2257 Ruled As Constitutional By Appeals Court

[Lee]

CLEVELAND - The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a landmark ruling that declared 18 U.S.C. §2257 unconstitutional in 2007.

Weighing the government's appeal in a case involving the GVA-owned magazine Connection, the court rejected the argument that the federal record-keeping law invades the privacy of "swingers" advertising for sex. The en banc review of Connections Distributing Co., et al. v. Keisler found "no reasonable basis" for striking down 2257.

The owners of Connection argued that the federal law placed an unreasonable and invasive burden on a magazine that "clearly" features mature adults in their 30s or older. After glancing at the magazines submitted as evidence in the case, the judges begged to differ.

"Although Connection maintains that a simple look at the photos in its magazines makes clear that the persons pictured are obviously not minors, the record proves otherwise," the court wrote. "A brief glance at one of the issues of the magazine reveals many images (particularly the frequent depiction of mere body parts) from which no lay observer could readily discern the individuals' ages, as well as a number of images that appear (and in some cases purport) to portray youthful individuals."

As for the record-keeping law itself, the appeals court judges found that 2257 serves a legitimate government interest in protecting children, in "a reasonably tailored way".

The decision comes as disappointing news to the adult industry. Many in the business perceived the Sixth Circuit victory in 2007 as the beginning of the end for 2257.

It's also bad news for attorney J. Michael Murray and plaintiff Rondee Kamins of GVA, who brought the Connection case to court and spent years fighting to achieve the victory. The court has now refused to strike the application of the law to Connection Distributing, Kamins and two co-plaintiffs in the case.

The Free Speech Coalition had cited the pending review of the Sixth Circuit decision as one of the reasons for delaying the enforcement of recent changes to the law.

http://business.avn.com/articles/34501.html

Interesting stuff, so in effect, does this mean that the ORIGINAL 2257 regulations are now able to be enforced or do the latest set of regulations become the ones that are enforcable?

Regards,

Lee

[Bec]

Well crap, I can't begin to convey how disappointed I am to hear this. 2257 has nothing to do with stopping cp on the internet, anyone putting it out there isn't going to abide by any law.

[gaybucks_chip]

The lawsuit related to the 6/23/05 incarnation of 2257. 2257A/4472 was an update that made some changes to, but did not replace, 2257.

So with the appeals court having upheld 2257, the original regs (6/23/05) are enforceable, and the new regs that modify the existing regs go into effect 3/19/09 unless the Obama administration decides to review them.

I wouldn't expect new inspections to start tomorrow, but the government no longer has any reason to continue the informal moratorium. Now, whether the Obama administration wants to waste time and taxpayer resources on these inspections is another thing entirely.