Court Strikes Down Age Verification For Adult Sites

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.

Leisure Suit Larry

[conner_bw (120497)]

Does anyone remember the Leisure Suit Larry [wikipedia.org] age verification questions? As a kid who couldn't get into the game, I sure do.

Adult natured games in 16 color EGA for the kids of yester year, gonzo orgy divx on demand for the kids of today.

The future is fucked.

Well duh

[spellraiser (764337)]

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.

Of course not. People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?

Re:Well duh

[VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719)]

You're right. The sentence needs to be reworded:

While the average reader here has never come to such a site, porn has been a driving force in the economics and technology of the Net.

There. That's better. I feel vaguely dirty, though...

Re:Well duh

[Dr. Cody (554864)]

If you're feeling unclean, soap and water always works for me when I'm done inserting "come."

Re:Well duh

[techno-vampire (666512)]

That's only half the problem. Most slashdotters stay away from those sites just in case their mom comes down to the basement at the wrong time and gets a good look at what's on the screen.

Rumors

[David Gould (4938)]

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.

Yes, I, too, have heard rumors of such things... can it really be true? Is this technological wonder known as the Internet really being used as a vehicle for pornography? No hearsay, please -- does anyone here have a definite answer, from a credible source?

Re:Rumors

[petrus4 (213815)]

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.
Yes, I, too, have heard rumors of such things... can it really be true? Is this technological wonder known as the Internet really being used as a vehicle for pornography? No hearsay, please -- does anyone here have a definite answer, from a credible source?

While it might be untrue that the Internet owes its' existence to the porn industry to the degree that is claimed, it is true from what I've read that the porn industry and the material's distributors generally are early adopters of new technologies, particularly in such relevant areas as media storage. (DVDs and such)

When you think about it, this is actually extremely logical. It follows that individuals who are broad minded in at least one category of their thinking are more likely to thus be similarly broad minded in others.

Misleading - is about the PERFORMERS

[bextreme (37107)]

The law that was struck down was about age verification and ID requirements for PERFORMERS in the porn. It had nothing to do with the age of the people VIEWING the porn.

Proof of Age of Those Photographed

[bazald (886779)]

Note that this ruling is not about the questions you get asked when visiting a website. (e.g. Are you at least 18/21/whatever?) This ruling is on the rules for storing proof of age of the people recorded in sexually explicit photos or videos.

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)

Re:Proof of Age of Those Photographed

[Kalriath (849904)]

Expect a less sweeping law to be put forth shortly. (IANAL)

That's not an acronym you should be using in a story on this topic.

H.M.S. Pornafore

[Scareduck (177470)]

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.

Cmdr Taco: I am the owner of the site Slashdot Readers: And a right good owner, too. Cmdr Taco: It's very, very good, and be it understood, Cowboy Neal keeps the site afloat. Readers: It's very, very good, and be it understood, He keeps the site afloat. Cmdr Taco: Though some think it may be queer, On this site I have to steer The conversation away from porn I don't look at sites With girlflesh so white And I never peek at holes of corn... Readers: What, never? Cmdr Taco: No, never! Readers: What, never? Cmdr Taco: Hardly ever!

Clarification Re: "Age Verification"

[by Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people are posting with obvious confusion about what was actually struck down.

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 ... problem is the law is completely undiscriminating and many amateurs who run their sites from their homes are forced to publish their full names and address etc. for legal purposes. Not to mention that many feel that such documents regarding their performers identity should be kept confidential and only be obtainable via court order).

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.

this is great news

[H310iSe (249662)]

There was widespread protest at the latest ammendments to 2257 (which just came out of review in Sept. and were going into law in Dec - written in 2006 by Gonzolas and the Bush whitehouse) as they were going to document-requirement-out-of-existence many adult themed but obviously non-porographic websites, the national lesbian bisexual gay transgenered taskforce was doing political organizing against it, among many other groups.

Effectively it said you are a porn producer if you run a website that has any graphic nudity (or "portrayals" of sexual activity) on it and you must therefore comply with section 2257 recordkeeping guidelines which are a huge, gigantic pain in the ass and go far, far beyond ensuring you're not using child actors in your smut.

Additionally if you are a producer (and w/ the new definition so very many people will be) you can be 'audited' at any time which is in effect a warrantless search and seizure.

I work with some people in the adult industry and I have this information from the source (i.e. not 2nd hand) that agents came into their production company on a 2257 record keeping inspection and seized EVERYTHING in the room the records were kept in. Computers. Other records. Everything.

Subsequently other production studios started actually building special rooms to contain just their 2257 paperwork and nothing else (it appears the understanding is the warrantless search only applies to the room where the records are kept). I was in meetings where they were trying to figure out if the room had to have a door or just an opening, a ceiling, and what cross-linked records (did I mention the requirements are a pain) might possibly be somewhere else... they even needed a new server just for the electronic records b/c elsewhere servers (with all their graphics and video) were seized b/c they had part of the 2257 records stored on them.

I know this sounds ridiculous but I'm certain this is was status quo - now this ... quo... was going to be applied much, much more widely come December.

Bravo 6th circuit for putting breaks on this insanity.

Sorry I don't have time to include links but I'll follow up later w/ documentation if I can.

2257 inspections

[by Anonymous Coward]

I know someone who went through a 2257 inspection. It's scary, because record-keeping mistakes are felonies. The law was intended to intimidate, which is part of why the court struck it down as overreaching. She came through it OK; she and her staff can quote the record-keeping requirements from memory (yes, the separate room requirement is real), and she knows all her models.

Compliance is easier if you're a real, live producer, with offices, staff, a business address, production space, and a payroll system. It's amateurs and the people who use third-party photographers who have problems.

