2257 Injunction has been filed

xxxjay · 2005-06-17, 01:59 AM

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.

xxxjay · 2005-06-17, 02:14 AM

This was a very smart move of the behalf of the FSC. As it has been explained to me by a very competent attorney, face to face -- that fact that the injunction being filed in the 10th Circuit puts the FSC at a huge strategic advantage because a judge in the 10th circuit has already ruled an said the concept of “secondary producer” is unconstitutional. That is the crux of the revised 2257.

As it has been explained to me, The 10th Circuit HAS NO CHOICE but to go by their decision – even if the current judge thinks it was the worst decision on Earth…his hands are tied! To reverse the decision would be a very long and arduous process.

This is good news people – really good news. Stop worrying about 2257 and get back to work!

Qon · 2005-06-17, 02:31 AM

thanks for the update jay

..

Jel · 2005-06-17, 02:32 AM

Nice move

JohnnyR · 2005-06-17, 02:43 AM

we can only hope... meanwhile yeah, back to work.

Rocco · 2005-06-17, 02:55 AM

thanks for the update Jay, really a nice move!

Kinky · 2005-06-17, 02:58 AM

the ball is rolling, everybody support the FSC, they really do know what they are doing

Bill · 2005-06-17, 03:11 AM

Good news.

Jay, Kinky, any of you guys who are interacting with the FSC, please ask them to get an online donation (and membership, ideally, but at least donation) system working again.

All lobbyists are shifty. All lawyers are shifty. That's a given. It doesn't fucking matter. These people are acting, they deserve our money.

Maybe we can get them to realize they need a system to take money online...

MrYum · 2005-06-17, 03:39 AM

Awesome news Jay...thanks!

Yep, back to work...launched a bunch of new free sites this morning

xxxjay · 2005-06-17, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill

Good news.

Jay, Kinky, any of you guys who are interacting with the FSC, please ask them to get an online donation (and membership, ideally, but at least donation) system working again.

All lobbyists are shifty. All lawyers are shifty. That's a given. It doesn't fucking matter. These people are acting, they deserve our money.

I agree. My lawyer is the chairman of the FSC - I know, at least for him, he is well intentioned and really believes in what he is doing. I think the FSC deserves everyone's support.

Not that a lot of you guys will actually do this, but consult a good lawyer for yourself and don't really on the boards for legal advice. I repeated just about everything I've been told by my attorney -- now we just need to watch this play out.

So far this has gone just the way he said it would.

There are about 10 guys that are qualified to speak on 2257 with any degree of skill - you can email me jay@jqmedia.org and I can get you guys names and numbers.

GenXer · 2005-06-18, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill

Good news.

Jay, Kinky, any of you guys who are interacting with the FSC, please ask them to get an online donation (and membership, ideally, but at least donation) system working again.

All lobbyists are shifty. All lawyers are shifty. That's a given. It doesn't fucking matter. These people are acting, they deserve our money.

Maybe we can get them to realize they need a system to take money online...

I absolutely agree. What website doesn't have an online payment option? I want to join, but I hate having to "mail a check" or "fax shit". I'll join once they put up an online payment option.

Anyway, I'm glad someone is doing something on behalf of the adult industry. They'll get my 300$ as soon as they put an online payment option. Anyone who is on our side, deserves our support and $$$$

koolkat · 2005-06-18, 09:10 AM

While I think what the FSC is doing is great, I still have the problem with the fact that their injunction would only cover members of the FSC

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSC Website

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, only the parties to litigation are covered by an injunction. Therefore only the Free Speech Coalition and its members will be covered by an injunction and only to the extent the injunction restricts the government enforcement.

It makes me feel that if you don't join then they aren't looking out for you. And how exactly, if an injunction were issued, would myself (non-FSC member) and someone else(FSC member) be treated if we had exact duplicate webpages. They would not be required to maintain records while I would? That just doesn't make sense, and is the reason I haven't joined yet. If they are not looking out for all citizens, then I don't support that. If they were really seeking Free Speech, then they would do so for everyone, not just FSC members.

