Justice Department Revises 6 Terms in 2257 Lawsuit

Greenguy · 2005-08-10, 09:01 PM

Taken from http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9885

WASHINGTON - U.S. Justice Department trial attorney Samuel Kaplan sent a letter earlier this month to the attorneys representing the Free Speech Coalition in a lawsuit seeking to permanently enjoin 2257 record-keeping amendments. Kaplan’s letter “corrected” six terms in the amendments that the FSC attorneys felt had caused the greatest amount of confusion and were most inconsistent with the regulations and supporting comments.
FSC attorneys considered Justice’s retreat from those terms to be a step in the right direction; however, it is not yet known whether Kaplan’s letter will be binding as the case moves forward.

The letter stated the following clarifications to the statutes that were first published in the Federal Register May 24:

Domestic producers who travel outside the United States to record images of actual sexually explicit conduct may rely upon foreign government issued passports.

The requirement that “a copy of the depiction” must be maintained applies only prospectively; that is, materials recorded prior to June 23, 2005, are not covered, and no copy of the performance need be maintained.

The requirement that the “date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or reissuance” be identified on the label is satisfied by stating the last date of filming and characterizing that as the date of production.

Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations.

The term “actual sexually explicit conduct” does not include “lascivious exhibitions of the genitals;” (i.e., mere nudity).

Websites containing no depictions of “actual sexually explicit conduct” but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations.
The case of the FSC vs. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was last heard on Aug. 2 in Denver, Colo. A ruling from the judge on whether to grant the FSC a preliminary injunction against the amended regulations is still pending.

Jim · 2005-08-10, 09:22 PM

Wow...I was scared for awhile

Good thing exactly what I said would happen, happened...nothing.

plateman · 2005-08-10, 10:20 PM

Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations.

Well Fuck me there's years worth of pre 5/23/05 content that hasnt even been used - so its biz as old.. and just think of all the people who took down content that was years before 5/23/05, And I worried about my cybernet sites... Time to start up the other engine on my web editor.....making money is coooooooooool

Boogie · 2005-08-10, 11:53 PM

doesnt this still force um, secondary producers (freesite/gallery builders) using new content to keep ID's?

or am I wrong?

Toby · 2005-08-10, 11:57 PM

Yes, nothing in that article addresses the secondary producer classification. However, I expect the judge will grant an injunction on that and a number of other issues, if not the entire statute.

Preacher · 2005-08-11, 12:14 AM

And exactly how is the DOJ going to know what material was produced prior to June 23rd 2005? I suppose they'll just take our word.

This post was created prior to June 23rd, 2005 ignore the invalid timestamp above.

Maj. Stress · 2005-08-11, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preacher

And exactly how is the DOJ going to know what material was produced prior to June 23rd 2005? I suppose they'll just take our word.

Exactly what I was thinking. The positive side of this is the doj is back peddling.

juggernaut · 2005-08-11, 02:39 AM

Well I think there are more positives. Every time you read something now about 2257, laywers are ripping it to shreds.

GunnCat · 2005-08-11, 03:49 AM

Politics.

LindaMight · 2005-08-11, 10:19 AM

And to think I got all the pre June, 05 pictures categorized, documented, etc. Oh well...I got it and I'll keep it handy in case they change it all back again. And I took down just four updates from a few years ago, they are going back up. Yay! Good ol government regulations....written but not thought out.

Tommy · 2005-08-11, 11:30 AM

wanna know whats the best part of this

Gonzales was quoted as saying distribiting obsene materials was illegal

but then how could you pass or amend laws to regulate an illegal industry

SirMoby · 2005-08-11, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

wanna know whats the best part of this

Gonzales was quoted as saying distribiting obsene materials was illegal

but then how could you pass or amend laws to regulate an illegal industry

Also why it will be a long time before we see an actual sin tax effect this industry.

GunnCat · 2005-08-11, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnCat

Politics.

