non-commercial???


No. 06-3822
Document: 00615407140
Filed: 02/20/2009
Connection Distributing Co. et al. v. Holder
Page: 20

Quote:

"[I]nvoking the constitutional-avoidance doctrine and the rule of lenity, the government points to language in the statute suggesting that it does not cover this situation. Supp. Br. at 20 (noting the statute?s references to a producer?s ?business premises,? to the involvement of multiple performers and to contractual or similar relationships between producers and performers). The avoidance doctrine no doubt often goes a long way in defusing potential conflicts between Congress?s enactments and the Constitution. Whether the doctrine allows us to read the statutory text in the way the government proposes, however, is far from clear. Viewed in isolation, the Act?s reference to ?business premises? might suggest that the statute draws a line between commercial and non-commercial pornography. Yet subsequent amendments to the law, apparently in response to a Tenth Circuit decision addressing a related point, Sundance Assocs., Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th Cir. 1998), make it clear that the law covers commercial and non-commercial pornography. ..."

If the entire 6th Circuit Appellate Court ruling in §2257 is not sure ? I don't think we could be either ...