If They Hate Us For Our Freedoms...
Then 'They' must hate us less each day. Today, particularly: Flushed with their victory over evil after empowering the Feds to shut down any website that might offend a radical Christan nutjob, Congress took time to crap out a pointless flag-burning ammendment. Meanwhile, thousands of cancer patients are being denied a respite from pain and indignity for.. some reason. So remember: health care, personal dignity and free personal expression mean the terrorists have already won.
Full text of the 'we own your Internets' bill here. The text of the enabling regulations is here.
Full text of the 'we own your Internets' bill here. The text of the enabling regulations is here.
posted by Management at 3:05 AM
6 Comments:
Federal agents raided three San Francisco medical marijuana dispensaries today as part of a broader investigation into money laundering and Asian organized crime, authorities said.
The operation targeted two cannabis clubs on Ocean Avenue and another on Judah Street, and came just two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court — in a crushing blow to the medical marijuana movement — ruled that the federal government had the authority to prosecute people whose actions are legal under state law.
Law enforcement sources said the clubs were not targeted for drug operations but say they were allegedly being used as fronts for money-laundering operations.
Federal agents, in some cases joined by San Francisco police, raided 20 homes and businesses in the city today as part of the operation, sources told The Chronicle.
“It’s a large scale operation,’’ said Javier Pena, special agent in charge of the San Francisco office of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The indictments that led to the raids have been sealed, he said, and he could not comment further.
San Francisco police narcotics Capt. Tim Hettrich confirmed that his officers had assisted in the operations but had not taken part in the raids on the medical marijuana dispensaries.
The city is home to 44 medical marijuana dispensaries, more than any other city in the nation. Residents and city officials have grown increasingly frustrated that San Francisco’s 2-month-old moratorium on the clubs appears to be having little effect, with as many as six new clubs opening in recent weeks.
Earlier this month, Supervisor Sean Elsbernd, joined by Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, introduced a resolution urging City Attorney Dennis Herrera to take action against the illegal clubs.
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/22/MNpotbust22.DTL
The adult biz advocacy group Free Speech Coalition (FSC) filed a lawsuit last week challenging 2257, and AVN has more on that: Link. Here's an article on adult news site XBiz about last-minute compliance preparations in the porn world: Link
Previously on Boing Boing: Porn Law Draws Adult Sites' Ire
Reader comment: Race says,
In terms of the bookkeeping requirements for Adult film distributors -- each distributor has to keep records on site. That includes social security numbers, driver license scans and other personal information. So lets say you're Paris Hilton (in red light's "one night in Paris"), your personal information is then has to be carried by every distributor that carries that film ( which could be hundreds if not thousands of locations, increasing the likelihood of identity theft, etc -- and not to mention privacy issues). It used to be that the studio producing an adult film would carry that information at their studio. (...) This law is a way for the goverment to control porn.
Mark Haas says,
I'm just coming up to speed on this whole 2257 issue, but I just read the full text of the enabling regulations, and concerning who must keep these records, the text clearly states: "The record-keeping requirements apply to ``[w]hoever produces'' the material in question ... but ["produces"] does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.'' And so it seems to me that if you are not directly involved in the actual "creation" of the work -- i.e. a web site that displays images someone else created, or a film distributor -- then the record keeping requirements do not apply to you. Am I missing something?
Bad Penny says:
Mark is right that the only ones responsible for keeping the records are those who produce the material, but this amendment makes it unlawful for anyone to "knowingly sell or otherwise transfer" any pornographic material made after the effective date in 1990 without being able to show where the records are held. So while websites with such material are not required to have the records, they are required to know where they are.
Section 4 of the amendment contains the relevant text on this issue:
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which -
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept.
Tom Adams says,
There's an aspect to this I haven't seen discussed. Immediately after the Patriot act was in force, there were uses of its provisions against criminals other than terrorists. John Ashcroft defended this, saying that "prosecutors should use all the tools available to them." It seems a small stretch to argue that these new regulations could apply to p2p transfers of adult material. This would open the door to morality based prosecutions of individuals. The Government's Bible Belt equivalent of RIAA suits.
A Rotten.com spokesperson responds:
You are missing the part where "distributor" is redefined to include posting on an internet web site. Re-read the enabling regulations more closely. Yes, it really does that. Specifically the term "secondary producer" is defined to include anyone who posts a digital image on an internet site, under 75.1 (c)(2). Secondary producers are the ones who are now being required to maintain this information. It is no over-reaction.
Romanpoet says:
In addition to ratemyboner.com, another rotten site, ratemyboobies.com has also been censored. Of interest, a site generally considered to be in far worse taste, ratemypoo.com is excepted from the new porn regulations.
(Ed note: I'm told by a Rotten source that this is because "stray cunts" tend to show up on ratemyboobies from time to time. This creates problems with 2257 compliance. But ratemypoo tends to be -- well, pure poo.)
Joe says, "Annalee Newitz has a neat article on 2257... in her classic style."
