Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads 267
arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."
SOP (Score:5, Insightful)
It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage, file it right along side the model release form - and call it a day. A little extra insurance saves tons of headaches later in life, and a little prudence and CYA never killed anyone in this lawsuit-happy world.
Re:SOP (Score:5, Interesting)
The OP is correct, it's sensible advice. As a filmmaker and photographer I always do get forms signed and ID from models. It's extremely annoying to have to do that, but it's insurance nonetheless. Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity when it comes to anything sex-related.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would guess that a publication such as this would be afraid it would lose customers if those customers knew their names were going to be on file for an extended period just waiting for somebody to go trying to dig up some dirt on them.
Isn't proof of age up front enough?
Re:SOP (Score:5, Funny)
3 to 5 years jail time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the standard approach for representation of age is a banner along the lines "BARELY LEGAL TEENS! These hot bitches turned 18 three weeks ago, and now they're ready to party!"
Re: (Score:2)
>>>As a filmmaker and photographer I always do get forms signed and ID from models.
As a casual observer, I don't know why I need to provide proof of age to post an advertisement. Nudity is not illegal, even if you're only 16 years old (like a certain naked HSM star). In fact I could walk into Barnes & Noble right now and buy multiple books filled with naked children. It's called freedom of the press. It's called natural.
"Because God created the human body, it may remain uncovered and still
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, there's this thing called projection. It basically means that we tend to see other people as similar to ourselves. In this context it means that the people who write these laws are convinced that anyone who sees a child in anything less than a burka will face an irresistible urge to...
...Coming to think of it, I began writing this as a nasty joke, but it actually does explain a lot, now doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's sensible advice, but there's a big difference between being sensible and being a crime not to do.
It's a good idea not to jump off the roof, but it shouldn't be a crime to jump off the roof, if there's no one standing underneath.
The first amendment is designed to protect foolish and wrong ideas, not just sensible ones.
Re:SOP (Score:5, Insightful)
I know we must all Think of Children all the time, but what if you had to continually register your possessions to prove you didn't steal them, or continually register your driving speed to prove you weren't speeding? We'd be all up in arms over the outrageous unconstitutionality of such laws. But point a camera at a naked body and all of the sudden it's ok to have laws just like Singapore or China.
> Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity when it comes to anything sex-related.
Indeed. Especially Americans.
Re:SOP (Score:4, Insightful)
As a United States citizen, taxpayer, voter, and veteran, I must say that I live in a country of pussies. I am trying to get my fiancee to go to a nudist event when it warms up a little: just a bunch of people swimming in a pool, nothing sexual, honestly it is just comfortable. She has a hard time imagining anyone seeing her naked. I explained it like this. Even fully clothed, everyone knows what she looks like naked. It is no secret that she has breasts and a vagina. Hell, half the human population has that. The other half tries to see it as much as possible anyway.
There should not be anything taboo about a naked human body, yet our society insists on making it so. As a group, we mistakenly blur the line between nudity and sex, especially sex that should be taboo and illegal: rape, incest, child molestation. We blur the line so much until the issues become as one, and use fear-mongering to keep opposing ideas in check. That is the greater crime: legislating morality.
As for the original topic: I am not opposed to such a law if worded correctly. It should not burden advertisers or publishers. Regardless of what the law says or if there is one at all, I believe it would be wise to have this information recorded somewhere. Whether the onus is on the advertiser or on the publisher, if anyone has any doubts about the age of the model, they need to record it. Copy the model's state-issued ID, and record the date the photograph was taken. Have a simple, one or two line document that states something along the lines of "based on the government-issued ID, I believe this model is of the legal age to get naked in front of a camera." Have the model, photographer, and someone able to execute contracts at the advertising agency sign it. It could literally take five minutes. Slap it in a filing cabinet indexed in a way that makes sense, scan it to PDF, whatever. Cover your ass. Even if there is no law requiring this, someone could still file a lawsuit: exploiting children is illegal regardless of this specific law.
