know someone will try to find a way to re-enact this (local level, perhaps).

    • So, did you just not read all the posts already on the page explaining that you've misunderstood the court's decision?
    • by pjrc (134994) <paul@pjrc.com> on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @10:57PM (#21095483) Homepage Journal
      After all, it's not like a fourteen year old can't select "I was born in 1972" in a drop down. Those pages were basically worthless. I'm not surprised the court ruled as they did.

      The 2257 regs were about verifying the age of the models appearing in the photos, not the age of consumers viewing them.

      It is still illegal to use underage models. But 2257 imposed massive recordkeeping burdens on porn sites. Not just checking every model's ID, but all sorts of unnecessary things, like requiring being open certain hours for random, unannounced inspections of the records, requiring each site to maintain records (no outsourcing to companies much better able to handle it all), and so on. 2257 made it a felony to have even fairly minor errors in records. Not just "protecting the children", but criminal liability for not exactly following extremely detailed, excessively burdensome record keeping requirements.

  • this is great news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by H310iSe (249662) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @09:46PM (#21094955)
    There was widespread protest at the latest ammendments to 2257 (which just came out of review in Sept. and were going into law in Dec - written in 2006 by Gonzolas and the Bush whitehouse) as they were going to document-requirement-out-of-existence many adult themed but obviously non-porographic websites, the national lesbian bisexual gay transgenered taskforce was doing political organizing against it, among many other groups.

    Effectively it said you are a porn producer if you run a website that has any graphic nudity (or "portrayals" of sexual activity) on it and you must therefore comply with section 2257 recordkeeping guidelines which are a huge, gigantic pain in the ass and go far, far beyond ensuring you're not using child actors in your smut.

    Additionally if you are a producer (and w/ the new definition so very many people will be) you can be 'audited' at any time which is in effect a warrantless search and seizure.

    I work with some people in the adult industry and I have this information from the source (i.e. not 2nd hand) that agents came into their production company on a 2257 record keeping inspection and seized EVERYTHING in the room the records were kept in. Computers. Other records. Everything.

    Subsequently other production studios started actually building special rooms to contain just their 2257 paperwork and nothing else (it appears the understanding is the warrantless search only applies to the room where the records are kept). I was in meetings where they were trying to figure out if the room had to have a door or just an opening, a ceiling, and what cross-linked records (did I mention the requirements are a pain) might possibly be somewhere else... they even needed a new server just for the electronic records b/c elsewhere servers (with all their graphics and video) were seized b/c they had part of the 2257 records stored on them.

    I know this sounds ridiculous but I'm certain this is was status quo - now this ... quo... was going to be applied much, much more widely come December.

    Bravo 6th circuit for putting breaks on this insanity.

    Sorry I don't have time to include links but I'll follow up later w/ documentation if I can.
    • by afabbro (33948)
      I work with some people in the adult industry and I have this information from the source (i.e. not 2nd hand)

      So, uh, if you're repeating something someone told you and that is not 2nd hand, what pray tell would be first hand?

    • 2257 inspections (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @10:45PM (#21095385)

      I know someone who went through a 2257 inspection. It's scary, because record-keeping mistakes are felonies. The law was intended to intimidate, which is part of why the court struck it down as overreaching. She came through it OK; she and her staff can quote the record-keeping requirements from memory (yes, the separate room requirement is real), and she knows all her models.

      Compliance is easier if you're a real, live producer, with offices, staff, a business address, production space, and a payroll system. It's amateurs and the people who use third-party photographers who have problems.

    • by cmowire (254489) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @10:56PM (#21095475) Homepage
      This helps me sleep a little better at night, and I have nothing to do with the porn biz.