But wait - there's more. Any site affected by 2257 must also publish a physical address that serves as its "place of business." Someone must be available at that address 20 hours a week just in case a law enforcement officer wants to gain access to those 2257 records. This doesn't seem too onerous if you imagine a Penthouse.com or Vivid Video type of operation. But consider all the mom-and-pop adult Web sites run out of private residences, or Webcam girls who don't turn the cam off when they take someone to bed. These rules mean that your local Webcam girl and our friends over at sex blog Fleshbot.com must publish their physical addresses online, thus leaving performers and writers vulnerable to stalking and harassment. But hey, it's a great full-access wank pass for cops who can't afford to pay for really primo porn sites every month.
House approves flag-burning amendment
Measure might finally pass Senate
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.
By a 286-130 vote -- eight more than needed -- House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.
Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.
Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.
"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the [World] Trade Center," said Rep. Randy [Duke] Cunningham, R-California. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."
The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.
The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.
Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.
But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.
By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.
The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4 holiday.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
[Federal Register: May 24, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 99)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29607-29622]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24my05-5]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 75
[Docket No. CRM 103; AG Order No. 2765-2005]
RIN 1105-AB05
Inspection of Records Relating to Depiction of Sexually Explicit
Performances
AGENCY: Department of Justice
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the record-keeping and inspection
requirements of 28 CFR part 75 to bring the regulations up to date with
current law, to improve understanding of the regulatory system, and to
make the inspection process effective for the purposes set by Congress
in enacting the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement
[[Page 29608]]
Act of 1988, as amended, relating to the sexual exploitation and other
abuse of children.
DATES: This final rule is effective June 23, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Oosterbaan, Chief, Child
Exploitation and Obscenity section, Criminal Division, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (202) 514-5780. This is
not a toll-free number.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 25, 2004, the Department of Justice published a proposed
rule in the Federal Register at 69 FR 35547, to update the regulations
implementing the record-keeping requirements of the Child Protection
and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988. The proposed rule updated those
regulations to account for changes in technology, particularly the
Internet, and to implement the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools
to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003, Pub.
L. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650 (April 30, 2003) (``2003 Amendments''). The
statute requires producers of sexually explicit matter to maintain
certain records concerning the performers to assist in monitoring the
industry. See 18 U.S.C. 2257. The statute requires the producers of
such matter to ``ascertain, by examination of an identification
document containing such information, the performer's name and date of
birth,'' to ``ascertain any name, other than the performer's present
and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name,
alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,'' and to record this
information. 18 U.S.C. 2257(b). Violations of these record-keeping
requirements are criminal offenses punishable by imprisonment for not
more than five years for a first offense and not more than ten years
for subsequent offenses. See 18 U.S.C. 2257(i). These provisions
supplement the federal statutory provisions criminalizing the
production and distribution of materials visually depicting minors
engaged in sexually explicit conduct. See 18 U.S.C. 2251, 2252.
The record-keeping requirements apply to ``[w]hoever produces'' the
material in question. 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the
duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted.'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3).
The Attorney General, under 18 U.S.C. 2257(g), issued regulations
implementing the record-keeping requirements on April 24, 1992. See 57
FR 15017 (1992); 28 CFR 75. In addition to the record-keeping
requirements specifically discussed in section 2257, the regulations
require producers to retain copies of the performers' identification
documents, to cross-index the records by ``[a]ll names(s) of each
performer, including any alias, maiden name, nickname, stage name or
professional name of the performer; and according to the title, number,
or other similar identifier of each book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, or other matter,'' and to maintain the records for a
specified period of time. 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1), 75.3, 75.4.
Most recently, in 2003, Congress made extensive amendments to the
child exploitation statutory scheme based on detailed legislative
findings, which the Department adopts as grounds for proposing this
rule. See 2003 Amendments.
The Department agrees with each of these findings, and hereby
amends the regulations in 28 CFR part 75 to comport with these specific
findings. As explained more fully below, the rules implement a more
detailed inspection system to ensure that children are not used as
performers in sexually explicit depictions.
Need for the Rule
Recent federal statutory enactments and judicial interpretations
have highlighted the urgency of protecting children against sexual
exploitation and, consequently, the need for more specific and clear
regulations detailing the records and inspection process for sexually
explicit materials to assure the accurate identity and age of
performers.
The identity of every performer is critical to determining and
assuring that no performer is a minor. The key Congressional concern,
evidenced by the child exploitation statutory scheme, was that all such
performers be verifiably not minors, i.e. not younger than 18. 28
U.S.C. 2256(1), 2257(b)(1). Minors--children--warrant a special concern
by Congress for several reasons as discussed more specifically in
relation to the inspection process. Children themselves are incapable
of giving voluntary and knowing consent to perform or to enter into
contracts to perform. In addition, children often are involuntarily
forced to engage in sexually explicit conduct. For these reasons,
visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons
under the age of 18 constitute unlawful child pornography.
This rule provides greater details for the record-keeping and
inspection process in order to ensure that minors are not used as
performers in sexually explicit depictions. The rule does not restrict
in any way the content of the underlying depictions other than by
clarifying the labeling on and record-keeping requirements pertaining
to, that underlying depiction. Cf. 27 CFR 16.21 (alcoholic beverage
health warning statement; mandatory label information). However,
compliance with the record-keeping requirements of this part has no
bearing on the legality or illegality of the underlying sexually
explicit material.
Moreover, the growth of Internet facilities in the past five years,
and the proliferation of pornography on Internet computer sites or
services, requires that the regulations be updated. In the rule, a
number of definitions are revised to facilitate the application of the
rule to the modern modes of communication.
Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
The Department of Justice published the proposed rule on June 25,
2004, and comments were due to the Department on or before August 24,
2004. The following discussion responds to comments received from the
public and explains why the Department either adopted changes or
declined to adopt changes to the proposed rule in response to the
comments. Many commenters commented on identical issues, and as a
result, the number of comments exceeds the number of issues addressed
below. Commenters addressed issues that can be separated into five
general categories: General Legal Issues; Vagueness/Overbreadth Issues;
Burdensomeness; Privacy Concerns; and Miscellaneous Issues.
General Legal Issues
Four commenters commented that the proposed rule encroached on
adult citizens' constitutional right to view pornography under the
guise of protecting children from exploitation. The Department
disagrees with this comment. The final rule does not impinge upon the
constitutionally protected right to free speech. This claim was fully
litigated following enactment of the statute and the publication of the
first version of the section 2257 regulations. The D.C. Circuit, while
invalidating certain
[[Page 29609]]
provisions of the regulations, held in American Library Ass'n v. Reno,
33 F.3d 78 (D.C. Cir.1994), that the statute and its implementing
regulations were content-neutral measures that served the compelling
state interest in protecting children and were therefore
``constitutional as they apply to the vast majority of the materials
affected by them, namely, the commercially produced books, magazines,
films, and videotapes that cater to ``adult'' tastes.'' Id. at 94.
Citing the Tenth Circuit's holding in Sundance Assoc., Inc. v.
Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th Cir.1998), several commenters commented that
the rule's application to secondary producers exceeds the Department's
statutory authority. Furthermore, the commenters claimed that
application of the rule to secondary producers as defined by the rule
would have an unconstitutionally burdensome and chilling effect, and
four commenters noted that small businesses would be particularly
burdened with regard to maintaining segregated records, copies of
depictions, and cross-indexed records. In Sundance, the court held that
the statutory definition of producer did not distinguish between
primary and secondary producers and entirely exempted from the record-
keeping requirements those who merely distribute or those whose
activity ``does not involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or
otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.''
18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3). In contrast, the D.C. Circuit in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno implicitly accepted that the distinction between primary
and secondary producers was valid. The D.C. Circuit there held that the
requirement that secondary producers maintain records was not a
constitutionally impermissible burden on protected speech, particularly
since secondary producers can comply by maintaining copies of the
records of the primary producers, an option permitted by this rule. In
so holding, the court implicitly considered the distinction between
primary and secondary producers to be legitimate. Consistent with the
D.C. Circuit's holding, which the Department believes reflects the
correct view of the law, the Department declines to adopt these
comments. For the same reason, the Department declines to adopt the
comment of four commenters that the exclusions to the definition of
producer in Sec. 75.1(c)(4)(iii) eliminate the reference to primary
and secondary producers contained in Sec. 75.1(c)(1)-(2).
More specifically, two commenters commented that the expanded
definition of producer to include any person who creates a computer-
generated image is contrary to the ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech
Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), which permits restrictions only on
those who produce depictions of actual persons. The commenters claimed,
too, that the provision is contradictory in that it covers computer-
generated images while limiting its coverage to ``depiction[s] of
actual sexually explicit conduct.'' 28 CFR 75.1(c)(1)-(2). Thus, the
commenters argued, all statutory references to computer-generated
images and depictions not involving possible child abuse to actual
children in their creation should be removed. The Department notes that
the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition determined that
virtual child pornography could not be constitutionally prohibited
under that statute, which did not require that the material be either
obscene or the product of sexual abuse. The ruling does not, however,
restrict the government's ability to ensure that performers in sexually
explicit depictions are not in fact children. Nevertheless, the
Department has made a slight change to the final rule in response to
these comments by clarifying that the rule applies to those who
digitally manipulate images of actual human beings but not to those who
generate computer images that do not depict actual human beings (e.g.,
cartoons).
Thirty-three commenters commented that the rule included an
improper starting date from which records must be maintained. These
commenters claimed that the Department previously stated, in accordance
with the court's order in American Library Ass'n v. Reno, Civil Action
No. 91-0394 (SSS) (D.D.C. July 28, 1995), that July 3, 1995, was the
effective date for enforcement of section 2257. Nevertheless, the
commenters said, Sec. Sec. 75.2(a), 75.6, and 75.7(a)(1) of the
proposed rule refer to November 1, 1990, and Sec. Sec. 75.2(a)(1) and
(2), 75.6, and 75.7(a)(1) refer to May 26, 1992. The commenters argued
that the effective dates of the regulation should be changed to be
consistent with the Department's representations or, in the
alternative, made purely prospective in order to provide producers a
chance to comply. Further, they argued, no obligations should be
imposed concerning images made prior to the effective date.
Based on the Department's decision not to appeal American Library
Ass'n v. Reno and its representation regarding the effective date of
the regulation to non-parties to American Library Ass'n v. Reno, the
Department has amended the proposed rule and in the final rule makes
July 3, 1995, the effective date of the regulation and imposes no
obligations on producers concerning sexually explicit depictions
manufactured prior to that effective date.
