Court Victory for DIY Porn Enthusiasts
There's been a slight shift in the regulation of pornography in America, thanks to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, that might appeal to those of-age-and-consenting types interested in creating racy footage of themselves without the goal of profiting (monetarily, anyhow).
There’s been a slight shift in the regulation of pornography in America, thanks to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, that might appeal to those of-age-and-consenting types interested in creating racy footage of themselves without the goal of profiting (monetarily, anyhow).
WAIT, BEFORE YOU GO…Salon.com’s Machinist:
The court struck down 18 U.S.C. 2257, a statute that Congress enacted in 1988 as part of an anti-child-porn law. It requires producers of “sexually-explicit” material (NSFW definition here) to maintain records on the ages and identities of their filmed performers.
If you’re making a porno, that is, you’ve got to make photocopies of your stars’ IDs and then keep diligent records of these documents, which are subject to inspection at any time by the government.
That might sound like a reasonable regulation of adult material. Trouble is, as the court points out, the law does not cover only traditional producers of adult material. The text of the statute defines a “producer” of porn as anyone who makes sexually explicit material — even people who create images for themselves, without publishing or distributing them to anyone else.
If you're reading this, you probably already know that non-profit, independent journalism is under threat worldwide. Independent news sites are overshadowed by larger heavily funded mainstream media that inundate us with hype and noise that barely scratch the surface. We believe that our readers deserve to know the full story. Truthdig writers bravely dig beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that tells you what’s really happening and who’s rolling up their sleeves to do something about it.
Like you, we believe a well-informed public that doesn’t have blind faith in the status quo can help change the world. Your contribution of as little as $5 monthly or $35 annually will make you a groundbreaking member and lays the foundation of our work.
In a case likely to affect others, the corporate giant is told to pay $572 million after state says it misstated drug's effects out of greed.
At issue is money approved by Congress for the Pentagon that was diverted during the national emergency. Two high-priority projects are halted.
A tale of justice delayed and denied, Bobby Joe Maxwell's case exposes a fatal flaw in our court system.
Matthew Charles, although he committed no new crime, is back behind bars, and his case is generating a widespread demand for his release.
Despite the rejection, lawyers for the WikiLeaks founder say they are encouraged by the judges' 4-1 split, which may indicate that the court will change its decision.
Sweden's Supreme Court has given WikiLeaks figure Julian Assange the green light to appeal allegations of sexual assault stemming from two incidents that allegedly took place in Enköping and Stockholm in 2010.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.