FSC statement about the 2257 meeting

Bill · 2007-04-30, 05:07 PM

Bottom line - untill the government actually releases the new regs under Adam Walsh, we are at an impasse.

I think this is the most interesting statement - yet, it looks like it CAN'T be settled untill the Feds attack some secondary producer...

“We are all confident that no court would allow a retroactive obligation to be placed upon secondary producers for which there was no lawful authority when they acquired the images. Furthermore, until the new regulations are finalized, how can any secondary know what their obligations are? For instance, they cannot comply with the regulations applicable to primary producers – actual inspection of the original ID is impossible for a secondary producer.”

--------
Dear FSC Members,

On Wednesday, April 25th in Colorado, Federal District Court Judge Walker Miller held a status conference with the Free Speech Coalition and Government attorneys. The conference was requested by FSC attorneys, in cooperation with government litigators after Judge Miller’s ruling of March 30, 2007 dismissing some causes of action and allowing others to proceed in light of the Adam Walsh Act amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 2257 enacted on July 27, 2006.

Result of the status conference:
We are awaiting the Court’s minute order. Upon issuance of that Order, it will be posted on our website along with attorney comments. It is expected that the Judge will dissolve portions of the preliminary injunction which ordered the Government not to inspect secondary producers. That does not mean that inspections of secondaries are likely in the foreseeable future.

What Does This Mean For Secondary Producers?
Our litigation team has stated the following: “We have no reason to anticipate imminent inspections of secondary producers. The reasoning underlying Judge Miller’s preliminary injunction remains valid; that is, prior to July 27, 2006, there was no statutory authority for record-keeping by secondary producers. We are awaiting regulations which will announce the Department of Justice’s position on what secondary producers’ responsibilities are under the July 27, 2006 amendments.”

FSC Board Chair and First Amendment attorney Jeffrey J. Douglas adds, “We are all confident that no court would allow a retroactive obligation to be placed upon secondary producers for which there was no lawful authority when they acquired the images. Furthermore, until the new regulations are finalized, how can any secondary know what their obligations are? For instance, they cannot comply with the regulations applicable to primary producers – actual inspection of the original ID is impossible for a secondary producer.”

Should there be any indication that the Government is claiming such authority, the Free Speech Coalition will immediately seek another court order. FSC will provide regular updates on the status of 2257 as the case unfolds through our weekly XPRESS newsletter, e-mail alerts and posting on our websites.

Sincerely,
Diane Duke
Executive Director
----------

2007-04-30, 05:07 PM	#1
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	FSC statement about the 2257 meeting Bottom line - untill the government actually releases the new regs under Adam Walsh, we are at an impasse. I think this is the most interesting statement - yet, it looks like it CAN'T be settled untill the Feds attack some secondary producer... “We are all confident that no court would allow a retroactive obligation to be placed upon secondary producers for which there was no lawful authority when they acquired the images. Furthermore, until the new regulations are finalized, how can any secondary know what their obligations are? For instance, they cannot comply with the regulations applicable to primary producers – actual inspection of the original ID is impossible for a secondary producer.” -------- Dear FSC Members, On Wednesday, April 25th in Colorado, Federal District Court Judge Walker Miller held a status conference with the Free Speech Coalition and Government attorneys. The conference was requested by FSC attorneys, in cooperation with government litigators after Judge Miller’s ruling of March 30, 2007 dismissing some causes of action and allowing others to proceed in light of the Adam Walsh Act amendments to 18 U.S.C. § 2257 enacted on July 27, 2006. Result of the status conference: We are awaiting the Court’s minute order. Upon issuance of that Order, it will be posted on our website along with attorney comments. It is expected that the Judge will dissolve portions of the preliminary injunction which ordered the Government not to inspect secondary producers. That does not mean that inspections of secondaries are likely in the foreseeable future. What Does This Mean For Secondary Producers? Our litigation team has stated the following: “We have no reason to anticipate imminent inspections of secondary producers. The reasoning underlying Judge Miller’s preliminary injunction remains valid; that is, prior to July 27, 2006, there was no statutory authority for record-keeping by secondary producers. We are awaiting regulations which will announce the Department of Justice’s position on what secondary producers’ responsibilities are under the July 27, 2006 amendments.” FSC Board Chair and First Amendment attorney Jeffrey J. Douglas adds, “We are all confident that no court would allow a retroactive obligation to be placed upon secondary producers for which there was no lawful authority when they acquired the images. Furthermore, until the new regulations are finalized, how can any secondary know what their obligations are? For instance, they cannot comply with the regulations applicable to primary producers – actual inspection of the original ID is impossible for a secondary producer.” Should there be any indication that the Government is claiming such authority, the Free Speech Coalition will immediately seek another court order. FSC will provide regular updates on the status of 2257 as the case unfolds through our weekly XPRESS newsletter, e-mail alerts and posting on our websites. Sincerely, Diane Duke Executive Director ----------