Idea... (Score:3, Funny)
Require a license number in really small print in the lower right corner on published pornographic pictures, with the actors' license number(s). And require them to be licensed. If anyone has any questions right there's the number and look it up. If the actor looks like the pic on file well then ok. If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent. Problem solved.
Re:Idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Idea... (Score:5, Funny)
Yep. There is a bright future in governmental service for that gentleman.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent.
Porn is probably the number one industry in which people radically alter their appearance frequently, if not regularly. Good luck enforcing your idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell should I have to register to take a picture of myself.
The magazine is aimed at amateurs, at people looking to hook up with other people who like sex. Why the hell should you have to register your personal habits?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't try to tell me that the law doesn't apply to you! As written, it most certainly does.
Re:SOP (Score:4, Informative)
I have photographs of both of my children naked. Certainly I have photos from the delivery room. I even have pictures of their fist baths, and one of my younger son pissing on my ex-wife while she bathed him.
The difference is I am not publishing these photographs, nor do I use them in a sexual context. It is the difference between nudity and sexuality. At the very least, if such a law were in effect, someone would need to see them, suffer some sort of harm (or claim that I harmed my children), and then file a lawsuit. Even if it is technically illegal, a judge wants to see that someone was hurt in some way before agreeing to hear a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It surprised me that this post was originally modded as Flamebait.
Because the professional artist or photographer needs to have this nailed down before the session begins.
Re:SOP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SOP (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Any model? (Score:4, Funny)
it's pretty implicit if not entirely explicit (no pun intended) under this topic heading that we're talking about nude models. I am stupider for reading your comment.
oblig. (Score:5, Insightful)
This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.
Go back to Fark outsider!
Re:oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
It's a swingers' magazine. Do you have any idea what swingers look like? Trust me... the lack of pictures is a plus.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, a gf of mine was a swinger before she met me and she was pretty hot redhead. It was a rather unhealthy lifestyle for her, though. Her husband goaded her into it, only to discover the obvious: though they did sometimes swing in the sense of trading partners with another couple, it mostly meant that he stayed home while she dated (and had sex) a lot. I remember one time watching HGTV with her and she pointed out the attractive hostess was a swinger in Atlanta (where she'd live before meeting me).
The
Re: (Score:2)
Arbitrary Aardvark here.
The submission was edited, changing the headline to
"nude ads." The story is important because the proof of age requirement affects content on the internet, and has effects far beyond a swinger's magazine in Ohio. Parent poster is of course correct that you probably don't want to see those pictures. For the most part they are over 30,and there's no question about whether they are of age.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.columbia.edu/~rr91/1052_2000/images/dancing.jpg [columbia.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah let's go. This place is dead anyway.
Picture Collectors (Score:5, Interesting)
The proof-of-age thing really hits picture collectors hard. For those pictures that do not have a site tag on them, if questioned, the collector must be able to come up with proof-of age. The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.' There are many models out there that are well above the age of consent that might raise suspicions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'
So, what about Lady Justice? Wasn't the model for that statue 12 or so?
Re:Picture Collectors (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the Lady Justice statue is sexual in nature, you've got problems.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i'd hit it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'
I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion". In the words of wikipedia: [citation needed]
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
welcome to the post-bush era. it's going to be next to impossible to turn back now.
Re: (Score:2)
"Reasonable doubt" in this context means only that a jury can find that an man of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience, could have have mistaken the model for an adult.
The problem is that the jury won't be looking at a single photograph, but rather the hundreds or thousands of those you've collected which were entered into evidence.
The problem is that the jury won't be looking
Re: (Score:2)
It's a sad day
when we can't even be naked
because we're afraid of our bodies.
Guess I won't be going to the nudist beach this summer; it will be closed down by the fucking fools who fear naked penises, vaginas, or breasts. Retards. They are mentally ill.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem is that with CP being such a touchy and emotional issue, cops investigating it, prosecutors prosecuting it and juries deciding on it, will be very tempted to take anything that even remotely looks like CP to BE CP, and make decisions accordingly.
