Talk:Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Disclaimer?[edit]

What does the law say about the dislcaimer? The Jade Knight 04:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The First Amendment[edit]

Doesn't this blanket-law conflict with the U.S' First Amendment of free speech or self-expression? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.19.98 (talk) 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that's one argument that will be brought up when the trials currently in progress & pending are taken to appellate courts. -- Kesh —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
It's been held not to violate the First Amendment, and I don't think that argument will go far. The purpose is "compelling" (avoiding child sex exploitation) and the government's approach (requiring proof of age) is narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose. So whatever standard of review applies, the courts aren't likely to find that the law is unreasonable. Also, they might argue that it's not a restriction on the speech but rather a requirement that goes along with the speech; and further that it's not regulating the communication itself but the commercial aspect or the production. We have plenty of laws having to do with how entertainment products are made, e.g. licensing requirements and approvals for public filming. In reality, yes, it is related somehow to a generalized crackdown and disapproval of adult entertainment and it's unduly burdensome on legitimate (i.e. legal) forms of adult entertainment. Just don't expect a court to decide that. Wikidemo 02:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the "secondary producer" language is what brings this into the 1st Amendment territory. Per the article:

Under the current law, anyone who commercially operates a website or releases sexually explicit images of actual humans, regardless of the format (DVD, photos, books, etc.), is subject to penalties that include up to five years in federal prison per each infraction of the regulations.

Which not only means that any amateur-porn distributor is in trouble, it may conflict with laws protecting internet service providers from responsibility for content posted by their users (on a forum, for instance). Not to mention it suddenly makes the bulk of amateur porn made over the last 50 years or so illegal, since it's going to be effectively impossible to track them all down and get the proper documentation. So, it's not exactly clear-cut. -- Kesh 17:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

I'm wondering if the list of companies that provide 2257 software violates the WP:EL policy. Normally we don't have such lists of external links even if they're helpful. The link to the Free Speech Coalition is better because it's a nonprofit industry organization, and they probably link to the software vendors somewhere from their site. I added a link to ASACP because they're active on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talkcontribs) 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unconstitutional[edit]

It belongs in the intro. I can't understand what argument would say otherwise??? Dragons flight 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I just commented on your talk page before seeing this, so I'll paste that explanation here:
I removed that section from the intro for two reasons: first, it's redundant with the text further in the article, which is almost identical. Second, this is nowhere near the end of the legal wrangling. I'd lay good money the government will push this all the way up to the Supreme Court, so until something final happens, these decisions aren't intro material. If the government drops its case, then it'd be worth saying right in the intro. -- Kesh 18:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue may not be settled until SCOTUS rules (or declines to), but the current status is a major feature that belongs in the intro. Dragons flight 18:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Dragons flight. The current status of a law is very important. Its history may not be, so if this goes to SCOTUS that sentence may end up being moved down, but for now, the fact it was overturned is possibly the most important sentence that can be said about it. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I'm willing to concede the point. However, we need to do something about it being essentially a duplicate of the text further in the article. The latter needs rewritten to be more substantive, since it wouldn't make too much sense to remove it entirely from that section. Otherwise, it's just redundant in the lead. -- Kesh —Preceding comment was added at 19:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's an article by a reliable source we can mine for that stuff, Associated Press via the Cincinatti Post: http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071024/NEWS01/710240374 It's also better to have a secondary source in general, rather than just the primary source text of the decision itself. I looked yesterday, but this just wasn't to be found. We probably mention and describe the Connection Distributing Co., and maybe quote from the opinion. A small paragraph should do it. There are juicier articles, like http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9803929-38.html and http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/appeals-court-u.html but they're only marginally "reliable" - they're at least called blogs, even if on somewhat reputable sites. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Facially Invalid[edit]

Can someone explain what "facially invalid" means? Does it mean the whole statue becomes invalid, or does it mean, just in this appeal? i.e. what does this new finding actually mean for 2257 recording keeping? Does one have to do it anymore? etc. This should be covered in more depth in the article Bilz0r 10:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

IANAL, but my understanding is that it means the statute (or in this case, section 2257) is not a valid law and cannot be enforced. Basically, any court in the 6th District which has a case brought before them on 2257 should throw out the charges based on it. I agree, we should have a short explanation on that, or perhaps an article on the term facially invalid itself, though we might need a lawyer to help draft it properly. -- Kesh 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

slm[edit]

tuvaletiniz olayım bayanlarsınırsız çişiçerim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.225.226.169 (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Extra-judicial application of 18USC2257?[edit]

I have noticed on a few non-US websites, the legal wording for 2257. An example is the British company Babeworld TV. Their disclaimer page, which was work-safe at the time of accessing, is [1] (the rest of the site is not work-safe). I could understand that a website being hosted in the US will need to comply with the law but am doubtful that this is always the case. The article ought to mention the extra-judicial application of the legislation and the way in which it overrides, or has a chilling effect on, other countries' ages of majority and minimum ages for pornographic modelling, both of which are often lower than in the US. 87.115.101.180 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not affiliate with Babeworld, but I would suspect that they included the wording for their own protection. Consider the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov. He was a Russian native. He did not commit any crime while in Russia. He then traveled to the US for a convention, and while in the US he was arrested by US authorities for what he had done in Russia.

2257 holds some hefty fines. Which is safer, to put the disclaimer up and keep the requested documentation, or to ignore it because they are not from the US and don't maintain operations in the US? In theory, if you were to ever travel to the US, you could be arrested getting off the plane. As far as that goes, if your flight is traveling *OVER* US territory (i.e., UK to Canada to Brazil), the plane may be ordered to land to collect you.

It's not unheard of for the US to collect foreign nationals from foreign countries to answer to crimes in the US. As far as I know, that hasn't happened in any 2257 related cases though. JW Smythe (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

not up-to-date[edit]

This article is not up-to-date. A federal judge upheld the law in July 18, 2013 in FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC. et al v. THE HONORABLE ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. (see ruling here). Pretty much cementing the book-keeping requirements. (This likely has big consequences to Wikimedia Foundation and all the porn hosted in commons as well as they are now definitely required to maintain documents proof for all actors). --65.78.114.251 (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)