Big victory on constitutionality of 2257 compliance

[WebcamStartup]

An appeals court just overturned a ruling that 2257 is Constitutional. I'm not familiar with the 2013 case that had the ruling overturned, which is really relevant. But regardless of what it contains, this is a major victory and sets precedence for future rulings. If the Free Speech Coalition is right about them winning with the 1st Amendment as well, then there'll be two Amendments by which 2257 is ruled unconstitutional!

Can check out the story on XBIZ. Don't have the links for the original court case.

 

[Gen]

Can you explain some context or why this is good? My only point of reference is that 2257's are related to age verification and to me, that always seemed like a good thing. I read the article but still don't really get it.

 

[WebcamStartup]

Lets say a camgirl is running her own website, and it's not built with someone like ModelCentro or AdultMemberSites that handles the 2257 compliance on their behalf.

If the model wasn't 100% compliant, she/he risks up to 5 years federal prison. In order to be 100% compliant, that model would have to list the address where the records are located. If she/he is not working with a studio or hires a custodian to manage the 2257 compliance, that model has to list her/his home address. Now, what models here want to list their home address on a 2257 compliance statement on their website?

Oh, and be 100% compliant with the methods that all visual depictions have to be stored and referenced, which is time consuming, confusing and a bitch to say the least.

 

[WebcamStartup]

Which the majority of the cases where underage models are featured in adult productions, the underage people have acquired legitimate identification through providing false documents belonging to someone else. This has happened despite the government implementing the 2257 standards. It's been acknowledged that 2257 has done next to nothing to prevent underage performers in adult productions.

The 2257 has provided a defense for the producers though, as they were able to demonstrate that they've done all the required due-dilligence on their end.

I don't have any beef with the requirement to keep ID of performers on file, and any producers should be doing it as a safeguard anyway, but when you look at the standards for cataloging each piece of content, it starts turning into bullshit.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The 2257 has provided a defense for the producers though, as they were able to demonstrate that they've done all the required due-dilligence on their end.

Also serves as a security blanket for consumers.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Most are probably unaware of 2257 compliance and the legal requirements of storage and access, but this will be a HUGE win for independents. If you own an adult site you are legally required to provide an up to date address at which your 2257 records are kept on your home page, for anyone to view and legally someone must be on hand in person at the location a set number of hours per week. it's pretty ridiculous.
Hosting your site through a company like Adultmembersites.com solves that problem, as they are the host not you and they provide 2257 compliance.

 

[Sevrin]

Before anyone gets too excited, please note that this ruling only affects Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands, and members of the FSC, and has not been forwarded to the SCOTUS, yet.

Industry attorney Corey Silverstein said "there is certainly reason to celebrate today and many deserve praise, especially Michael Murray, Lorraine Baumgartner and the FSC."

"Make no mistake about it, the FSC got a big win but at the same time it’s important to remember that 2257 remains valid and enforceable law and this war isn’t over yet," Silverstein said. "The fact that the court agreed with the FSC, in that strict scrutiny, applies to all of the 1st Amendment claims and sent the case back to the federal district court for further proceedings probably resulted in a pretty miserable day for the government and its counsel.”

Industry attorney Lawrence Walters told XBIZ: “This appears to be an astounding victory both for the adult industry, and for 1st Amendment jurisprudence in general. The ruling may have tremendous impact on any governmental attempt to impose restrictions on speech based on its erotic content.”

“Importantly, the records-keeping obligations have not been struck down (yet), so producers are encouraged to continue their compliance efforts until the issues are fully resolved.”

 

[WebcamStartup]

Before anyone gets too excited, please note that this ruling only affects Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands, and members of the FSC, and has not been forwarded to the SCOTUS, yet.

It does set a precedence though. Next 2257 case that comes up, the defense will reference this ruling. It's a major step forward and a major victory and I'm sure it'll have an impact on cases down the line and eventually lead to the entire thing being classified as unconstitutional, which it is.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I'm sure it'll have an impact on cases down the line and eventually lead to the entire thing being classified as unconstitutional, which it is.

Any ideas on what you think should replace it? Not disagreeing with you, just curious.

 

[WebcamStartup]

Any ideas on what you think should replace it? Not disagreeing with you, just curious.

