FSC 2257 Lawsuit Has Been Filed Today In Colorado

[JustMe]

FSC Files Suit Seeking TRO Against 2257 Regs
By: Kathee Brewer
Posted: 6:00 pm PDT 6-16-2005

DENVER - The Free Speech Coalition on Thursday filed a complaint and motion seeking temporary injunctive relief against enforcement of the recently revised federal regulations pertaining to 18 U.S.C. §2257. “Twenty-two fifty-seven,” as it is known colloquially, is the federal records-keeping and labeling act outlining penalties for failure to document the ages of models and actors who appear in sexually explicit imagery. The revised regulations, which specify how 2257 documentation must be kept, who must keep it, and how it may be inspected, were published in the Federal Register May 24 and will take effect June 23.

Since their publication, the regulations have been criticized by adult industry attorneys as vague, onerous, potentially self-incriminatory, and possibly broadly unconstitutional.

The suit, Free Speech Coalition v. Alberto Gonzales, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado late Thursday afternoon on behalf of the membership of the FSC. It outlines more than 20 separate claims on the basis of which the FSC is asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order.

Three legal firms represent the FSC in the filing: Colorado-based Schwartz & Goldberg PC, Ohio-based Sirkin, Pinales & Schwartz LLP, and New York-based Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria. None of the attorneys involved in the filing were available for comment at press time, and other attorneys close to the case declined to comment, as well.

However, according to FSC spokesman Tom Hymes, the FSC’s attorneys expect the court will order a hearing on the motion before June 23. Attorneys H. Louis Sirkin, Paul J. Cambria Jr., and Michael W. Gross are prepared to present the FSC’s arguments to the court.

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=230236

[gaystoryman]

About time... and now the speculation really begins... will the court or won't it?

[Lee]

Well it is interesting to see the FSC filed in Colorado, the same court that held in our favor in respect of the Sundance ruling.

This may have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Especially, if the court realizes that the DOJ totally ignored their Sundance ruling in respect of secondary producers.

I think that this was a really solid move by the FSC [filing in CO] they knw the courts there, to some extent, are on the side of the industry.

Regards,

Lee

[Chilihost]

this should be very interesting to watch play out.....do you think we will get some real answers or just another delay before the regs take effect?

cheers,
Luke

[Huskyhunks]

I do think it's very telling that the restraining order was filed in Denver. The DOJ all but dismissed the authenticity of the Sundance ruling. I believe their are 3 new judges in the 10th circuit and the DOJ is going to have to explain why they dismissed a well written, well thought out judgement. I like our chances.

[basschick]

it's not really our chances unless you are a member of the fsc.

I do think it's very telling that the restraining order was filed in Denver. The DOJ all but dismissed the authenticity of the Sundance ruling. I believe their are 3 new judges in the 10th circuit and the DOJ is going to have to explain why they dismissed a well written, well thought out judgement. I like our chances.

[Huskyhunks]

I joined last month because I thought this would probably be the only way to survive. And there are no guarantees, at least there is a fighting chance. I thought is was worth the $50. It's probably not too late to join, although it did take a while for them to process my card and what not.

[Slade]

it's not really our chances unless you are a member of the fsc.

In practicallity, it is EVERYONE'S chance..not just the members of fsc.

[basschick]

an injunction only applies to those filing for an injunction, which means only members of the fsc. also, it can be turned down and at best is a temporary measure.

[JustMe]

Greetings:

at best is a temporary measure.

True it's only a temporary measure until it works its way through the courts. But in this case, that "temporary measure" could easily mean about 2-5 years if granted....

[Slade]

an injunction only applies to those filing for an injunction, which means only members of the fsc. also, it can be turned down and at best is a temporary measure.

However, the practical application of all injunctions has been non-enforcement of said law across the board for the length of the injunction.

[Squirt]

an injunction only applies to those filing for an injunction, which means only members of the fsc. also, it can be turned down and at best is a temporary measure.

There seems to be SO MUCH misinformation floating around. I'll post AGAIN what the FSC has said.

One of the lawyers for the FSC made a statement on another board regarding this. Here is part of the statement:

"As a last matter, no one from the FSC has said or meant to suggest that someone should become a member of the FSC in order to be protected under an injunction that does not even exist. While it is a fact that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only parties to litigation are covered by an injunction, it has also been amply explained by now that while technical limitations apply, the practical result of some injunctions is that no one is prosecuted while the injunction is in effect, as has happened with COPA.

At any rate, the FSC press release of May 25, 2005 makes clear that “being a member of the Free Speech Coalition does not mean that compliance is unnecessary. Every producer of actually sexually explicit conduct is covered by the existing regulations and the new regulations (which take effect June 23, 2005).” "

So basically.. as a matter of legal history, the injunction will benefit everyone, not just FSC members. The attorneys I've consulted have also said that the law isn't selectively enforced so we will all benefit from the injunction.. members of FSC or not.

AND as an attorney posted on another board "The FSC does refer to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that does state an injunction only applies to the parties involved. That could lead someone to assume that only FSC members are protected. However, the _other_ party is the Department of Justice--an injunction against the DOJ would operate to stop them from enforcing the law in question, and Constitutional rules require equal protection [or equal enforcement] so the DOJ couldn't enforce their new rules against _anyone_. That is my interpretation."

It's unfortunate that "mysteriously" the impression was made in the beginning by some that only FSC members will be protected... the FSC themselves, and other attorneys, have commented otherwise. So believe what you will :francais:

[Dzinerbear]

an injunction only applies to those filing for an injunction, which means only members of the fsc. also, it can be turned down and at best is a temporary measure.

Well I read a lawyer's take of this on another board and he puts forth that the restraining order applies to all parites involves: the FSC and the Department of Justice, so with a order restraining their law, the DoJ is unlikely to pursue any other charges until the matter has cleared the courts.

(Sorry, I didn't read all of the posts before putting up this reply. I was replying to basschick's scare-mongering and didn't realize that Squirt had already addressed this issue).

dzinerbear

[basschick]

so it is "scare-mongering" to state my opinion? for what it's worth, you did succeed in really hurting my feelings.

i do not care to let my freedom ride on "unlikely". i certainly hope and pray that everyone will be all right, and probably everyone will be. but just like i wouldn't gamble my rent money on a so-called sure thing, i don't want to gamble with my freedom.

[Squirt]

so it is "scare-mongering" to state my opinion? for what it's worth, you did succeed in really hurting my feelings.

i do not care to let my freedom ride on "unlikely". i certainly hope and pray that everyone will be all right, and probably everyone will be. but just like i wouldn't gamble my rent money on a so-called sure thing, i don't want to gamble with my freedom.

We know that it's because you care that you take the time to post about things. You don't want anyone affected negatively, none of us do. You are always looking out for people and that's very commendable. Thank you :love: :love: :love: :love: