News 3rd Circuit Vacates Ruling Holding 2257 Constitutional - GoFuckYourself.com

wasteland · 06-08-2016, 11:44 AM

AVN - After 3rd Hearing, 3rd Circuit Sends 2257 Case Back to Trial Judge

ruff · 06-08-2016, 11:51 AM

Glad to finally see this.

C H R I S · 06-08-2016, 12:46 PM

Great news.

ClassiusPlay · 06-08-2016, 01:48 PM

Any good translator on GFY ?
Legal to English please

Barry-xlovecam · 06-08-2016, 02:04 PM

Quote:

SMITH, Circuit Judge.
This case reaches us for the third time and requires
us to consider the import of two recent Supreme Court
cases, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015),
and City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015),
on the constitutionality of the recordkeeping, labeling,
and inspection requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2257 and 2257A (collectively, ?the Statutes?) and
their accompanying regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 75.1-75.9.
In light of Reed, we determine that the Statutes are
content based, and therefore require strict scrutiny review
under the First Amendment. We will remand to the
District Court to determine whether the Statutes
withstand strict scrutiny. In light of Patel, we conclude
4Case: 13-3681
Document: 003112319354
Page: 5
Date Filed: 06/08/2016
that the inspection provisions of the Statutes 1 and 28
C.F.R. § 75.5 are facially unconstitutional under the
Fourth Amendment.

I always said that the *inspections* were unconstitutional for this reason. §§ 2257, 2257A will (may) need to go back to the Congress to be rewritten *constitutionally* then end up back in the courts again.

This was a 2 to 1 decision of an Appeals Court. 12 years now?

davecummings · 06-08-2016, 02:55 PM

Nice!!!!!

mikesouth · 06-08-2016, 03:26 PM

From MikeSouth.Com

Today the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a lower court?s July 2013 ruling that held that performer record-keeping for adult entertainment producers are constitutional.

This all but strikes down the law. Technically it only applies to the third circuit but it does set a precedent that most prosecutors would not challenge.

What is interesting is that the 3rd Circuit is the Pennsylvania, Delaware. New Jersey area, and thus does not apply to most of Porn Valley which is in the 9th Circuit. But as I noted it sets a precedent.

Already The Free Speech Coalition is on record saying that if you are not in the third circuit you have to be an FSC member for the ruling to apply, that is an ABSOLUTE Falsehood. Being a member of a trade organization does not have any bearing on the constitutional protections you have under United States law, being an FSC member does NOT in any way protect you any differently than not being an FSC member.

The FSC does deserve some credit for following this through, no doubt, it is probably the only positive thing that has come from them in the last 20 years, then they fuck it up by saying it only protects members of the FSC if you are outside the 3rc circuit, that is complete bullshit.

In the end I think the ruling is spot on, the previous ruling that 2257 amounts to a warrant-less search was correct, but still the presumption of innocence was completely lacking, in that a producer has to prove that he did not commit a crime that in all likelihood didn?t happen.

wasteland · 06-08-2016, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikesouth

From MikeSouth.Com

Today the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a lower court?s July 2013 ruling that held that performer record-keeping for adult entertainment producers are constitutional.

This all but strikes down the law. Technically it only applies to the third circuit but it does set a precedent that most prosecutors would not challenge.

What is interesting is that the 3rd Circuit is the Pennsylvania, Delaware. New Jersey area, and thus does not apply to most of Porn Valley which is in the 9th Circuit. But as I noted it sets a precedent.

Already The Free Speech Coalition is on record saying that if you are not in the third circuit you have to be an FSC member for the ruling to apply, that is an ABSOLUTE Falsehood. Being a member of a trade organization does not have any bearing on the constitutional protections you have under United States law, being an FSC member does NOT in any way protect you any differently than not being an FSC member.

The FSC does deserve some credit for following this through, no doubt, it is probably the only positive thing that has come from them in the last 20 years, then they fuck it up by saying it only protects members of the FSC if you are outside the 3rc circuit, that is complete bullshit.

In the end I think the ruling is spot on, the previous ruling that 2257 amounts to a warrant-less search was correct, but still the presumption of innocence was completely lacking, in that a producer has to prove that he did not commit a crime that in all likelihood didn?t happen.

Spot on, Mike!

Joshua G · 06-08-2016, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

I always said that the *inspections* were unconstitutional for this reason. §§ 2257, 2257A will (may) need to go back to the Congress to be rewritten *constitutionally* then end up back in the courts again.