I wish people would be reasonable, but I'm starting to think that's unrealistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Arbitrary Aardvark here.
That was my first reaction too, but when I thought about it, reasonable suspicion, at least to the point of probable cause, is all they need to come in, put you in jail, seize your computers, ransack your house, take your kids to foster care, shoot your dog, etc.
At that point, 90% of cases are resolved by plea bargain, in which the accused pretends to be guilty in exchange for probation/other.
So grandparent poster is approximately right.
The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'
I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion". In the words of wikipedia: [citation needed [xkcd.com]]
Pure FUD (Score:2)
The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'
No, the law requires you to have proof of age if you distribute the photos to anyone else. If you don't, you aren't guilty of possession of child porn, you are guilty of distributing porn without the proper labeling. This is analogous to various laws that make it illegal to distribute things without adequate source documentation -- food and ingredient lists, drugs and dosages, clothes and country of origin, appliances and their wattage ...
In order to get a conviction on private possession of CP the jury mu
WRONG (Score:2)
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which--
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or fore
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which ...
The word "produce" has a specific legal meaning that is not the same as "possess".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a noun, the product of natural growth, labor, or capital. Articles produced or grown from or on the soil, or found in the soil.
As a verb,
So anybody who "makes" or "originates"
Re: (Score:2)
Child pornography elicits a very emotional response from the public at large. You'd have almost no trouble whatsoever convicting someone at a jury trial of possessing it if the female model was below 30 and had pigtails. You can bet your ass that the prosecutor would use phrases like 'the little girl next door' and 'your children' to further sway the jury's emotions.
Common sense usually doesn't apply when strong emotions are involved.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you have to have trial by jury in the States?
Here in Canada it is something that you can elect to have or you can have trial by judge. Seems to me that being accused of child porn you would be safer going without a jury.
In Theory (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, we do, but it's really more a "de jure" rather than "de facto" thing.
First, any competent attorney will cost at least $10k before you get to court (pre-trial proceedings, evidentiary motions, research, etc).
If you don't have the $10k to blow up-front, then you can get a public defender, who will usually be a less experienced lawyer with a huge caseload. The PD will do their best for you, but doesn't have the time or energy to really devote to your case, especially since she has 100 others in play at a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Onerous requirement (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, who cares? As long as no one is hurt, it should be legal. The government is not our moral compass. As long as it does not negatively impact you or anyone who didn't agree with it (and agreement should not have an age restriction), it should be, by definition, legal.
That's what a lot of people here say, but the problem is that a lot of people think exactly that and so this is why our elected representatives craft such laws.
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is that a lot of people think exactly that
Why is that a problem? That's circular reasoning, unless your argument is that anything a lot of people here agree with is inherently bad.
What is the purpose of government?
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
What is the purpose of government?
I always thought it was to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".
But I could be wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(and agreement should not have an age restriction)
So anyone from a three year old that's barely learned yes to a 17.5 year old should be able to agree to anything, and then it's legal? Come on, you gotta be kidding me.
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone from a three year old that's barely learned yes to a 17.5 year old should be able to agree to anything, and then it's legal?
I did not say that there was no mental capacity restriction. For example, the 3 year old would not be in a fit mental condition to make decisions, however an advanced 13 year old would be able to, similarly a mental retarded 25 year old may not be in a fit mental condition.
The problem in our society is the magical age of 16, 18 and 21. What would be illegal to do at 17 and 360 days suddenly becomes legal 5 to 6 days later.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, and why should it not only be illegal, but a sex offense, thus putting the young man on a sex offender's list for life because he didn't wait 5-6 days?
Re: (Score:2)
But what he pointed out can't be solved by setting a fuzzy limit, because there is no way to determine such fuzzy limit.
Have we tried?
since the law is a good law in its spirit we should honor it by enforcing it
It's a good law in spirit, but with a glitch. I don't think a flawed law deserves honoring, I think it deserves revision. After all...
But we are currently goings toward a society that would condemn, blacklist and ostracize a 18 years old for having sex with his 17 years old girlfriend.
