2257: Food for thought

RawAlex · 2004-08-10, 01:25 PM

As you may (or may not) know, Janet Reno as AG attempted to put in place the exact same "regulatory guideance" that Assclown is currently trying to jam down our throats. The very specific question of a secondary producer came up, and was subject to a sourt decision:

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-1501.htm

It should be noted that if you read the regulations carefully, all secondary producers, including anyone in the production chain, would be required to keep records and cross reference and all that crap. That would include third parties who edit videos, produce VHS or DVDs, people who print the box covers, companies that ship said material, etc. Without restriction, this could include (on the web side, by inference) hosting companies, graphic designers, gallery template builders, and such. In each case, they are part of the "publication" of a finished product, and potential under the framework required to retain records.

Thankfully, this has been shot down once before, and, in my opinion will likely be shot down again.

Read the whole thing VERY carefully, the 10th circuit has given you the exact guidance your lawyer will need to go back to court to protect your ass.

Alex

Bill · 2004-08-10, 01:51 PM

"(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(i) Photo processing;

(ii) Distribution; or

(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers.

----

"In this case, we need go no further than the initial analysis. "[T]he text and reasonable inferences from it give a clear answer against the Government, and that ... is 'the end of the matter.'" Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 120 (1994) (quoting Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, 508 U.S. 402, 409 (1993) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842)). We agree with the district court that "[t]he plain meaning of [§ 2257((h)(3)] clearly exempts persons whose activities '... include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.'"
-----
etc etc
-----

Nice find Alex. I recall reading this before.

It may require test cases to be sure, but it does seem applicable.

Useless · 2004-08-10, 01:54 PM

Excellent find, RawAlex!

Hopefully they still hold this true:
------------------------------
We agree with the district court that "[t]he plain meaning of [§ 2257((h)(3)] clearly exempts persons whose activities '... include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.'"
-----------------------------------------

Useless · 2004-08-10, 01:56 PM

Damn it! Bill beat me to it.

RawAlex · 2004-08-10, 06:55 PM

Bill, the real key to this is that the current "clarification" of the rules is almost letter for letter the same as what the 10th circuit shot down. Unless there has been a major change somewhere, it will be VERY hard for the AG to justify this change.

Quote:

-- neither the court nor the Attorney General has the authority to rewrite a poor piece of legislation (if, indeed, that is what it is). That responsibility lies solely with Congress.

It is important that the courts have clearly stated that this type of "revision" is beyond the scope of the executive and adminstrative branches, and is solely the responsibility of congress (and the house). Unless something has happened that I did not see, it would appear that it would be fairly easy to move for a summary judgement based on the existing ruling on the same material by a federal court.

I think this is the same BS as COPA II - they are trying everything that doesn't involve writing and passing legislation to create impedements to the adult business, beyond the scope and intent of the laws as written.

May the AG rot in hell, forced to watch gay gangbang videos for eternity.

Alex

spazlabz · 2004-08-11, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RawAlex

May the AG rot in hell, forced to watch gay gangbang videos for eternity.

Alex

No no no, you got it all wrong
may he rot in hell Starring in gay gangbang videos for eternity.

spaz

xxxjay · 2004-08-12, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RawAlex

http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-1501.htm

Thankfully, this has been shot down once before, and, in my opinion will likely be shot down again.

My mind is made up on how I will handle my 2257 issues. I spoke, at length, and very expensively to one of the top 1st amendment guys that successfully defended Max Hardcore. You can too for $275 / hr.

Here is the long and short of it:

Q: Is the new 2257 scary?
A: Yes.

Q: Will it be enforced?
A: Yes, there will be enforcement prior to the elections. Whoever gets nabbed during that time will be prosecuted even if the administration changes hands. If Bush stays in power, prepare for 4 years of unmitigated hell. If he does not stay in power - this will all probably die back down.

Q: Is the Sundance case set a precedent to beat a 2257 rap?
A: Yes, it probably does, but you had better have around 125k of spare income to fight it if it ever winds up in federal court.

If you want to stay in this game: hire a good 1st amendment, prepare for the worst, get your ship in order, and have money to fight a case.

That’s the last I will comment on 2257.

2004-08-10, 01:25 PM	#1
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	2257: Food for thought As you may (or may not) know, Janet Reno as AG attempted to put in place the exact same "regulatory guideance" that Assclown is currently trying to jam down our throats. The very specific question of a secondary producer came up, and was subject to a sourt decision: http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/03/96-1501.htm It should be noted that if you read the regulations carefully, all secondary producers, including anyone in the production chain, would be required to keep records and cross reference and all that crap. That would include third parties who edit videos, produce VHS or DVDs, people who print the box covers, companies that ship said material, etc. Without restriction, this could include (on the web side, by inference) hosting companies, graphic designers, gallery template builders, and such. In each case, they are part of the "publication" of a finished product, and potential under the framework required to retain records. Thankfully, this has been shot down once before, and, in my opinion will likely be shot down again. Read the whole thing VERY carefully, the 10th circuit has given you the exact guidance your lawyer will need to go back to court to protect your ass. Alex

2004-08-10, 01:54 PM	#3
Useless Certified Nice Person Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dirty Undies, NY Posts: 11,268	Excellent find, RawAlex! Hopefully they still hold this true: ------------------------------ We agree with the district court that "[t]he plain meaning of [§ 2257((h)(3)] clearly exempts persons whose activities '... include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.'" ----------------------------------------- __________________ Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling.

2004-08-10, 01:56 PM	#4
Useless Certified Nice Person Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dirty Undies, NY Posts: 11,268	Damn it! Bill beat me to it. __________________ Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling.

2004-08-10, 01:51 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	"(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following: (i) Photo processing; (ii) Distribution; or (iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers. ---- "In this case, we need go no further than the initial analysis. "[T]he text and reasonable inferences from it give a clear answer against the Government, and that ... is 'the end of the matter.'" Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 120 (1994) (quoting Good Samaritan Hosp. v. Shalala, 508 U.S. 402, 409 (1993) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842)). We agree with the district court that "[t]he plain meaning of [§ 2257((h)(3)] clearly exempts persons whose activities '... include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.'" ----- etc etc ----- Nice find Alex. I recall reading this before. It may require test cases to be sure, but it does seem applicable.