Strange Victory For The First Amendment: Sixth Circuit Rules Pornmeisters No Longer Have To Keep Records Documenting That Their Actresses Are Adults

Caution on the link, as it's a link to the Adult Video News site, and has the sort of ads you'd expect from them.

If you've watched porn, you might remember seeing a 2257 compliance declaration regarding records proving all of the people in the porn are 18 or older, and that the records can be found in this or that sleazy lawyer's office. According to the Sixth Circuit, this law is overbroad in protecting the underage.

"This is huge, huge news for the entire industry," attorney J. Michael Murray told AVN. "It means that the statute has been declared unconstitutional in its entirety, at least in the 6th Circuit. This is the result we've all been aiming for; it's a monumental victory. We've been fighting this battle for twelve long years, and this is the third time I argued the case on the 6th Circuit. Finally, we got a court to agree with us."

A sister company to Cleveland-based video distributor GVA-TWN, the now-defunct Connection published approximately a dozen swinger's magazines with personal ads containing sexually explicit photographs.

Connection originally filed suit against the government in September 1995, challenging the constitutionality of the 2257 statute on First Amendment grounds. Following a long, drawn-out series of appeals, today's ruling firmly decides the case in Connection's favor.

...

"Rondee Kamins has fought this battle for twelve years, and she is a hero for what she has done in that long, long fight; she never gave up," Murray said. "This was our third trip to the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and Rondee Kamins is owed an enormous debt of gratitude from the entire industry for this hard-fought battle she waged over these many years."

Hero.

...

"The government says that its interest behind 2257 is in combating child porn," Lee explained. "The problem is that virtually all of what 2257 applies to is not child porn. Each of the [three judges'] opinions today holds that 2257 is not narrowly tailored to an interest in suppressing child porn, because it applies to so much that is not child porn. This has been one of the fundamental objections to section 2257 all along."

Um, are they suggesting that only child porn should be subject to a law designed to insure that porn actors are not children? Do they see the problem there?

Thanks to Michael.

posted by Ace at 12:20 PM

| Access Comments