Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads

arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."

Comments

SOP

[raydobbs]

It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage, file it right along side the model release form - and call it a day. A little extra insurance saves tons of headaches later in life, and a little prudence and CYA never killed anyone in this lawsuit-happy world.

Re:SOP

[Belial6]

apparently reading the summary is not being done, more so in responses to your post, but also in yours. It is not the magazine that is taking pictures. The magazine is being told that it has to have age verification ON THE ADVERTISERS PICTURES. Not their picturse, the pictures from their advertisers.

Re:SOP

[Strange Ranger]

The whole problem with this law and the concept of "insurance" is that you have to continually prove your innocence or you are de facto Guilty. You could shoot a nude of a 40 year old women but if you don't have a record of her age then you're guilty of a crime.

I know we must all Think of Children all the time, but what if you had to continually register your possessions to prove you didn't steal them, or continually register your driving speed to prove you weren't speeding? We'd be all up in arms over the outrageous unconstitutionality of such laws. But point a camera at a naked body and all of the sudden it's ok to have laws just like Singapore or China.

> Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity when it comes to anything sex-related.

Indeed. Especially Americans.

oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.

Who cares?

[Darkness404]

Honestly, who cares? As long as no one is hurt, it should be legal. The government is not our moral compass. As long as it does not negatively impact you or anyone who didn't agree with it (and agreement should not have an age restriction), it should be, by definition, legal.

Nothing new

[Hao Wu]

You don't get publicly carded for buying beer. The transaction is only between you and the store, unless there is evidence of a crime being committed.

It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.

Re:Kids will Lie.

[DJRumpy]

This is about the people/models in the photo's, not the one's wanting to see it. It wasn't designed to protect minors from adult pornography, but to protect minors from predatory pornographers. I have to agree that the restrictions were far to onerous to be useful. The whole 'fantasy' of pedophiles is purported to all be based on appearance. If someone looks to be a little long in the tooth, then why force them to maintain a pointless record verifying that aren't hot to a pedophile?

It then comes down to who decides what looks 'legal' and who doesn't. I can see this turning into the same mess as ID verification for Alcoholic beverages (anyone over 30 ID'd). Somewhat of a joke since you can't really tell everyone age with any accuracy from looks.

If the law is too difficult or to sweeping to enforce without unnecessarily restricting someone's first amendment rights, then it should be overturned as unconstitutional. We have those protections for a reason.

They should find a better way to put the sick bastards away who peddle child porn.

Re:Picture Collectors

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the Lady Justice statue is sexual in nature, you've got problems.