Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Voici Le Crepuscule | "Howard, Seriously, Please Hel... »

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Federal Court Protects Anonymous Porn, Says Vast Majority of Swingers are Middle-Aged

posted by on October 24 at 8:56 AM

The 6th Circuit has struck down a federal law—part of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988—that requires pornographers to make records of the names and ages of anyone in their films available to the government.

Decision of the Day reports:

The Court explains that the invasive nature of the record-keeping requirements deters legal activities, particularly the many amateur photographers and filmmakers who put their sex lives on display but wish to remain anonymous in doing so.

The decision, which states simply, “We conclude that the statute is overbroad and therefore violates the First Amendment,” relied in part on the fact that swingers are middle-aged schlubs:

The key question is whether the means employed in § 2257—imposing age-verification and record-keeping requirements on all who produce depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct, regardless of the performers’ ages—burdens substantially more speech than necessary to prevent the sexual exploitation of minors in child pornography … The evidence in the record indicates that the vast majority of swingers are middle-aged and accordingly not at risk of being mistaken for minors. Relatedly, the record contains no indication of swingers engaging in sexual exploitation of minors. Accordingly, in the vast majority of instances, applying § 2257’s age-verification and record-keeping requirements to this population does not advance the government’s interest in preventing child pornography, but instead operates to burden constitutionally protected speech without any corresponding benefit. Indeed, this is true of all visual depictions of actual sexually explicit activity involving performers who are clearly above the age of majority. Accordingly, substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance the government’s asserted goal, so § 2257 is not narrowly tailored to the government’s interest in preventing the sexual exploitation of minors in child pornography.

RSS icon Comments

1

does this mean ratemyschlong.com will be up and running again soon?

Posted by brandon | October 24, 2007 9:24 AM
2

Glorious... Xtube is safe once again.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | October 24, 2007 9:26 AM
3

This city really should do more to support fat, horny, gross old dudes. They give us far more than we give them.

Posted by Goober | October 24, 2007 9:41 AM
4

Three cheers for Mr. Poe!

Posted by Goober | October 24, 2007 9:42 AM
5

@4

Hmm?

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 24, 2007 9:49 AM
6

Damn straight we do, Goober!

And your "Day Of Resitution" will soon be at-hand!

Posted by HIZZONER | October 24, 2007 9:50 AM
7

@6 re: "Day of Restitution"

Is that what we're calling that now?

Posted by Goober | October 24, 2007 9:57 AM
8

Don't be so narrow minded Goober- this ruling supports gross meth head twinkies too.

Something for all amateur porn enthusiasts!

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | October 24, 2007 10:11 AM
9

Score. This means that Manhunt and Xtube are safe, and therefore, I'll never run out of material to masturbate to.

Posted by Gitai | October 24, 2007 1:36 PM
10

You're not thinking of the children.

Posted by Paulus | October 24, 2007 2:52 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).