GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

JohnnyJames · 11-30-2007, 11:23 PM

At last check will76 said he had me on ignore, but I will share what I know anyway for others.

The 6th District ruled all of 2257 unconstitutional by a slight majority, based on a couple things:

It is overbroad and places too much burden on the secondary producers.

It would, on the face, require a husband and wife who shoot themselves having sex for their own enjoyment and not for distribution or sale, to maintain 2257 records of themselves or risk being imprisoned in the event that someone else accidentally found the recording and reported them.

2257 also infringes on both the 4th amendment and the 1st amendment according to their ruling, since it assumes that sexual acts are unprotected speech (obscene) when in fact that is a decision made according to local standards. If applied in a broad swath, and the material was determined NOT to be obscenity, 2257 impinges on free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The filing requirements impinge on the 4th Amendment AND the First Amendment by overlooking the right to practice free speech (First Amendment) in an anonymous fashion.

Previous case-law, established by the US Supreme Court, guarantees that you can practice free speech anonymously. According to 2257, you are required to give up that anonymity, which presumes that your recording or material is obscene before any such determination has been made.

The ruling only affects the 6th District for now, but looks promising. If other cases in other districts follow a similar path, it will be very good for the industry. However, the 6th District ruling can be appealed to a larger venue including all of the 6th District judges, and then on to the US Supreme Court.

Or it can be re-written by Congress to address these issues. So far, neither has been announced.

The 6th District ruling also made a very important distinction. It drew a clear line that the government had already established laws to protect against child porn and pedophiles and that 2257 really doesn't further either of these goals.

No one I have seen has suggested that producers in the 6th District should not continue to follow 2257. General consensus is, even though it is effectively no longer a law in that district, to continue as though it were, until the rest of the shakeout happens.

That's my understanding, don't crucify me for it. It is a complex subject at best.

11-30-2007, 11:23 PM
JohnnyJames Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 621	At last check will76 said he had me on ignore, but I will share what I know anyway for others. The 6th District ruled all of 2257 unconstitutional by a slight majority, based on a couple things: It is overbroad and places too much burden on the secondary producers. It would, on the face, require a husband and wife who shoot themselves having sex for their own enjoyment and not for distribution or sale, to maintain 2257 records of themselves or risk being imprisoned in the event that someone else accidentally found the recording and reported them. 2257 also infringes on both the 4th amendment and the 1st amendment according to their ruling, since it assumes that sexual acts are unprotected speech (obscene) when in fact that is a decision made according to local standards. If applied in a broad swath, and the material was determined NOT to be obscenity, 2257 impinges on free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The filing requirements impinge on the 4th Amendment AND the First Amendment by overlooking the right to practice free speech (First Amendment) in an anonymous fashion. Previous case-law, established by the US Supreme Court, guarantees that you can practice free speech anonymously. According to 2257, you are required to give up that anonymity, which presumes that your recording or material is obscene before any such determination has been made. The ruling only affects the 6th District for now, but looks promising. If other cases in other districts follow a similar path, it will be very good for the industry. However, the 6th District ruling can be appealed to a larger venue including all of the 6th District judges, and then on to the US Supreme Court. Or it can be re-written by Congress to address these issues. So far, neither has been announced. The 6th District ruling also made a very important distinction. It drew a clear line that the government had already established laws to protect against child porn and pedophiles and that 2257 really doesn't further either of these goals. No one I have seen has suggested that producers in the 6th District should not continue to follow 2257. General consensus is, even though it is effectively no longer a law in that district, to continue as though it were, until the rest of the shakeout happens. That's my understanding, don't crucify me for it. It is a complex subject at best.