Slashdot Mirror
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.
Of course not. People don't go to these sites to read, now do they?
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
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.
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.
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)
Insert self-referential sig here.
Dog is my co-pilot.
A lot of people are posting with obvious confusion about what was actually struck down.
... 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).
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
The full text of the law can be found at here
In other words it's not about verifying surfers age. It's about verifying performers.
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.
I drink to make other people interesting!
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.
"Stumble before you crawl"
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.
... quo... was going to be applied much, much more widely come December.
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
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.
closed minded is as closed minded does
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.
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.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools