GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

NKYKev · 12-30-2005, 07:54 AM

After reading the opinion itself, I am amazed that people are considering this a victory. In short,

1. All primary producers, and secondary ones not members of the FSC, are fully subject to inspections now.
2. The opinion makes it quite clear that if Congress amends the 18 USC 2257 to include secondary producer provisions - as 2 bills before Congress right now call for - such amendments would be upheld.
3. Except for archiving live feeds and Internet content not under a producer's control, all the First Amendment arguments failed - and once the government puts in testimony showing how this could be done on a cheaper basis, they might win on this point as well.
4. Similarly, all the rights to privacy arguments were shot down by the court.

The tone of the opinion, as well as the comments of the judge, make it quite clear to me that the chances of getting a favorable ruling at trial on almost any issue are slim and none. Seriously - only 90 web sites - as the government claims - would shut down over this regulation??? I am sure more than that have already done so; why, exactly, wasn't a list made and submitted as evidence on this point???

Along the same lines, dismissing all the arguments regarding working out of the home because the record only reflected one person talking about stalking of adult performers - I am sure that, as many women that have been stalked in the adult entertainment industry, much more evidence could have been submitted on this point.

Yes, I am aware that its only a preliminary injunction, and that the trial results might well be different once more evidence has been submitted and the arguments regarding the issues have been made. But for now, small and solo primary producers are the ones who will face the brunt of this decision, since many of them will be forced to disclose their home addresses and real names under these rules, at considerable risk to themselves and their families. It would seem to me that having a few people that had experienced stalking firsthand as plaintiffs, testifying about their experiences, might have been a better trial tactic here.

12-30-2005, 07:54 AM
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	After reading the opinion itself, I am amazed that people are considering this a victory. In short, 1. All primary producers, and secondary ones not members of the FSC, are fully subject to inspections now. 2. The opinion makes it quite clear that if Congress amends the 18 USC 2257 to include secondary producer provisions - as 2 bills before Congress right now call for - such amendments would be upheld. 3. Except for archiving live feeds and Internet content not under a producer's control, all the First Amendment arguments failed - and once the government puts in testimony showing how this could be done on a cheaper basis, they might win on this point as well. 4. Similarly, all the rights to privacy arguments were shot down by the court. The tone of the opinion, as well as the comments of the judge, make it quite clear to me that the chances of getting a favorable ruling at trial on almost any issue are slim and none. Seriously - only 90 web sites - as the government claims - would shut down over this regulation??? I am sure more than that have already done so; why, exactly, wasn't a list made and submitted as evidence on this point??? Along the same lines, dismissing all the arguments regarding working out of the home because the record only reflected one person talking about stalking of adult performers - I am sure that, as many women that have been stalked in the adult entertainment industry, much more evidence could have been submitted on this point. Yes, I am aware that its only a preliminary injunction, and that the trial results might well be different once more evidence has been submitted and the arguments regarding the issues have been made. But for now, small and solo primary producers are the ones who will face the brunt of this decision, since many of them will be forced to disclose their home addresses and real names under these rules, at considerable risk to themselves and their families. It would seem to me that having a few people that had experienced stalking firsthand as plaintiffs, testifying about their experiences, might have been a better trial tactic here.