2257 News
 

I'm sure we'll hear more about this over the next few days. Posted for informational purposes only, the sky is STILL not falling :D


The Justice Department has filed a motion to dismiss the Free Speech Coalition’s suit challenging new regulations to 18 U.S.C. § 2257, the federal record-keeping law and labeling requirements for the adult industry.

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=12423

Something of slightly more concern, the TRO expires this week, and the DoJ's move would suggest that they may have less interest in extending it again (for the 5th or 6th time or whatever).

The sky is not falling YET. Motions like this strike me as being par for the course, nothing serious yet. It is interesting to see the points that the government treat as most important (why should privacy of sex workers be more important than making sure children are not abused?). You can see exactly where they are going to hammer.

Thankfully, the courts generally have shown a tendancy to ask both sides for "better solutions" that can solve both issues. It will take a good long while before we get there.

Meanwhile... programs keep dropping out of the industry.

Alex

Their wording really gives them away.
My translation: It's okay to kill heathens who don't think and believe the way we do.

Yup... it is funny because it is typical politico type talk. Create a weird and almost impossible to see link between "what you want to get rid of" and "save the ". It is the type of double talk that makes people say "yeah, we want to save the children! Fuck those porn people... save the children! Holy shit! Who could not want to save the children?". It is done in a way to make you forget that they are attempting to take away rights and freedoms on the other side.

Quite a move.

Alex

Certainly not surprising, especially given the administration. I'm hoping we'll have access to the full text. Obviously if a ruling went against them they'd appeal, and I'd like to read what the hate machine is gearing up for.

If I read right, they are only moving to have the FSC request for a full injunction quashed. From where I sit, it is very unlikely that the courts would allow such a questionable "bending" of the law be enforced while a significant challenge that could go all the way to the supreme court is pending.

There is also the previous "reno vs " case where the DoJ got it's hands slapped for having the gall to try to re-write legislation rather than just running with the rules as passed by the house and senate and signed by the President of the day. It is likely this is why Hatch and his cronies are so actively trying to pass new legislation to clean up the 2257 rules, considering it very likely that the DoJ's "rule clairifcations" will get tossed with last week's coffee.

Alex

I see nothing new or fundamentally different in this motion...denied :)

Yep yep. The only bright spot here is that the judicial branch generally is more immune to this kind of verbal slight-of-hand than our dumbass legislators (or the public in general) are.

Huh?:D

WONDERFUL NEWS:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=252970

"“…Plaintiffs [FSC et al] have shown a substantial likelihood of success of establishing that the statute and regulations may not be enforced as to secondary producers who are not involved in any activity that involves “hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted. U.S.C. 18 §2257 (h) (3)”"

It would appeat that the secondary producer thing might be headed directly out the window. What a nice little present for Christmas.

Alex

Thanks for posting that Alex!

Just read through it...this is awesome news indeed |thumb

Best news I've heard so far today!

If you want to go a little more inside, the full judgement is here:

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/d...rdec28_000.pdf

Note that this is a ruling for injunction, not a final ruling on the subject. There are areas that the court felt are likely to work out for injunction:

Secondary producers
Recording live chat rooms
Keeping track of URLs using content beyond those owned by the primary producer.

HOWEVER, it should be made clear that the courts found no clear issues regarding loss of freedom of speech, specifically for people who would leave the buisness rather than disclose their actual indentity (like amateur performers, example). They seemed to fail to make the case that the new 2257 rules, for primary producers, would be burdensome.

If this stands and this is the case, the burder to PRIMARY producers would remain, but the burdens to secondary producers would be eliminated or substantially reduced.

The content of this ruling makes it clear that Orrin Hatch's move to amend 2257 rules will likely be to shore up the issues that the court did not like, and to once again try to fuck secondary producers over. From what I can read, if the actual law was changed and passed, that the courts would not find anything unduly burdonsome about that.

So this is great news... but it might all be legislated into the ditch again soon enough.

Alex

Absolutely true Alex...the war certainly isn't over...they'll keep coming no doubt. But, sure is nice to finally get some solid good news on this thing after being in limbo for so long.

Yay! Yay! Yayyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!! |bananna|

All I've ever wanted for absolutely SURE, is to get "secondary producers" stricken, because thats all I'll ever be. Now I can link to a page listing the actual producer, I dont have to hoard reams of documents, or list millions of url's, or put my home address on my website. YAY! |jester|

OMG, I'm gonna make sites and pages using content again! |roses|

PR_Tom, I am sort of not clear on the "not listing my home address", in that you may be required still to make a declaration of only secondary producer... so it might not be avoidable. I am NOT entirely clear on this.

Alex

To quote a man named Jim, "Bring it on, cocksuckers."


|bananna|

Awww, c'mon Alex think about this a little more. If as a secondary producer I do not have to keep 2257 records, why would I still need to post an address for a custodian of these non-existant records? |crazy|

This could certainly be an excellent development :)

Toby, because you would have to declare that you are NOT a primary producer (and prove it). I suspect that the DoJ will ASSUME primary production unless you prove otherwise, which would mean a location that they can come to check to make sure that you are NOT primary producer (IE: Contacts showing content used under license, list of primary producers, etc)

Think about it in reverse... without a declaration of who you are, how can they tell you aren't the primary producer?

Alex

Alex

No no no, US law doesn't work that way, as much as the DOJ would like it to be so. They would have to prove that I am a primary producer. I don't have to prove that I'm not.

I will have (actually I already do since I didnt change my site when all this hit the fan to begin with) a "2257 exempt page" with links to the sources of my content. My business address is not, and will not be, listed on that page or anywhere else on my site. If the DOJ really wants to pay me a visit it's not that tough to find me, but they'd better have a warrant in hand.

Are you ready for a shit pot load of 2257 threads?

http://greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=27442

Hmmm... Toby, I would wait until the final deal is done. I think you will find that secondary producers may still be required to name a person who is their "custodian of records" even if the only records retained are statements of NOT being a primary producer. It really depends on exactly WHERE the courts, DoJ, and such cut the line, which words get removed / crossed out / erased and which ones are allowed to stand.

The whole deal will need another good reading once the whole deal is played out - and that doesn't even consider the amendments and such that certain members of the senate have put forward recently.

Toby, US law does work that way. They don't have to prove you as a primary producer, the presence of a website and no clear 2257 notification would be enough to allow them to, for purposes of a inspection, to come to you and inspect. Again, depending on exactly which words get crossed off, you may be OBLIGATED UNDER LAW to make such a statement, because you site has sexual images on it, even if you are not the primary producer on any of it. How else would they know? Think about it.

Alex

I'm surprised that I haven't read anything on the legality of the "inspections" as being legal.

I agree it's all up to what the final wording is - but it seems to me that a secondary' producer's sole obligation would (should?) only be to link to the relevant sponsor or primary producers' 2257 info page, and of course to have signed licenses for any sponsor or non-sponsor content on hand if there ever was any question. But I'm not sure the idea of 2257-based "snap inspections" of people not defined as primary producers is gonna hold, since if the issue is indeed about potentially underage performers, a secondary producer clearly has no control over the knowledge of that. Not that primary producers ever did or ever will, either, given the Tracy Lords fake-ID type of scenario, but the burden is, and should be, on them to get and maintain the records and not to knowingly distribute content that doesn't meet the standards required of primary producers.

And of course, all the above could be a bunch of irrelevant horse pucks anyway if the dreaded Hatch bill gets any legs.