From my point of view this is a lose-lose with a sweetener added of the Fourth Amendment warrantless searches unconstitutional ONLY at personal residences.

This ruling makes a difference in warrantless inspections allowed of commercial businesses and private residences. Pornography is regulated free speech now.

This implies regulated art or other "offensive opinion or matter."

One argument of the Fourth Amendment complaint was upheld and other arguments were not. Appealing on the First Amendment complaints might be possible but it is just buying time.

Most of the major webcam producers are not based in the United States and are not subject to this law. I think that the issue of the "secondary producer" might be litigated but the outlawing of gambling promotion and advertising in the United States does not bode well for any litigation success on the issue of secondary producers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxxjay It would be great if they defined the tubes as "producers". I'd love to see them sweat a 2257 inspection ...

The tubes are defined as "secondary producers" now. Anyone who "publishes sexually explicit content" is a "producer".

But 18 USC §2257 is a US law and does no good in Hong Kong or Ukraine. US Laws, unless reciprocal or their recognition by a foreign government are meaningless outside of US territory.

As an example, §2257 is in direct violation of the EU and Canadian Laws (and others) on privacy unless a person whose records are kept by a business give EXPLICIT permission for those records to be divulged to A NAMED PARTY without a warrant or subpoena from that business' domicile court. e.g., the national jurisdictional courts.

Joe, I didn't have the benefit of reading the memo thanks for posting it
I stand corrected

Quote:

at page 70 footnote21 When the Supreme Court developed the administrative search doctrine, it contemplated searches at commercial premises rather than at residences. See Donovan, 452 U.S. at 598-99 (“The greater latitude to conduct warrantless inspections of commercial property reflects the fact that the expectation of privacy that the owner of commercial property enjoys in such property differs significantly from the sanctity accorded an individual’s home, and that this privacy interest may, in certain circumstances, be adequately protected by regulatory schemes authorizing warrantless inspections.”). Accordingly, one could argue that the administrative search doctrine is not applicable to homes at all, and that any inspection at a residence should preceded by a warrant. This Court does not go so far. It finds the administrative search doctrine does apply to Section 2257 inspections at residences, because “producers” of sexually explicit depictions are still part of a “closely regulated” industry even if they choose to store their records at home. But the Court finds the reasonableness of an administrative search should be informed by the type of premises being inspected. When it is a bona fide residence, the place at which privacy expectations are highest, additional protections may be justified. The Court concludes such protections – in the form of advance notice – are required here, given the lack of evidence at trial as to the need for unannounced inspections and the considerable testimony about the burdens that no advance notice places on producers who maintain records at homes

The issue is "sexually explicit depictions are still part of a “closely regulated” industry." So, porn is a legitimately regulated industry -- that is an interesting point in itself ... I know of no other “closely regulated” industry whose only regulation is in the Title 18 criminal code but maybe they will regulate bank robbers too -- you have to keep records of your bank robbery plans for inspection, (1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.

The whole law is ludicrous but there is little to be done in the courts now but good luck getting the Congress to repeal it and the President of sign the repeal bill.

I think given the current political climate, and barring its radical change: The principle tenants of statutory construction of §2257 are cast in stone.