2257 UPDATE
CHATSWORTH, CA -- Certain of the confusing aspects of the federal recordkeeping and labeling act, 18 U.S.C. ยง2257 have been partially clarified as a result of interrogatories submitted to the Department of Justice by FSC attorneys. Key questions were answered in a July 18 letter from DOJ attorney Samuel C. Kaplan to FSC attorney Louis Sirkin.
The DOJ clarifications required yet more clarification by FSC attorneys before they started to resemble English for lay readers. Once translated, however, some reassuring aspects of how the DOJ plans to interpret and enforce the law?s provisions came to light. Some ?clarifications? appear to be significant concessions, especially pertaining to retroactivity, ?date of production? and shooting overseas.
The official position of the Attorney General on certain aspects of 2257 enforcement is now described as follows:
Domestic producers who travel outside the United States to record images of sexually explicit conduct may rely on foreign government issued passports.
The requirement that a ?copy of the depiction? must be maintained does not apply to materials recorded prior to June 23, 2005.
The requirement that the ?date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or re-issuance? be identified on the label is satisfied by stating the last date of filming, and characterizing that as the date of production.
Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations.
The term ?actually sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibition of the genitals? (i.e., mere nudity).
A website containing no depictions of ?actually sexually explicit conduct ? that provides hyperlinks to a third-party website that does contain such material has no record-keeping obligations.
From a copy of the DOJ letter posted on the FSC website
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/pdf/DOJjuly18.pdf
And from Kathee Brewer, AVN Online, 8/10/05
http://www.avnonline.com/articles/236344.html
CHATSWORTH, CA -- Certain of the confusing aspects of the federal recordkeeping and labeling act, 18 U.S.C. ยง2257 have been partially clarified as a result of interrogatories submitted to the Department of Justice by FSC attorneys. Key questions were answered in a July 18 letter from DOJ attorney Samuel C. Kaplan to FSC attorney Louis Sirkin.
The DOJ clarifications required yet more clarification by FSC attorneys before they started to resemble English for lay readers. Once translated, however, some reassuring aspects of how the DOJ plans to interpret and enforce the law?s provisions came to light. Some ?clarifications? appear to be significant concessions, especially pertaining to retroactivity, ?date of production? and shooting overseas.
The official position of the Attorney General on certain aspects of 2257 enforcement is now described as follows:
Domestic producers who travel outside the United States to record images of sexually explicit conduct may rely on foreign government issued passports.
The requirement that a ?copy of the depiction? must be maintained does not apply to materials recorded prior to June 23, 2005.
The requirement that the ?date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or re-issuance? be identified on the label is satisfied by stating the last date of filming, and characterizing that as the date of production.
Material produced before June 23, 2005, that was compliant with the old regulations may continue to be marketed without fear of prosecution under the new regulations.
The term ?actually sexually explicit conduct? does not include ?lascivious exhibition of the genitals? (i.e., mere nudity).
A website containing no depictions of ?actually sexually explicit conduct ? that provides hyperlinks to a third-party website that does contain such material has no record-keeping obligations.
From a copy of the DOJ letter posted on the FSC website
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/pdf/DOJjuly18.pdf
And from Kathee Brewer, AVN Online, 8/10/05
http://www.avnonline.com/articles/236344.html
Comment