Porn Industry Fights New Proof-of-Age Rules
Within the past century, the federal government has had what some may call an obsession with pornography. Its attempt to shut down magazine mogul Larry Flynt, its requests for Google's search-term records and the racy Ken Starr report are all testaments to this fascination. But a regulation the DOJ recently...
February 17, 2006 at 09:09 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Within the past century, the federal government has had what some may call an obsession with pornography. Its attempt to shut down magazine mogul Larry Flynt, its requests for Google's search-term records and the racy Ken Starr report are all testaments to this fascination. But a regulation the DOJ recently passed to regulate the activities of porn Websites has those in the adult-entertainment business wishing Congress would just take a cold shower.
The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry group, filed suit against the DOJ in a federal court in Denver, on the grounds that the recent changes violate their First Amendment rights. The case is currently on appeal before the 10th Circuit. At issue are updates made in June 2005 to a 1988 child-protection law that require any Web site containing sexually explicit material to maintain records proving that performers are at least 18 years of age. The regulations are retroactive, forcing site operators to maintain records for all explicit content for the past 10 years. Criminal penalties could have first-time offenders serving prison sentences of up to five years.
Those in the porn business worry that the new rules, which specifically require the retention of a performer's date of birth, a copy of a form of government-issued identification and all aliases used in the industry, will put many of them out of business. The government's argument, according to court filings, is that it wants to crack down on sites promoting content featuring “teens” and “young-looking performers.”
Within the past century, the federal government has had what some may call an obsession with pornography. Its attempt to shut down magazine mogul Larry Flynt, its requests for
The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry group, filed suit against the DOJ in a federal court in Denver, on the grounds that the recent changes violate their First Amendment rights. The case is currently on appeal before the 10th Circuit. At issue are updates made in June 2005 to a 1988 child-protection law that require any Web site containing sexually explicit material to maintain records proving that performers are at least 18 years of age. The regulations are retroactive, forcing site operators to maintain records for all explicit content for the past 10 years. Criminal penalties could have first-time offenders serving prison sentences of up to five years.
Those in the porn business worry that the new rules, which specifically require the retention of a performer's date of birth, a copy of a form of government-issued identification and all aliases used in the industry, will put many of them out of business. The government's argument, according to court filings, is that it wants to crack down on sites promoting content featuring “teens” and “young-looking performers.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
Trending Stories
- 1'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 2Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 3Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 4Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
- 5Burr & Forman, Smith Gambrell & Russell Promote More to Partner This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250