Pending Lawsuit on 2257
Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:18 pm
Free Speech X-Press
Delivering Weekly Censorship Updates to the Adult Industry
Vol. VII, No. 30, June 10, 2005 -- A Member Service of the Free Speech Coalition
__________________________________________________________
Free Speech X-press is researched and edited by Kat Sunlove and Layne Winklebleck.
Copyright 2005 Free Speech Coalition. Permission to reprint granted to FSC members; please give credit.
__________________________________________________________
VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR FSC MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com
__________________________________________________________
ACTION SOON ON 2257 LAW
CHATSWORTH, CA -- Within a week, Free Speech Coalition will file lawsuits and will ask for temporary restraining orders on behalf of its members and other named plaintiffs against enforcement of the revised recordkeeping and labeling regulations under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2257. The revised regulations are due to take effect on June 23. Paul Cambria and H. Louis Sirkin are drafting the lawsuits, with the help of a number of other prominent First Amendment Attorneys.
?It will be as comprehensive as possible,? said Cambria, ?designed to address all the major problems we foresee with these regulations."
In the meantime, many adult entertainment producers (including so-called ?secondary producers? such as many Webmasters) are scrambling to become as 2257 compliant as possible. FSC recommends that adult industry companies seek legal advice from attorneys knowledgeable about the new regulations. No one can guarantee that injunctive relief will be granted, or, if it is, what components of the law and regulations will be covered. If the anticipated wave of 2257 enforcement takes place there could be a critical shortage of skilled attorneys with knowledge in this area, and lawyers mostly take new clients on a first-come, first-served basis. See Mark Kernes? AVN piece (URL below) for comments by Lou Sirkin, Paul Cambria and J. Michael Murray on the dangers of hostile courts -- not a good time to go to court with a lawyer who is doing on-the-job-training -- and on the benefits of retaining attorneys in advance; and on the need for the industry to band together for this fight.
On a reassuring note, see comments on the meaning and strength of the 1998 Tenth Circuit Sundance Associates v. Reno case in an AVN Online analysis by Arthur Schwartz and Michael Gross, the First Amendment attorneys who litigated Sundance. Many adult ?secondary producers? have relied on Sundance for legal guidance.
From Mark Kernes, Adult Video News, 6/8/05
http://www.avnonline.com/articles/229387.html
And from Arthur Schwartz, Michael Gross, AVN Online, 6/3/05
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Prim ... _ID=229097
Delivering Weekly Censorship Updates to the Adult Industry
Vol. VII, No. 30, June 10, 2005 -- A Member Service of the Free Speech Coalition
__________________________________________________________
Free Speech X-press is researched and edited by Kat Sunlove and Layne Winklebleck.
Copyright 2005 Free Speech Coalition. Permission to reprint granted to FSC members; please give credit.
__________________________________________________________
VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR FSC MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com
__________________________________________________________
ACTION SOON ON 2257 LAW
CHATSWORTH, CA -- Within a week, Free Speech Coalition will file lawsuits and will ask for temporary restraining orders on behalf of its members and other named plaintiffs against enforcement of the revised recordkeeping and labeling regulations under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2257. The revised regulations are due to take effect on June 23. Paul Cambria and H. Louis Sirkin are drafting the lawsuits, with the help of a number of other prominent First Amendment Attorneys.
?It will be as comprehensive as possible,? said Cambria, ?designed to address all the major problems we foresee with these regulations."
In the meantime, many adult entertainment producers (including so-called ?secondary producers? such as many Webmasters) are scrambling to become as 2257 compliant as possible. FSC recommends that adult industry companies seek legal advice from attorneys knowledgeable about the new regulations. No one can guarantee that injunctive relief will be granted, or, if it is, what components of the law and regulations will be covered. If the anticipated wave of 2257 enforcement takes place there could be a critical shortage of skilled attorneys with knowledge in this area, and lawyers mostly take new clients on a first-come, first-served basis. See Mark Kernes? AVN piece (URL below) for comments by Lou Sirkin, Paul Cambria and J. Michael Murray on the dangers of hostile courts -- not a good time to go to court with a lawyer who is doing on-the-job-training -- and on the benefits of retaining attorneys in advance; and on the need for the industry to band together for this fight.
On a reassuring note, see comments on the meaning and strength of the 1998 Tenth Circuit Sundance Associates v. Reno case in an AVN Online analysis by Arthur Schwartz and Michael Gross, the First Amendment attorneys who litigated Sundance. Many adult ?secondary producers? have relied on Sundance for legal guidance.
From Mark Kernes, Adult Video News, 6/8/05
http://www.avnonline.com/articles/229387.html
And from Arthur Schwartz, Michael Gross, AVN Online, 6/3/05
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Prim ... _ID=229097