Re:this is great news

[cmowire (254489)]

This helps me sleep a little better at night, and I have nothing to do with the porn biz.

See, I do photography, sometimes of naked people [wireheadarts.com] for fun. And, while there's no actual sexual content in my pictures of naked people, I still end up having that niggling fear in the back of my head that they'll show up on my doorstep.

so does this mean

[circletimessquare (444983)]

slashdot will now allow images in the comments section?

that's a joke

no really, it's a joke

PLEASE NO

New record?

[Stanislav_J (947290)]

This thread is so typical of what /. has become -- perhaps setting a new record for irrelevant or plain ignorant comments. At the time I'm viewing it, there are about 200 posts. It looks like perhaps a couple dozen at most actually discuss the article in question. Of the rest, they seem to be roughly evenly divided between (a) people who totally misconstrued the subject matter (even if you failed to RTFA, the summary makes it very clear as to what "age verification" legislation is being referenced), and (b) those who go off on tangents totally unrelated to the subject matter (including the ubiquitous and almost mandatory posts from the "right to bear arms" crowd, who somehow manage to interject comments on gun ownership into almost any thread).

The true goal of 2257

[Stanislav_J (947290)]

The nefarious legislation known as U.S.C. Title 18 Section 2257 has never been about protecting the children or battling kiddie pr0n. After all, true child pr0nographers certainly don't have their subjects sign releases anyway, nor do they advertise their wares openly on easily accessible public commercial sites. It is one of many tools of intimidation, to harass and potentially shut down perfectly legal adult sites. They were hoping some sites would simply shut down rather than put up with the burdensome recordkeeping requirements, or that sites with user-generated content would be more vigilant about self-censoring even remotely questionable content out of fear. You can keep the most detailed, pristine, organized records (as any smart adult site would do anyway), and yet fear that if even one model's paperwork is in any way hinky, a felony charge may ensue.

In general, you can safely assume that any legislation regarding adult material has this sort of ulterior motive. The powers that be have never accepted the notion that it is legal (for now, until the Roberts Court rules on the next big case) for adults to choose to view adult material depicting consenting adults engaged in adult activities. To them, all pr0n is bad, and if they could, they would outlaw all of it. Whenever "think of the children" is bandied about in these things, you can bet that they are thinking of far more than "the children" -- they are also thinking about you and me and every other potential legal peruser of naughty pics.

Re:Yipee!

[by Anonymous Coward]

People seem to be misinterpreting what this is about, partially due to the vague nature of the summary. They aren't talking about those 'enter your birthdate to enter' gateways to porn sites; this is about websites being required to have verification that all actors involved are, in fact, of legal age.

Re:AVS companies are still here to stay.

[cduffy (652)]

No matter what court rulings come down as to the constitutionality of the law, until the law is actually repealed or amended, adult content providers won't change a thing. They will not break the law because it's not worth the prison sentence just to save some lazy schmuck three extra clicks to enter their (fake) birth date.

Eh? My understanding is that the most objectionable parts of 2257 are related to recordkeeping requirements regarding the performers, not the users.

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.

You are mistaken.

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

If you read the law itself, or even the court ruling linked to in TFA, you will see otherwise.

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:Oh dear

[thegrassyknowl (762218)]

Honestly, if the masturbating perverts out there want to get their jollies off of dirty pictures, fine, just make it bloody clear that's what a site contains before the rest of us get bombarded with god-knows-what.

How is masturbating and looking at pornography of consenting adults considered "perverted"? That is a very limited view given that your body is wired in such a way as to encourage you to reproduce as frequently and as often as possible. It stands to reason that people need to satisfy their natural urges somehow. It's hard getting laid; people are picky about their partners and there's this stigma attached to sex still even in our modern liberated society.

It's pretty easy to watch porn and whack off... A few people take it out on poor unsuspecting passers-by (i don't condone that kind of thing). You gotta satisfy the urges that your body has somehow. I find it somewhat offensive that you would classify the satisfying of the body's natural urges "perverted".

I never really supported the age verification because I think a person who is old enough to know to seek out the content on their own is probably old enough to make their own decisions regarding sex. A person who wants to seek out the porn will be able to find it regardless of any age verification laws in one or two countries. Not everywhere is the USA or Australia. Lots of places don't enforce similar laws.

Younger kids should be supervised by their parents. Someone else said "if you don't want your kids looking at it then try something called parenting". I couldn't agree more.

I do agree that porn isn't for everyone, and a simple banner page warning is what a great-many of the porn sites have currently anyway.

Re:Illegal?

[The Only Druid (587299)]

This is a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, i.e. the highest federal court in the Sixth Circuit before you reach the Supreme Court of the United States.

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:Heh. Not in Oregon anyway...

[SatanicPuppy (611928)]

The more you repress it, the more it spreads. Where I live in GA we have this massive number of "massage parlors" that (curiously) advertise heavily on the interstate with large billboards featuring scantily clad women.

Now while you can probably also get a massage at these establishments, it is generally understood that this is not all you can get if you were so inclined. And the public outcry? Nil.

Now, dancing, even "bikini" dancing, which is the only kind not zoned out in the county I live in, is the subject of vigorous public debate. Place just opened up a couple of months ago not far from where I live. "Massage" parlor (with unusually long hours) opened up next door at about the same time. Public outcry over the girls in swimwear? Vast. Public outcry over the suspiciously placed massage parlor? Nil.

Re:And there was great celebration

[pjrc (134994)]

After all, it's not like a fourteen year old can't select "I was born in 1972" in a drop down. Those pages were basically worthless. I'm not surprised the court ruled as they did.

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.