"Well, personally, I don't think being outside of the US is necessary, and I am not going to move because someone else's ill conceived policy. Like I said, the problem is Tribe. Also, it has been noted that 2257 has a few loop holes which also may indicate that it depends on the managing owner of the site, such as it's profit status, and who puts in the content."

Tribe could 'allow' the same current content, at least in my view, only if they would put into play the proper compliance structures.

I suggested on "tribe ideas" that they go and talk an attorney who specializes in this adult content and "internet law" to form such structures.

But it will not matter 'where you move to', eventually someone may bring not only 2257 into play but also the access that are afforded to minors who merely lie about their age.

This subject is a hot button subject with congress on BOTH sides of the preverbal political spectruum.

2257 to my understanding was passed with by a democratic congress and signed by a republican president.

The obsenity laws, which are distinct and separate from 2257, which are being used by the AG, along with 2257, have been on the books for eons.

People just forget how a law is passed by the legistative branch and only signed or veteod by the executive branch. Who had control of Congress for over 20+ years? It was not the conservative party..aka the Republicans, it was the Democrates...

Put responsibility of said law where it actually belongs not just a "in power" party per se, using a law that a liberal legislative branch of government passed.

Now... there could be though mininterpetation of current law.. sure... but if that is the case, then you have what is going on now...the challenges to said interpetation. Yet, a misinterpetation or misuse does not necessarily mean a particular law is unconsititutional, just the use may be, or the interpetation thereof....

Rapture