6th Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules 2257 Unconstitutional!

CamCruise · 10-23-2007, 01:56 PM

“
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

**Kushiel** · 10-23-2007, 02:20 PM

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

**Lee** · 10-23-2007, 02:48 PM

Working link...

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

Regards,

Lee

CamCruise · 10-23-2007, 02:49 PM

Thanks LEE.

**MiamiB** · 10-23-2007, 03:40 PM

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

Lee

**Lee** · 10-23-2007, 04:16 PM

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

**hdkbill** · 10-23-2007, 05:05 PM

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

**hdkbill** · 10-23-2007, 05:07 PM

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

**LiveTwinksCam** · 10-23-2007, 05:27 PM

Boom Snap!

CamCruise · 10-23-2007, 07:23 PM

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.

**chadknowslaw** · 10-23-2007, 07:31 PM

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

**gaybucks_chip** · 10-23-2007, 09:14 PM

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?

**Matt 26z** · 10-24-2007, 03:21 AM

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?

**gaybucks_chip** · 10-24-2007, 04:26 AM

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.

**basschick** · 10-24-2007, 05:22 AM

*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:

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

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