Here is a link to a copy of the complaint filed by the FSC ....
http://randazza.files.wordpress.com/...older-2257.pdf
The most interesting aspect of the complaint, at least to me, is Paragraph 55. Which reads in relevant part...
It does appear that the graveman of FSC's argument is that producers of adult content need to post their name and address on the compliance notice as well as the need to be available for 20 hours per week and open one's home or business to a warrantless search.
With that in mind, I have to ask -- with the advent of third party record keepers such as
www.2257Safe.com and other services like it, (
http://www.informationlaw.com http://www.heliosdatasystems.com/ ) how can the FSC expect the US Attorney's Office not to know that there are third party record keepers and if they do - not to use that as a potential defense to this complaint and request for an injunction ?
The statement that there are no viable third party record keepers now commercially available for the use of the plaintiffs in this case may be considered misleading by the court.
Why not make the attack in a way where victory appears to be more easy achieved ?
Are there not better arguments that can be made against 2257 that can get around the new regs and changes allowing third party record keeping ?