What I said -----^

Torn Rose · 2005-08-11, 01:40 PM

got it, thanks

GunnCat · 2005-08-11, 05:55 PM

I just think it's funny when people wonder why the government does what it does. These guys started a war on false pretenses sending around 2,000 americans to a premature death and countless others injured for life. Why? Politicians are shiftless cunts that's why. They'll say and do whatever they can to get votes. That's the way I see it anyways. So before I ask why, I just remember that this administration has sacraficed it's young for votes. Doing/saying/changing laws regarding our business seems pretty irrelavant to those outside it.

spookyx · 2005-08-11, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GunnCat

I just think it's funny when people wonder why the government does what it does. These guys started a war on false pretenses sending around 2,000 americans to a premature death and countless others injured for life. Why? Politicians are shiftless cunts that's why. They'll say and do whatever they can to get votes. That's the way I see it anyways. So before I ask why, I just remember that this administration has sacraficed it's young for votes. Doing/saying/changing laws regarding our business seems pretty irrelavant to those outside it.

this post gets the 5 greenguy rating..

$tandaman · 2005-08-12, 10:17 AM

that's great news! it had to happen, that was the only logical step.

kudos to FSC!

lassiter · 2005-08-12, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Preacher

And exactly how is the DOJ going to know what material was produced prior to June 23rd 2005? I suppose they'll just take our word.

Um...record-keeping requirements have been in effect all along. A primary producer (at least) needs to have valid, signed model releases with the date of production listed for every photo set or video they make or distribute, whether shot before June 23, 2005 or after, and those documents have been and are subject to inspection. I'd guess that secondary producers using "actually explicit" pre-June 2005 content had better have at least a clickable link to the 2257 info on the relevant primary producers' sites - at least until the secondary producer issues get settled.

Preacher · 2005-08-12, 01:36 PM

Sorry, yes to clarify I was thinking of secondary producer's, specifically freesites linking to 2257 pages off site.

tickler · 2005-08-12, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

wanna know whats the best part of this

Gonzales was quoted as saying distribiting obsene materials was illegal

but then how could you pass or amend laws to regulate an illegal industry

Actually they just pulled an old 1930ish commerce "quota" law to block medical MJ a little while ago.

RawAlex · 2005-08-12, 05:23 PM

Well, put it this way: The backpeddling has started, likely more to come before this is all over. DoJ would like to have at least SOME of it's ideas stay in the game, so they would probably prefer to come up with a new version and cut away the stuff likely to get them tossed in court.

I really don't think they thought this one through to it's logical (in court) conclusion.

Alex

Useless · 2005-08-12, 08:43 PM

In similar news, I was up watching The People vs Larry Flynt sometime in the AM hours last night. Every time I see that move it makes me want to bone Courtney Love, even the scene where she's dead in the tub. I find the whole thing very disturbing.

What ever happened to the days when the religous right would attack us head-on, instead of using the US government as their lackies?

RawAlex · 2005-08-12, 10:54 PM

It's the same reason why the use zoning laws to get rid of adult bookstores and strip clubs - because there is NOTHING they can do otherwise - they are permitted by the constitution.

Nobody in the DoJ has been willing to take a chance on an obscenity charge against this industry, because most of the stuff has been out there way too long. Community standards and all that horseshit doesn't cover the net very well (and my community happens to sell pissing videos and fisting videos... go figure!).

End runs, using unrelated laws to get "force" the same results is the new american way for justice.

Get use to it. (Can you say RICO? Patriot Act? All laws that were started with good intentions but end up getting turned into baseball bats for zealous DAs and DoJ people)

Alex

Tommy · 2005-08-12, 11:07 PM

ya know I always wondered about Community standards
I think that would be a stretch

shouldnt Community standards start with the goverment and Pres Clinton was having sex in the oval office

theres a nude beach about 20 mins from me and
I remember a big fight years ago about people being nude on the subway
and the nudie freaks won

look at television that comes into the community
mtv, hbo, cinemax has lots of porn, the playboy channel

hotels are loaded with porno movies, strip clubs in the area

juggernaut · 2005-08-12, 11:44 PM

"Community standards" LOL thats a funny word being most of the fucking people in the coummunity are rubbing it out on line. But in all honesty I can't help but think that the spam I got a years ago (mind you I dont see much XXX spam anymore but its there) has allot to do with this nightmare. If people just stopped spamming (I will not go so far as saying this who government nightmare would stop. because I know it would not now) But if you keep throwing shit in someones face long enough your going to get some on you. We all know this is the religous shitheads who are backing this and I just think them seeing that spam everyday only fueled their hate for porn even more.

