FSC take on the FBIs 2257 inspections

tickler · 2007-07-04, 02:47 PM

Some more info from the FSCs perspective, and some indications of what their new court arguments are going to be.
http://avnonline.com/index_cache.php...tent_ID=291487

Bill · 2007-07-04, 03:48 PM

Cool!

That's what I like to hear - throw some legal muscle back at them.

Get some judges to look into this bureaucratic attack.

"Going into more detail, Joyner said that the three most common violations that he and his team had seen were failure to properly cross-reference data, missing IDs and illegible IDs.

It's the cross-referencing requirement, however, that didn't sit well with some of the attorneys involved in the Free Speech Coalition's lawsuit against the 2257 regulations, which will soon be refiled to challenge the law itself.

"Cross-referencing is precisely one of the basic points of our fundamental challenge to 2257," said attorney and Free Speech board member Reed Lee, "and that is that it seeks to substantially criminalize material, even though it's constitutionally protected, if the person can't prove that it's constitutionally protected -- and not just to someone's satisfaction, but in the precise way that the Justice Department has set out in advance."

"Let me give you an example," he continued. "It's unlawful for employers in the United States to hire certain people who are here without a right to work; without so-called 'green cards.' In an effort to combat that problem, Congress has required employers to fill out forms on everybody they employ, so there's no question about ethnic discrimination. Those forms are called I-9s. If you don't fill them out, the feds call it a 'paperwork violation', and it's sanctionable by a civil penalty of between $100 and $1,000, depending on the good faith of the employer. Contrast that with a 'paperwork violation' under 2257, which not only sends somebody to jail on a federal felony for nearly half the time that they'd go to jail if they were actually exploiting children, but it criminalizes the transmission of the material [on the Internet or on DVD]. Those are two major differences that are of the utmost constitutional import, and they lie at the heart of what I've referred to as the root and branch attack on 2257."

What many, including the attorneys, don't understand about 2257's ID requirement is the need for inspectors to find – and have cross-indexed – "[a]ny name, other than each performer's legal name, ever used by the performer, including the performer's maiden name, alias, nickname, stage name, or professional name."

"Since the requirement is any name ever used," analyzed Free Speech board chair Jeffrey Douglas, "I was known as 'Four-eyes' when I was in kindergarten because I was the first person to get glasses. What is the likelihood that my nickname 'Four-eyes' is going to be associated with me performing underage? It's a perfect example of terrible regulation where you take everything logical, bring it out to its most extreme version and say, 'Well, what about this?'"

When the FBI goes into an adult company to perform an inspection, what it looks for are 1) a copy of the depiction they're there to investigate, and 2) the government-approved form of picture identification the company keeps to be in compliance with 2257, which contains a photo of the performer, that person's legal name and the person's date of birth.

"If a performer is performing underage, once that's determined, people are going to be referencing that legal name; they're not going to be referencing the stage name," Douglas continued. "All you have to do is determine the legal name and then everybody knows where to go from there. So the single most burdensome component, the cross-referencing, is largely pointless. It would be one thing if, in real life, there was a measurable number of performers performing underage where a situation could arise that the only thing they know about the performer is a stage name, but if you're referencing by stage name, it still doesn't do any good to have the additional cross-referencing; it's entirely unnecessary."

2007-07-04, 02:47 PM	#1
tickler If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste! Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 2,177	FSC take on the FBIs 2257 inspections Some more info from the FSCs perspective, and some indications of what their new court arguments are going to be. http://avnonline.com/index_cache.php...tent_ID=291487 __________________ Latina Twins, Solo, NN, Hardcore Latin Teen Cash

2007-07-04, 03:48 PM	#2
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	Cool! That's what I like to hear - throw some legal muscle back at them. Get some judges to look into this bureaucratic attack. "Going into more detail, Joyner said that the three most common violations that he and his team had seen were failure to properly cross-reference data, missing IDs and illegible IDs. It's the cross-referencing requirement, however, that didn't sit well with some of the attorneys involved in the Free Speech Coalition's lawsuit against the 2257 regulations, which will soon be refiled to challenge the law itself. "Cross-referencing is precisely one of the basic points of our fundamental challenge to 2257," said attorney and Free Speech board member Reed Lee, "and that is that it seeks to substantially criminalize material, even though it's constitutionally protected, if the person can't prove that it's constitutionally protected -- and not just to someone's satisfaction, but in the precise way that the Justice Department has set out in advance." "Let me give you an example," he continued. "It's unlawful for employers in the United States to hire certain people who are here without a right to work; without so-called 'green cards.' In an effort to combat that problem, Congress has required employers to fill out forms on everybody they employ, so there's no question about ethnic discrimination. Those forms are called I-9s. If you don't fill them out, the feds call it a 'paperwork violation', and it's sanctionable by a civil penalty of between $100 and $1,000, depending on the good faith of the employer. Contrast that with a 'paperwork violation' under 2257, which not only sends somebody to jail on a federal felony for nearly half the time that they'd go to jail if they were actually exploiting children, but it criminalizes the transmission of the material [on the Internet or on DVD]. Those are two major differences that are of the utmost constitutional import, and they lie at the heart of what I've referred to as the root and branch attack on 2257." What many, including the attorneys, don't understand about 2257's ID requirement is the need for inspectors to find – and have cross-indexed – "[a]ny name, other than each performer's legal name, ever used by the performer, including the performer's maiden name, alias, nickname, stage name, or professional name." "Since the requirement is any name ever used," analyzed Free Speech board chair Jeffrey Douglas, "I was known as 'Four-eyes' when I was in kindergarten because I was the first person to get glasses. What is the likelihood that my nickname 'Four-eyes' is going to be associated with me performing underage? It's a perfect example of terrible regulation where you take everything logical, bring it out to its most extreme version and say, 'Well, what about this?'" When the FBI goes into an adult company to perform an inspection, what it looks for are 1) a copy of the depiction they're there to investigate, and 2) the government-approved form of picture identification the company keeps to be in compliance with 2257, which contains a photo of the performer, that person's legal name and the person's date of birth. "If a performer is performing underage, once that's determined, people are going to be referencing that legal name; they're not going to be referencing the stage name," Douglas continued. "All you have to do is determine the legal name and then everybody knows where to go from there. So the single most burdensome component, the cross-referencing, is largely pointless. It would be one thing if, in real life, there was a measurable number of performers performing underage where a situation could arise that the only thing they know about the performer is a stage name, but if you're referencing by stage name, it still doesn't do any good to have the additional cross-referencing; it's entirely unnecessary."