GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

tony286 · 12-29-2005, 02:15 AM

I read this somewhere else it speaks about better then I could ever and I quote:
trying to put a happy spin on today's decision, reporters from AVN reported that Miller decided to adhere to Sundance decision FULLY NOTING that Sundance is being SPECIFICALY and DELIBVERATELY legistlated against in both the house of Congress and the Senate.

"None of Defendant?s arguments change the reality that Sundance is binding upon me," Judge Miller's opinion continues. "The Tenth Circuit specifically held that §2257(h) is unambiguous and that plain language of the statute excludes persons 'who basically have had no contact with the performers.' The amendment does not alter the relevant language, or somehow render the provision ambiguous. Accordingly, even were I to agree that the statute is ambiguous, I am bound by principles of stare decisis to hold that the statue is unambiguous. Only the Tenth Circuit or the Supreme Court can change established Tenth Circuit precedent."

As we all know here, the idea of secondary producers at this point is BASICALLY MOOT as BOTH Rep. Pence's bill (HS 3726) and Sen Orrin Hatch's (S. 2140) child pornography enhancement bills both put that matter to rest as soon as they are voted into law next year when the Congress and Senate re-assemble.

The MAJOR portion of the 2257 law that would have lead to its defeat was SOUNDLY AND DIRECTLY confirmed AND UPHELD by Miller in his decision today -- the decision SUPPORTING the fact that 2257 law is basically right in forcing the producers to reveal their privacy PUBLICALLY and OPENLY for ALL who ask for it under the illusion of protecting children.

Many producers will look at the matter and decide that the cost of personal identity and their private life are NOT worth the risk that religious fantatics and repression promoters like Rep Pence and AFA who will pick and protest and drive people

Miller confirmed that people in the adult film business SHOULD NOT have the right to privacy on their home life by his statement

"Plaintiffs argue that §2257 and the regulations unlawfully infringe upon rights protected under the First Amendment," the judge writes. "They first claim that the substantial recordkeeping obligations make compliance impossible, and thus operate as a 'prior restraint' by inducing self-censorship chilling protected speech. However, it is clear that the statute and regulation do not constitute a 'prior restraint' as traditionally described by the Supreme Court... Plaintiffs place great reliance on Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, where the Court held that 'government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.' However, Ashcroft dealt with an express ban on computer-created, or 'virtual' images of child pornography, not regulations like those in this case, which although they may burden Plaintiffs? expression, do not simply illegalize it."

Judge Miller rejected the argument that 2257 unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof that sexually explicit speech is constitutionally protected from the government to the producer by noting that the law and regulations don't "ban" the speech ? but when producers can no longer afford to make content because of the extensive expenses associated with 2257 compliance -- TOUGH that is the price of buiness in a NOW regulated industry.

Miller ALSO rejected the idea that 2257 fails to prevent minors from performing in sexually explicit depictions, ignoring the fact that the four minors who have appeared in such depictions over the past 20 years reportedly all had IDs that would have passed muster under the 2257 regulations.

Miller MOST DIRECTLY supported 2257 as law in striking down the FSC's claim that providing such identification records violates performers' rights of privacy, he fails to fully consider the privacy rights of "producers who work out of their homes by mandating disclosure of the actual place of business on a label" ? an insurmountable problem, for instance, for women with bedroom webcams.

MIller bases his ruling on the fact that plaintiffs have only identified one instance of identity theft traceable to 2257 records, and Nina Hartley's "vague assertion ... that she is aware 'of a number of instances in the past two decades where adult performers have been stalked by fans.'"

"This is insufficient to establish a reasonable probability of harm resulting from the regulations," the judge writes. Apparently, several performers will have to die or have their identities stolen before this obvious violation of their privacy rights is clear to this court.

While superfically Miller has supported the FSC's position on secondary producers and web hosters, BOTH Of which will be changed AND REMOVED in the current changes being proposed by Pence's and Hatch's bills already partially approved into actual law, make no mistake ON THE CORE IDEAS that

1) 2257 is BASICALLY correct in assuming that producers ARE in some way guilty of promoting or directly violating children and MUST be forced to show that they are NOT exploiting children

2) correct in assuming that producers who choose to engage in this type of business MUST give up their right to privacy DESPITE the REAL threat of personal attacks by those who see it as their personal right to represess and force conformity onto the actresses and perfoprmers in this business if they are to operate in this business in the United States

BOTH of which would have OVERTURNED 2257 and forced a NEW law to be enacted, Miller choose to submit.

So make no mistake unless Pence and Hatch pull back their amendments to 2257 (which is HIGHLY unlikely at this point) Miller just very eliquoently and silently handed the Bible Thumpers the victory they wanted.

