2257 Alert!

[Dravyk]

From AVN, 15 minutes ago:

FSC, DOJ Deal Coming Today
By: Ed Crane
Posted: 9:55 am PDT 6-23-2005


DENVER - A source close to the parties involved confirmed Thursday morning that a deal has been reached between the Free Speech Coalition and the U.S. Department of Justice that will free FSC members from worry about prosecution for violating 18 U.S.C §2257, at least temporarily.


A unnamed source who wished to be identified only as “one of the president’s men” told AVN.com that under a deal brokered by FSC attorneys, FSC members will be protected from inspection or enforcement of the recently revised 2257 regulations until after Free Speech Coalition et al v. Gonzales has gone to court and a decision has been rendered. That process that can take several months.

The FSC sued the DOJ on June 16 in the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, outlining more than 20 separate claims why the revised regulations should be invalidated and asking the court to issue a temporary restraining order against enforcement of the regulations. The deal means the TRO sought by the lawsuit no longer is necessary.

AVN.com is following this story, and will post details as they become available.

-----

Does this seem to imply that the FSC is withdrawing the TRO???

And, recalling when the ACLU filed against COPA, since when does a TRO take several months???

Mind you, this is still early news and more details are coming ... but ... :zoinks:

[Bhelliom]

Originally posted by Dravyk@Jun 23 2005, 09:15 AM


Does this seem to imply that the FSC is withdrawing the TRO???

And, recalling when the ACLU filed against COPA, since when does a TRO take several months???

Mind you, this is still early news and more details are coming ... but ... :zoinks:
Seems to me if they HAVE reached a deal and they DO withdraw the TRO then only the fsc sites would be safe. At least that's how I read it.


And the TRO doesn't take several months. The process to decide if the new rules are going to stay new rules is what takes several months. The TRO keeps them from being enforced until the authorities decide what's going on.

just my two cents however. I am not a laywer. I just play one on the internet

[TheEnforcer]

The ONLY ways they could do this is, and have it be effective, is to hand over a list of all of their members to the DOJ so they know who not to target or let the DOJ know if a target is a member or not.

[Lee]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jun 23 2005, 09:26 AM
The ONLY ways they could do this is, and have it be effective, is to hand over a list of all of their members to the DOJ so they know who not to target or let the DOJ know if a target is a member or not.
B I N G O

Yet people were crazed at the thought of this happening with the Acacia incident LOL

Sounds like the FSC just gave the government a list of adult webmasters now known as, targets :lol:

[Dravyk]

Very difficult for me, but I'm going to hold my tounge (lashing) until more info comes in.

[TheEnforcer]

If someone can pint out to me any other way besides the two I outlined above only FSC members would be covered I'd be interested to know it but it doesn't seem any other way that could be the case.

[TheEnforcer]

BTW- sent ya 2 e-mails Drav.

[Bhelliom]

The FSC sends out membership cards and has members flash them if "the man" shows up?

[Dravyk]

Originally posted by TheEnforcer@Jun 23 2005, 12:46 PM
BTW- sent ya 2 e-mails Drav.
Got 'em, buddy. :) Gracias.

[Electra]

I know the FSC is a membership oriented organisation, and I know they have every right to do whatever they want to protect their members...but then why do I feel so horribly disappointed in them?

[Trev]

Originally posted by Electra@Jun 23 2005, 07:58 PM
I know the FSC is a membership oriented organisation, and I know they have every right to do whatever they want to protect their members...but then why do I feel so horribly disappointed in them?
Between the US Gov' and the FSC all of the US webmasters must feel disappointed allot!

[*KK*]

After reading the DOJ's response to the request for the TRO, I'm curious as to what the terms of this deal will actually be.

For those of you not up on the legalistics of TROs and injunctions and the like, it works generally like this --

Someone (plaintiff) files a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order against the other side (defendant). The judge hears the motion for the TRO and looks at the argument upon which the request is based. At that point, the hearing may be ex parte (only one party has to be present) or it may be an open hearing with both sides in court.

IF the judge rules, based upon the argument presented, that there may indeed be a reason in a court hearing on the merits of the case, that the plaintiff will be granted a more permanent injunction, then the judge can decide to issue the TRO, pending further hearing, and if that happens, a date for the hearing is set. IF the judge does not see the merit in the argument, then the request will be declined -- which does not stop the plaintiff from amending their motion at a later date and requesting the order yet again.

The defendant has a right, and potentially an obligation, to return an Answer to the Motion to the judge, prior to (including up to the day of) the hearing for the permanent injunction or order. The defendant would normally respond with the reasons that the Plaintiffs argument was invalid.

All of these motions and answers are matters of public record - regardless of the validity of the claims made in either. What this allows is for both the Plaintiff and the Defendant, under the due process of the law, to see what the other side is basing their arguments on, prior to the actual permanent hearing regarding the injunction.

Getting the TRO may take as little as a few minutes before the judge. Getting a permanent injunction depends on trial schedules, arguments for and against, and so on, until there is either a final appeal to the Supreme Court over the points of law, or there is a resolution by a judge that does not trigger an appeal by one side or the other.

As to the grouping of FSC members vs. non FSC members in this instance, I'm really not at all sure how the delineation will be made.

Nor does the fact that a TRO is issued, or some deal made to supplant the TRO but achieve the same results, mean that this law wont stand up in court eventually, and that it is not possible that prosecutions could fall back to the date of the original enforcement. It also doesn't mean that if someone is inspected, be they FSC member or not, that they cannot be charged with other crimes that come to light in the course of an inspection or investigation.

Personally, after talking to multiple people who've been on the receiving end of a federal prosecution for being in the adult entertainment business, I don't believe that with or without the TRO or deal in place, that the government is going to start hauling people off in handcuffs and trying to put them in the slammer for 5 long years.

Previously the federal government was more about fines and stipulations -- such as those saying the defendant wont engage in specific business practices or industries as part of their plea bargain agreements -- as opposed to actually putting people in jail. While I do know of one person who did 18 months for an obscenity charge in Alabama, that was more due to the fact that he didn't want to pay the excessive fines to stay out of jail, and due to the fact that several of his employees were on the indictment list. His choice was to plead out a sentence that placed the blame on him and got the government off the rest of his company's back, so to speak.

To make a long post longer, and once again, only my completely non-legal opinion, I don't really think the federal government is going to waste its time going after small mom and pop operations that have no real assets. Sure, they might make headlines, but in the scope of things, the judge, the prosecutors, the investigators, they are making the same amount of money per hour regardless of who they go after.

Just like the case of the FTC knocking on RJB's door in 2000, I'm sure they could have chosen numerous companies that were using dialers and had their own merchant accounts to harass... instead they chose the largest target they could find at the time. This was also the general tack the government took during the MIPORN investigations and the Meese Commission prosecutions. Once again, it's nice to say you are hurting the pornographers, but it's so much nicer to say you are hurting the biggest and baddest of the pornographers. Look at Elliot Spitzer and his prosecution of the Crescent Publishing group -- I'm SURE that if you looked through all the audio text and pornographers in the state of NY, you could find other guilty parties. But in the interest of self promotion and headlines, why not go after the biggest one you can find, it makes much more impact for the same amount of research and investigation. Getting a bunch of 100,000 a year guys to say they'll get out of porn isn't nearly so compelling on the newswire as it is to say that you've got 250 million in repayment for fraud or so...