SirMoby · 2005-06-19, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenXer

Anyway, I'm glad someone is doing something on behalf of the adult industry. They'll get my 300$ as soon as they put an online payment option. Anyone who is on our side, deserves our support and $$$$

They deserve our support but they don't deserve a fax? They can take your money. In order for them to get an on-line system working they will need to spend money, my money on the system and right now I would rather have them focusing thier attention on what really matters.

Send the damn fax and stop bitching.

babymaker · 2005-06-17, 03:02 AM

Nice

Thanx for the update Jay, very good move of them going to 10th circuit

p.s a new 2257 compliant site hehe i am sure they will love:

http://www.free-creampie-pics.com/asian-creampie/

Jim · 2005-06-17, 07:32 AM

Thank you for the update Jay.
http://www.javes.com

CrazySy · 2005-06-17, 08:00 AM

Hey Jay, thanks for the update

Useless · 2005-06-17, 08:11 AM

Booyaa! Got to love it when a plan comes together.

Perhaps this will dispel some of the doom and gloom that has been so rampant as of late.

I, for one, nearly popped a woody when I read it.

I still think we should attempt to reach a compromise with the DOJ. Instead of being 2257 compliant, we can promise to be Y2K compliant.

xxxjay · 2005-06-17, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Useless Warrior

Booyaa! Got to love it when a plan comes together.

Perhaps this will dispel some of the doom and gloom that has been so rampant as of late.

I, for one, nearly popped a woody when I read it.

I still think we should attempt to reach a compromise with the DOJ. Instead of being 2257 compliant, we can promise to be Y2K compliant.

Certian parts of it may stay - it probably won't be a full slamdunk for the FSC, but their best shot is striking down the secondary producer angle. Then there are the privacy issues, of course.

A lot of it may still stick, but it will apply mostly to the people that actually shot the content -- meaning now they will have some extra record keeping and indexing requirements.

As long a "secondary producer" requirements are held up again in the same court -- it will be back to business as usual.

Linkster · 2005-06-17, 03:59 PM

For those of you that havent seen it a write in the new world has filed a story about this and it is rather sad how she put it in the article - but its being picked up by every newspaper in the world now:

Posted on Fri, Jun. 17, 2005

Porn industry group seeks to block rules

KIM NGUYEN

Associated Press

DENVER - A coalition representing the porn industry has asked a court to block federal regulations requiring pornographers and distributors to keep records of their performers' ages and identities.

The regulations, approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in May, could stop the distribution of pornographic material produced since the mid-1990s, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Denver.

The regulations require producers to keep detailed information to verify the identity and age of their performers, including date of birth, legal name, and a copy of a photo identification card. The rules, which would take effect June 23, aim to stop child pornography and ensure the performers are not minors.

They would apply to adult material dating to July 3, 1995. Violators face up to five years in prison for a first offense and 10 years for subsequent violations.

The Free Speech Coalition, its chapter in Colorado, a pornography distributor, and adult film producer filed the lawsuit seeking to block the regulations. They argue that the guidelines are an unconstitutional burden and would do little to protect children.

Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said he had not yet seen the case

Useless · 2005-06-17, 04:02 PM

Jeezus! She makes it sound as if nobody will bear the burden of record keeping. Nice of her to tell only 1/8th of the story.

xxxjay · 2005-06-17, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

For those of you that havent seen it a write in the new world has filed a story about this and it is rather sad how she put it in the article - but its being picked up by every newspaper in the world now:

Posted on Fri, Jun. 17, 2005

Porn industry group seeks to block rules

KIM NGUYEN

Associated Press

DENVER - A coalition representing the porn industry has asked a court to block federal regulations requiring pornographers and distributors to keep records of their performers' ages and identities.

The regulations, approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in May, could stop the distribution of pornographic material produced since the mid-1990s, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Denver.