12-29-2005, 02:15 AM
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	I read this somewhere else it speaks about better then I could ever and I quote: trying to put a happy spin on today's decision, reporters from AVN reported that Miller decided to adhere to Sundance decision FULLY NOTING that Sundance is being SPECIFICALY and DELIBVERATELY legistlated against in both the house of Congress and the Senate. "None of Defendant?s arguments change the reality that Sundance is binding upon me," Judge Miller's opinion continues. "The Tenth Circuit specifically held that §2257(h) is unambiguous and that plain language of the statute excludes persons 'who basically have had no contact with the performers.' The amendment does not alter the relevant language, or somehow render the provision ambiguous. Accordingly, even were I to agree that the statute is ambiguous, I am bound by principles of stare decisis to hold that the statue is unambiguous. Only the Tenth Circuit or the Supreme Court can change established Tenth Circuit precedent." As we all know here, the idea of secondary producers at this point is BASICALLY MOOT as BOTH Rep. Pence's bill (HS 3726) and Sen Orrin Hatch's (S. 2140) child pornography enhancement bills both put that matter to rest as soon as they are voted into law next year when the Congress and Senate re-assemble. The MAJOR portion of the 2257 law that would have lead to its defeat was SOUNDLY AND DIRECTLY confirmed AND UPHELD by Miller in his decision today -- the decision SUPPORTING the fact that 2257 law is basically right in forcing the producers to reveal their privacy PUBLICALLY and OPENLY for ALL who ask for it under the illusion of protecting children. Many producers will look at the matter and decide that the cost of personal identity and their private life are NOT worth the risk that religious fantatics and repression promoters like Rep Pence and AFA who will pick and protest and drive people Miller confirmed that people in the adult film business SHOULD NOT have the right to privacy on their home life by his statement "Plaintiffs argue that §2257 and the regulations unlawfully infringe upon rights protected under the First Amendment," the judge writes. "They first claim that the substantial recordkeeping obligations make compliance impossible, and thus operate as a 'prior restraint' by inducing self-censorship chilling protected speech. However, it is clear that the statute and regulation do not constitute a 'prior restraint' as traditionally described by the Supreme Court... Plaintiffs place great reliance on Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, where the Court held that 'government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech.' However, Ashcroft dealt with an express ban on computer-created, or 'virtual' images of child pornography, not regulations like those in this case, which although they may burden Plaintiffs? expression, do not simply illegalize it." Judge Miller rejected the argument that 2257 unconstitutionally shifts the burden of proof that sexually explicit speech is constitutionally protected from the government to the producer by noting that the law and regulations don't "ban" the speech ? but when producers can no longer afford to make content because of the extensive expenses associated with 2257 compliance -- TOUGH that is the price of buiness in a NOW regulated industry. Miller ALSO rejected the idea that 2257 fails to prevent minors from performing in sexually explicit depictions, ignoring the fact that the four minors who have appeared in such depictions over the past 20 years reportedly all had IDs that would have passed muster under the 2257 regulations. Miller MOST DIRECTLY supported 2257 as law in striking down the FSC's claim that providing such identification records violates performers' rights of privacy, he fails to fully consider the privacy rights of "producers who work out of their homes by mandating disclosure of the actual place of business on a label" ? an insurmountable problem, for instance, for women with bedroom webcams. MIller bases his ruling on the fact that plaintiffs have only identified one instance of identity theft traceable to 2257 records, and Nina Hartley's "vague assertion ... that she is aware 'of a number of instances in the past two decades where adult performers have been stalked by fans.'" "This is insufficient to establish a reasonable probability of harm resulting from the regulations," the judge writes. Apparently, several performers will have to die or have their identities stolen before this obvious violation of their privacy rights is clear to this court. While superfically Miller has supported the FSC's position on secondary producers and web hosters, BOTH Of which will be changed AND REMOVED in the current changes being proposed by Pence's and Hatch's bills already partially approved into actual law, make no mistake ON THE CORE IDEAS that 1) 2257 is BASICALLY correct in assuming that producers ARE in some way guilty of promoting or directly violating children and MUST be forced to show that they are NOT exploiting children 2) correct in assuming that producers who choose to engage in this type of business MUST give up their right to privacy DESPITE the REAL threat of personal attacks by those who see it as their personal right to represess and force conformity onto the actresses and perfoprmers in this business if they are to operate in this business in the United States BOTH of which would have OVERTURNED 2257 and forced a NEW law to be enacted, Miller choose to submit. So make no mistake unless Pence and Hatch pull back their amendments to 2257 (which is HIGHLY unlikely at this point) Miller just very eliquoently and silently handed the Bible Thumpers the victory they wanted.