2257 Ruling and results - Oct 24th - GoFuckYourself.com

Cockmonkey · 10-24-2007, 09:48 AM

howappealing.law.com/102307.html#029204

Tuesday, October 23, 2007
How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.

Cockmonkey · 10-24-2007, 09:49 AM

Majority on partially divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel strikes down as facially unconstitutional the recordkeeping requirements federal criminal law places on producers of images of "actual sexually explicit conduct" to verify the ages of those depicted in the images: Describing the federal statute at issue, the majority opinion explains, "The plain text, the purpose, and the legislative history of the statute make clear that Congress was concerned with all child pornography and considered recordkeeping important in battling all of it, without respect to the creator's motivation." The majority proceeds to hold the statute facially overbroad and then strikes down the law as unconstitutional.

You can access today's ruling at this link. Even the dissenting judge agrees that the statute is overbroad, but he believes that judicial narrowing of the statute can save it from being unconstitutional.

This decision is a significant First Amendment ruling that directly implicates the controversial subjects of legal adult pornography and illegal child pornography. I expect that the ruling will receive plenty of attention.

10-24-2007, 09:48 AM	#1
Cockmonkey Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Everywhere i want to be... Posts: 32	2257 Ruling and results - Oct 24th howappealing.law.com/102307.html#029204 Tuesday, October 23, 2007 How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling. __________________ ------------------- FUB

10-24-2007, 09:49 AM	#2
Cockmonkey Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Everywhere i want to be... Posts: 32	Majority on partially divided three-judge Sixth Circuit panel strikes down as facially unconstitutional the recordkeeping requirements federal criminal law places on producers of images of "actual sexually explicit conduct" to verify the ages of those depicted in the images: Describing the federal statute at issue, the majority opinion explains, "The plain text, the purpose, and the legislative history of the statute make clear that Congress was concerned with all child pornography and considered recordkeeping important in battling all of it, without respect to the creator's motivation." The majority proceeds to hold the statute facially overbroad and then strikes down the law as unconstitutional. You can access today's ruling at this link. Even the dissenting judge agrees that the statute is overbroad, but he believes that judicial narrowing of the statute can save it from being unconstitutional. This decision is a significant First Amendment ruling that directly implicates the controversial subjects of legal adult pornography and illegal child pornography. I expect that the ruling will receive plenty of attention. __________________ ------------------- FUB