Free Speech Coalition



Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Free Speech X-Press
Delivering Weekly Censorship Updates to the Adult Industry

Vol. VIII, No. 37, August 4, 2006 -- A Member Service of the Free Speech Coalition
__________________________________________________________
Free Speech X-press is researched and edited by Layne Winklebleck.
Copyright 2006 Free Speech Coalition. Permission to reprint granted to FSC members; please give credit.
__________________________________________________________
VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR FSC MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com
__________________________________________________________

FRERIDGE RESIGNS AS FSC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CHATSWORTH, CA --Citing a desire to attend law school and become a First Amendment attorney, Michelle L. Freridge has announced her resignation as FSC Executive Director. An Executive Search Committee has been organized to find a replacement and a national search has begun (note: qualified candidates from the industry are encouraged to apply). Freridge plans to stay on staff long enough to assist in the transition.
FSC Board Chair Jeffrey Douglas praised the work Freridge has done for the organization.
    “Michelle and her staff have done an excellent job of professionalizing FSC and expanding the trade group’s influence in the industry and among policy makers,” said Douglas.
    “By almost all standards of measure, Freridge has done more for Free Speech Coalition in just two years than its leadership had been able to accomplish in the previous 15 years of its existence,” said AVN Senior Editor and FSC Board Director Mark Kernes.
    “I have enjoyed the last two years leading FSC in the direction of a full-service trade association,” said Freridge. “Building the organization's capacity, getting to know and work with industry leaders, developing the federal lobbying and member services, working with the attorneys on litigation, and initiating the code of ethics and best practices has been exciting and fulfilling work.”
From an FSC press release, 8/2/06
And from Mark Kernes, AVN.com, 8/2/06
__________________________________________________________

2257 INSPECTIONS CONTINUE
BETHLEHEM, PA and CHATSWORTH, CA -- FBI agents, described as polite and professional, have (as of this writing) conducted three inspections of adult entertainment production companies records to determine compliance under the federal record-keeping law 18 U.S.C. §2257. Last week, X-press reported on the first ever 2257 inspection during a surprise visit of six federal agents to Diabolic Video offices in Chatsworth. Since then, agents have paid visits to amateur gay producer Sebastian Sloane Productions in Pennsylvania and to the offices of Robert Hill Releasing, one of the top she-male adult producers. The Diabolic and Robert Hill inspections reportedly were focused only on 2257 records. In the case of the Sebastian Sloane investigation, however, agents came also armed with a search warrant that allowed them to search other parts of the residence in which the business is located.
    There are apparently other inspections planned -- perhaps many of them, if we are to credit comments by agents during the inspections. Agents reportedly told Sebastian Sloane owner JJ Ruch that there are 16 four-member FBI teams nationwide. Agents reportedly told the owner of Robert Hill Releasing that there are some 23 adult video and website companies that they intend to visit over the coming weeks. We can hope that doesn’t mean there are 16 teams planning 23 inspections for each team. However, if there are 16 teams, it is unlikely that they plan 1.2 inspections each.
    FSC has prepared a “frequently asked questions” Website page to help members with answers to basic questions regarding 18 USC Section 2257 as well as the potential impact that Title V of HR 4472, the Adam Walsh Child Protection And Safety Act Of 2006 -- now signed into law -- will have on adult businesses. (See X-Press report, “2257 and Obscenity Provisions Part of Child Protection Bill,” 7/21/06)
See also: an easy to read, practical guide to what to do and say in the event of a 2257 inspection, prepared by First Amendment attorneys Lawrence Walters and Clyde DeWitt with associate Marc Randazza.
Some information is from Mark Kernes, AVN.com, 8/1/06
See also, Rhett Pardon, Xbiz.com, 7/28/06
__________________________________________________________

LABELING LAW MOVING QUICKLY IN SENATE
WASHINGTON, DC -- A provision for mandatory labeling of sexually explicit content online has been inserted -- without a hearing -- into a "must pass" Senate Appropriations bill (H.R. 5672) which has already been voted out of the Commerce Committee. These are the same labeling provisions that had already been included in the controversial Senate Telecom bill that has also passed out of the Commerce Committee but has yet to be put to a vote on the floor, with a filibuster threatened. Inserting mandatory labeling into an appropriations bill is a bit of a dirty trick because there are rules against legislating in an appropriations bill.
Under the labeling provisions, website operators are forbidden to place sexually explicit content (including lascivious display of the genitals, as broadly defined in section 2256(2)(A) of title 18) on the first page of a website, and must place a mark or notice (to be determined by the Federal Trade Commission) on any page that does contain such content, unless such pages have restricted access through a password or other access restriction mechanism. Violators face fines and up to five years in prison.
    If mandatory labeling becomes law it will probably have little or no effect on online availability of adult oriented content to children. More than half of adult websites – hundreds of thousands of sites – are located outside of the United States and thus are beyond the reach of the U.S. law, as noted by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) in letters sent to key Senate committee chairs.
    Perhaps the worst aspect of a mandatory labeling bill is the damaging chill it will cast over a broad range of mainstream, non-adult content on the Internet. As CDT notes, the broad language of the bill – which would apply to all “depictions” that are “sexually explicit” (including depictions with no nudity or actual sex acts) -- would apply to many R-rated movies, some PG, PG-13 and TV-PG content, music lyrics, art, and pages of text in online books, magazines and other publications. When content creators, fearing legal penalties, self-censor by attaching a “digital scarlet letter” to their site, filtering technologies will cause their material to disappear for an audience that desires and would value the content. The First Amendment issues are obvious. If mandatory labeling becomes law, a constitutional challenge is virtually inevitable.
See the FSC Website for an extended version of this report
Thanks to John Morris (CDT) for the news alert.
__________________________________________________________