This was a 2 to 1 decision of an Appeals Court. 12 years now?

why would this be good news...if congress has to act on 2257 again, they will prolly make it worse.

is the law being enforced, at all? seems like DOJs since gonzales found better things to do.

Joe Obenberger · 06-08-2016, 04:42 PM

It's a great decision and the FSC's lawyers whose tireless efforts accomplished this result deserve great credit.

It can't be emphasized enough that this decision does not end the story. In the Sixth Circuit, just a few years ago, another split 2-1 victory was taken away be an en banc decision, ending that case unfavorably for adult producers. This case is today remanded to the trial court to consider the record-keeping part of the law under the strict scrutiny test and it notes that sometimes statutes can and do survive challenges under that high test. Finally, should Section 2257 be invalidated, and should the government petition the US Supreme Court for review, the odds are far above average that the High Court will take the case for its own review, reconsidering each of the victories achieved today. Exactly because three judges of the Third Circuit disagreed about which of two doctrines articulated by the Supreme Court, one announced in Reed pretty recently, and another line of cases dealing with "Secondary Effects" that's been developing for four decades should control, it's a case appropriate for the Supreme Court to use as a vehicle to determine if Reed really means what it says, if the Secondary Effects Doctrine survives Reed, and whether the Supreme Court will distinguish its holding in Reed from issues involving adult entertainment, brick and mortar, Internet, or both.

Bob Dylan famously sang that there's no telling who's to win while the wheel is still in spin. These issues are still very much alive until the wheel stops spinning - sometime in the future, perhaps years from now. While today's developments are more than encouraging about where Section 2257 is headed, it would not be smart to bet the farm on the hope that when the courts are done, Section 2257 will be wholly invalidated. We all hope so. But until final resolution, the smart producer will continue to comply with all of the Section 2257-related obligations. All of them.

JD

Barry-xlovecam · 06-08-2016, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua G

why would this be good news...if congress has to act on 2257 again, they will prolly make it worse.

is the law being enforced, at all? seems like DOJs since gonzales found better things to do.

Well, it hasn't been a DOJ priority since Bush and Gonzales went bye bye.

I am not aware of any primary enforcement actions. USC 18 §2257 may have been added to some CP complaints as an additional charge perhaps. There are federal felony statutes making CP unlawful -- just enforce those -- I don't think anyone in the adult business is not fully aware of those laws

Short of setting up the US Department of Porn and legitimizing the porn business, yeah right! Then creating administrative law that would require getting a license -- under the doctrine strict scrutiny -- the regulation of free speech (1st Amendment) -- that might be prior restraint of speech. I don't think short of a constitutional amendment, scratch that -- it would never pass (probably?).

This has business has been a cat and mouse game in most of the world since day 1 -- Sodom and Gomorrah?

Barry-xlovecam · 06-08-2016, 05:10 PM

@JD
So, I guess it will be very important who will make the next 2 or 3 nominations to the US Supreme Court. Trump made his suggestions. I wonder if Hillary's would be any better?

Beyond that, who would the US Senate confirm?

Joe Obenberger · 06-08-2016, 05:46 PM

Trump sells pay per view porn in his hotels. That's all you need to know about his attitudes toward pon.

Forkbeard · 06-08-2016, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Trump sells pay per view porn in his hotels. That's all you need to know about his attitudes toward porn.

Don't forget that so did Mitt Romney, who later called porn a "cesspool" while running for president. So you can never count on a politician. But, yeah.

Quote:

Romney Criticized for Hotel Pornography

By GLEN JOHNSON
The Associated Press
Thursday, July 5, 2007; 5:01 PM

BOSTON -- Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who rails against the "cesspool" of pornography, is being criticized by social conservatives who argue that he should have tried to halt hardcore hotel movie offerings during his near-decade on the Marriott board.

Two anti-pornography crusaders, as well as two conservative activists of the type Romney is courting, say the distribution of such graphic adult movies runs counter to the family image cultivated by Romney, the Marriotts and their shared Mormon faith.

...

During a recent Associated Press interview, Romney said he did not recall pornography coming up for discussion while he was on the Marriott board from 1992 to 2001. Despite being chairman of the board's audit committee, he also said he was unaware of how much revenue pornography may have generated for the hotel chain.

