3rd Circuit Court Rules on 2257 - GoFuckYourself.com

Corey Silverstein, Esq. · 05-14-2015, 10:44 AM

Article from XBiz:

3rd Circuit Upholds 2257 Recordkeeping Law - XBIZ.com

Read the Opinion Here:

http://www.xbiz.com/docs/xbiz/news/1...2257_rhett.pdf

I'm reading through the opinion now. So far though it looks like one of the major results of this decision is that the court ruled that the warrantless searches during inspections violate the 4th amendment and thus are unconstitutional.

Big news here folks.

PR_Phil · 05-14-2015, 10:50 AM

Justice has a name!

pornguy · 05-14-2015, 10:53 AM

At a start that is good news. Lets see how it plays out and thanks for posting. Would be interesting to read more of what you think about it over all.

Bladewire · 05-14-2015, 10:54 AM

So few producers now.

Politics & the legal system need to focus on tubes, and their aggregates now.

Thanks for the info, much appeciated

Corey Silverstein, Esq. · 05-14-2015, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornguy

At a start that is good news. Lets see how it plays out and thanks for posting. Would be interesting to read more of what you think about it over all.

Thanks; I'm planning on giving more of my thoughts once I'm able to get through all 64 pages. Stay tuned...

Pornopat · 05-14-2015, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corey Silverstein, Esq.

Thanks; I'm planning on giving more of my thoughts once I'm able to get through all 64 pages. Stay tuned...

I am staying tuned here.

The Porn Nerd · 05-14-2015, 11:34 AM

Thanks for going over this for us Corey!!

deltav · 05-14-2015, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Thanks for going over this for us Corey!!

Ditto. Much appreciated!

Barry-xlovecam · 05-14-2015, 11:36 AM

Thanks for posting that Cory.

I have always maintained the 4th Amendment claim since the latest incarnation of the statute under the Bush Administration and AG Gonzales' watch. I am on the record on that one ;)

For Fourth Amendment purposes you need probable cause. A warrantless search is not a fishing expedition.

Rochard · 05-14-2015, 12:00 PM

How interesting is this?

Elli · 05-14-2015, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Thanks for posting that Cory.

I have always maintained the 4th Amendment claim since the latest incarnation of the statute under the Bush Administration and AG Gonzales' watch. I am on the record on that one ;)

For Fourth Amendment purposes you need probable cause. A warrantless search is not a fishing expedition.

Well said!

mikesouth · 05-14-2015, 05:50 PM

I posted on this earlier today

In essence the law was upheld but the big fly in the ointment is that the records inspections will require a warrant, and as was noted here a warrant requires probable cause and as was not noted also provides an additional line of defense in that an improperly obtained warrant is grounds for exclusion of evidence obtained in the search
I have always said that 2257 was very worng in that it forces me to prove that I didn't commit a crime that never happened in the first place. In other words I am committing a crime by not being able to prove I didn't commit a crime that only happened when i couldn't prove I didn't commit it.

This decision fixes that and at least in my opinion is a correct decision.

The records inspection team was disbanded in 2008 (IIRC) but would likely be re-introduced in a republican presidency, so the timing is also good.

Spunky · 05-14-2015, 06:30 PM

We must stop the man holding us down!

Dead · 05-14-2015, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Phil

Justice has a name!

blind bitch?

JFK · 05-14-2015, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pornopat

I am staying tuned here.

Me too

ManPuppy · 05-14-2015, 07:27 PM

This is good news. I am curious, though: Has anyone here who is not Donny ever had an official document request, at their location, in person? How did it play out?

MiamiBoyz · 05-14-2015, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManPuppy

This is good news. I am curious, though: Has anyone here who is not Donny ever had an official document request, at their location, in person? How did it play out?

How is this good news?

They could have thrown 2257 out completely...now THAT would have been good news.

So now they need a warrant to do an inspection...guess what...all a judge has to do is sign a piece of paper and there you go. Not like they will have any problem finding a judge who is anti-porn and would rather "error" on the side of caution to "protect the children".