EXOTIC DANCING UNDER THE UTAH CONSTITUTION
SOUTH SALT LAKE, UT -- A divided Utah Supreme Court has ruled (3-2) that an ordinance prohibiting nude dancing in (non-alcohol serving) exotic dance clubs is allowed under the Utah Constitution. American Bush v City of South Salt Lake makes for interesting reading, despite being long and a bit obtuse, due to the fact that for reasons of pre-trial legal maneuvers federal constitutional claims were explicitly deleted from the lawsuit. That left the issue as one of constitutional protections for nude dancing under the free speech provisions in the Utah Constitution, a matter that has seen very little case law or scholarly analysis over the years. In essence, the majority was starting from scratch in their analysis.
    The Utah Constitution guarantees the citizens of Utah “the inherent and inalienable right… to communicate freely their thoughts and opinions, being responsible for the abuse of that right.” Also, the Utah Constitution forbids laws which either “abridge or restrain the freedom of speech,” while the United States Constitution forbids only those laws that “abridge” that right. On the face of it, the Utah Constitution seems to be even more protective of freedom of speech than the U.S. Bill of Rights.
    So how does Justice Parrish, writing for the majority in the American Bush decision, get around such clear and pointed language to reach a conclusion that nude dancing is not protected expression under the Utah Constitution? Major wiggle-room is provided by the phrase “being responsible for the abuse of that right.” By the time Utah became a state and the constitution was ratified just before the turn of the last century, says the majority opinion, an historical analysis -- the analysis is included at considerable length in the opinion -- indicates that attitudes about freedom of speech had become more conservative than they were a century earlier when the U.S. Constitution was written. The phrase “being responsible for the abuse of that right,” Parrish argues, does not refer exclusively to issues of libel or defamation, as Chief Justice Christine Durham argues in dissent, but is intended “to preserve a broader definition of what constitutes an abuse,” i.e. (for example, in the case at point) nude exotic dancing.
    The majority argument also relies heavily on the “original intent” of the framers of the Utah Constitution. Terms used in a constitution must be taken to mean what they meant to the minds of the voters of the state when the provision was adopted, said the court. Well, it so happens that at the time the Utah Constitution was ratified, it was illegal for either men or women to expose themselves to even willing participants in such a way as to excite lewd thoughts. “In light of historical evidence,” said the court, “it is inconceivable that the framers of our constitution or the citizens of this state intended to protect nude dancing under the constitutional right of the freedom of speech.”
From the American Bush v South Salt Lake decision, 7/28/06
See also, KUTV News, 7/28/06
__________________________________________________________

DOPA BILL PASSES HOUSE -- GOES TO SENATE
WASHINGTON, DC -- The House of Representatives has passed a school and library filtering bill (H.R. 5319) called the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA) that would force schools and libraries to block chat and social networking sites as a condition of receiving federal E-rate funding. (Not all schools and libraries fall in that category, only some mostly poorer ones.) The bill has now been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
    H.R. 5319 goes far beyond the already broad mandate that requires schools and libraries to filter out obscenity and "harmful-to-minors" content and would block access to many legal and valuable web sites and Internet tools. The bills stated intent is to restrict access by minors using school and library computers to commercial social-networking Websites such as MySpace.com and Facebook. However, the measure is defined in terms of sites which let users create public Web pages or profiles and which offer discussion boards, chat rooms, or e-mail services, which means it would cover much more than MySpace, also bringing in a wide range of interactive Websites and services, including Blogger.com, AOL and Yahoo's instant-messaging features, and Microsoft's Xbox 360, which permits in-game chat. Furthermore, because chat and social networking are woven into the fabric of Internet communication, a huge range of additional sites may be declared off limits in libraries and schools.
    The bill appoints the Federal Communications Commission as the arbiter of what can and cannot be accessed in libraries around the country, meaning that for the first time, the federal government would be getting into the business of evaluating and screening wholly lawful Internet content.
Update is from a Center for Democracy and Technology website headline, 7/27/06

__________________________________________________________

UpComing Events

AUG 4-6 -- Internext Summer 2006, Weston Diplomat, Hollywood, FL

AUG 22-24 -- Gentlemen’s Club Owners Expo, Las Vegas, NV

AUG 25-28 -- Erotica Expo, New Zealand

SEPT 2 -- Sin City Chamber of Commerce Golf Classic, Las Vegas

SEPT 4 -- West Coast Rubber, Palm Springs, CA

SEPT 9-10 -- Gay Erotic Expo, L.A., CA

SEPT 24 -- Folsom Street Fair, San Francisco, CA

SEPT 23-24 -- Adultcon 11, Los Angeles Convention Center

SEPT 25-27 -- AVN Industry Summit, Palm Springs, CA

OCT 7 -- Arizona FetishBall,Scottsdale, AZ
OCT 8-9 -- Gay Erotic Expo, NY

OCT 17-22 -- CineKink NYC

OCT 20-26 -- Everything To Do With Sex Show, Toronto, Canada

OCT 21 -- Exotic Erotic Ball, San Francisco, CA

DEC 1-3 -- Black Rose 2006, Washington, DC

JAN 10-13 -- Adult Entertainment Expo, Sands Expo, Las Vegas