Here is the actual decision that FSC is talking about. I linked the wrong one. The one I linked was the third circuit, they declared the warrantless inspections to be unconstitutional.
This one finds the record keeping provisions unconstitutional. Primary producers are required to affirm legal age, but there is no record keeping provision. If the government can prove that a producer did not check age they can fine them. I am not sure how all that would work.
Here is the actual decision from August:
https://www.paed.uscourts.gov/docume...s/18D0546P.pdf
Quote:
a. 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257 and 2257A and their implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§
75.1, et seq., are unconstitutional under the First Amendment as applied to
2
secondary producers within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(2).
.....................
b. The record-keeping requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257(a), (b)(3), (c),
2257A(a), (b)(3), (c) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 75.2-.4; and the associated criminal
prohibitions set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257(f)(1)-(2), 2257A(f)(1)-(2) are
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
......................
c. The labeling requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257(e)(1), (e)(2);
2257A(e)(1), (e)(2) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 75.6, 75.8, and the associated criminal
prohibitions set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257(f)(3), (f)(4); 2257A(f)(3), (f)(4), are
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
......................
d. Except for prosecutions of primary producers for violation of the identification
and age verification requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257(b) and 18 U.S.C. §
2257A(b), the criminal penalties set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257(i), 2257A(i) are
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
|
The labeling provisions, which were struck down, is where it states all the shit about a custodian of records and the address and all that.
So, as of right now, the record keeping is not required and the labeling of where records are kept is not required. At least according to this decision and the FSC.
2257(b) is what is referenced in d above. It says:
Quote:
(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct—
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.
|
But 2257(b)(3) was determined to be unconstitutional. So, you still have to check ids but you do NOT have to have a record of it.
.