This is NOT good news at all.

pornlaw · 05-14-2015, 08:41 PM

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.

xXXtesy10 · 05-14-2015, 09:36 PM

still waiting for xvideos inspection

mikesouth · 05-14-2015, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MiamiBoyz

How is this good news?

They could have thrown 2257 out completely...now THAT would have been good news.

So now they need a warrant to do an inspection...guess what...all a judge has to do is sign a piece of paper and there you go. Not like they will have any problem finding a judge who is anti-porn and would rather "error" on the side of caution to "protect the children".

This is NOT good news at all.

Not really true yes a judge could sign a warrant but as I said if the warrant was obtained without probable cause thats a solid line of defense.

All in all this is the best outcome we could have hoped for...only the most optimistic and unrealistic people would have expected a total strike down of the law but the warrant requirement does put some fairness in it. At least they have to show cause that a particular girl in a particular video is under 18...remember warrants are very specific about what is being searched for...too broad and the warrant is kicked as a fishing expedition...its highly unlikely they can get a warrant to check every file on every girl on every video.

Va2k · 05-15-2015, 07:04 AM

Very good news. Maybe just maybe I will come back and start shooting again for my own sites.
TOM

Barry-xlovecam · 05-15-2015, 08:03 AM

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.

amvcdotcom · 05-15-2015, 08:08 AM

bump

pornlaw · 05-15-2015, 02:26 PM

Barry - 2257 has two criminal elements, notice & record keeping. I think probable cause will be loosely interpretered to mean - a good faith belief that there is action in the furtherance of a crime. Failure to post the proper notice is already evidence of a crime. That's what I would be telling a judge if I were standing there asking for a warrant.

Not posting a proper notice might be enough for probable cause for the warrant. I don't know. I do agree that with a proper notice being posted the govt will need to show at least the potential for a minor individual whom might have been used in a pornographic performance.

Since there's only been 1 conviction under 2257 and no appeals of the actual enforcement of the statute everything it's all speculation.

Idigmygirls · 05-15-2015, 06:00 PM

I'm not convinced that there is anything good in this ruling at all.

It seems to me that the porn industry always gets shafted. So, why will this be any different?

How's this sound for "probable cause":

"Judge, look at this picture and tell me you don't think there's a chance that this girl is under 18 years old. She looks pretty young to me. Says she's 18, but don't you think there's a chance she's just 17 and 11 months? Why don't you give us a warrant so we can make sure."

I'm betting that holds up every day of the week. What judge wants to take the risk that they didn't allow a prosecutor to investigate a CP case? And what judge is going to throw that out for "not probable cause?"

I don't think this ruling will afford any protection whatsoever.

Bladewire · 05-15-2015, 06:33 PM

The reality is that there are attorneys in our industry that know exactly who the bad characters are, who is doing what, and exactly how to take them down. Yet we're sitting here talking about 2257 for the very few remaining producers, as tubes upload stolen "user" content and don't have to keep records.

I've been a producer for 15 years, living off my adult income alone and raising a family. 2257 used to worry me. Now I'm worried if it's going to be one hour, or 5 hours before my fresh new update is on the tubes for free. I'm not going to sidetrack this thread but damn I wish we had more adult industry bulldog attorney advocates attacking the big guys instead of working for them. (not directed at any attorney's in this thread. I don't know who you guys work for)

Deej · 05-15-2015, 07:55 PM

oh man. I hate to break it to ya but that sig is too big.

You might retort with mine being a little overweight itself?

Well see... mine has class to it.

MiamiBoyz · 05-16-2015, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Idigmygirls

I'm not convinced that there is anything good in this ruling at all.

It seems to me that the porn industry always gets shafted. So, why will this be any different?

How's this sound for "probable cause":

"Judge, look at this picture and tell me you don't think there's a chance that this girl is under 18 years old. She looks pretty young to me. Says she's 18, but don't you think there's a chance she's just 17 and 11 months? Why don't you give us a warrant so we can make sure."

