FSC to take on DOJ's new Sec 2257 Regs
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2005


TRADE GROUP TO CHALLENGE NEW SECTION 2257 RULES

Free Speech Coalition, the adult entertainment trade association, announced plans today to file a legal challenge to the Justice Department?s new rules for enforcement of the Federal Labeling and Recordkeeping Law known as 18 U.S.C. Section 2257.

?Just as we feared,? FSC Executive Director Michelle Freridge said,
?Attorney General Gonzales has signed a final rule implementing the new provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. We are prepared to challenge these unconstitutional and burdensome regulations in court.?

The law requires producers of sexually explicit material to maintain records proving that performers in those depictions are not minors, but the detailed and extensive records that the law requires create a daunting record-keeping task, particularly when applied to the Internet. And the penalties are harsh. Even with no minors involved in the production - indeed, even if all performers are over 40 -- a first-offense paperwork error can still mean five years in federal prison.

Although FSC is on record in strong opposition to the use of minors in sexual material, Freridge said these new regulations go too far. According to Freridge, the proposed guidelines, which were initially released to the public in August of 2004, go beyond reasonable administrative requirements and create an excessively burdensome paperwork system that may violate the privacy rights and personal safety of performers. On a practical level, many producers would find it difficult to comply with the highly technical requirements.

?In addition, we really need to examine the impact of the new regulations on webmasters, since internet content is apparently going to be the focus of the new DOJ task force,? suggested Larry Walters, a well known First Amendment attorney who represents a number of adult webmasters and internet companies and is a member of FSC?s Internet Committee.

?Under the current unfriendly administration,? Freridge commented, ?The law would become a tool for selective enforcement by the Justice Department and a technical trap for legal adult businesses that have no connection whatsoever to child pornography.?

FSC intends to test the validity of the new rules by filing multiple lawsuits, asking for a temporary restraining order and an injunction. By taking swift proactive steps, FSC hopes to protect its members from prosecution, while challenging the law as unconstitutional.

To view the proposed guidelines released to the public in 2004, as well as FSC?s response to those guidelines, visit www.freespeechcoalition.com The version signed by Attorney General Gonzales today will be published in the Federal Register soon, and available on the FSC website shortly thereafter.

Free Speech Coalition is the trade organization of the adult entertainment industry. Its mission is to safeguard the industry from oppressive governmental regulation and to promote good business practices within the industry.


http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

sig spot :)

yup, but don't expect it to save anything, just change some things.

Chances are that the most that would come of it is minor changes... making things "more reasonable" but still, you'll have to be pretty accurate in your paper work at the outcome.

:thumbsup
:thumbsup
:thumbsup

werd. this has been planned since the proposal announcements over a year ago. the challenge that is.

well i hope they are able to do something.
we will obviously comply, but it's a huge task to undertake and maintain.
i'm sooo glad that most of the content on my site is me. lol

As I understand the situation:

If you are a member of FSC....

And, FSC files a challenge to the new regs.....

the FSC will ask for an injunction from enforcement.....

the injunction will only protect members of FSC for sure....

so....

why wouldn't you join FSC today?? Talk about value!!

people should join but a injunction would protect everyone in ths case

A limited injunction only preventing enforcement against members of the group filing the injunction? Do such things really exsist?

Nice
gotta update some shit to be sure
:thumbsup

This is why only people who know the law should try to give advice or even try to interpret the law themselves.

I am not a lawyer, but,.....as I understand injunctions...

an injunction given to a particular organization would only protect the members of that organization for sure. It would be up to the DOJ, whether or not, to prosecute non-members of the group.

However, that being said.....If an organization receives an injunction, more than likely but not guaranteed, all enforcement actions would be stopped pending the outcome of the case.

Again, I'm not a lawyer and I'd suggest you ask one.