6th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules 2257 Unconstitutional!

OK, ok, wishful thinking.

But... I have to say that whomever wrote the new 4472/2257A regulations actually had a brain and knew how to write. The same could not be said for the 5/23/05 final revisions to 2257, which was some of the absolutely most poorly written stuff I'd ever seen. Perhaps Gonzalez wrote it.

The newest proposed regs clarified a lot of issues and made some sensible statements about interpretation that had long been murky in the original law.

Perhaps if FSC and the industry can get up off its ass and hire a proper lobbyist, we can actually present a proposed law and a structure for managing and reporting model info, such as in a centralized database, that would almost eliminate the need for any of the crap we are now doing, while still providing adequate oversight to prevent underage models from working in the industry.

This is great news for all of us!

Congrats to everyone that worked on fighting this case.

I wonder how many studios will move their operations to Detroit, Cleveland, and Toledo?

...probably none. Never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LavenderLounge

I wonder how many studios will move their operations to Detroit, Cleveland, and Toledo?

---

That thought occurred to me as well. Or at least, move their 2257 operations to one of the 6th Circuit states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LavenderLounge

I wonder how many studios will move their operations to Detroit, Cleveland, and Toledo?

...probably none. Never mind.

---

... already there (Cleveland). If anyone is into flipping houses - there's about 10 on my street alone that are boarded up and vacant .... LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CamCruise

2257 will not go away anytime soon.
I think this one will go all the way to the USSC.

And FSC is doing a great job for us all. Bill is right. The money in dues we give them is more than well spent. And just a drop in the ocean of what they need.

---

Cam,

Some are saying that it's possible that the DoJ may try to take it to the Supreme Court, but the best argument against that is that if they do...and then the lose....they are really fu**ed! 2257 for the entire country would cease to exist.

Not sure the DoJ wants to risk that. They will first try to get a re-hearing in the 6th District Court. If they can't get the 3 judges to agree, they will then try to get an "en banc" hearing before all of the judges on the 6th District Court. After that, who knows. I'm guessing they will try to get our wonderful legislators to craft a new 2257 type law and push it through Congress before the elections. In which case the Dems will try to delay till after the election which makes the election all that more important.

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bec

... already there (Cleveland). If anyone is into flipping houses - there's about 10 on my street alone that are boarded up and vacant .... LOL

---

Dang Bec..that's a great idea! Move your headquarters there and make even more money in the real estate biz!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

I don't believe the FSC was involved in this case --

---

YOU are correct.
It was a little magazine that brought the Govt to it's knees. (Pun intended)

And I am a member of the FSC. Even though I don't agree with how they administrate their organization, I still support them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LavenderLounge

I wonder how many studios will move their operations to Detroit, Cleveland, and Toledo?

...probably none. Never mind.

---

Not a realistic need. A bit of an overreaction I should think.
I find it hard to think even our government would run this through 2 separate districts at the same time.
Even though, they do some really dumb stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

With luck, 2257 will get struck down and a new, more sensibly crafted law can replace it. That will take probalby a year or more to go into effect, given that, as far as I know, it must first pass, then proposed regulations published, a comment period, and final regulations published.

---

This is HIGHLY possible.

Many here do not remember COPA at all. That law (if passed) was a death sentence to the Adult Biz. New 2257 regs were a way to "protect children", in a slightly different way than COPA was. One failed. They try another. Now, the fundamental arguments of 2257 that the FSC has been arguing were re-affirmed by the 6th court. The FSC did not take that case but many of the same arguments that the FSC is basing their fight on we re-affirmed.

From the FSC response,
"One of the government’s most basic problems with Section 2257 is that, although it says the Section is designed to combat child pornography, most – by far – of what it applies to is notthat at all. The idea seemed to be that ‘if we pass a law that applies to all pornography, we’ll be sure to catch the child pornography.’ But since pornography which does not depict children and is not obscene is constitu*tionally protected, that amounts to burdening a great deal of constitutionally pro*tec*ted expression be*cause it looks like or might be unprotected expression. In the Free Speech Coalition’s own Supreme Court case from a few years ago, the Court squarely held that Congress cannot ban protected expression just because it looks like unprotected expression (in this case, child pornography). The same is true with a burden of the magnitude imposed by Section 2257’s record-keeping requirements, even if that burden falls short of an outright ban. That, in any event, has been one of FSC’s basic arguments against Section 2257, and it was accepted by every one of the judges on the Sixth Circuit panel."

The Sixth Court is one of the first to accept that in regards to 2257.

We laugh and say the government wont "ammend" the regs. While we can laugh all we want, it may come to the point that in order to get anywhere with 2257 that is constitutional they MAY HAVE to do just that if they want any 2257 at all. And as the FSC believes in order for that to happen it will be a trivial law.

Now, talk to some of the more conservative lawyers (those who say my underwear avatar triggers 2257) and the sky is falling just as fast as before.

It would be ALMOST safe to assume that those in that jurisdiction probably wont be getting a 2257 inspection any time soon. The chances of other 2257 inspections MAY have gone down.

This is not only a victory. It is a big victory in that it's the first time that a court has ruled in 2257 on the grounds that the FSC is fighting their case.

Do we not worry about 2257. Hell no! We worry about it. Is it beginning to look like COPA. Yeah. It is.

Was there anything said about the at the GayVn forms show last week?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LiveTwinksCam

Boom Snap!

---

LOL. Too cute!
LOVE KT

Maybe we should call ourselves Election Judges:

"In a challenge to the Bush administration, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., introduced legislation Wednesday that would ban photo identification as a requirement for voting in federal elections."