The regulations require producers to keep detailed information to verify the identity and age of their performers, including date of birth, legal name, and a copy of a photo identification card. The rules, which would take effect June 23, aim to stop child pornography and ensure the performers are not minors.

They would apply to adult material dating to July 3, 1995. Violators face up to five years in prison for a first offense and 10 years for subsequent violations.

The Free Speech Coalition, its chapter in Colorado, a pornography distributor, and adult film producer filed the lawsuit seeking to block the regulations. They argue that the guidelines are an unconstitutional burden and would do little to protect children.

Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said he had not yet seen the case

Nice find -- about what I would expect from the AP.

Greenguy · 2005-06-17, 09:03 AM

That is good news!

I'm glad I became a paid member of the FSC so that I could read about it on the board (their site has nothing on this that I can find - LOL)

xxxjay · 2005-06-17, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenguy

That is good news!

I'm glad I became a paid member of the FSC so that I could read about it on the board (their site has nothing on this that I can find - LOL)

Yeah, I am considering donating webmastering services. They just emailed all members though.

SirMoby · 2005-06-19, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Yeah, I am considering donating webmastering services. They just emailed all members though.

You should donate your services as a press secretary. A 15 minute phone call and a 5 sentence email to the AP would have had great impact on the public opinion which is badly needed here.

A press release should have been made notifying the public that the privacy of 100,000s of innocent Americans will be destroyed by this regulation. That we are fighting to uphold the 1st and 4th amendments because if we do not then we are one step closer to the thing that countless Americans have died to protect. If this passes then they could easily be next.

Instead the press just announced that we’re a bunch of lazy fucks and the American public should support new regulations.

2msacras · 2005-06-17, 09:11 AM

I like waking up to news like that. However, I'm not going to stop complying my 2257 info just yet.

2005-06-17, 01:59 AM	#1
xxxjay You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: atlanta Posts: 1,787	2257 Injunction has been filed 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. __________________ Circle Of Violence

2005-06-17, 02:14 AM	#2
xxxjay You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: atlanta Posts: 1,787	This was a very smart move of the behalf of the FSC. As it has been explained to me by a very competent attorney, face to face -- that fact that the injunction being filed in the 10th Circuit puts the FSC at a huge strategic advantage because a judge in the 10th circuit has already ruled an said the concept of “secondary producer” is unconstitutional. That is the crux of the revised 2257. As it has been explained to me, The 10th Circuit HAS NO CHOICE but to go by their decision – even if the current judge thinks it was the worst decision on Earth…his hands are tied! To reverse the decision would be a very long and arduous process. This is good news people – really good news. Stop worrying about 2257 and get back to work! __________________ Circle Of Violence

2005-06-17, 02:31 AM	#3
Qon The only guys who wear Hawaiian shirts are gay guys and big fat party animals Join Date: May 2005 Location: HELL Posts: 170	thanks for the update jay .. __________________ OP Links \| Webmaster Programs \| Thailand Dream Vacation Tour -

2005-06-17, 02:43 AM	#5
JohnnyR I can now put whatever I want in this space :P Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Boobville... I like it way better here Posts: 557	we can only hope... meanwhile yeah, back to work. __________________ With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine!

2005-06-17, 02:55 AM	#6
Rocco www . * * . com Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,546	thanks for the update Jay, really a nice move! __________________ Sex and Porn Submit your FreeSites here

2005-06-17, 02:32 AM	#4
Jel I'm the only guy in the world who has to wake up to have a nightmare Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: London, United Kingdom Posts: 1,895	Nice move

2005-06-17, 02:58 AM	#7
Kinky HEY NOW! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: in the Matrix Glitching on an Endless Loop. Loop. Loop. Loop. Loo Posts: 1,218	the ball is rolling, everybody support the FSC, they really do know what they are doing __________________ don't mind me im nothing but nonsense <3

2005-06-17, 03:11 AM	#8
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	Good news. Jay, Kinky, any of you guys who are interacting with the FSC, please ask them to get an online donation (and membership, ideally, but at least donation) system working again. All lobbyists are shifty. All lawyers are shifty. That's a given. It doesn't fucking matter. These people are acting, they deserve our money. Maybe we can get them to realize they need a system to take money online...

