Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
If this is the heart of their argument, they already lost. When the regs were amended to allow third party record keepers, all these arguments went out the window. I am sure this challenge was anticipated. I dont see this going anywhere. How do you get around the fact that with third party record keeping no one has to list their name or their address nor do thay have to open their homes to an inspection ? Further, the 20 hour requirement is also gone with third party record keepers.
I dont see this being the challenge they think it is.
|
Really Michael?
Then allow me to explain,
The history of the government’s defense of Section 2257 indicates that the Justice Department will not make any real concession until its back is up against the wall in court. Litigation brought in the past by Sundance and continued today by Connections and FSC has already resulted in very substantial gains and improvements-(yes Michael, third-party record-keeping).
And we believe that there is plenty more where that came from.
So the first task of continued litigation will be to narrow or eliminate the remaining ambiguities and confusions. With a new administration and a track record of litigation-inspired government ‘clarifications,’ we may be in a position soon to clear up most of the remaining relatively small interpretation and implementation problems.
But even so, fundamental constitutional questions remain. Why does Section 2257 treat adult businesses so harshly compared to the way Section 2257A now treats Hollywood and other softcore (i.e. simulated) producers?
Does the First Amendment allow the government to force adult businesses to prove that their expression is constitutionally protected (in this case, not child pornography), or do our constitutional traditions place the burden of proof squarely upon those who suggest or suspect that particular speech is unprotected by the constitution?
Even if some minor requirements (such as ‘check all IDs before you shoot’) are trivial or unassuming enough to pass constitutional muster, just how far may a record keeping scheme go in burdening many tens of thousands of people and companies who have not had – and never would have – anything to do with child pornography?
I understand that the "2257 Safe" business model is reliant on the law continuing in it's overburdensome state. Nonetheless, FSC believes that saving the industry and its businesses literally millions of dollars is more than the personal self interest of those who profit from 2257.