I think there is some confusion between the agreement that the FSC had with the DOJ pending the judge's ruling on the FSC's motion for preliminary injunction and the terms and scope of the injunction that was issued by the judge in December.
After the judge made his ruling in the injunction, the FSC issued a press release that summarized the key effects of the ruling. This is an excerpt from that release, dated 1/3/06:
The FSC legal staff has made a few preliminary determinations regarding the ruling:
-------------
The Dec. 28, 2005 ruling by Judge Miller has resulted in a de facto ?status quo? situation for all Free Speech Coalition members and other plaintiffs in the case.
* The ruling does not define FSC membership according to join date. All up-to-date FSC members are covered under this ruling, whether they joined a year ago, today, tomorrow, or anytime up until a final ruling in FSC v. Gonzales.
* The U.S. Department of Justice is enjoined from enforcing 18 USC 2257 against ?Producers? under 28 CFR Part 75, unless they engage in activity that involves the ?hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participating of the depicted performer.?
In other words, FSC members and other plaintiffs who are ?Secondary Producers? are protected under the ruling from 2257 inspection or enforcement until a final ruling in this case.
-------------
The full release is still available on the FSC website
here
So far as I know, this has always been the official position taken by the FSC with regards to the meaning of the judge's ruling as it applies to FSC members, and whether/under what cirumstances they are exempt from inspection pending the outcome of the case.
- Q.
