Interesting quotes from the DOJ's 35 page response... can you see where they're coming from?



interesting quote page 23 "To the contrary, as of the date of enactment of the PROTECT Act (five years after the Sundance decision), DOJ’s previously enacted regulations remained in effect. Indeed, even lead counsel for the plaintiffs was quoted in a Free Speech coalition article (attached as Exhibit A, see page 4) as saying, “All along I have advised my clients not to rely on Sundance; that any image they had in any book, magazine, video, or whatever, whether it’s amateurs or swingers or any of that stuff, that they should have the appropriate records.”


quote page 27 from the DOJ regarding foreign ID's "Defendant does not
interpret the regulations in this fashion, and has no intention of applying them in this fashion. Instead, all producers who fully complied with the old regulations regarding the proper forms of identification will not be precluded from distributing those works merely because such forms of identification will be insufficient going forward."

Page 31 "For example, plaintiffs express a concern that requiring performer records to be provided to secondary producers poses privacy concerns. Such information sharing, however, “is already required by the current Part 75 regulations,” and “none of the commenters [on the proposed rules] presented any evidence that a hypothetically possible crime, such as the stalking of a performer, was in any way tied to the dissemination of the information about a performer provided to a producer in compliance with Part 75.” 70 Fed. Reg. 29607, 29615. Plaintiffs likewise identify no instances of stalking that have resulted from the requirement and only a single instance of purported identity theft."

Page 32 "As a final note, plaintiffs have only themselves to blame for the purported “emergency” nature of these proceedings. DOJ issued the notice of proposed rulemaking for the regulations at issue on June 25, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 35547, and issued the final rule, which contained no additional requirements that were not in the initial rule, on May 24, 2005, one month prior to the effective date of the regulations. 70 Fed. Reg. 29607. Plaintiff Free Speech Coalition announced the next day that it intended to file suit to enjoin the regulations, but then waited three weeks to file, less than one week prior the effective date of the regulations. Even after they filed the
lawsuit, plaintiffs failed to file their brief in support of their motion for temporary restraining order and the supporting declarations until the next day.