Hooray! Gee, I wonder if they read the latest Sex Drive (Proposed Law Could Be Cold Shower for YouPorn) and made up their minds real fast? Heh heh.
6th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules 2257 Unconstitutional
CINCINNATI - The United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled today in the case of Connection Distributing Co. et. al. v. Keisler that the federal 2257 record-keeping statute is unconstitutional and overbroad.“This is huge, huge news for the entire industry,” attorney J. Michael Murray told AVN. “It means that the statute has been declared unconstitutional in its entirety, at least in the 6th Circuit. This is the result we’ve all been aiming for; it’s a monumental victory. We’ve been fighting this battle for twelve long years, and this is the third time I argued the case on the 6th Circuit. Finally, we got a court to agree with us.”
A sister company to Cleveland-based video distributor GVA-TWN, the now-defunct Connection published approximately a dozen swinger’s magazines with personal ads containing sexually explicit photographs.
[snip]
“For the first time time in at least a dozen years, we have judges that are digging deep to look at the fundamentals of section 2257,” Lee noted. “And as we have always thought, when they do so, they will find them wanting. When the analysis gets down to the level that these judges assess 2257 on, we’re beyond the particulars of swingers magazines vs. videos vs. internet – this is a very fundamental level, and it’s holding that the statute is flawed in the way it imposes burdens on everybody that has anything to do with this type of expression.”
Although the ruling applies only in the 6th Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee), Lee feels the case sets an important and gratifying precedent in the battle against 2257.
“The government says that its interest behind 2257 is in combating child porn,” Lee explained. “The problem is that virtually all of what 2257 applies to is not child porn. Each of the [three judges'] opinions today holds that 2257 is not narrowly tailored to an interest in suppressing child porn, because it applies to so much that is not child porn. This has been one of the fundamental objections to section 2257 all along.”
2 responses so far ↓
1 Nobilis // Oct 24, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Huzzah.
2 Seth // Oct 25, 2007 at 6:56 pm
These excerpts from the opinion of the 6th CCOA echos Regina’s reasoning on the pervasive reach of 2257:
As described in Section I, the
recordkeeping provisions have an extensive reach. Records are required to be kept and disclosure
statements are required to be affixed by any person who takes a photograph or films a movie
depicting actual sexually explicit conduct…..
….This means that a married couple who videotape or photograph themselves in the bedroom engaging
in sexually explicit conduct would be required to keep records, affix disclosure statements to the
images, and hold their home open to government agents for records inspections….
…This statute not only regulates a person’s right to take sexually explicit photographs, but it also
requires that person to identify him or herself as the photographer as well as identify the individual depicted. While the individual depicted is shown in the photograph, that person still has a First
Amendment right to not provide his or her name and therefore retain a certain level of anonymity.
_______
Seems that Regina and the Justices think alike — at least on this issue.