Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
It will be interesting to see IF inspections are ever started again whether the govt uses improper notice compliance (ie using an email addy or PO Box) as the basis for probable cause and a means to get a warrant.
That alone could take down quite a few sites especially amateurs that work from home & don't have an official office address.
|
I think ''probable cause'' would be at to the statutes purpose -- the protection of minors being used in pornographic depictions.
Quote:
p. 8
Inspectors are further required by regulation to take
several steps at the time a search is conducted to reassure
producers of the lawfulness of any search. These include
presenting credentials and explaining the limited nature and
purpose of the inspection.
|
Interestingly the Judge used some of the same case law I cited years ago at YNOT in finding his conclusions. As I remember you said this was not relevant. Seems the sitting judge found their relevance ..
Quote:
p 59
For example, in New York v.
Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987), the Court considered whether
automobile junkyards were part of a closely regulated
industry. In finding them closely regulated, the Court
observed that vehicle dismantlers were required to obtain a
license, register with the state for a fee, and prominently
display a registration number at the junkyard, on business
documentation, and on any parts or vehicles passing through
the business. Id. at 704. These regulations were backed by
civil and criminal penalties. Id. Moreover, junkyards had
been regulated for at least 140 years. Id. at 707.
In contrast with these industries, the Government fails
to identify any similar requirements for producers of sexually
explicit images. Nor are the regulations that the Government
does identify sufficient.
|
Licensure was another point I made in our discussions.
Quote:
p. 60
To be sure, the Statutes require recordkeeping and labeling.
Yet no one is required to obtain a license or register with the
Government before producing a sexually explicit image. An
artist can pick up a camera and create an image subject to the
Statutes without the knowledge of any third party, much less
the Government. Nor has the Government identified any
regulations governing the manner in which individuals and
businesses must produce sexually explicit images. The
creation of sexually explicit expression is better characterized
by its lack of regulation than by a regime of rules governing
such expression.
|
Smart Judge
Now if this all isn't overturned en blanc like last time ...
As the Obama DOJ is without an AG, this should be a low priority and hopefully they will let this ruling stand without appeal -- this remains to be seen.
For me the effect is minimal; ACwebconnecting Group is not a US corporation. Its principal offices are in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The statute is extraterritorial. We comply with Dutch Laws and retain documentation of performers' identity documents as proscribed by Dutch laws and protected by EU Directives on Data Privacy. You need a court order based on Dutch law for any disclosure.