2257 Injunction has been filed

[xxxjay]

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]

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]

thanks for the update jay



..

[Jel]

Nice move

[JohnnyR]

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

[Rocco]

thanks for the update Jay, really a nice move!

[Kinky]

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

[babymaker]

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/

[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...

[MrYum]

Awesome news Jay...thanks!

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

[xxxjay]

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.

[Jim]

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

[CrazySy]

Hey Jay, thanks for the update

[Useless]

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.

[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)

[2msacras]

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

[docholly]

*woot*..does that mean we will have an OTB tomorrow??

[Agent]

This is good to hear Jay.

I miss the radio shows. GG & Jim maybe already considered this but it would be kinda neat to have a phone interview on the radio show (a radio special) with a knowledgable lawyer about this 2257 stuff. I wouldn't want more people seeing it as a reason for watching the sky to see if it's falling but it would be educational. Maybe do another poll outlining our top 10 questions/concerns and present them on the show. That is, unless that lawyer wants to be paid for his/her time. That could be a little expensive.

[CaptainJSparrow]

Kewl deal Jay...thanks.

GG, so is it worth it to join the FSC?

[RedCherry]

Thanks Jay for the update, that is great news! I joined FSC too, plus got the komply software and have been working towards compliance what a pain in the butt.

I really hope the injunction goes through!

Rock on guys!

[Useless]

Originally Posted by docholly

*woot*..does that mean we will have an OTB tomorrow??

Just as long as no one mentions anything about 2257.

[Vink]

Thanks Jay. I'm still waiting to start deleting my pages.

[xxxjay]

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.

[xxxjay]

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]

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