2257 Found Overbroad!?!?

[gonzo]

Mike South has coverage . . .

U.S. Court of Appeals Rules 2257 Unconstitutional

By MikeSouth
From www.avn.com
CINCINATTI - The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled today in the case of Connection Distributing Co. et. al. v. Keisler that the federal 2257 record-keeping statute is unconstitutional and overbroad.
“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 Sixth Circuit. This is the result we’ve all been aiming for; it’s a monumental victory. We’ve been fighting this battle for 12 long years, and this is the third time I argued the case on the Sixth Circuit. Finally, we got a court to agree with us.”
Connection publishes 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.

The court’s 27-page opinion concludes: “We conclude that the statute is overbroad and therefore violates the First Amendment, and accordingly we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment for the plaintiffs.”
Murray praised Connection owner Rondee Kamins for her persistence in pursuing the case.
“Rondee Kaimins 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 Corut of Appeals for the Sixth 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.”

Note who had NO part in this…ie The Free Speech Coalition.

[TheEnforcer]

This will undoubtably be appealed up to the supreme court where hopefully it will be rejected for appeal or upheld.

[KevinG]

My friend Jeff from cszlaw.com said this:

I scanned the opinions pretty briefly, but the last judge (concurring in part, dissenting in part) thinks the majority could have excised the unconstitional parts and left the rest intact. What he fails to recognize, as has been said many times here and elsewhere before, is (1) the Tracy Lords justification is a red herring. She HAD IDENTIFICATION that showed she was legal. This statute would have done nothing to alert the producers, in that case, or the justice department that anything was amiss. Quite the contrary, it would have confirmed that she was of age; and (2) the overbreadth of the statute due to its chilling effect could also be applied to the penalties, not just the speech to be regulated. Five years in jail EVEN IF you prove later that the person in question was 18, or even a very young looking 35 year old, and thus come completely outside the conduct sought to be prohibited justifying the statute in the first place.