Vai dar repede va mai aruncati la barfe si acuze...
Oare nu v-ati intrebat de ce toate site-urile alea au acel
2257.php ????
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_film ... egulationshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Prot ... cement_ActThe Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub.L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws (colloquially known as 2257 Regulations (C.F.R. Part 75), part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations,
require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.While the statute seemingly excluded from these record-keeping requirements anyone who is involved in activity that "does not involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for, the participation of the performers depicted,"[citation needed] the Department of Justice (DOJ) defined an entirely new class of producers known as "secondary producers." According to the DOJ, a secondary producer is anyone who "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" explicit material.
On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech.[1] However the US DoJ, under control by US Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, has asked for, and was granted, an en banc review of the initial decision of the 6th Circuit Court in order to see if the initial decision should be overturned.[2] The Sixth Circuit subsequently reheard the case en banc and issued an opinion on February 20, 2009, upholding the constitutionality of the record-keeping requirements, albeit with some dissents.[3]
----------------
In People vs Freeman of 1988, the California Supreme Court stated that adult film production was to be protected as free speech under the First Amendment. They ruled that since such films did not include obscene images and indecency, and stayed within society's standards, the adult film industry should be granted the freedom of speech. Escaping highly regulated government intervention, regulation in the adult film industry has been limited to prevent child pornography.
In the United States Code of Regulations, under title Title 18, Section 2257, no performers under the age of 18 are allowed to be employed by adult industry production companies. The failure to abide by this regulation, results in civil and criminal prosecutions. To enforce the age entry restriction, all adult industry production companies are required to have a Custodian of Records that documents and holds records of the ages of all performers.Deci... nu mai dati foc la paie cand stiti ca aveti animale de hranit cu acele paie, ok? Documentati-va intai si abia apoi aduceti acuze.
Site-urile sunt OBLIGATE de LEGE sa publice acele date pe acea pagina, astfel incat, in caz de probleme, FBI/CIA/KGB/LAPD/NYPD/whatever_police_department sa poata investiga / lua masuri.
So... cheer up!
Nu pentru a promova cat mai mult modelele si a le aduce trafic? O fac tot pentru binele modelelor.