Several commenters commented that the provision permitting seizure
of records is unconstitutionally broad, could lead to prior restraint,
and does not define what specific materials may be seized. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department notes that
the regulatory and inspection scheme outlined in the final rule is a
constitutional exercise of government power and, therefore, the
presence of a law enforcement officer on the premises of the entity
being inspected is authorized. In such a case, evidence of a crime may
be seized by a law enforcement officer under the plain-view exception
to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, and the materials seized
do not need to be specifically described in the regulation that
authorized the inspection.
Four commenters objected to the inclusion in the definition of
producer of parent organizations and subsidiaries of producers,
claiming it was beyond the Department's statutory authority, did not
specify which entities must comply with the statute, overrode state
laws on business associations, and violated the principles of Sundance
Assoc., Inc. v. Reno. While not confirming the validity of, or
adopting, the specific objections of the commenters, the Department has
eliminated the inclusion of parent and subsidiary organizations in the
definition of producer.
Citing American Library Ass'n v. Reno, three commenters claimed
that the proposed rule's requirement to ascertain performers' aliases
appeared to impose an obligation on the producer to verify all aliases,
whereas, according to them, American Library Ass'n v. Reno requires
only that the producer obtain the aliases from performers themselves.
Three commentators claimed that the proposed rule's requirement that
information in the label be accurate as of the date on which material
is sold violates American Library Ass'n v. Reno, which required
accuracy on the date the material was produced or reproduced.
The Department, having reviewed American Library Ass'n v. Reno,
agrees with the commenters that minor changes should be made to the
proposed rule for publication as a final rule in order to comply with
the D.C. Circuit's decision. The final rule clarifies that the
producers may rely on the representations regarding aliases that
[[Page 29610]]
performers make and are not obligated to investigate further. In
addition, the final rule requires that information in the label be
accurate as of the date the material is produced or reproduced.
The Department rejects, however, two commenters' claims that the
Department does not have authority to require a date on the label in
the first instance. Although section 2257 does not explicitly require a
date on the label, the Attorney General has the statutory authority to
issue appropriate regulations to implement the section and has
determined that the purposes of the section cannot be accomplished
without such a date. There would be no way to determine whether a
performer is underage without knowing the date that the material was
produced or reproduced.
Two commenters commented that the proposed rule did not exempt
printers, film processors, and video duplicators from the definition of
producer, as required by American Library Ass'n v. Reno. The Department
adopts this comment, and the final rule provides such an exemption.
One commenter commented that section 2257 was restricted to
producers of sexually explicit material that was produced with
materials that had traveled in interstate or foreign commerce or was
intended to be shipped, or was in fact shipped, in interstate or
foreign commerce, while the proposed rule applied to ``[a]ny producer''
of any sexually explicit depiction with no such limitation. The
Department agrees that the regulation needs to contain the same federal
jurisdictional nexus as the statute. The Department has therefore
accordingly amended the proposed rule so that the final rule contains a
limitation such that it applies only to producers of material that was
produced with materials that had traveled in interstate or foreign
commerce or was intended to be shipped, or was in fact shipped, in
interstate or foreign commerce.
One commenter commented that protecting children could be
accomplished by requiring a credit card to access a pornographic
website. The commenter apparently erroneously confused this regulation,
which is designed to protect children from being exploited as
performers, with protecting children from viewing pornography, which is
the subject of other statutes and regulations. No change is being made
in response to this comment.
Vagueness/Overbreadth
Thirty-two commenters commented that the definitions of URL and URL
associated with the depiction are vague. According to the commenters,
it is not clear what constitutes a copy of a Web page, which may be
constantly changing, for purposes of maintaining a copy of the
depiction. The commenters claim that some sites may use technologies
that may not even use a URL for downloading a picture (e.g., peer-to-
peer systems, telephonic bulletin boards, and other technologies).
Furthermore, they claim, requiring the use of certain technologies to
comply with the statute presents a situation in which unconstitutional
restrictions are placed upon the manner and media in which content is
presented. The Department declines to adopt this comment with regard to
the concern that web pages are constantly changing. It is for this very
reason that the proposed rule required producers to maintain copies of
every iteration of a web page in order to create a record of which
performers were featured over the course of time. The Department adopts
this comment insofar as it notes that some sites do not utilize URLs
for downloading, and will modify the rule to require records of the URL
or, if no URL is associated with the depiction, another uniquely
identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on
the Internet.
In addition, thirty-three commenters commented that it is unclear
whether the term copy in the rule refers to only digital images,
computer-generated images, and web cam images, or whether there must be
a copy of the image that was in the magazine and film in the records,
as well. The Department has amended the rule to clarify that there must
be copy of any and every depiction, whether digital, computer-
generated, print in a magazine, or on film. Maintaining copies of each
depiction is critical to making the inspection process meaningful,
whether those copies be in digital, paper, or videotape format.
Reviewing identification records in a vacuum would be meaningless
without being able to cross-reference the depictions, and having the
depictions on hand is necessary to determine whether in fact age-
verification files are being maintained for each performer in a given
depiction. In addition, without the depictions, inspectors could not
confirm that each book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape or other
matter has affixed to it a statement describing the location of the
records, as required by the existing regulations.
