What about the attornies?

Saw this post on another board..thought it very interesting:

The truth of the matter is threefold:

1. The major 1st Amendment attorneys have not yet developed a consensus concerning the exact requirements for compliance with the new 2257 Regs. If you ask two different attorneys, you will probably get two different interpretations of the regs.

2. There seems to be a major split in the goals of attorneys depending on how they view the constitutionality of the regs. Some say we can live with the regs if we are able to remove some of the worst language. Others say the regs are totally unconstitutional, cause an unreasonable burden on producers, are some kind of prior restraint on our First Amendment rights, have a presumption of guilt unless the producer can prove they are not guilty, and are not narrowly tailored as required by law to address the problem of elimination of child pornography. The regs assume any image that is not in compliance is child porn, hence, the justification for the penalties.

3. And finally, many are posturing to attract business for their law firms and seem to be creatings some havoc by denouncing other competing attorneys and their law firms. As there has not yet developed a consensus, it would be wise to wait a week or two for the attorneys to caucus and, hopefully, decide exactly what we have to do to comply with the regulations.

To that end, we as webmasters need to decide whether or not we want to get rid of the worst parts of the regs, or, do we want to see the regs eliminated totally due to their unconstitutional nature.

Personally, I abhor the idea of the presumption of guilt unless proven innocent. The regs undercut one of the pillars of our American Justice....that you are innocent until proven guilty. This seems to be the position the FSC is taking as well.

i don't think it's a question of a consensus. they are interpreting from various experiences, and the bottom line is that the JUDGES can do the same thing. what that means is in one court, some of the new regs can mean one thing, and in another court, something else.

These regulations are a cancer to this industry. I say the goal should be to eliminate any and all of the new regulations that are contrary to the ruling of Sundance vs Reno. The very foundation of the new rules rely on "implicit" interpretation as set forth by American Library vs Reno court case. In essence, they are relying on implication rather than a direct challenge to the regulations as was the case in Sundance.

I believe that any of the 9th circuit judges who receive the restraining order request will view these new regulations as hostile and "offending" to the First Amendment and will act swiftly to annul these new unconstitional regulations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Huskyhunks

I believe that any of the 9th circuit judges who receive the restraining order request will view these new regulations as hostile and "offending" to the First Amendment and will act swiftly to annul these new unconstitional regulations.

---

Ok..brings up a good question to ask everyone I think:
Do you think the majority of these regs will be tossed by the courts or do you think the courts will let them stand?

sundance vs reno is only acknowledged by a few states. and i think most will stand, with a few changes.

Whatever happens, it's going to take a new case to settle these issues. It may play out in the circuits and I believe, it will eventually land at the hands of the supreme court. Clarification is needed. Another circuit case will just add more confusion to this matter.

Greetings:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

sundance vs reno is only acknowledged by a few states. and i think most will stand, with a few changes.

---

I think you're going to be surprised BassChick. I believe a LOT of it is going to get shot down, if not the entire thing as a whole.

I've seen overburdensome regulations that don't serve to accomplish their stated purpose get shot down in a hurry in other sectors. Even though we're talking about the adult market, I think the courts will see how burdensome these regs are to Small Business and to Free Speech, vs. how (in)effective they are at combatting CP. In the end, I'm confident the scales of justice will tilt in the favor of common sense and reason.

Now, that being said, I've certainly spent the time and money required to make sure that we're in compliance with the new regs as written, and I'd encourage everyone else to do the same.

I'm just tacking on this link as it's kinda nice to see existing regs compared with the proposed new regs and the differences in them.

http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

Lets also not kid ourselves here..

Attorneys in the adult industry are only looking out for one person, themselves.

This is great news for them because it means they are going to pick up hundreds of new clients each paying them retainer fees and hourly fees.

Hell if i was an industry attorney id be doing the exact same thing as they are now, i cant wait to see how many more of them come out with their own '2257 solution', they make money from their clients, and they make money from non-clients too.

Win / win situation, for them.

Someone said this to me the other day and i thought it was especially apt given the recent 'scare' about 2257 regs..

'There's a reason why an attorney works in the adult insdustry, he didnt exactly graduate at the top of their class in Harvard'

Something to think about ;)

Regards,

Lee