Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites 359
How Appealing reports that a court has struck down age verification requirements for porn sites, as a First Amendment violation. Here is the ruling (PDF). While the average reader here has never been to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net. The age verification requirements of U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 were yet another attempt to regulate to death what the government can't outright prohibit. The requirements intruded on the privacy and safety of performers and created headaches for sites like flickr and photobucket that host images. It is has long been thought that the requirements wouldn't hold up in court, but this is the first actual ruling.
Re:Leisure Suit Larry (Score:3, Informative)
Bah, that was easy. There was a limited number of questions, and I think four possible answers given for each one, so you just kept guessing away until you could map out all the answers to all the questions.
There's a nerdy solution to every problem.
Re:Yipee! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No CC (Score:1, Informative)
Misleading - is about the PERFORMERS (Score:5, Informative)
Proof of Age of Those Photographed (Score:5, Informative)
It makes sense that the overly broad ruling made earlier would be overturned due to its potential to conflict with the 1st amendment. It would have become exceptionally difficult to post sexually explicit content without fear of violating the law. Expect a less sweeping law to be put forth shortly. (IANAL)
Clarification Re: "Age Verification" (Score:5, Informative)
Title 18 USC 2257 has absolutely nothing to do with verifying the age of a web site's surfers. It imposes record keeping requirements on the web sites. Requiring them to keep and make available records of every performer's age and identity etc.
The law has always been controversial in the adult industry due to privacy concerns it raises for the performers and for the web site operators (you may notice on many porn sites at the very bottom they'll have a link called "legal" or "18 USC 2257" which links to a name and address where the records can be obtained
The full text of the law can be found at here [cornell.edu]
In other words it's not about verifying surfers age. It's about verifying performers.
Re:AVS companies are still here to stay. (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, compromising the performers' privacy by requiring that identifying information be distributed to any site hosting the content they star in seems to have much less to do with its stated purpose of preventing underage individuals from acting in porn and much more to do with making a hostile and dangerous business environment for those in an industry the religious right would like to shut down.
Re:AVS companies are still here to stay. (Score:1, Informative)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html [cornell.edu]
If you had been working in the porn industry, surely you would know this.
Re:Oh dear (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
It declares this law to be unconstitutional due to overbreadth (to simplify quite a bit), which means that within the Sixth Circuit, this law is unenforceable.
The Supreme Court may then either hear the case (and decide whether or not to affirm on the merits), or it may decline to hear the case (thus not issuing a decision as to the merits).
However, Circuit Courts of Appeal are not binding on the district courts in other circuits (though they are heavily persuasive authority). Thus, the government may prosecute under this law in other circuits, and hope that the district courts there disagree with the Sixth Circuit. Eventually, other Circuit Courts of Appeal may hear this matter and issue their own decisions as to the validity of this law.
Typically, the Supreme Court refuses to hear issues like this until more than one Circuit has issued an opinion on the matter. Even then, they have historically preferred not to hear the issue unless the various Circuits disagree. However, if the Supreme Court rules that the law is unconstitutional, then it is no longer a law, throughout the nation.
As for a state regulating this: States are permitted to provide greater protection to rights, not lesser. Therefor, if a State attempted to regulate speech in a manner that violates the federal constitution, then that State attempt would be equally unconstitutional.
As a final odd point: the philosophical question of whether it is "a law" once it is deemed unconsitutional is actually an unclear point. You can find legal scholars/philosophers who will refer to laws deemed unconstitutional by SCOTUS as invalid, nullified, non-existent, etc.
Re:Yipee! (Score:2, Informative)
1. The Government application of record keeping requirements was "uncreative" as applied specifically to child pornography.
2. The law produced a weighted burden on other forms of free speech (in relation to 1).
3. It is regulation of speech, not conduct, since the photograph (and taking of it) "bear a necessary relationship to the freedom to speak, write, print or distribute information or opinion."
4. Connection publishes "swinger" magazines, which I'm pretty sure was founded by two wild and crazy guys, Georg and Yortuk Festrunk.
4. "facial" is actually a legal term.
Re:Well duh (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And there was great celebration (Score:5, Informative)
The 2257 regs were about verifying the age of the models appearing in the photos, not the age of consumers viewing them.
It is still illegal to use underage models. But 2257 imposed massive recordkeeping burdens on porn sites. Not just checking every model's ID, but all sorts of unnecessary things, like requiring being open certain hours for random, unannounced inspections of the records, requiring each site to maintain records (no outsourcing to companies much better able to handle it all), and so on. 2257 made it a felony to have even fairly minor errors in records. Not just "protecting the children", but criminal liability for not exactly following extremely detailed, excessively burdensome record keeping requirements.
You are mistaken. (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, the law required ANYONE who took sexually explicit photographs (for example, you taking pictures of you and your wife) to keep records, and make their place of business (or, in this example residence) available to inspection by the government with no advance notice.
Yes, you read that correctly. If you have taken explicit photographs of ANYBODY, for ANY reason, in the U.S. in recent years, and did not keep such records, or attach record information to such photographs, regardless of whether they were taken for commercial purposes, then the law considered YOU to be a felon, publishable by up to 5 years in federal prison.
If you don't believe me, read the court decision, or the 2257 laws themselves.
Re:Illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
Also considering the above, I believe that this decision will be considered authoritative by the other circuits. There is no guarantee, of course, but the decision is very straightforward and solidly based.
Remember that this is the first and only case so far challenging the 2257 statutes that has ever made it as far as even Superior Court. Having the statutes trounced so thoroughly on the very first case (even if it was appealed) is pretty significant, and probably indicative of what other courts will do if called upon.
Re:this is great news (Score:4, Informative)
No, I overstated a bit. (Score:4, Informative)
Contrary to the original post, this ruling was in fact about the performers, but the record-keeping requirements were for the "producers" of the product. But "producer" was very broadly defined. While ISPs and the like were generally not affected, the fact is that if your website had ANY "adult" images on it, then YOU (or your company) were required to verify the ages of anybody depicted in such images... even if they were originally made by someone else half a world away. Those records included a copy of legal ID for every person depicted in "adult" images.
So, in fact, just about every site that contained content made by someone else was in violation.
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Informative)
They do on sex [asstr.org] story [greyarchive.org] archives [adultfanfiction.net].
Re:Well duh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Illegal? (Score:2, Informative)
Basically. Any court that determined that particular federal law to be unconstitutional, which the 6th circuit now has, would have to also consider the same identical law unconstitutional if it were a state law. So while state courts aren't bound by federal precedent, someone could successfully sue their state for violating their constitutional rights in federal court. However, at least so far, that would only apply within the 6th circuit, of which Oregon is not a part.