- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Posts
- 8,253
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 118
- Points
- 268
- Location
- In Your Darkest Thoughts and Dreams
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
- Lex,
[SIZE=-1]On July 27, 2006 - President Bush is scheduled to sign into law:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]H.R. 4472 - Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This bill changes the requirements for all USA based web sites on all photos showing nude images. Each nude image photo will require formal documentation to be on file of a persons age and physical street address.[/SIZE]
This is HUGE folks. It could change many of the sites that you frequent.[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
Stated Purpose
An act to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims.
Bullet Points - Title V of H.R. 4472
Analysis by Reed Lee, summarized by Legislative Affairs Director Kat Sunlove
1. Title 18, Section 2257, in effect for some 18 years, has never been enforced by the Justice Department. The absence of enforcement, however, has not harmed the Justice Departments ability or willingness to prosecute child pornography. The Department is actively doing so, and conviction rates are high.
2. Title 18, Section 2257 has never been the subject of any hearing in either house of Congress. The section had its origins in a recommendation of the Meese Commission, even though its own findings determined that the United States adult entertainment industry had no connection with child pornography.
3. Child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment but non-obscene sexually explicit material, which does not involve children, is protected. The burden of proof is on the party denying protection to show that a constitutional line has been crossed. Section 2257s most basic flaw is that it ignores this constitutional presumption that expression is legal if no children are involved.
4. Section 2257 imposes burdensome record-keeping requirements on expression which is not even imaginably child pornography. Identification information must be gathered and recorded, then cross-indexed four different ways and stored in ways that are in some cases impossible. Ministerial errors are a federal felony calling for five years incarceration.
5. All re-publishers must also obtain and store the records. Proposed changes to Section 2257 mandate widespread record-shifting, as copies of the required records are made and transferred to each subsequent re-publisher. The law exposes performers to the dangers of identity theft, stalking, and worse. In some cases, a re-publisher is required to keep records even where the initial publisher was not.
6. Section 2257 suffers from over-inclusiveness. It burdens thousands of expressive works which are not child pornography in an effort to suppress the much smaller amount of actual child pornography. Needless to say, it is unlikely that a child pornographer would keep self-incriminating records of his crime.
7. A better solution would be a requirement that a primary producer check performer identification documents, create and maintain the records, but with a penalty analogous to those provided for in connection with the I-9 forms that all employers must prepare.
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]H.R. 4472 - Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This bill changes the requirements for all USA based web sites on all photos showing nude images. Each nude image photo will require formal documentation to be on file of a persons age and physical street address.[/SIZE]
This is HUGE folks. It could change many of the sites that you frequent.[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
Stated Purpose
An act to protect children from sexual exploitation and violent crime, to prevent child abuse and child pornography, to promote Internet safety, and to honor the memory of Adam Walsh and other child crime victims.
Bullet Points - Title V of H.R. 4472
Analysis by Reed Lee, summarized by Legislative Affairs Director Kat Sunlove
1. Title 18, Section 2257, in effect for some 18 years, has never been enforced by the Justice Department. The absence of enforcement, however, has not harmed the Justice Departments ability or willingness to prosecute child pornography. The Department is actively doing so, and conviction rates are high.
2. Title 18, Section 2257 has never been the subject of any hearing in either house of Congress. The section had its origins in a recommendation of the Meese Commission, even though its own findings determined that the United States adult entertainment industry had no connection with child pornography.
3. Child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment but non-obscene sexually explicit material, which does not involve children, is protected. The burden of proof is on the party denying protection to show that a constitutional line has been crossed. Section 2257s most basic flaw is that it ignores this constitutional presumption that expression is legal if no children are involved.
4. Section 2257 imposes burdensome record-keeping requirements on expression which is not even imaginably child pornography. Identification information must be gathered and recorded, then cross-indexed four different ways and stored in ways that are in some cases impossible. Ministerial errors are a federal felony calling for five years incarceration.
5. All re-publishers must also obtain and store the records. Proposed changes to Section 2257 mandate widespread record-shifting, as copies of the required records are made and transferred to each subsequent re-publisher. The law exposes performers to the dangers of identity theft, stalking, and worse. In some cases, a re-publisher is required to keep records even where the initial publisher was not.
6. Section 2257 suffers from over-inclusiveness. It burdens thousands of expressive works which are not child pornography in an effort to suppress the much smaller amount of actual child pornography. Needless to say, it is unlikely that a child pornographer would keep self-incriminating records of his crime.
7. A better solution would be a requirement that a primary producer check performer identification documents, create and maintain the records, but with a penalty analogous to those provided for in connection with the I-9 forms that all employers must prepare.
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
grrrr