Twenty-four commenters commented that the exclusion of providers of
web-hosting services who do not manage the content of the site or
service is vague and may be under-inclusive because some services
manage or control certain website content, e.g., advertisements, but
not the sexually explicit content. According to the commenters, it is
similarly unclear whether editing content only for copyright
infringement purposes would constitute control of content. The
Department adopts this comment. The exclusion of providers of web-
hosting services who reasonably cannot manage the content of the site
will be clarified to exclude providers of web-hosting services who
reasonably cannot manage the sexually explicit content of the site (for
either technical or contractual reasons).
Three commenters also commented that the definition of secondary
producers as those who ``manage content'' on a computer site could be
construed to include those who operate posting services such as Usenet,
bulletin boards, and other similar services. According to those
commenters, someone who removes illegal material such as child
pornography could thereby submit themselves to the requirements of Part
75, while if that person did not remove such material, the person would
be liable to prosecution for hosting child pornography. The Department
declines to adopt this comment. Operators of such sites are obligated
by law to remove child pornography from their sites and to report the
attempt to post such pornography to law enforcement. Compliance with
that legal obligation could not be construed as converting the operator
into a producer of pornography for purposes of section 2257 and this
regulation.
Five commenters commented that the definitions of producer and
secondary producer would encompass on-line distributors of pornography
who digitize the covers of videos, DVDs, and magazines but are not
involved in the actual production of the material. One of these
commenters also claimed that the definition of producer should be
changed to allow on-line distributors to rely upon records provided to
them by the immediately preceding secondary producer, in accordance
with the Department's representation to the court in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno. The Department declines to adopt these comments. The
definition of producer is of necessity broad enough to encompass those
who digitize images--even for distribution purposes--because in so
doing, a new sexually explicit depiction is created. The Department has
determined that it is not possible to change the definition in such a
way as to exclude distributors while not also creating an unacceptable
loophole in the coverage of the regulation. This
[[Page 29611]]
definition does not alter the Department's representation to the court
in American Library Ass'n v. Reno, and it remains true that a secondary
producer not in privity with the primary producer may rely upon records
provided to it by the immediately preceding secondary producer.
However, on-line distributors who digitize depictions on the covers of
videos, DVDs, magazines, and other material such that new depictions
are created and displayed on the Internet are covered by the definition
of producer and must maintain the required records.
Three commenters commented that it is unclear whether the
requirement that the statement include date of production,
manufacturing, publication, duplication, reproduction, or re-issuance
must include all of the listed events or only one. In addition,
according to these commenters, the only relevant date for the statute's
purposes is the date of creation, i.e., the date the actual live event
was depicted. Finally, claimed these commenters, the term date of
production is also vague in that it is not clear how a producer should
date a film made over several days. The Department declines to adopt
this comment. Given the statute's purpose of protecting minors against
sexual exploitation, with respect to primary producers, clearly the
date of production is the most pertinent because it will reflect the
youngest age of the performer involved. Secondary producers should list
whichever date or dates are relevant to their conduct. Moreover, this
requirement already existed before the proposed rule was published, and
therefore, this comment does not pertain to the proposed rule. See 28
CFR 75.6(a)(2) (2003).
Two commenters commented that the definition of picture
identification card is vague, in particular because it does not include
documents issued by a foreign government but does include as an example
a foreign passport. In response to these comments, the Department has
clarified that the definition includes a foreign government-issued
passport or any other document issued by a foreign government or a
political subdivision thereof only when both the person who is the
subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining
the required records are located outside the United States. The
definition also clarifies that it includes a U.S. government-issued
Permanent Resident Card (commonly known as a ``Green Card'') or other
U.S. government-issued Employment Authorization Document.
Two commenters commented that the proposed rule did not define
qualifications for, or process for authorization of, inspectors. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Through 18 U.S.C. 2257
Congress has authorized the Attorney General to inspect records, and
the Attorney General may delegate this authority to any agency deemed
appropriate by virtue of the Attorney General's delegation authority
under 28 U.S.C. 510.
One commenter commented that the inclusion in the definition of
secondary producer of anyone who ``enters into a contract, agreement,
or conspiracy'' to produce a sexually explicit depiction was irrational
because such a person was not likely to have had a relationship with
the performer and may not have had knowledge of the content of the
depiction. The Department declines to adopt this comment. The statute
contemplates such relationships as being covered by its requirements.
One commenter commented that the definition of a primary producer
as anyone who ``digitizes an image'' could be read to include anyone
who scans or digitizes a photograph or negative. The commenter
suggested that someone who performs that activity should be exempted
from the record-keeping requirements in the same way that photo
processors are exempt under Sec. 75.1(c)(4)(i). The Department adopts
this comment and has clarified in the final rule that someone who
solely digitizes a pre-existing photograph or negative as part of a
commercial enterprise and has no other commercial interest in the
production, reproduction, sale, distribution, or other transfer of the
sexually explicit depiction is exempt from the requirements of Sec.
75. As reflected in the phrase ``has no other commercial interest in
the production, reproduction, sale, distribution, or other transfer of
the sexually explicit depiction,'' this definition is intended to apply
to businesses that are analogous to photo processors in their lack of
commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, and who are
separate and distinct from the on-line distributors of pornography who
digitize the covers of videos, DVDs, etc., who are included in the
definition of secondary producer, as discussed above.
