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).
Your support matters…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.
Independent journalism is under threat and overshadowed by heavily funded mainstream media.
You can help level the playing field. Become a member.
Your tax-deductible contribution keeps us digging beneath the headlines to give you thought-provoking, investigative reporting and analysis that unearths what's really happening- without compromise.
Give today to support our courageous, independent journalists.
Ear to the Ground
The Wikileaks founder may be near the end of his long battle to avoid U.S. extradition.
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.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.