But, if we don't do that, we're also being hypocritical, unless we change the law. A simple change, adopted by several states, is to also add an age difference -- over 18, you can fuck anyone else over 18. Under 18, 5 years difference -- so 17 and 20 is fine, but 17 and 40 is statutory rape.
Even that is still pretty flawed -- is she really going to be less attra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Using this kind of metric can wind up equating to the same kind of discrimination as having different hetero and homosexual ages of consent.
Even that is still pretty flawed -- is she really going to be less attracted
Re: (Score:2)
"we" (as in humankind) have tried for centuries.
Recently, though? I see far less debate about the morality of the issue, and far more assumption that 18 (or 16) really is a magic number.
A law is a generalization of the moral of many people, you could even say it is an average. There is no platonic law to aim to.
There is, however, often a purpose.
This law, for instance, is roughly like sexual harassment laws -- there is an assumed power advantage by one party (in this case, the adult, or the boss), which raises the bar for consent. The purpose is to prevent people from being taken advantage of -- from being pressured into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily do.
That is why it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You highlight the crux of a problem. Why is it not okay for teens to fuck, unless they're married, when it all becomes somehow righteous and loving and special?
Re: (Score:2)
But what he pointed out can't be solved by setting a fuzzy limit, because there is no way to determine such fuzzy limit.
How about psychologists? like it's done, IIRC, to determine responsability on murder trials and such. Yes, it'd potentially increase the cost to prosecute such things, but I think society itself needs to learn that shouting "pedophile!" is something that should not be done lightly.
Re: (Score:2)
The "magical age" is because it is easier to determine someone's age than it is to administer some examination to determine fit mental condition for each and every transaction in which it is meaningful.
As you approach a limit, the delta is "arbitrary." But it's still a limit.
Re: (Score:2)
The "magical age" is because it is easier to determine someone's age...
I'm sorry, I thought this is about morality and laws. Since when is "easier" a valid criterion here?
That would be like saying we should jail every Mexican immigrant, because they are likely to have been illegal immigrants, and it's easier to just lock 'em all up than to sort out who has a valid visa (or citizenship), and who sneaked across the border (or overstayed a visa).
It would also be "easier" just to let anyone practice law, rather than requiring a bar exam. And it would be similarly "easier" to charg
Re: (Score:2)
In practice, the standard would end up being determined by the government, and that's a worse situation than you started out with. As soon as the government starts meddling in such situations as "is this person
Re: (Score:2)
New standard, as the following:
"The 'Age of Majority' is defined to be the minimum age of a person who has been tried, but may not have been found guilty, as an adult for any crime in any jurisdiction in any state or federal territories for a rolling time frame of the last 15 years.
The age of majority shall instead convene every right and obligation offered to every adult as we presently know the ages of 16, 18, and 21 afford rights. Every instance of 16, 18, or 21 are now defined to be the 'Age Of Majority
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are magical ages. What's the alternative, some government mandated maturity test before you can do certain things? Trying to figure out two years down the road in court after the girl told mom about you whether she in fact, at that point in time two years ago, was sufficiently mature to make the decisions she did? Some kind of self-inspection as if ever a teen would say "I don't consider myself old enough to take that decision"? That's just another variation of manipulating them to think they're
Re: (Score:2)
It might help if we had an objective way to measure someone's ability to have informed consent.
At the same time, once someone is an "adult" -- which we've arbitrarily defined as 18 -- it doesn't matter if it's informed or not. Yes means yes.
I'm not arguing a three-year-old that's barely learned yes should be able to consent. But what about a six-year-old prodigy?
Or, for that matter, what about an 18-year-old retarded person?
I'm actually not sure what the answer is. I do think that there needs to be real deb
Re: (Score:2)
It might help if we had an objective way to measure someone's ability to have informed consent.
That would never fly - jim crow laws are still too fresh in the cultural memory.
At the same time, once someone is an "adult" -- which we've arbitrarily defined as 18 -- it doesn't matter if it's informed or not. Yes means yes.