2005-06-17, 03:39 AM	#9
MrYum Arghhhh...submit yer sites ya ruddy swabs! Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sunny Florida! Posts: 5,108	Awesome news Jay...thanks! Yep, back to work...launched a bunch of new free sites this morning __________________ Porno Flixxx Submissions SOTI Site Submissions Free Porn Resource Submissions

2005-06-17, 03:02 AM	#14
babymaker Someone Turn Off The Damn Heat! Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: The Sewer....err.philly i mean Posts: 1,366	Nice Thanx for the update Jay, very good move of them going to 10th circuit p.s a new 2257 compliant site hehe i am sure they will love: http://www.free-creampie-pics.com/asian-creampie/ __________________ *Get ElevatedX W/Hosting 99MO!*

2005-06-17, 07:32 AM	#15
Jim Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mohawk, New York Posts: 19,477	Thank you for the update Jay. http://www.javes.com

2005-06-17, 08:00 AM	#16
CrazySy There are no stupid questions, just stupid people! Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: ME,USA Posts: 1,393	Hey Jay, thanks for the update __________________ I Build Freesites - List of Active Link Lists

2005-06-17, 08:11 AM	#17
Useless Certified Nice Person Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dirty Undies, NY Posts: 11,268	Booyaa! Got to love it when a plan comes together. Perhaps this will dispel some of the doom and gloom that has been so rampant as of late. I, for one, nearly popped a woody when I read it. I still think we should attempt to reach a compromise with the DOJ. Instead of being 2257 compliant, we can promise to be Y2K compliant. __________________ Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling.

2005-06-17, 03:59 PM	#19
Linkster NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them. Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Sex Delta Posts: 5,084	For those of you that havent seen it a write in the new world has filed a story about this and it is rather sad how she put it in the article - but its being picked up by every newspaper in the world now: Posted on Fri, Jun. 17, 2005 Porn industry group seeks to block rules KIM NGUYEN Associated Press DENVER - A coalition representing the porn industry has asked a court to block federal regulations requiring pornographers and distributors to keep records of their performers' ages and identities. The regulations, approved by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in May, could stop the distribution of pornographic material produced since the mid-1990s, according to the lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Denver. The regulations require producers to keep detailed information to verify the identity and age of their performers, including date of birth, legal name, and a copy of a photo identification card. The rules, which would take effect June 23, aim to stop child pornography and ensure the performers are not minors. They would apply to adult material dating to July 3, 1995. Violators face up to five years in prison for a first offense and 10 years for subsequent violations. The Free Speech Coalition, its chapter in Colorado, a pornography distributor, and adult film producer filed the lawsuit seeking to block the regulations. They argue that the guidelines are an unconstitutional burden and would do little to protect children. Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office, said he had not yet seen the case __________________ Pussy Chompers Porn Links NSCash

2005-06-17, 04:02 PM	#20
Useless Certified Nice Person Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dirty Undies, NY Posts: 11,268	Jeezus! She makes it sound as if nobody will bear the burden of record keeping. Nice of her to tell only 1/8th of the story. __________________ Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling.

2005-06-17, 09:03 AM	#22
Greenguy The Original Greenguy (Est'd 1996) & AVN HOF Member - I Crop Pics For Thumbs In My Sleep Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Blasdell, NY (shithole suburb south of Buffalo) Posts: 41,929	That is good news! I'm glad I became a paid member of the FSC so that I could read about it on the board (their site has nothing on this that I can find - LOL) __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2005-06-17, 09:11 AM	#25
2msacras The sun? That's the hottest place on Earth Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Chicago Posts: 394	I like waking up to news like that. However, I'm not going to stop complying my 2257 info just yet.