One commenter commented that the requirement regarding the
placement of the statement in films and videotapes in Sec. 75.8 was
unclear as to whether the statement was required in the ``end
credits,'' ``end titles,'' or ``final credits'' and what constituted
those sections of the film. The commenter also suggested that Sec.
75.8(b) and (c) be combined more easily to describe the placement of
the statement. The Department adopts this comment. It has combined
Sec. 75.8(b) and (c) and clarified that the statement must appear in
the end credits of films and videotapes that have such end credits,
which are defined as the section of the film that lists information
about the production, direction, distribution, names of performers, or
any other matter that is normally understood as constituting ``end
credits'' of a commercial film or videotape.
One commenter commented that the definition of sell, distribute,
redistribute, and re-release in Sec. 75.1(d) is redundant because it
restricts the terms to their commercial meaning but then notes that the
terms do not apply to noncommercial or educational distribution. In
addition, the commenter comments, it provides examples of the type of
education institutions whose distributions would not be covered.
According to the commenter, this list is also redundant. The Department
declines to adopt this comment. The definition's plain language is not
redundant; rather, it is as specific as possible regarding what is
commercial and what is noncommercial. In addition, the examples clearly
constitute a non-exhaustive list of institutions and clarify the
meaning of the term noncommercial.
One commenter commented that the rule should define the term
transfer, as used in section 2257, in order to, e.g., specify whether
the statement is required if a husband mails to his wife a sexually
explicit videotape depicting the couple engaged in consensual sexual
activity. The Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department
believes that the definition of sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-
release in Sec. 75.1(d) subsumes the statute's use of the term
transfer, which is not used in the proposed or final rule in a way
requiring definition. In addition, the definition in Sec. 75.1(d)
makes clear that only commercial transfers are covered and the
hypothetical transfer that the commenter posits would by the plain
meaning of the rule never be covered.
One commenter commented that the requirement that the statement
appear on the home page of a Web site is vague because many web sites
operate with subdomains, making the actual homepage or principal URL
difficult to identify. The Department declines to adopt this comment.
Subdomains, as the name implies, are URLs that share the top-level
domain name's basic URL and have additional identifying address
information to provide additional content on a separate Web page. Each
subdomain thus has its own homepage
[[Page 29612]]
and each homepage must feature the statement. For example, http://www.usdoj.gov
is the full domain name of the Web site of the Department
of Justice. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal is the Web page of the
Criminal Division, which is hosted by the Department's Web site. Under
this rule, http://www.usdoj.gov would be required to have a statement and that statement would cover anything contained on http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal.
However, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov is a
subdomain of the full domain http://www.usdoj.gov and would be required
to have its own statement on that page, which would then cover any
material on a Web page linked to it, such as http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/
, the Web page of the Office for Victims of Crime.
One commenter commented that the exception under Sec.
75.1(c)(4)(iv-v) for Web hosting, electronic communication, and remote
computing services should be extended to 18 U.S.C. 2257(f)(4).
Providers of Web hosting, bulletin boards, or electronic mail services
could be found liable for not ascertaining that the appropriate label
was affixed to a depiction transferred by one of their users. The
Department declines to adopt this comment, which would require an
amendment to the statute and is beyond the authority of the Department
to change by regulation. Moreover, the Department notes that 18 U.S.C.
2257(f)(4) makes it a crime for a person ``knowingly to sell or
otherwise transfer'' any sexually explicit material that does not have
a statement affixed describing the location of the records. Thus,
knowledge on the part of the transferor is an element of the offense.
One commenter commented that the proposed rule's record-keeping
requirements were troublesome in light of the 2003 amendment to section
2257(d), which authorizes the use of such records as evidence in
prosecuting obscenity or child pornography cases. According to the
commenter, this violates the Fifth Amendment right against mandatory
self-incrimination. The Department declines to adopt this comment, for
two reasons. First, the comment is not directly related to the rule but
rather is directed at the statute. Second, the amendment to section
2257(d) does not violate the Fifth Amendment since some sexually
explicit materials are protected speech and not obscene. Hence, the
reporting requirement is not directed at ``a highly selective group
inherently suspect of criminal activities.'' Albertson v. Subversive
Activities Control Bd., 382 U.S. 70, 79 (1965).
One commenter commented that the definition of producer is too
broad, such that one depiction may have multiple primary producers,
including, e.g., the photographer and a different individual who
digitizes the image. The commenter argued that the definition should be
written so that each depiction has only one primary producer. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department does not
believe that logic, practicability of record-keeping or inspections, or
the statue dictates that there be one and only one primary producer for
any individual sexually explicit depiction. Any of the persons defined
as primary producers has easy access to the performers and their
identification documents and should therefore each have responsibility
individually and separately of maintaining the records of those
documents.
Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the
proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store
that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the
rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are
excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible
construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely
by screening films produced by others.
One commenter commented that it was not clear in the proposed rule
whether, in cases in which it is discovered that a performer is
underage, the possessors of those images are required to destroy copies
of images required in the records in order to comply with the child
pornography laws. The Department declines to adopt this comment because
existing statutes make clear that it is unlawful knowingly to produce,
advertise, distribute, transport, receive, or possess child
pornography. See 18 U.S.C. 2251, 2252, and 2252A. Producers, like all
citizens, must comply with those statutes. Nothing in the rule changes
or obscures these existing legal obligations. Furthermore, there is a
good-faith defense to possession of child pornography for the
destruction or reporting to law enforcement of its existence. See 18
U.S.C. 1466A(e).
