DENVER, CO - Members of the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) can breathe a little easier today after it was announced that a stipulation barring inspections or prosecutions of FSC members under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 and its associated regulations has been extended for 30 days, or until a ruling is issued on the FSC’s motion for a preliminary injunction, whichever comes first. The original stipulation was set to expire Thursday, but the extension grants more time for Denver-based U.S. Judge Walker D. Miller to rule on the FSC’s request for a preliminary injunction.“Our legal team is the best in the country,” said FSC Executive Director Michelle L. Freridge, “and we have every expectation of a positive ruling by Judge Miller regarding the imminent motion. But we all have to remember that we are just at the beginning of a complicated case that could continue on for another year, during which time we will need the ongoing support of our members and the industry as we build on the successes we have achieved thus far.”
A preliminary injunction hearing was held on August 4th in Denver, but no ruling has yet been issued from that proceeding. The FSC has been cautiously optimistic that the Denver hearings will result in the requested preliminary injunction, but until such a ruling is in fact issued, it is the stipulation agreement that protects FSC members from possible inspections or prosecutions.
“We are fortunate to have a very good, very careful judge, who is going to carefully consider the arguments,” said attorney Greg Piccionelli earlier in the month.
Judge Miller is not obligated to issue a decision before the original stipulation expires, so the extension of the stipulation is an important development for FSC members.
Under the rules of the stipulation, the government has agreed not to prosecute or inspect those members of the Free Speech Coalition whose names were submitted by the deadline of June 30th to retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Bruce D. Pringle, appointed “special master” in the case. Pringle has acted as a keeper of the list, and the government has agreed, while the stipulation is in place, to check names against the list before initiating any 2257 inspections or prosecutions. Those individuals and businesses included in the June 30th FSC membership list will remain protected under the new extension.
While many have speculated that the government would be unlikely to bring 2257 charges against any individuals or companies, even those who are not members of the FSC, until the legal challenge was resolved, the DOJ nevertheless announced on August 25th the first ever federal 2257 charges against an alleged spammer who, according to a DOJ press release, failed to place the proper 2257 statement on a qualifying website. The defendant is looking at a possibility of 2 years in prison for the alleged omission.
“This is the first 2257 record-keeping or labeling charge in the history of America,” Free Speech Coalition Chairman and criminal defense attorney Jeffrey Douglas told YNOT after the indictments were announced. He said that the timing of the charges was interesting.
Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 calls for companies that produce depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct to keep records that prove all participants in said content are legal adults. In May, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed new regulations that, amongst other things, extended 2257 record-keeping requirements to “secondary” producers and well as “primary” producers; most adult website operators fall under the “secondary” producer category. The adult industry has argued that the 2257 requirements are excessively burdensome and overly harsh; a simple paperwork mistake can result in 5 years in federal prison for a first offense, and 10 years in prison for a subsequent offense. Some have argued that the 2257 requirements, which have been on the books for years with no attempts at enforcement until just this month, are designed not to protect children but rather to harass the adult entertainment industry and produce a chilling effect on protected First Amendment speech.
The Free Speech Coalition is challenging both the new regulations and the original 2257 law on behalf of the adult
Connor Young is Editor-in-Chief of YNOT.As I Look At The Destruction Left In The Wake of Hurricane Katrina:
I can’t help but think about the tsunami from last year. Do you think all of the worlds countries are going to get together and send relief and money to the people in Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana? Do you think there will be an outcry and a call for help from the United Nations?
We the people of this country send a LOT of money overseas to purchase good will, Im talkin Billions of dollars and guess what y’all it’s our money…yours and mine. The government doesn’t have any money except for what we give them. I’m no isolationist but by the same token I am fed up with pouring money into rathole countries who then turn on us, I am tired of America being the fucking John of every two bit whore country in Europe, Asia, South America and Africa. If whatever despot doesn’t like us…fine feed your fucking self.
If you want to suckle the American (thats yours and my) teat then don’t bite it lest we have to bitch slap the fuck out of you or let you starve.
We have people in this country now who need help, not a hand out, just some help…Let’s look at diverting some of our money (reminding you again its your money and my money) and help out some fellow Americans who don’t have the sympathy of the world to help them rebuild their homes and families.
OK Off my soap box.
Catherine may Be Greater Than I Thought:
Screeners went out last week…I guess mine got lost in the mail….Ya Right!
But I have heard from two senior reviewers at AVN who said it is VERY good, way batter than the trailers would indicate, and that it is indeed a very strong contender for best film/video
Speaking Of:
The AVN Award noms will be coming up soon….deadline for consideration is the end of September. Now what I am getting at here is AVN still has a Best Film Category…does anyone in porn still shoot film? and whats the point anyhow, when done right digital video can and does look indistinguishable from film on a TV set. Most of AVNs winners for best film recently were shot on video anyway…Time to call it best Feature and be done with it.
Speaking Of AVN:
I have gotten about a dozen emails letting me know that they left me out of their Directors Issue this month…Gee and I only won two of their awards while the 90 or so they did include have won none, many have never even had a nomination. It doesn’t bug me though, I’m 3000 miles from Porn Valley, they don’t think that there s porn outside of L.A. There are those who say they left me out on purpose and they are the same ones that say I will never be in the Hall of Fame….Hey AVN…Im eligible!
There’s An Email Flaoting Around About a Gas Out:
Don’t be stupid y’all….
Everyone’s “not purchasing a drop of gasoline for one day” will not cause oil companies to “choke on their stockpiles.” Oil companies run their inventories on a weekly basis, and since the “gas out” scheme doesn’t call on people to buy less gasoline but simply to shift their date of purchase by one day, oil company stockpiles won’t be affected at all.
Next, merely shifting the day of purchase will not “hit the entire industry with a net loss of over $4.6 billion.” Consumers won’t be buying any less gasoline under this “gas out” proposal; they’ll simply be purchasing gas a day earlier or a day later than they usually would. The very same amount of gasoline will be sold either way, so the oil companies aren’t going to lose any money at all.
By definition, a boycott involves the doing without of something, with the renunciation of the boycotted product held up as tangible proof to those who supply the commodity that consumers are prepared to do without it unless changes are made. What the “gas out” calls for isn’t consumers’ swearing off using or buying gasoline, even for a short time, but simply shifting their purchases by one day. Because the “gas out” doesn’t call on consumers to make a sacrifice by actually giving up something, the threat it poses is a hollow one.
Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won’t have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stay up, American consumers are prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without.
Moreover, the primary potential effect of the type of boycott proposed in the “gas out” messages is to hurt those at the very end of the oil-to-gasoline chain, service station operators the people who have the least say in setting gasoline prices. As such, the “gas out” is a punch on the nose delivered to the wrong person.
Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing.
An event like a “gas out” can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: “We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can’t even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost.” What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its prices? Those who really want to send a “message” to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row.