I'm betting that holds up every day of the week. What judge wants to take the risk that they didn't allow a prosecutor to investigate a CP case? And what judge is going to throw that out for "not probable cause?"

I don't think this ruling will afford any protection whatsoever.

Thank you - That was what I was saying!

Ferus · 05-16-2015, 07:00 AM

This wont change a thing. The local "christian" Sherif will kick your door Down anyways.

Qbert · 05-16-2015, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferus

This wont change a thing. The local "christian" Sherif will kick your door Down anyways.

Only if you are on his radar for some reason. That is true regardless of 2257. If the po-po puts a target on your back they will eventually find a reason to shut you down and/or lock you up. So... stay under the radar.

Ferus · 05-16-2015, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qbert

... stay under the radar.

Sad but true!

HotBoy392 · 05-23-2015, 12:32 PM

So tube sites don't need to collect documentation? These just rely on end users and direct 2257 agents to them? Sounds like a ton of liability for them since sites like xtube.com don't even collect your information when you upload free videos.

05-14-2015, 10:44 AM	#1
Corey Silverstein, Esq. Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bingham Farms, MI Posts: 562	3rd Circuit Court Rules on 2257 Article from XBiz: 3rd Circuit Upholds 2257 Recordkeeping Law - XBIZ.com Read the Opinion Here: http://www.xbiz.com/docs/xbiz/news/1...2257_rhett.pdf I'm reading through the opinion now. So far though it looks like one of the major results of this decision is that the court ruled that the warrantless searches during inspections violate the 4th amendment and thus are unconstitutional. Big news here folks. __________________ Managing Member, Silverstein Legal \| My Adult Attorney \| corey at myadultattorney.com \| ICQ #584182916 l Skype: corey.silverstein Telephone: 1-248-290-0655

05-14-2015, 10:50 AM	#2
PR_Phil Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: knee deep in dirty diapers Posts: 1,960	Justice has a name! __________________

05-14-2015, 10:53 AM	#3
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	At a start that is good news. Lets see how it plays out and thanks for posting. Would be interesting to read more of what you think about it over all. __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

05-14-2015, 11:34 AM	#7
The Porn Nerd Living The Dream Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Inside a Monitor Posts: 19,548	Thanks for going over this for us Corey!! __________________ My Affiliate Programs: Porn Nerd Cash \| Porn Showcase \| Aggressive Gold Over 90 paysites to promote! Now on Teams: peabodymedia

05-14-2015, 12:00 PM	#10
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,431	How interesting is this? __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

05-14-2015, 10:54 AM	#4
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,229	So few producers now. Politics & the legal system need to focus on tubes, and their aggregates now. Thanks for the info, much appeciated

05-14-2015, 11:36 AM	#9
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Thanks for posting that Cory. I have always maintained the 4th Amendment claim since the latest incarnation of the statute under the Bush Administration and AG Gonzales' watch. I am on the record on that one ;) For Fourth Amendment purposes you need probable cause. A warrantless search is not a fishing expedition.

05-14-2015, 05:50 PM	#12
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,334	I posted on this earlier today In essence the law was upheld but the big fly in the ointment is that the records inspections will require a warrant, and as was noted here a warrant requires probable cause and as was not noted also provides an additional line of defense in that an improperly obtained warrant is grounds for exclusion of evidence obtained in the search I have always said that 2257 was very worng in that it forces me to prove that I didn't commit a crime that never happened in the first place. In other words I am committing a crime by not being able to prove I didn't commit a crime that only happened when i couldn't prove I didn't commit it. This decision fixes that and at least in my opinion is a correct decision. The records inspection team was disbanded in 2008 (IIRC) but would likely be re-introduced in a republican presidency, so the timing is also good. __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.

