My point is: You Pay! Doesn’t this make this a commercial transaction (even if you don’t end up buying, i think the goal is for them to make money)? This makes ‘only fans’ accounts fall into the ‘exempt from registry’ category.

Or maybe I am way off base on how ‘only fans’ works.

Maybe the government should be more concerned with all of the tax revenue they are missing out on as I believe these transactions are not reported to the IRS.

Just Sayin’

I read one of the probable cause affidavits involved. FDLE sent OnlyFans all registered emails in their database and asked the company, which happens to be located in the United Kingdom, to let them know if any active OnlyFans accounts came back registered to any of the emails. The company complied voluntarily (no subpoenas involved). Also, the probable cause affidavit I read did not actually allege a crime. It only alleged that the person arrested had an unregistered OnlyFans account, not that he actually ever used the account for direct person-to-person communication, which is what triggers the legal obligation to register the “internet identifier.” The PC affidavit only said that the account had “recent activity.”

According to the federal court order in the FAC internet identifier lawsuit, using an internet account/username/identifier merely to browse content without ever engaging in direct person-to-person communication does not require registration of the account (to require such would be unconstitutional, according to Judge Hinkle).

It is my experience that most of Law Enforcement do not know the totality of the laws the are sworn to protect. The SORNA act is so wide and so full of grey areas they can get away with things. Have you arrested then make these posts and sway public opinon. They do not care about the fall out for you or your family just making them selves look better.

How did LE find out if you don’t mind me asking?

I’m guessing FDLE will argue that because OnlyFans users can create profile pages, if they then use the account to engage in direct person-to-person communication, that qualifies as an “internet identifier” requiring registration that goes beyond using the site for purchasing services.

However, if the person has an OnlyFans account that was only used to “browse content” and never used any functionality to directly communicate with another person, then that would not require registration under the Federal court construction of the definition of the term. (I’m not a lawyer, this is just my best guess at their argument.)

I believe that we can have facebook and other social media as long as we only post on our wall or someone else’s wall (anyone with access to their/your page can see what you post)’ It’s like posting in a forum.
Two problems:
1. You’ll probably be arrested and endure whatever that may entail in your particular instance until you get a hearing and sort it in court.
2. Facebook doesn’t typically allow PFR’s to have an account and will likely deactivate it as soon as LE contacts them to see your activity.
.
.
My problem is that I should never have been arrested because simply having an account is not committing a crime. The crime I was charged with did not occur as I messaged no-one. It was pure ignorance on the part of LE that I was arrested and charged. And that ignorance cost me my ability to petition for removal.
.
.
So, interesting thought experiment. Let’s say someone was arrested for having a FB account. Or maybe say that LE contacted FB because that person had an account and then ,afterward or as a result of their ‘investigation’, found that they were messaging person to person. Since LE did not have a legitimate reason to contact FB, finding the messages should be excluded because LE had no reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime was committed so had no authority to conduct their ‘search’.
But, as a PFR, we’ll always lose until we win and even then we still lose.