2005-08-10, 09:01 PM	#1
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	Justice Department Revises 6 Terms in 2257 Lawsuit Taken from http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=9885 WASHINGTON - U.S. Justice Department trial attorney Samuel Kaplan sent a letter earlier this month to the attorneys representing the Free Speech Coalition in a lawsuit seeking to permanently enjoin 2257 record-keeping amendments. Kaplan’s letter “corrected” six terms in the amendments that the FSC attorneys felt had caused the greatest amount of confusion and were most inconsistent with the regulations and supporting comments. FSC attorneys considered Justice’s retreat from those terms to be a step in the right direction; however, it is not yet known whether Kaplan’s letter will be binding as the case moves forward. The letter stated the following clarifications to the statutes that were first published in the Federal Register May 24: Domestic producers who travel outside the United States to record images of actual sexually explicit conduct may rely upon foreign government issued passports. The requirement that “a copy of the depiction” must be maintained applies only prospectively; that is, materials recorded prior to June 23, 2005, are not covered, and no copy of the performance need be maintained. The requirement that the “date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or reissuance” be identified on the label is satisfied by stating the last date of filming and characterizing that as the date of production. Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations. The term “actual sexually explicit conduct” does not include “lascivious exhibitions of the genitals;” (i.e., mere nudity). Websites containing no depictions of “actual sexually explicit conduct” but that provide hyperlinks to third party websites which do contain such material have no record-keeping obligations. The case of the FSC vs. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was last heard on Aug. 2 in Denver, Colo. A ruling from the judge on whether to grant the FSC a preliminary injunction against the amended regulations is still pending. __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2005-08-10, 10:20 PM	#3
plateman What can I do - I was born this way LOL Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: ohio Posts: 3,086	Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations. Well Fuck me there's years worth of pre 5/23/05 content that hasnt even been used - so its biz as old.. and just think of all the people who took down content that was years before 5/23/05, And I worried about my cybernet sites... Time to start up the other engine on my web editor.....making money is coooooooooool __________________ Submit to: Porn O Plenty XXX Links Reality Here

2005-08-10, 11:53 PM	#4
Boogie I like to blog :) Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 1,050	doesnt this still force um, secondary producers (freesite/gallery builders) using new content to keep ID's? or am I wrong? __________________ I got a porn blog! Got a blog worth linking to? Contact me

2005-08-10, 11:57 PM	#5
Toby Lonewolf Internet Sales Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston Posts: 4,826	Yes, nothing in that article addresses the secondary producer classification. However, I expect the judge will grant an injunction on that and a number of other issues, if not the entire statute. __________________ Latex Vixens Babes In Boots Well Heeled Women Dressing For Sex Stocking Vixens

2005-08-11, 12:14 AM	#6
Preacher There's Xanax in my thurible! Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Wherever they screw on my head Posts: 2,441	And exactly how is the DOJ going to know what material was produced prior to June 23rd 2005? I suppose they'll just take our word. This post was created prior to June 23rd, 2005 ignore the invalid timestamp above. __________________ NSCash * This Depraved World

2005-08-10, 09:22 PM	#2
Jim Banned Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Mohawk, New York Posts: 19,477	Wow...I was scared for awhile Good thing exactly what I said would happen, happened...nothing.

2005-08-11, 02:39 AM	#8
juggernaut Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Central Jersey! If I was rich and powerful I would dress as my avatar does. Posts: 1,448	Well I think there are more positives. Every time you read something now about 2257, laywers are ripping it to shreds.

2005-08-11, 03:49 AM	#9
GunnCat You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 547	Politics.

