2257 in the mainstream media (Denver Post)
 

Article Launched: 07/05/2005 01:01:00 AM

Porn firms sue over federal mandate
Pornographers say such a law is an attack on freedom of speech, while their opponents say the legislation is necessary to protect minors.
By Greg Griffin
Denver Post Staff Writer

A group of pornography companies has gone to a Denver court to challenge a federal law requiring them to document the ages of all people appearing in sexually explicit materials.

The companies' Denver attorney - well-known porn industry defender Arthur Schwartz - says his clients don't support child pornography but find the law so onerous, it will put many of them out of business. They also call it a veiled attack on their right to free speech.

"This is an opening salvo of what many people fear is an all-out assault on the adult entertainment industry with the intent of wiping it out entirely," Schwartz said.

Pornography opponents, however, say the Internet sites, magazine publishers and moviemakers are trying to exploit loopholes in a law that serves as an important protection against the exploitation of minors.

"Of course they're going to make this a free-speech issue. They always do. But pornography doesn't fall under the right of free speech," said Daniel Weiss, senior media and sexuality analyst for the Colorado Springs-based religious group Focus on the Family. "This is another smoke screen to fight reasonable legislation."

The dispute stems from the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, passed by Congress in 1988 and drafted into regulations by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1992. It requires producers and distributors to maintain records proving that people appearing in sexually explicit photographs and films were at least 18 years old at the time of shooting.

In 2003, Congress instructed the Justice Department to toughen its regulations, particularly as they apply to Internet porn sites. Justice released the new regulations in May clarifying who is required to maintain records regarding age.

The California-based group of pornographers, known as the Free Speech Coalition, sued the department June 16 in U.S. District Court in Denver. The coalition is seeking an injunction to keep the government from enforcing the revised rules.

Last week, the two sides reached an agreement under which members of the coalition won't be subject to the new rules before Sept. 7. The group hopes to score a legal victory before then, Schwartz said.

In 1996, a federal judge in Denver ruled in favor of an adult magazine publisher in a related case. The publisher argued, among other things, that "secondary producers," those who publish or distribute pornography from other sources, should not be subject to the law.

The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the lower court ruling in 1998.

"What better place to file a suit than a venue where the court has previously ruled in our favor?" Schwartz said.

The Denver rulings have hindered the government's ability to enforce the record-keeping regulation, Schwartz said. He said the government has made no inspections of pornographers' records since the law was enacted.

Justice Department representatives declined to comment on the case Friday.

Schwartz said adult entertainment companies voluntarily keep records on participants' ages. If they don't, they can be prosecuted, he said. But it's nearly impossible for distributors and others who were not directly involved in the production to maintain those records, he said.

Weiss said he thinks the court won't buy the pornographers' arguments this time around.

"It rings hollow," he said. "They're opposed to any kind of regulation in any form whatsoever."

Staff writer Greg Griffin can be reached at 303-820-1241 or [email protected].

They make it sound like we are against ALL aspects of 2257. Which then implies the industry is out to hire minors.