Burdensomeness
Thirty-six commenters commented that even if the effective date
were changed to July 3, 1995, the regulation would be overly burdensome
on secondary producers because producers would be required to obtain
records for thousands--even hundreds of thousands--of sexually explicit
depictions dating back a number of years. These commenters claimed that
secondary producers would likely be unable to locate many of those
records from primary producers who may have moved, shut down, or
otherwise disappeared. According to the commenters, those secondary
producers who could not locate such records would be forced to remove
the sexually explicit depictions, which would be a limit on
constitutionally protected material.
The Department declines to adopt these comments. Producers were on
notice that records had to be kept at least by primary producers for
depictions manufactured after July 3, 1995. In addition, commenters
were similarly on notice that the D.C. Circuit, in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno, had upheld the requirement that secondary producers
maintain records. The Department is not responsible if secondary
producers chose to rely on the Tenth Circuit's holding in Sundance and
not to maintain records while ignoring the D.C. Circuit's holding in
American Library Ass'n v. Reno. A prudent secondary producer would have
continued to secure copies of the records from primary producers after
July 3, 1995. If those records, which are statutorily required, are not
currently available, then the commenters are correct that they will be
required to comply with the requirements of all applicable laws,
including section 2257(f). They are incorrect, however, to claim that
this would result in an impermissible burden on free speech. As the
D.C. Circuit held, the government has a compelling state interest in
protecting children from sexual exploitation. If the producers (primary
and secondary) of sexually explicit depictions cannot document that
children were not used for the production of the sexually explicit
depictions, then they must take whatever appropriate actions are
warranted to comply with the child exploitation, obscenity, and record-
keeping statutes. The First Amendment is not offended by making it
unlawful knowingly to fail or refuse to comply with the record-keeping
or labeling provisions of this valid statute.
Two commenters commented that secondary producers should not be
required to maintain records at all because they are not proximate
enough to the production of the depictions to secure the requisite
information, and their retention of records would not further the
purpose of the statute. One commenter commented that secondary
producers should only be required to
[[Page 29613]]
retain on file the contact information for the primary producers'
custodians of records. The Department declines to adopt these comments.
As publishers of sexually explicit material, secondary producers are
equally responsible for protecting minors from exploitation as the
primary producers who photograph sexually explicit acts. Most
importantly, secondary producers are equally covered by the terms of
section 2257. In addition, the D.C. Circuit in American Library Ass'n
v. Reno, held that such a requirement was not unconstitutionally
burdensome.
Thirty-five commenters commented that the indexing and cross-
indexing requirements are unduly burdensome and argued that the records
should be indexed only by the performer's legal name, the name used in
the depiction, or the title of the depiction. The Department declines
to adopt these comments. As the D.C. Circuit held in American Library
Ass'n v. Reno, the indexing and cross-indexing requirements were not
unduly burdensome. Word-processing, bookkeeping, and database software
commonly in use by businesses and even for home computers can
accomplish the indexing and cross-indexing required by the rule. The
Department continues to believe that investigators must be able to
access records through cross-indexing in order to ensure completeness
and to enable investigation on the basis of less-than-full information.
Thirty-two commenters commented that the requirement that a copy of
each depiction be maintained would be unduly burdensome, leading to
vast stocks of magazines and videotapes, and even storage of computer
images would be unmanageable and prohibitive for small businesses.
Thirty-five commenters also commented that the requirement to keep
copies of each image is impossible to comply with due to the vast
amount of data involved in storing digital images, especially, e.g.,
producers of live streaming video. The Department declines to adopt
these comments. Maintaining one copy of each publication, production,
or depiction is critical to making the inspection process meaningful.
Commercial publishers and producers can reasonably be expected to
comply. Furthermore, modern computer and disk storage capacities make
digital archiving and back-up relatively inexpensive and space-
efficient. Finally, reviewing identification records in a vacuum would
be meaningless without being able to cross-reference the depictions,
and having the depictions on hand is necessary to determine whether in
fact age-verification files are being maintained for each performer in
a given depiction. In addition, without the depictions, inspectors
could not confirm that each book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape
or other matter has affixed to it a statement describing the location
of the records, as required by the existing regulations. Exceptions
cannot be made for producers of digital depictions, and indeed, it is
likely less onerous to store digital images than paper images. Children
are just as easily exploited in live streaming video as in any other
visual medium. Therefore, an exception cannot be made for producers of
live streaming video.
Thirty-nine commenters commented that the requirement that records
be available for inspection during specified normal business hours and
any time business is conducted would be impossible for small businesses
to meet, especially those run on a part-time basis or during non-
traditional hours. These commenters pointed out that the prior
regulations simply provided that the availability be reasonable. The
Department adopts this comment. The Department can accept that the
producers of the sexually explicit depictions subject to the statute do
not necessarily maintain traditional 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. business hours.
Accordingly, the rule will be adjusted to permit inspections during the
producer's normal business hours. To the extent the producer does not
maintain or post regular business hours, producers will be required to
provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which their
records will be available for inspection, which must total no less than
twenty (20) per week, in order to permit reasonable access for
inspectors.