05-14-2015, 06:30 PM	#13
Spunky I need a beer Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: ♠ Toiletville ♠ Posts: 133,934	We must stop the man holding us down! __________________ *YOUR INFORMATION HERE*

05-14-2015, 07:27 PM	#16
ManPuppy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA Posts: 407	This is good news. I am curious, though: Has anyone here who is not Donny ever had an official document request, at their location, in person? How did it play out? __________________ Manpuppy.com - Gay Dad & Son and Light Fetish Affiliates: http://www.manpuppy.com/affiliates

05-14-2015, 08:41 PM	#18
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,860	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. __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com

05-14-2015, 09:36 PM	#19
xXXtesy10 Fakecoin Investor Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: New Delhi, IN Posts: 7,127	still waiting for xvideos inspection __________________ WARNING: Stay Away From Marlboroack aka aka Brandon Ackerman https://gfy.com/21169705-post8.html Donny Long is Felon, Stalker, Scammer & Coward http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/...lon-int-761244

05-15-2015, 07:04 AM	#21
Va2k I’m still alive barley. Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Va Posts: 10,060	Very good news. Maybe just maybe I will come back and start shooting again for my own sites. TOM __________________

05-15-2015, 08:08 AM	#23
amvcdotcom i like kitties. Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Seattle & NC Posts: 886	bump __________________ Email only: allen at/ amvc dotcom

05-15-2015, 02:26 PM	#24
pornlaw Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,860	Barry - 2257 has two criminal elements, notice & record keeping. I think probable cause will be loosely interpretered to mean - a good faith belief that there is action in the furtherance of a crime. Failure to post the proper notice is already evidence of a crime. That's what I would be telling a judge if I were standing there asking for a warrant. Not posting a proper notice might be enough for probable cause for the warrant. I don't know. I do agree that with a proper notice being posted the govt will need to show at least the potential for a minor individual whom might have been used in a pornographic performance. Since there's only been 1 conviction under 2257 and no appeals of the actual enforcement of the statute everything it's all speculation. __________________ Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com

05-15-2015, 06:00 PM	#25
Idigmygirls Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 498	I'm not convinced that there is anything good in this ruling at all. It seems to me that the porn industry always gets shafted. So, why will this be any different? How's this sound for "probable cause": "Judge, look at this picture and tell me you don't think there's a chance that this girl is under 18 years old. She looks pretty young to me. Says she's 18, but don't you think there's a chance she's just 17 and 11 months? Why don't you give us a warrant so we can make sure." I'm betting that holds up every day of the week. What judge wants to take the risk that they didn't allow a prosecutor to investigate a CP case? And what judge is going to throw that out for "not probable cause?" I don't think this ruling will afford any protection whatsoever.

05-15-2015, 06:33 PM	#26
Bladewire StraightBro Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Monarch Beach, CA USA Posts: 56,229	The reality is that there are attorneys in our industry that know exactly who the bad characters are, who is doing what, and exactly how to take them down. Yet we're sitting here talking about 2257 for the very few remaining producers, as tubes upload stolen "user" content and don't have to keep records. I've been a producer for 15 years, living off my adult income alone and raising a family. 2257 used to worry me. Now I'm worried if it's going to be one hour, or 5 hours before my fresh new update is on the tubes for free. I'm not going to sidetrack this thread but damn I wish we had more adult industry bulldog attorney advocates attacking the big guys instead of working for them. (not directed at any attorney's in this thread. I don't know who you guys work for) __________________ Skype: CallTomNow

05-15-2015, 07:55 PM	#27
Deej I make pixels work Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: I live here... Posts: 24,386	oh man. I hate to break it to ya but that sig is too big. You might retort with mine being a little overweight itself? Well see... mine has class to it. __________________ Deej's Designs n' What Not Hit me up for Design, CSS & Photo Retouching Icq#30096880

05-16-2015, 07:00 AM	#29
Ferus Bye - Left to do stuff Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 4,108	This wont change a thing. The local "christian" Sherif will kick your door Down anyways.

05-23-2015, 12:32 PM	#32
HotBoy392 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 3	So tube sites don't need to collect documentation? These just rely on end users and direct 2257 agents to them? Sounds like a ton of liability for them since sites like xtube.com don't even collect your information when you upload free videos.