6th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules 2257 Unconstitutional!

“
KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Connection Distributing, Rondee Kamins, Jane Doe, and John Doe (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the government. Plaintiffs had challenged the recordkeeping requirements 18 U.S.C. § 2257 placed upon producers of images of “actual sexually explicit conduct” as violative of the First Amendment. We conclude that the statute is overbroad and therefore violates the First Amendment, and accordingly we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for the plaintiffs.
”


Found this on another board!!

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinion...07a0430p-06.pdf

Page cannot be found....
Could you check the link for us Darlin'?

Working link...

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...7a0430p-06.pdf

Regards,

Lee

Thanks LEE.

http://www.xbiz.com/news/85586


Lee

I love how the FSC lawyers are saying that we still need to be carefull about this law, of course we do, if we arent they wont be able to get any more funds from us LOL

Regards,

Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

I love how the FSC lawyers are saying that we still need to be carefull about this law, of course we do, if we arent they wont be able to get any more funds from us LOL

Regards,

Lee

---

Lee,

You are over the top where the Free Speech Coalition is concerned.:bullcrap:

You and I agree on most things, but we are never going to agree where the FSC is concerned. They are doing a great job, thank heavens we at least have some organization fighting for us.:thumbsup: And, they are correct. Technically, the only applies to the 6th Distict Court of Appeals, not the other United States Districts.

And, what funds.....how much have you given to the FSC. Even their dues to belong are dirt cheap. Hell, I pay more for some magazine subscriptions.:bullcrap:

For more information about this, here is the article from AVN:
http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectI...F680:thumbsup:

Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

I love how the FSC lawyers are saying that we still need to be carefull about this law, of course we do, if we arent they wont be able to get any more funds from us LOL

Regards,

Lee

---

Oh, and it isn't just the FSC lawyers saying that we all still need to be careful.....ALL 1st Amendment Attorneys are providing the same advice.

Bill

Boom Snap!

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.

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

Interestingly, the party on the adult industry side was a sister company of GVA-Cleveland, a large chain of retailers.

At the moment, the decision is binding only on the 6th circuit, which is in the midwest and south, I think. Perhaps Chad or someone else who knows more than I can chime in about what the effect on other districts when a federal law is struck down by an appeals court in one district.

For us personally, this will make absolutely no difference in how we run our business, maintain our records, or even on our continued development of our in-house 2257 software solution which we're working on upgrading to provide limited access for affiliates.

But it would be very interesting to know:

(a) How does this immediately affect 2257 inspections being done by the FBI. (Can the FBI, for example, legally continue to make inspections in areas covered by the 9th circuit if the 6th circuit has ruled the law unconstitutional?)

(b) How does this affect the 2257A/4472 regulations for which the comment period just closed. Are those regulations, which are essentially "updates" to 2257 also struck down if 2257 as a whole is struck down? Is the whole process of final regulations now on hold?

(c) For a company operating in the 6th circuit, would FBI inspections presumably be embargoed until the constitutionally of the matter is sorted out?

The Sundance loss didn't stop the DoJ from pursuing 2257. They just cited their victory over the American Library Association. Now it's 2-1, and if the FSC pulls though it will be 3-1. I don't know how this works. At what point does the DoJ officially lose? Only when the US Supreme Court knocks it down?

If I'm not mistaken, Sundance was a very limited, restrictive decision that didn't directly address the constitutionally overbroad nature of 2257, instead it focused on a narrow portion of the law relating to secondary producers.

It was subsequently rendered moot by 2257A.

As I understand it, this decision is different because, if it stands, it declares *all* of 2257 unconstitutional, at least in the 6th district, because it is overbroad and does not fulfill its intended purpose (DUH!)

Now what effect this will have on FBI and Justice remains to be seen, but it sounds like we have a potential 1-2 punch in the works, because we have this decision, and the pending commentary on how the passage of 2257 violated the Federal laws requiring a study on the impact of any new law on small business.

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.

*ROTFLMAO*

a sensibly crafted law??? from the people who decided that nude pics of 45 year old men require I.D. to prove their pics aren't of minors? from the people who decided that the best use of our resources is to send 5 people at a time to one business at a time? sensible sure isn't the term i'd use to describe the laws they keep cooking up :shock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

...and a new, more sensibly crafted law can replace it.

---

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."