2257 Ruled Unconstitutional

[Toby]

6th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules 2257 Unconstitutional
CINCINATTI — The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled today that the federal record-keeping statute 18 U.S.C. 2257 is unconstitutional, holding that the law is overbroad and facially invalid. full story (http://www.xbiz.com/news/85586)

[Bill]

That's great news! Another step towards a more intelligent policy that won't hurt our business.

“Adult sexual conduct is not illegal and it is in fact constitutionally protected … The regulation of visual depictions of adult sexual activity is not based on its intrinsic relation to illegal conduct. It is, therefore, a regulation of speech, because both the photograph and the taking of a photograph ‘bear … [a] necessary relationship to the freedom to speak, write, print or distribute information or opinion.’”

---

Kennedy wrote. “There are a myriad of limitations available, however, that would reduce the breadth of the recordkeeping requirements and would more narrowly focus on the government’s interest and therefore remove some of the protected speech from the statute’s coverage. Such limitations have been suggested by witnesses who testified before Congress and by the plaintiffs here.”

Ultimately, Walters said adult webmasters and business owners should take a “wait and see” approach to the ruling, but there’s no question that the ruling should be counted as a victory in one 2257-related battle, even if it is not the decisive shot of the overall war.

“People should treat this as a step in the ladder towards total invalidation of 2257,” Walters said. “It certainly provides a roadmap for future arguments, as well.”

[T Pat]

My hat's off to Connection for fighting the good fight |thumb
"The court’s decision came in the case Connection Distributing vs. Gonzales, a case that reaches all the way back to 1995, when Connection, a publisher of swingers-themed magazines and websites, first challenged the constitutionality of 2257. Following a long history of rejections and appeals, the path eventually led back to the 6th Circuit court of appeals, and today’s ruling."

[Beaver Bob]

This is a good day :)

[Toby]

It should give FSC, assuming they're now paying attention, a road map for getting 2257 tossed out in all districts.

[Preacher]

...the law is overbroad and facially invalid...
No kidding. |badidea|

[Bill]

It should give FSC, assuming they're now paying attention, a road map for getting 2257 tossed out in all districts.

They've already done one mailing on it, but it's mostly a "more information coming soon" statement.

[BOSS]

this is another good link for it ... has the PDF
http://howappealing.law.com/102307.html#029204

[lassiter]

Yep, it's sure nice to get some good news for a change, even if it's a geographically-limited decision. :D

[digifan]

It should give FSC, assuming they're now paying attention, a road map for getting 2257 tossed out in all districts.

Toby, you can always make me smile... thank you |waves|

[tickler]

Interesting that the reason the one judge dissented, was because he figured that 2257 could work if they removed the seconday producer stuff, and also changed the language to apply to commercial production only.

[tickler]

Another blog article about this from NY-XXX-Law.
http://www.nyxxxlaw.com/?p=204

[tickler]

I'm starting to see a few blogs saying the DOJ is going to go ahead and appeal. |loony|

I guess it's not over quite yet.|crazy| They are most likely to loose, and set a national ruling. Probably they are looking to drum up some publicity for the coming elections.

I can't find anything in the news sources yet to confirm. So if any of the people at the show can find out a little more information would be helpful.

[Greenguy]

It's odd how all the big 2257 news seems to come out during a big webmaster event - last one was during XBiz in July & now this.

Not that I care as this is great news |thumb

[tickler]

It's odd how all the big 2257 news seems to come out during a big webmaster event - last one was during XBiz in July & now this.
I think the time limit for filing an appeal was like 90 days(early October), so they had to throw something up. And there is a lot of WM events.|bananna||boobies|
I can't find anything in the news sources yet to confirm.
Here's an actual article with some detailed info, and Reed Lee is already doing a good job of ripping it apart. Plus, the FSC has already decided to oppose it.|thumb

"....but at least one prominent First Amendment attorney finds the government's petition not only lacking, but possibly containing statements helpful to the adult industry's fight to get 2257 overturned on the federal level."
"But for Lee, almost every time the government makes an argument supporting 2257, it either contradicts some previous statement on the subject, or undermines what the law actually says – and he'd like to see some court take noticed of that."
http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectid=6FF83AB5-CBB0-39AA-66F1EC7C9FCDBBBE

[Toby]

...Here's an actual article with some detailed info, and Reed Lee is already doing a good job of ripping it apart. Plus, the FSC has already decided to oppose it.FSC can file an amicus brief in support of the original plaintiff, but that's all. They didn't bother to do so with the original suit, wasn't even on their radar until the ruling last Fall.

This is really all just procedural at this point. The Feds had to file now in order to keep their appeal options open.

[papagmp]

Interesting that the reason the one judge dissented, was because he figured that 2257 could work if they removed the seconday producer stuff, and also changed the language to apply to commercial production only.

I caught that too - interesting that he assumed that the "commercial producer" is more likely to produce illegal content - LOL

[Toby]

I caught that too - interesting that he assumed that the "commercial producer" is more likely to produce illegal content - LOLThat's not it at all. Regulation of non-commercial production, i.e. a couple video taping themselves for their own personal enjoyment, is a pretty clear violation of free speech.