06-08-2016, 11:44 AM	#1
wasteland Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 688	3rd Circuit Vacates Ruling Holding 2257 Constitutional AVN - After 3rd Hearing, 3rd Circuit Sends 2257 Case Back to Trial Judge __________________ Colin Rowntree Skype: rowntree2007 Our Affiliate Program: http://www.spicecash.com

06-08-2016, 11:51 AM	#2
ruff I have a plan B Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Seattle - Miami - St Kitts Posts: 5,501	Glad to finally see this. __________________ CryptoFeeds

06-08-2016, 12:46 PM	#3
C H R I S Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Marina Del Rey Posts: 10,845	Great news. __________________ C H R I S Retired Porn Veteran BH4L

06-08-2016, 02:55 PM	#6
davecummings Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Diego Posts: 2,922	Nice!!!!! __________________ Dave Cummings www.davecummings.com www.davecummings.tv San Diego Email--- [email protected]

06-08-2016, 03:26 PM	#7
mikesouth Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: My High Horse Posts: 6,346	From MikeSouth.Com Today the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a lower court?s July 2013 ruling that held that performer record-keeping for adult entertainment producers are constitutional. This all but strikes down the law. Technically it only applies to the third circuit but it does set a precedent that most prosecutors would not challenge. What is interesting is that the 3rd Circuit is the Pennsylvania, Delaware. New Jersey area, and thus does not apply to most of Porn Valley which is in the 9th Circuit. But as I noted it sets a precedent. Already The Free Speech Coalition is on record saying that if you are not in the third circuit you have to be an FSC member for the ruling to apply, that is an ABSOLUTE Falsehood. Being a member of a trade organization does not have any bearing on the constitutional protections you have under United States law, being an FSC member does NOT in any way protect you any differently than not being an FSC member. The FSC does deserve some credit for following this through, no doubt, it is probably the only positive thing that has come from them in the last 20 years, then they fuck it up by saying it only protects members of the FSC if you are outside the 3rc circuit, that is complete bullshit. In the end I think the ruling is spot on, the previous ruling that 2257 amounts to a warrant-less search was correct, but still the presumption of innocence was completely lacking, in that a producer has to prove that he did not commit a crime that in all likelihood didn?t happen. __________________ Mike South It's No wonder I took up drugs and alcohol, it's the only way I could dumb myself down enough to cope with the morons in this biz.

06-08-2016, 01:48 PM	#4
ClassiusPlay Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2015 Posts: 26	Any good translator on GFY ? Legal to English please

06-08-2016, 04:42 PM	#10
Joe Obenberger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 466	It's a great decision and the FSC's lawyers whose tireless efforts accomplished this result deserve great credit. It can't be emphasized enough that this decision does not end the story. In the Sixth Circuit, just a few years ago, another split 2-1 victory was taken away be an en banc decision, ending that case unfavorably for adult producers. This case is today remanded to the trial court to consider the record-keeping part of the law under the strict scrutiny test and it notes that sometimes statutes can and do survive challenges under that high test. Finally, should Section 2257 be invalidated, and should the government petition the US Supreme Court for review, the odds are far above average that the High Court will take the case for its own review, reconsidering each of the victories achieved today. Exactly because three judges of the Third Circuit disagreed about which of two doctrines articulated by the Supreme Court, one announced in Reed pretty recently, and another line of cases dealing with "Secondary Effects" that's been developing for four decades should control, it's a case appropriate for the Supreme Court to use as a vehicle to determine if Reed really means what it says, if the Secondary Effects Doctrine survives Reed, and whether the Supreme Court will distinguish its holding in Reed from issues involving adult entertainment, brick and mortar, Internet, or both. Bob Dylan famously sang that there's no telling who's to win while the wheel is still in spin. These issues are still very much alive until the wheel stops spinning - sometime in the future, perhaps years from now. While today's developments are more than encouraging about where Section 2257 is headed, it would not be smart to bet the farm on the hope that when the courts are done, Section 2257 will be wholly invalidated. We all hope so. But until final resolution, the smart producer will continue to comply with all of the Section 2257-related obligations. All of them. JD __________________ Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue. Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964

06-08-2016, 05:10 PM	#12
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	@JD So, I guess it will be very important who will make the next 2 or 3 nominations to the US Supreme Court. Trump made his suggestions. I wonder if Hillary's would be any better? Beyond that, who would the US Senate confirm?

06-08-2016, 05:46 PM	#13
Joe Obenberger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago Posts: 466	Trump sells pay per view porn in his hotels. That's all you need to know about his attitudes toward pon. __________________ Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue. Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964