The First Amendment Gone Wild

[Disir]

In a decision that begs to be characterized as “First Amendment gone wild,” an appeals court has all but struck down a 1988 law that requires pornographers to maintain records showing that actors aren’t underage. For good measure, the court said it violated the Fourth Amendment to require the documents to be available anytime for government inspection. These twin holdings are both plausible applications of recent Supreme Court doctrine. But the results are so absurd that they call out for review by the highest court itself.

The laws in question appear in section 2257 of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. They arose from Congress’s desire to fight child pornography when the First Amendment has been interpreted to protect adult pornography, including depictions in which an adult actor is presented as underage.

The 2257 laws essentially require anyone making sexually explicit films to keep records documenting the identity and age of all performers. The records in turn must be available for inspection by the attorney general of the U.S. “at all reasonable times.”

Since 1988, these laws have applied without causing any crisis for constitutional free speech or privacy. In 2012, free-speech advocacy groups acting on behalf of pornographers brought a challenge to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit -- and lost. But in 2015, the Supreme Court decided a major free-speech case as well as an important Fourth Amendment case. Buoyed by new hopes, the challengers returned to the courts.

The First Amendment Gone Wild

And this is just how silly it's gotten.

 

[emilynghiem]

What's wrong with posting the documents some place online. Register once and you're done. If you commit fraud you've set up your own paper trail, so you sign a sworn affidavit just like filing in court.

Disir this seems crazy that ppl can have freedom not to prove or provide documents that the participants are of legal age. But at the same time, court orders or fines are issued to photographers who don't want to attend and film gay weddings. Why is there freedom from restrictions if you want to produce things outside the mainstream but not freedom if you don't wish to produce them. Why is govt. regulating free speech by forcing it on one case while deregulating it in another, is it the lawyers or judges, OR Media culture, or who decides what bias is the flavor of the month that should be established for everyone else to follow. Is it the lawyers arguments that are or aren't spelled out where the judges can only check yes or no. What is going on in these cases.
.

 

[Disir]

What's wrong with posting the documents some place online. Register once and you're done. If you commit fraud you've set up your own paper trail, so you sign a sworn affidavit just like filing in court.

Disir this seems crazy that ppl can have freedom not to prove or provide documents that the participants are of legal age. But at the same time, court orders or fines are issued to photographers who don't want to attend and film gay weddings. Why is there freedom from restrictions if you want to produce things outside the mainstream but not freedom if you don't wish to produce them. Why is govt. regulating free speech by forcing it on one case while deregulating it in another, is it the lawyers or judges, OR Media culture, or who decides what bias is the flavor of the month that should be established for everyone else to follow. Is it the lawyers arguments that are or aren't spelled out where the judges can only check yes or no. What is going on in these cases.
.

The public accommodation law in question for the Huguenin case was a state statute. The Huguenin made an attempt to circumvent the statute as "artistic expression". This would have been fine had her photography actually fallen into the category of artistic expression such as showcased in a gallery. You know, art. But, it didn't. That's why the Supreme Court said.......awe hell naw.

Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 and section 2257 is an effort to combat child pornography and currently trafficking. Speech ain't free and less free when dealing with the secondary effect of pornography.
This is how it operates:
2257 Program

Hence, warrantless searches.