Oprano Adult Industry Forums - Finally some good 2257 news....

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=252970

Quote:

In an opinion issued this afternoon, U.S. District Court judge Walker D. Miller ruled in favor of the Free Speech Coalition on two key sections of its lawsuit against 18 U.S.C. §2257, the federal Recordkeeping and Labeling Act, and the regulations issued by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that apply to that law. The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales.

"The [Tenth Circuit Appeals] court found that §2257's language was clear and unambiguous," Judge Miller wrote of the Tenth Circuit's decision in Sundance Associates v. Reno. "It excluded from the regulation 'those who basically have had no contact with the performers (mere distributors and others not involved in the 'hiring, contacting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted'). The Court concluded that the Attorney General’s regulations improperly failed to 'exclude persons from the class that the statue requires.' The court rejected the Attorney General's argument that the regulations' comprehensive regulatory scheme was necessary to adequately enforce the record keeping requirements, noting that although the Attorney General may have identified a problem with the statute, 'neither the court nor the Attorney General has the authority to rewrite a poor piece of legislation. . . . That responsibility lies solely with Congress.' Consequently, the court ordered the clause 'other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section' be stricken from the regulation." [Citations omitted here and below]

"None of Defendant’s arguments change the reality that Sundance is binding upon me," Judge Miller's opinion continues. "The Tenth Circuit specifically held that §2257(h) is unambiguous and that plain language of the statute excludes persons 'who basically have had no contact with the performers.' The amendment does not alter the relevant language, or somehow render the provision ambiguous. Accordingly, even were I to agree that the statute is ambiguous, I am bound by principles of stare decisis to hold that the statue is unambiguous. Only the Tenth Circuit or the Supreme Court can change established Tenth Circuit precedent."

Translation: Under 2257, "producers" are only those who have actual contact with performers, and therefore must keep and index records. However, Judge Miller's phraseology suggests that he may not think the term "produces" is as unambiguous as the appeals court did – statements that the government may seize upon in appealing this decision.

:yowsa:

Hmm... maybe time to brush off the galleries and free sites and get them back up there....

edited in:

also on fsc http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/

and the actual opinion: http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/d...rdec28_000.pdf