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.
This year, the ground feels uncertain — facts are buried and those in power are working to keep them hidden. Now more than ever, independent journalism must go beneath the surface.
At Truthdig, we don’t just report what's happening — we investigate how and why. We follow the threads others leave behind and uncover the forces shaping our future.
Your tax-deductible donation fuels journalism that asks harder questions and digs where others won’t.
Don’t settle for surface-level coverage.
Unearth what matters. Help dig deeper.
Donate now.
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.