      See, I do photography, sometimes of naked people [wireheadarts.com] for fun. And, while there's no actual sexual content in my pictures of naked people, I still end up having that niggling fear in the back of my head that they'll show up on my doorstep.
    • As a performer (Score:3, Interesting)

      by uqbar (102695)
      I'm not sure how much will change soon. I'm doing a shoot tomorrow and will once again be giving out way too much info once again. Unless this is it for government appeals, no producer of content will want to risk not having the records - so tomorrow I'll be spending the hour or so before each shoot doing unpaid paperwork for the government, and wondering if the creeps working in the office can be trusted with a big file of information that can be used to steal my identity...
    • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @11:38PM (#21095775)
      According to the judge(s) who wrote this court decision, those were ALREADY 2257 requirements; no new laws would have been necessary to enforce those.
  • slashdot will now allow images in the comments section?

    that's a joke

    no really, it's a joke

    PLEASE NO
  • How old? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cootuk (847498) on Tuesday October 23, 2007 @10:38PM (#21095335)
    In the UK there was a bit of an uproar when a tabloid printed topless pics of a model called Linsey Dawn McKenzie the day after she turned 16. They had been doing a countdown to her birthday with less risque shoots. The paper insisted that the pics had been taken the minute she turned 16 and printed in the very next edition, though some people claimed at the time that they had been taken earlier, and that all the papers readers (viewers?) were paedos. What a difference a day makes....
    • by Kingrames (858416)
      Well, America would have called them pedos as well, since she's not legal until 18 here.

      Yup.
      Say all you want about our border ending here, you know as well as anyone else that America doesn't care. ;)
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jollyreaper (513215)

      In the UK there was a bit of an uproar when a tabloid printed topless pics of a model called Linsey Dawn McKenzie the day after she turned 16. They had been doing a countdown to her birthday with less risque shoots. The paper insisted that the pics had been taken the minute she turned 16 and printed in the very next edition, though some people claimed at the time that they had been taken earlier, and that all the papers readers (viewers?) were paedos. What a difference a day makes....

      If I were to view those pictures in the US, I would not be a paedophile but most certainly a pedophile. What a difference an "a" makes.

  • New record? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stanislav_J (947290) on Wednesday October 24, 2007 @03:28AM (#21096955)

    This thread is so typical of what /. has become -- perhaps setting a new record for irrelevant or plain ignorant comments. At the time I'm viewing it, there are about 200 posts. It looks like perhaps a couple dozen at most actually discuss the article in question. Of the rest, they seem to be roughly evenly divided between (a) people who totally misconstrued the subject matter (even if you failed to RTFA, the summary makes it very clear as to what "age verification" legislation is being referenced), and (b) those who go off on tangents totally unrelated to the subject matter (including the ubiquitous and almost mandatory posts from the "right to bear arms" crowd, who somehow manage to interject comments on gun ownership into almost any thread).

  • by Stanislav_J (947290) on Wednesday October 24, 2007 @04:20AM (#21097157)

    The nefarious legislation known as U.S.C. Title 18 Section 2257 has never been about protecting the children or battling kiddie pr0n. After all, true child pr0nographers certainly don't have their subjects sign releases anyway, nor do they advertise their wares openly on easily accessible public commercial sites. It is one of many tools of intimidation, to harass and potentially shut down perfectly legal adult sites. They were hoping some sites would simply shut down rather than put up with the burdensome recordkeeping requirements, or that sites with user-generated content would be more vigilant about self-censoring even remotely questionable content out of fear. You can keep the most detailed, pristine, organized records (as any smart adult site would do anyway), and yet fear that if even one model's paperwork is in any way hinky, a felony charge may ensue.

    In general, you can safely assume that any legislation regarding adult material has this sort of ulterior motive. The powers that be have never accepted the notion that it is legal (for now, until the Roberts Court rules on the next big case) for adults to choose to view adult material depicting consenting adults engaged in adult activities. To them, all pr0n is bad, and if they could, they would outlaw all of it. Whenever "think of the children" is bandied about in these things, you can bet that they are thinking of far more than "the children" -- they are also thinking about you and me and every other potential legal peruser of naughty pics.

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken

Working...