|
Forums >
General Industry >
2257 Lawsuit Victory
As you may know I'm one of the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit originally filed in 2009, seeking to have the laws known as 2257 and 2257A declared to be unconstitutional. I just received news on our latest appeal. We’ve won again. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has agreed with our appeal and sent our suit seeking to have the 2257 and 2257A laws declared to be unconstitutional back to the trial judge to be reconsidered. The appeals court determined that, in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, the 2257 laws must be evaluated under “strict scrutiny” to determine if they violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. We do not believe that the laws can withstand that scrutiny and will be found to be unconstitutional. In addition, the appeals court found that the inspection provisions of the laws are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Here is the summary of the court’s opinion in case number 13-3681: “This case reaches us for the third time and requires us to consider the import of two recent Supreme Court cases, Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015), and City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015), on the constitutionality of the recordkeeping, labeling, and inspection requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257 and 2257A (collectively, “the Statutes”) and their accompanying regulations, 28 C.F.R. §§ 75.1-75.9. In light of Reed, we determine that the Statutes are content based, and therefore require strict scrutiny review under the First Amendment. We will remand to the District Court to determine whether the Statutes withstand strict scrutiny. In light of Patel, we conclude that the inspection provisions of the Statutes1 and 28 C.F.R. § 75.5 are facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” This does not mean that the fight is over, but this is a major victory and could mean the end of these onerous laws. Jun 08 16 09:19 am Link The 2257 statute was designed to harass nude photographers and adult-rated videographers. Because it was written and intrepreted so over-broadly, it is a terrible burden and has a chilling effect on anyone shooting nude or even some sexy non-nude material. It is also unfair to models/actors because it violates their privacy rights. The fight over it has been going on for years. If the courts would act with integrity and courage, the entire 2257 scheme would have been thrown out as unconstitutional immediately. Jun 08 16 10:02 am Link Photographers and others affected by this law and who vote in the USA might want to consider which presidential candidate would be most likely to appoint Supreme Court justices who would rule in favor of free expression. Just sayin'. Here's a link to the judicial opinion referenced in the OP: http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/133681p1.pdf Jun 08 16 12:17 pm Link I applaud the OP's efforts and hope that this crap law can be overturned Jun 08 16 04:11 pm Link DaveL wrote: Congratulations. Is there a conflicting decision in a sister circuit? Because it increases the likelihood of a Supreme Court review and finally put this matter all to rest. Jun 08 16 06:19 pm Link Vindictive Images wrote: I can't keep track anymore, I remember listening to someone's oral arguments in front of one of the courts Jun 09 16 01:19 am Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: +1 Jun 09 16 07:12 am Link DaveL wrote: Vindictive Images wrote: There is, but those prior cases were reviewed before the most recent rulings by SCOTUS. Particularly Patel, which was the basis for holding that the inspection regime was facially unconstitutional. Jun 09 16 10:49 am Link Congratulations, Dave - thanks to you and your fellow plaintiffs for carrying our water on this terrible law. Jun 09 16 01:16 pm Link Congratulations. As a member of the profession I applaud the Circuit for upholding the Constitution. It's been a while. Jun 09 16 02:35 pm Link Which profession? ;-) Dec 20 16 09:47 pm Link Oaktree Pictorial wrote: Sounds like Soapbox to me. Besides we have a new president and we will have to live with that for four years in the least. Dec 21 16 04:21 am Link Encouraging, let's see what happens. Dec 21 16 04:29 am Link Justice isn't justice unless it moves swiftly. Dec 21 16 11:04 am Link Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President … ted_States True that terms are 4 years. However,... Dec 21 16 11:41 am Link Risen Phoenix Photo wrote: Not soapboxy at all - it is a discussion of photography that has a very strong political element. I'm sorry that you feel put out by the mention of politics, but there is literally no way to discuss laws without discussing their motive, and that means politics. Dec 21 16 06:06 pm Link |
