Take 2 of these & sleep in the morning (for 2257 worries)!

An excerp from the actual injunction filed by the FSC. I think (imho) the most important part of the ijunction in this section:
-------------------------------
"The records that producers are required to maintain by 18 U.S.C. §2257, including copies of visual depictions containing actual sexually explicit conduct ... may be used against a person accused of violating the obscenity laws contained in Chapter 71 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and the child pornography laws contained in Chapter 110 of Title 18 of the United States Code," the lawsuit notes. "The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the government from compelling a person to be a witness against himself."

Therefore, "The obligation to maintain records of the production of visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct imposed on a producer by 18 U.S.C. §2257 and its regulations compels the producer to collect evidence that the government is authorized to use against him in a prosecution for a claimed violation of Chapter 71 or Chapter 110 of Title 18."

Your breathing a bit easier now..starting to relax..
Another important excerp:
------

"18 U.S.C. §2257 has created a presumption that otherwise lawful expressive works containing visual depictions of adult performers engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct cannot be lawfully produced or disseminated to adult consumers unless the dossier and label required by 18 U.S.C. §2257 are created and maintained," the lawsuit states, "... thereby burdening constitutionally protected speech with a presumption of unlawfulness that may be overcome only by the producer’s production of the dossiers and label mandated by law."

"Indeed, requiring twenty-, thirty-, forty-, fifty-, and sixty-year-old performers to divulge personal information and identification documents to producers of regulated expressive works is not a narrowly tailored means of promoting a legitimate and compelling government interest in child protection," the suit continues, noting also that the requirement "is not a narrowly tailored means of promoting a legitimate and compelling government interest in child protection."

----

All right..your fists are becomming a bit less clinched and your back is not so tight..and to help things continue in that vein..there's this important part of the injunction to consider also:
----------------------

Another First Amendment consideration is the "chilling effect" of the regulations, which have already prevented several potential adult producers and webmasters from creating or using material that might fall under the 2257 guidelines.

After noting the tremendous burdens placed on adult producers in terms of assembling records, indexing them, maintaining them and the "copies" of the works to which they refer, and the requirement that businesses be open for records inspections at least 20 hours per week, the lawsuit argues, "The burdens imposed on producers by 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 28 C.F.R. Part 75, as set forth in the final rules of the Attorney General effective June 23, 2005, are unwarranted and chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by law abiding citizens."

And just for good measure, this part of the injunction that was filed should help out also:
--------------------
And then, of course, there are the search and seizure requirements of the Fourth Amendment that the new regulations specifically violate.

"28 C.F.R. §75.5(a) of the Attorney General’s final rule effective June 23, 2005 authorizes warrantless searches of any establishment, including a home or residential location, where the records required by 18 U.S.C. §2257 are kept," the lawsuit argues. "Plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the private areas of their businesses and in their homes. These investigations are permitted to occur absent any probable cause or particularized suspicion to believe that the records are out-of-order, incorrect, or non-compliant."

The Fourth Amendment reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

However, searches under 2257 would be warrantless, unreasonable (since adult material is presumed to be constitutionally protected, absent being declared obscene by a jury), without probable cause, and carried out by Justice Department investigators with no prior judicial oversight.

Finally, consider this:
--------------
The Tenth Circuit was selected based on the fact that in 1998, that circuit ruled that Sundance Associates, a publisher of swingers magazines, was correct in claiming that, in republishing the sometimes sexually-explicit photos of adults seeking other adults who might wish to engage in intimate contact with each other, the company was not subject to the jurisdiction of 18 U.S.C. §2257, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ), under the leadership of then-Attorney General Janet Reno, had overstepped its bounds in separating the definition of the word "producer" in the law into "primary" and "secondary" producers in the DOJ's regulations.

However, Judge Walker Miller, a Clinton appointee who will preside over the FSC v. Gonzales lawsuit, is bound by the Tenth Circuit's decision in his consideration of FSC's application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the new regulations. Moreover, since one version of the regulations has been in existence since 1995, and many sections of the new regs are substantially similar to those, and since the Justice Department, in the 10 years of the regs' existence, has not sought to conduct even one investigation of an adult company under 2257, it seems likely that Judge Miller will enjoin enforcement of the entire statute, at least until the trial of the case, or until a higher court may vacate such order.
-------------------

Hmm...can you see the 10th Circuit Court suddenly saying "Oh yes, we were WRONG back in 1998, and these new regulations are correct, therefore we must REVERSE our own decision!

For a complete reading & wrap up of the injunction that was filed:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=231124

Thanks Slade. You've calmed my nerves.

I've been frantically searching for a downloadable version of Microsoft Access after I realized that no good 3rd party 2257 software exists and the Works database program that came installed on my computer does not allow me to insert images.

Now I'll just go to bed and pay a visit to BestBuy in the morning. :baby:

Have you checked out www.2257madeeasy.com?

It seems like a good database driven solution. Any thoughts from anyone who may have seen or used it?

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiB

Have you checked out www.2257madeeasy.com?

It seems like a good database driven solution. Any thoughts from anyone who may have seen or used it?

Lee

---

That only works on your local computer if you have microsoft xp pro and server software installed on your computer. So it is not an option for me.

I went out and bought Access today but it can not store jpegs in the database so I have to convert ID's to bitmaps. What a bunch of shit!

great info, Slade, thanks. I wonder which of these is actually winnable?

cheers ,
Luke

IMO the biggest thing is the fact that the new regs are retroactive and there are no exemption statements for things which would be impossible to comply with today.

One thing they pointed out in the suit was the acceptable model ID's part. College ID's were legal under the old regs, but now without an exemption statement they are going to be illegal even for older content because the new regs are retroactive.

That's the sort of stuff that will get this put on hold.