>A little 2257 clarity?

>Over at A Savage Place, there’s a good bullet-point overview of last week’s ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzalez, the organization’s challenge of the revised 2257 regulations. (Hat tip Viviane’s Sex Carnival)

In many ways a set-back for the FSC, the ruling does provide several points of clarity, giving definitions for several terms that have had many producers (and even so-called secondary producers – whatever those are) scratching their heads in wonder. Perhaps most immediately significant:

While producers do have to keep copies of the IDs of performers on file, they’re allowed to blot out the day and month of the performer’s birthdate and the performer’s SSN and home address on those copies. That’s a huge deal — otherwise, think of the potential for identity theft and stalking if and when those records are released to “secondary producers”, including retail outlets — and I think it’ll make the new 2257 regs a lot more palatable to people.

Meanwhile, a bit more eye-crossingly detailed, a memorandum on the ruling prepared by AVN‘s legal correspondent carefully emphasizes the most pertinent elements of the ruling and explains the implications of the case’s rather convoluted “procedural posture.” Bottom line?

…The court allowed FSC until April 16th to show why the law, as amended, is unconstitutional; and until the end of April for the government to reply. Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections.

Can we just go back to talking about our favorite kinky movies now?


No Comments

Leave a Comment