I'd like to add a law that states that trying someone as an adult confers on them the rights of an adult - drinking, driving, and screwing (not at the same time). This means that if you try someone as an adult and they get off, they can vote.
Re: (Score:2)
It might help if we had an objective way to measure someone's ability to have informed consent.
That could be a dream come true.
Let's determine this via a reading comprehension test. The test material can be a wide selection of common real-world consumer contracts. Anything a regular person has to sign is fair game: car rental agreement, apartment lease, contract to buy a house, DSL terms of service, employment agreement, HIPPA waiver, credit card agreement, Windows Vista EULA, AT+T agreement for the iPhone, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The decision was made by the parents - and I very much doubt they could have gone forward without the advice and consent of their church.
The Puritan was pragmatic about sex.
When you live on the edge of the known world your first concern is survival. You want the men sobered-up, settling down, raising families.
Underage marriages usually imply one or two things: a family allianc
Re: (Score:2)
The role of government is shaped by the values of the community which created it.
I know of no government which will not insist on its right to protect minors against themselves and those who would exploit them.
That can not and will not limit a minor's freedom of action.
Re: (Score:2)
If you were going to advertise in a swingers magazine, would you care that your name and proof that you did so were to remain on file for an extended period? Do you see how somebody might mind? Might choose not to place the ad for that reason?
Now... If you published the magazine the ads are placed in, wouldn't you mind if you were required to do something that scared off your customers?
Re: (Score:2)
All criminal law is legislation of morality. The only way for a government to stop being a "moral compass" is to get rid of the whole criminal legal system. Even many civil laws are moral issues to some degree. One of the whole purposes of governments is to be a moral compass (that does not negate our responsibility to have our own internal moral compasses).
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's about offering some protection to minors.
Protecting them from what though? Sure, everyone thinks that all the law does is keep 8 year olds from being raped by creepy 40 year olds, but what it usually ends up doing is harming 19 year olds with 17 year old boyfriends/girlfriends. What the law really needs to ask is was anyone harmed. In this case of pure nudity, the answer is no one gets hurt. If the person was 14, 18, or 78, if they agreed to it, got paid, I don't see what the harm is. Even if creepy 40 year olds obsess over it, in the end no one
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
---Agreement absolutely should have an age restriction, because it comes down to the ability of the person making the agreement to make an informed decision. This is important because if the person making the agreement cannot make an informed decision, then we can't really be sure that noone is going to be hurt.
Agreed.
---Is a 14 year old capable of making an informed decision? What about an 8 year old? Maybe, but as a society we've pretty much agreed that 18 is a reasonable place to set the bar.
It depends o
Re: (Score:2)
---I don't understand. Do you mean we should let minors do porn as long as they agree with it? And how do you know if s/he is able to decide in a meaningful way?
Im going to take an unpopular view. Yes, they should.
We routinely charge under 18'ers who commit felonies as adults. If we as a society accept that they can commit crimes as an adult, they should be treated as an adult under all circumstances. I would propose 12 as the age, as it seems to be the youngest to be tried (but not found guilty) as an adul
Re: (Score:2)
---Double standard is quite a different topic.
I figured it probably had a different meaning when referring to legal standards.
---I don't think 12 is a good age. But that's the problem, there's no way of getting an agreement on this issue since it depends very much on the minor.
Ill admit too that I dont 'like' 12 as the age. However, my 2 minutes of internet research shows that they youngest US citizen tried but not convicted was 12. I also dont want to judge upon a standard of "Morally Respnsible", or other
Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.
Re: (Score:2)
OT? This actually frighteningly makes sense, and unfortunately I can see this line of thought actually occuring here in america.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)
One of the google talks by Violet Blue actually had some interesting information on the 2257 requirement. She did not go quite this far in criticising the law, but pointed out some very serious problems with it.
Basically, a decent chunk of people who needed to prove age for 2257 compliance basically just had pictures of them with the driver's license. Of course, many people tend not to perform under their real name and if these pictures get onto the internet, then someone else can tie a face to a real name and possibly even an address. Not a good situation in general. From what I gather, the wording of the law was pretty vague as well as to what sort of proof was required and who could eventually ask for it.