2005-08-11, 10:19 AM	#10
LindaMight Oh! I haven't changed since high school and suddenly I am uncool Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Up there and down here Posts: 258	And to think I got all the pre June, 05 pictures categorized, documented, etc. Oh well...I got it and I'll keep it handy in case they change it all back again. And I took down just four updates from a few years ago, they are going back up. Yay! Good ol government regulations....written but not thought out. __________________ The Woman with a Surprise

2005-08-11, 11:30 AM	#11
Tommy NYC Boy That Moved To The Island Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,940	wanna know whats the best part of this Gonzales was quoted as saying distribiting obsene materials was illegal but then how could you pass or amend laws to regulate an illegal industry __________________ Accepting New partners

2005-08-11, 01:40 PM	#14
Torn Rose "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." ~ Mark Twain Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 4,806	got it, thanks

2005-08-11, 05:55 PM	#15
GunnCat You can now put whatever you want in this space :) Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 547	I just think it's funny when people wonder why the government does what it does. These guys started a war on false pretenses sending around 2,000 americans to a premature death and countless others injured for life. Why? Politicians are shiftless cunts that's why. They'll say and do whatever they can to get votes. That's the way I see it anyways. So before I ask why, I just remember that this administration has sacraficed it's young for votes. Doing/saying/changing laws regarding our business seems pretty irrelavant to those outside it.

2005-08-12, 10:17 AM	#17
$tandaman Aw, Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're a very old man, and old people are useless Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: NYC Posts: 23	that's great news! it had to happen, that was the only logical step. kudos to FSC! __________________ ProfitX.com - Get your profits multiplied!

2005-08-12, 01:36 PM	#19
Preacher There's Xanax in my thurible! Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Wherever they screw on my head Posts: 2,441	Sorry, yes to clarify I was thinking of secondary producer's, specifically freesites linking to 2257 pages off site. __________________ NSCash * This Depraved World

2005-08-12, 05:23 PM	#21
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Well, put it this way: The backpeddling has started, likely more to come before this is all over. DoJ would like to have at least SOME of it's ideas stay in the game, so they would probably prefer to come up with a new version and cut away the stuff likely to get them tossed in court. I really don't think they thought this one through to it's logical (in court) conclusion. Alex

2005-08-12, 08:43 PM	#22
Useless Certified Nice Person Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dirty Undies, NY Posts: 11,268	In similar news, I was up watching The People vs Larry Flynt sometime in the AM hours last night. Every time I see that move it makes me want to bone Courtney Love, even the scene where she's dead in the tub. I find the whole thing very disturbing. What ever happened to the days when the religous right would attack us head-on, instead of using the US government as their lackies? __________________ Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling.

2005-08-12, 10:54 PM	#23
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	It's the same reason why the use zoning laws to get rid of adult bookstores and strip clubs - because there is NOTHING they can do otherwise - they are permitted by the constitution. Nobody in the DoJ has been willing to take a chance on an obscenity charge against this industry, because most of the stuff has been out there way too long. Community standards and all that horseshit doesn't cover the net very well (and my community happens to sell pissing videos and fisting videos... go figure!). End runs, using unrelated laws to get "force" the same results is the new american way for justice. Get use to it. (Can you say RICO? Patriot Act? All laws that were started with good intentions but end up getting turned into baseball bats for zealous DAs and DoJ people) Alex

2005-08-12, 11:07 PM	#24
Tommy NYC Boy That Moved To The Island Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 2,940	ya know I always wondered about Community standards I think that would be a stretch shouldnt Community standards start with the goverment and Pres Clinton was having sex in the oval office theres a nude beach about 20 mins from me and I remember a big fight years ago about people being nude on the subway and the nudie freaks won look at television that comes into the community mtv, hbo, cinemax has lots of porn, the playboy channel hotels are loaded with porno movies, strip clubs in the area __________________ Accepting New partners

2005-08-12, 11:44 PM	#25
juggernaut Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Central Jersey! If I was rich and powerful I would dress as my avatar does. Posts: 1,448	"Community standards" LOL thats a funny word being most of the fucking people in the coummunity are rubbing it out on line. But in all honesty I can't help but think that the spam I got a years ago (mind you I dont see much XXX spam anymore but its there) has allot to do with this nightmare. If people just stopped spamming (I will not go so far as saying this who government nightmare would stop. because I know it would not now) But if you keep throwing shit in someones face long enough your going to get some on you. We all know this is the religous shitheads who are backing this and I just think them seeing that spam everyday only fueled their hate for porn even more.