2257 Agreement?

Does a 2257 Agreement guarantee that a site is safe/legal? Do you look for them too? Because I recently visited longestlist.com and I didn't see one and some of the categories were strange. Is it a safe site?

This is just an "in a nutshell" comment. You can always research 2257 to learn it in greater depth.

The 2257 is meant for those that produce the porn or bought/license the content. Not those farther down the chain like the site you linked or FreeOnes. WE have a 2257 statement because we have content we own or license, but if it was all stuff we got from the sites we wouldn't need it. Additionally, this is a US based law. We DON'T have to actually be compliant with 2257 if we don't want to, we'd only have to satisfy the dutch law. However, a lot of foreign companies follow the US law because it's the most strict of all the laws in regards to your paperwork.

Hope that helps.

Max Hardcore had one on his site. Look at what they did to him.

So is longestlist.com good or no?

Bump.

Jelly said:

So is longestlist.com good or no?

Click to expand...

You'll have to make that call yourself. From what I can see is they link directly to tube sites and if anyone has questions about the legitimacy of the content on their, I don't think the producers of the content will be running to help them since a lot of it is stolen.

If you live in the U.S., obscenity laws are generally written by and apply to various, individual communities or states. Under Reagan (Ed Meese) and under W. Bush (Ashcroft), the government did go after porn producers and even actors pretty hard. But under Clinton (Reno) and especially under Obama (Holder), I haven't heard that there's been any major prosecutions since he took office. Other than the obvious things that would get federal attention (snuff films, kiddie p0rn, etc.), the legal disclaimers on a site (any site) don't have anything to do with what's "legal" in your jurisdiction. Where I live, a truck driver got stopped for speeding/reckless driving several years ago. And he was charged with possession of obscene material for having some porn mags and DVDs in his truck. A cop friend of mine said it was nothing crazy, just "normal porn" type stuff. But here in the Bible Belt, that stuff violates the community standards. Don't know if the charges stuck or if he took a plea - never heard what happened to him. And the man who ran for governor of my state (and thankfully lost!), Ken Cuccinelli, the current Attorney General, was trying to find a (legal) way to charge people in my state with a crime if they could be found to be viewing or purchasing porn over their internet connections.

Not to make this political, but folks, there's the "smaller, less intrusive government" crowd for you in a nutshell - with nut being the operative word.

Jelly said:

Bump.

Click to expand...

Also, websites out of the USA are not bound to US law and therefore they don't necessarily have a 2257 section on their sites.