GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   2257 Decision Reversed on Appeal in Third District Court (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1064839)

Redrob 04-16-2012 12:29 PM
2257 Decision Reversed on Appeal in Third District Court
 
2257 Decision Reversed on Appeal in Third District Court

CANOGA PARK, Calif. ? Free Speech Coalition (FSC) received news this morning that it won the appeal to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, overturning an earlier District Court decision to dismiss the suit challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 2257a. This allows the lawsuit to continue in the District Court.

The suit was originally filed by FSC and 14 other plaintiffs.

This decision represents a significant victory for FSC, the other plaintiffs and their attorneys, in opposing the regulations governing age verification record-keeping for adult producers and adult performers.

?FSC would like to thank our attorneys Mike Murray and Lorraine Baumgardner for their incredible work on this case thus far,? FSC Executive Director Diane Duke. ?This decision is critical in three ways - it was unanimous, it supports the arguments that FSC has made all along and it supports the 4th amendment question included in our most recent challenge to 2257. This is a very important next step in our work to eliminate the burden from the adult industry of this onerous regulation.?

Attorneys Murray and Baumgardner represented FSC and the other plaintiffs in the suit, which challenged 2257 and 2257a on grounds that the regulations violate the First Amendment rights of adult producers and threaten the privacy rights of adult performers.

?We are thrilled today with the victory today, in the Third Circuit, reversing the District Court?s decision dismissing constitutional challenges to 2257 and 2257a,? said Murray. ?We?re excited the Third Circuit agreed the First and Fourth Amendment claims are worthy and we?re looking forward to returning to District Court, where we?ll be in a position to put on evidence to demonstrate the constitutional infirmities of this burdensome statutory scheme.

?This represents a great victory for free speech rights and rights of privacy under the Fourth Amendment,? Murray added.

FSC has challenged 2257 regulations on behalf of the adult industry since 2005, when the regulations first came into effect.

Barry-xlovecam 04-16-2012 03:00 PM
Positive Development :thumbsup

Quentin 04-16-2012 03:15 PM
It's a shame that the majority didn't come to the same conclusions that Judge Rendell did in her concurring opinion with respect to the warrantless search issue and the question of whether the statutes really serve to advance the government's interests, but at least some of the key issues will be heard, rather than just dismissed without judicial consideration.

Judge Rendell's concurring opinion hits the nail on the head in several areas, and makes some of the same observations about the weaknesses of 2257 that a lot of us who are subject to the regulations have been pointing out for years.

These paragraphs, in particular, jumped out at me as being very well-reasoned:

Quote:
Neither the District Court nor the majority points to anything ? in the Pornography Report, the legislative history, or elsewhere ? that asserts that, or explains how, these statutes provide an effective response to the problems the Pornography Report and Congress diagnosed. Moreover, although section 2257 has been on the books for almost 25 years, the record contains no evidence as to producers? or the government?s experience under the statute, and, therefore, no means of assessing whether the requirements actually have had any deterrent or preventive effect.

In the absence of such evidence, it is easy to think of reasons the statutes might not accomplish their desired result. For example, given the substantial federal and state criminal penalties for creating and distributing child pornography.... and the Pornography Report?s finding that ?[s]exual exploitation of children has retreated to the shadows,? it is hard to fathom that the statutes? recordkeeping requirements would make anyone who was already inclined to engage in such activities change his behavior. An unscrupulous producer who seeks to distribute images using underaged (as opposed to merely young-looking) performers could falsify his records, and a producer who operates underground is not likely to follow the recordkeeping requirements at all. Similarly, a child determined to pass herself off as an adult could easily provide false identification to the producer.

More good stuff from Judge Rendell, pertaining to whether the warrantless inspections the 2257 regs provide for:

Quote:
More fundamentally, inspections of the required records could be conducted using warrants with no greater difficulty, and with no different results, than without. Warrants could issue on cause to believe that the producer is using child subjects in violation of the law based on appearance, as is always the case, or as part of ?an administrative plan containing specific neutral criteria.? ....Tellingly, neither the government nor the District Court has explained why the government?s goal of ensuring compliance and deterring the fabrication of records would not be served by warrants issued on short notice as part of a regular, administrative enforcement scheme.

Barry-xlovecam 04-16-2012 03:55 PM
Quote:
[....T]ellingly, neither the government nor the District Court has explained why the government’s goal of ensuring compliance and deterring the fabrication of records would not be served by warrants issued on short notice as part of a regular, administrative enforcement scheme.
Where did this come from Quentin?

Anyway, sorry state we are in when only one judge on an appeal recognizes the difference between administrative and criminal law their enforcement and prosecution.

This Judge seems to agree with what I have been saying for years now ...

V_RocKs 04-16-2012 03:58 PM
Word to her mother!

Quentin 04-16-2012 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 18890510)
Where did this come from Quentin?

There's a link to the ruling at the bottom of this article on AVN.

Rendell's concurring opinion starts on page 50.

Barry-xlovecam 04-16-2012 05:14 PM
Last Page (59)

Quote:
[ D]oing away with warrants in this instance creates a slippery slope whereby the government is permitted to test compliance with a law without the need for probable cause: if the simple goal of ensuring compliance with recordkeeping requirements and deterring fabrication of those records is enough to justify warrantless inspections of businesses and homes in this case, I see no legal barrier to also permitting federal authorities to enter businesses and homes without a warrant to inspect tax records and supporting documentation. As the absurdity of this example illustrates, the government?s justification for the administrative-search exception does not meet the criteria for the narrow exception the Supreme Court, and we, have carved out in our jurisprudence. ...
Emphasis added ...

IllTestYourGirls 04-16-2012 05:23 PM
Layman terms for what this means? Probably nothing at this point?

Barry-xlovecam 04-16-2012 05:45 PM
The higher court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit in part remanding the hearing of some of the constitutional challenges in the lower district court -- First amendment issues and warrantless search issues primarily.

I think there is a good chance that this will be back in appeals court and the case drag on for some time. We'll see -- meantime nothing most likely as far as inspections go.

Rochard 04-16-2012 07:53 PM
Special thanks to FSC for keeping up the fight!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123