Anyhow, a pretty interesting talk here with some relevance to the topic: Violet Blue (Google Tech Talks) [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Common Misconception (Score:2)
It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.
This is commonly used as an argument against 2257. It's also wrong.
If you actually read the wording, it allows for only the original rights owner of an image to keep the full proof of identity.
They may then send a redacted copy to all subsequent re-distributors for their records. That copy may blank out everything uniquely identifiable - driver's license number, etc. - leaving only the picture and the date of birth visible.
So long as a paper trail remains back to the original record holder, no one else has
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get carded for buying beer , too old, but in the UK at least there are shops that ask for proof of age if you look under 30 let alone 18 which is the legal age for buying alcohol in the UK.
With Councils sending under age people into stores to buy alcohol and the result of them succeeding being a loss of license to sell alcohol it's sadly understandable.
A messed up discussion (Score:2)
I have never seen a discussion so messed up at slashdot. Half the posters seem not to understand what the law or the ruling is about and quite a large fraction is getting into some ideological arguments. It is a reasonable idea that somebody distributing nude pictures as advertisements should be ruled after the same standards as somebody distributing these as content of the magazine. It is reasonable that, at a time when the porn industry is bigger than the rest of Hollywood, and then porn production is ou
ZOMG! (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, this is just another example of what I call the "extended childhood" of North American children. Forget the Puritans; it was common all across Europe to marry children of 13-14 years of age for centuries. (Hell, didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry a 14-year old in 1950's?) But even though our kids, thanks to TV, computers, and the net, are much more educated than kids were in the 1930's, we keep trying to protect them from their own natural urges for longer and longer periods of time.
And this weird American prudishness just continues to amaze me. Here in Canada, on regular broadcast TV, not just cable, you can see nudity and soft-core sex practically every night. And on plain vanilla cable (which virtually all Canadians have), not specialty pay channels, you can even see hard core sex late night on the weekends. I really don't get why people think it's fine for the kids to see hundreds (if not thousands) of murders as they grow up, but think that if their kids see a naked breast, they'll be instantly corrupted.
A Thumbnail On The Law (Score:5, Informative)
This case is headed to the Supreme Court, and there is a decent chance they may agree to hear it. There is a directly conflicting ruling out of the 10th Circuit in Denver. A split on a point of law (a Circuit split [wikipedia.org]) is often a reason for the Supreme Court to step in, so that the conflict can be resolved.
I had to deal with 2257 compliance in my work for an adult website. It works like this:
1. The photographer (or production company) must verify identity with a government-issued ID. If shot in the United States, the government-issued ID must be an American identification, even if the model is not from the United States, such as a cute chick on vacation for a couple weeks just traveling on her passport. Note that if you shoot outside the United States, a foreign ID is fine. Are you shooting in El Paso? You can go to prison for shooting your Estonian model on her passport and visitor's visa, but if you take her to Juarez and shoot her there, you're in the clear.
2. The photographer must keep a copy of the ID, the model's contract, AND the pictures for five years after the last publication of the photographs. In addition, if published on the Internet, you have to keep a complete list of all URLs (including thumbnails!) of any picture you publish, even when those URLs change or come down. You better not be using any database-driven stuff with auto-generated URLs, because you now have to track every one of them, no matter how they change.
3. The records must be cross-indexed by model's real name, any stage names, any dates of publication, any dates of recording, title of product or production, and URL. Use three year old footage in a new DVD? You get to dig back through your compliance records and update your cross-indexes.
4. The records must be SEPARATE from your normal day-to-day business records. That is, you have to keep this stuff for the ordinary course of your business, and THEN you must keep a SEPARATE copy for the government.
5. You must publish the REAL name and address of the person who holds the records on each copy of your product -- DVD, mag, or book -- AND on EVERY PAGE of your website (a "click here for 2257 info" link is *not* acceptable).
