Fantastic Must Read Article about the FSC's Lawsuit over 2257
 

very long - but very informative

2257: The Battle Is Joined
By: Mark Kernes
Posted: 4:15 pm PDT 6-17-2005


DENVER - With the filing on Thursday of the Free Speech Coalition's (FSC) massive lawsuit challenging the new regulations drawn from ? and indeed, the very existence of ? the recordkeeping and labeling law, 18 U.S.C. §2257, the adult industry prepares for a legal battle that may determine whether it can survive against the onslaughts of the Bush administration's anti-adult agenda. Certainly, it will determine the industry's profitability for decades to come.

-advertisement-
The suit, Free Speech Coalition et al v. Gonzales, which was filed in the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, lists as plaintiffs the Free Speech Coalition; the Free Speech Coalition of Colorado, an FSC affiliate; David Connors, better known to the adult video industry as Dave Cummings, the ex-army colonel who became an adult performer in his early sixties; and Lenjo, Inc., better known to the adult video industry as distributor New Beginnings.

The lead attorneys in the suit are Paul Cambria and H. Louis Sirkin, who together have more than 40 years experience in dealing with adult entertainment issues. They and their associates ? notably Jennifer Kinsley of Sirkin's office, and Roger Wilcox and Barry Covert of Cambria's ? have been working for nearly one month straight on preparing the suit for filing, and have consulted with more than a dozen prominent First Amendment attorneys from around the country.

The Tenth Circuit was selected based on the fact that in 1998, that circuit ruled that Sundance Associates, a publisher of swingers magazines, was correct in claiming that, in republishing the sometimes sexually-explicit photos of adults seeking other adults who might wish to engage in intimate contact with each other, the company was not subject to the jurisdiction of 18 U.S.C. §2257, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ), under the leadership of then-Attorney General Janet Reno, had overstepped its bounds in separating the definition of the word "producer" in the law into "primary" and "secondary" producers in the DOJ's regulations.

The Justice Department, under the stewardship of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, specifically rejected the Sundance ruling in promulgating its updated regulations, which are due to take effect on June 23, stating that "the D.C. Circuit in American Library Ass'n v. Reno implicitly accepted that the distinction between primary and secondary producers was valid."

"We were somewhat surprised they didn't appeal the Sundance decision in 1998," noted attorney Michael Gross, who with partner Arthur Schwartz won the Sundance Associates v. Reno case, and is one of the attorneys working on the current lawsuit, "but I think the reason they didn't appeal was because they weren't going to win. But we're dealing with a whole different team in the Department of Justice right now."


Read More

http://www.avnonline.com/articles/231124.html

good read but no new info from what I have read in other articles, did I miss something ?

Yup nothing new i think.

there was a lot more detail as to the exact details of the lawsuit and what they are challenging. maybe not new, but still a good overview.

A well written informative article. It gives me confidence that the FSC legal team has a good chance of prevailing.

ADG Webmaster

Nice article. ::: crosses fingers :::

thanks, good read :thumbsup

There was a lot of info in that article about the suit that I didn't know.
Good read.