I like the core concept of 2257. Keeping a government issued photo ID on record for each model. It's all the documentation of each "sexual depiction" that is a cumbersome burden. That and having to disclose a physical location of the record files, especially for independent models. I also don't like the fact that you can't include extra files with the 2257 documents. For example, one studio got fucked because they kept the model release forms for each scene with the 2257 documents. Since the storage is supposed to be only what is outlined in 2257, they were technically non-compliant and got charged accordingly.

Forget which studio it was, believe it was one of the bigger professional ones (ya know, them paysites nobody uses anymore) but I know situations like that have come up.

Even if each scene had to be documented, if it was just the title and alias, with the alias connected with all the info on the government-issued ID, that would be a step forward. Having to keep every single file (whether stored digitally or hardcopy) is somewhat burdensome.

Oh, and it'd be great if that info could be commingled with model releases and other information.

And get rid of the 5-year sentence on anything outside of producers knowingly (or without verifying age) hiring talent under the age of eighteen. Producers shouldn't have to worry about going to prison because they filed paperwork wrong.

 

[WebcamStartup]

the 2257 statement should be as simple as "all performers are verified to be over the age of eighteen. For information email 2257@yourdomain.com" and if someone with an @fbi.gov email address sends a request for a specific scene, it should be as simple as sending over the required information.

 

[Sevrin]

I came across a different point of view on Bloomberg today, and it's pretty obvious that the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Like the First Amendment holding, the court’s Fourth Amendment holding is tone-deaf to the situational need that created the section 2257 regime. Without records and inspection, the dangers of child pornography will increase. The law addresses this risk without barring any speech or granting government access to any private information. Its loss will be felt. And the Supreme Court, which has in the past made new constitutional law to allow bans on child pornography itself, is likely to respond.

 

[WebcamStartup]

I came across a different point of view on Bloomberg today, and it's pretty obvious that the fat lady hasn't sung yet.

Pretty much every producer agrees that ID has to get checked and documented. It's the act of documenting every depiction that's burdensome.

Believe me, I'm having to go through the due-dilligence myself. Have a tech partner who provides the hosting for all the "sexual depictions" with compression, because you have to store all files, and an address I can use for my "custodian" over in Cyprus, just to make it a little bit more of a bitch for The Bureau to stop by. It's just one more safety net because 100% compliance is soooooooooo difficult.

I thought it important to be digital, as one mess-up in the order of the files in a hardcopy setup could actually mean 5 years prison.

If 2257 was repealed today, there would still be child pornography laws in place, which is enough to prevent pornographers from producing content with performers under the age of eighteen. Those sentences are even harsher. Those pushing child porn have been doing it since before 2257, under the risk of sentences harsher than 2257 long before the thing was even created.

Most cases of underage actresses appearing in mainstream porn have been a result of them fraudulently acquiring someone else's identity by providing false records to the DMV. All producers in those circumstances were completely compliant with 2257 standards, yet the situations still happen.

So, 2257 standards don't help fight underage performers in mainstream porn (as all producers are frightened over child porn laws), they only add a burden on the industry.

Oh, and don't think for a second that all of a sudden producers are going to quit checking IDs. Nobody wants to open that can of worms. Hopefully the record-keeping requirements get relaxed, and hopefully producers do their own due-dilligence and record keeping without having to worry about a 5-year sentence for having model releases co-mingled with the 2257 documentation.

 

[WebcamStartup]

Not trying to open a can of worms here, but technically Amber should have a 2257 statement providing an address for where the FBI can find the documentation on that single visual depiction on the homepage.

From lawyers I've heard that the Sundance ruling (a lot to do with secondary producers) was pretty much nulled by a new piece of legislation. That would mean that the 2257 statement for the forum no longer holds merit, as secondary producers would still have to keep all documentation, same standards as primary producers.

Like I said, not trying to call anyone out, just trying to paint a vivid picture on why 2257 is so evil and why it's important that it's repealed.

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer too. I'm picking things up very quick, but I also wish I was as familiar with adult law as I was with postal law (also has federal offenses looming in that industry, so I take this shit very seriously)

 

[WebcamStartup]

Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to take everything I say with a grain of salt.

And lawyers always paint doom-and-gloom, as it helps with job security, so Sundance might still hold merit in the fact that precedence was set, and even if future regulation did nullify it, it's still a talking point for any future defense.

Also, once again, I'm not a lawyer.