6. This person must be available at least 20 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, for unannounced visits from the FBI, who may rifle through your records (and copy any or all of them, to dig through at their pleasure) looking for violations without a warrant or any cause at all, probable or not.
7. Violation of any of this can land you in prison, even if your models are not under the age of 18. You can do years in prison and pay thousands in fines if the only thing wrong is that you screwed up the cross-indexing.
8. If you sub-license or sell your content (such as your website's affiliates), you have to give un-redacted copies of your records to the person you sell/give the content to. Are you a DVD producer who posts your movies on HotMovies [hotmovies.com]? HotMovies gets a copy of your records, complete with the model's real name and address. The model doesn't get any right to opt out, either; if they can also turn around and sell or sub-license your content, THEIR licensees get your model's information, and YOU can't do anything about it, and you have no control over who it all goes to!
9. If you receive sub-licensed or sold content, you likewise have to keep a complete set of records. It is *not* sufficient to simply keep track of where your content came from so the FBI can back-track. You have to have your own independent, complete set of records, all lined up, cross-indexed and separated from your daily business records, and ready for inspection whenever the FBI decides to materialize.
10. You are required to keep records even if you go out of business, be available for FBI inspection 20 business-time hours per week even if you go on vacation or operat
Re:Kids will Lie. (Score:4, Insightful)
It then comes down to who decides what looks 'legal' and who doesn't. I can see this turning into the same mess as ID verification for Alcoholic beverages (anyone over 30 ID'd). Somewhat of a joke since you can't really tell everyone age with any accuracy from looks.
If the law is too difficult or to sweeping to enforce without unnecessarily restricting someone's first amendment rights, then it should be overturned as unconstitutional. We have those protections for a reason.
They should find a better way to put the sick bastards away who peddle child porn.
Mod up. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I agree. The odds that the court will take this case are pretty slim. If they do take the case,
I would expect a divided opinion. I think it would probably get struck down, but I'm biased to think that way.
In Morse v Fredrick, the bong hits case, it was eventually settled for $50,000. The guy had remembered to make a claim under the Alaska constitution, and the school didn't want to go to trial on that, so they settled.
Since the current Supreme Court has held in Morse v. Frederick [wikipedia.org]. that the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," when displayed in a school setting, is so incredibly dangerous that the First Amendment must be thrown out the window, I think the odds that they'll hold up the First Amendment in this case are less than favorable.
NOT "companies". Anybody. (Score:5, Informative)
If you bought your camera on eBay, and you have taken pornographic pictures of your wife or girlfriend, the law very clearly applies to YOU. Which is not reasonable... but which is fact.
Clearly, the law *IS* overbroad.
Re: (Score:2)
First shot of a set, point your camera at their driver's license.
Takes about 30 seconds.
If it's for personal use, you're going to be keeping the whole set together and will always have that first image with the date stamped files.
There was an interesting article, a while back, about all of the cunning defenses that geeks think of (YANAL [freedom-to-tinker.com]). As the writer pointed out, being able to win in court is not the same thing as not being dragged through hell in the process.
2257 formalizes something that was already aro
Re: (Score:2)
That's not just three strikes, it's four.
Re: (Score:2)
So I have to take pictures of my and my girlfriend's driver's licenses before I take a picture of my John Thomas or my girlfriend's Bonnie and Clyde?
Right. This law is certainly narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest. This akin to lighting a cigarette with a nuclear bomb.
And while we're on the subject, since when was taking pictures in a private residence within the purview of the federal government? Thanks again, Scalia [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard the argument before that "it wouldn't be enforced that way". Maybe so. But if it isn't going to be enforced that way, why was in written in such a way that it could be? If it isn't
Re: (Score:2)
If I may ask, what's the rationale behind the "sold or shipped via interstate commerce" thingie? it's as if the law discriminated against people who like peanut butter. WTF!?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is Congress's justification for the law.
Congress can't just outright prohibit things without relying specifically on one of their powers in the Constitution. They relied on the Commerce Clause here.
They're basically saying that since the camera crossed a state line, that counts as interstate commerce, and therefore, they can regulate your usage of it.