Thirty commenters commented that the proposed rule's requirement
that the statement appear on the homepage of a Web site would lead to
excessively lengthy statements that could deter viewers from
downloading site content. The commenters suggested that web sites
should be permitted to provide links that open windows to complex
disclosure statements. In response to these comments, the Department
has amended the proposed rule such that the final rule permits web
sites to contain a hypertext link that states, ``18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-
Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement,'' that will open in a
separate window that contains the required statement.
Five commenters commented that the requirement that copies of each
image be kept together with the records would interfere with the
requirement that records be segregated. According to these commenters,
hard copies of depictions cannot, by definition, be held together with
electronic copies, and if computer records are kept, it is not possible
for a producer to segregate records stored on a computer because they
are all found on the same storage device. Further, claimed the
commenters, the requirement under Sec. 75.2(e) that records be
segregated from other records, not contain other records, or be
contained within other records is vague. They claimed that it is
unclear whether copies of records may never be in any other company
files, which would be an irrational requirement and would open
inadvertent misfilings to criminal prosecution.
The Department declines to adopt this comment. The requirement that
records maintained pursuant to section 2257 be segregated not only
streamlines the inspection process but protects producers from
unbridled fishing expeditions. Inspectors should not be faced with
situations in which they have to sift through myriad filing cabinets to
find the records they are seeking, and producers should not be faced
with the risks that such exploration might create. Hard copies,
electronic copies, or files consisting of both can be segregated in
separate storage containers or hard drives (or even in separate
directories or folders on a hard drive) in/on which no other records
are held. Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that
records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that
the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to
possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and
inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location
where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled. For
example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third
party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically,
producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law
enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship
would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim
any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or
be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the
records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would
thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party
custodian could guarantee the accuracy
[[Page 29614]]
of the records, would act as a legally liable agent of the producer,
and would raise other administrative issues as well.
Furthermore, permitting a third party to maintain the records
would, if anything, exacerbate the concerns of numerous commenters
regarding the privacy of information on performers and businesses by
placing that information in the hands of another party.
Three commenters commented that the record-shifting requirements
under Sec. Sec. 75.2(a) and (b) are impermissibly burdensome.
According to the commenters, primary producers would resist turning
over records that contain trade secrets, such as the identities of
performers. The Department declines to adopt these comments. The D.C.
Circuit Court clearly held in American Library Ass'n v. Reno that the
record-keeping requirements were not unconstitutionally burdensome. Any
primary producer who fails to release the records to a secondary
producer is simply in violation of the regulations and may not use the
excuse that the records contain alleged trade secrets to avoid
compliance.
Three commenters commented that the requirement that the statement
appear in font size equal in size to the names of the performers,
director, producer, or owner, whichever is larger, and no smaller in
size than the largest of those names, and in no case in less than 11-
point type, in black on a white, untinted background amounts to forced
speech, would ruin the aesthetic quality of web pages and other media,
and is impractical. Another commenter commented that the requirement
that the statement appear in a certain typeface cannot apply to web
sites, whose appearance depends on the viewer's computer. In response
to these comments, the Department has revised final rule to require
that the statement appear in typeface that is no less than 12-point
type or no smaller than the second-largest typeface on the website, and
in a color that contrasts with the background color. Regarding the
claim that such an administrative label constitutes forced speech, the
Department notes that the federal government imposes a range of such
requirements, such as nutritional labels on food products and safety
warnings on a myriad of products.
Two commenters commented that the length of retention of records
was too long and could multiply to include excessively long periods of
time. The commenters also claimed that the periods of time in the
proposed rule were contrary to the D.C. Circuit's opinion in American
Library Ass'n v. Reno. The Department declines to adopt this comment.
The regulation provides for retention of records for seven years from
production or last amendment and five years from cessation of
production by a business or dissolution of the company. The Department
does not believe that these limits are unreasonable. The only way to
satisfy the commenters' objection that the periods of time can multiply
would be to impose a blanket short period of time no matter what
changes to the records were made. Such a change would frustrate the
ability to ensure that records were maintained up-to-date and prevent
inspectors from examining older records to determine if a violation had
been committed. In addition, the time periods, contrary to the claim of
the commenters, do not violate American Library Ass'n v. Reno. In that
case, the D.C. Circuit held that Sec. 75 could not require records to
be maintained for as long as the producer remained in business and
allowed a five-year retention period ``[p]ending its replacement by a
provision more rationally tailored to actual law enforcement needs.''
33 F.3d at 91. The Department has determined that the seven-year period
is reasonable, thus satisfying the court's directive. The production of
child pornography statute of limitations was increased in the PROTECT
Act from five years to the life of the child, and the increase
contained in the regulation seeks to comport with that extended statute
of limitations.
Finally, the Department wishes to clarify that the statute requires
that each time a producer publishes a depiction, he must have records
proving that the performers are adults. Thus, if a producer purges his
or her records after the retention period but continues to use a
picture for publication, the producer would be deemed in violation of
the statute for not maintaining records that the person depicted was an
adult. Records are required for every iteration of an image in every
instance of publication.
One commenter objected to the proposed rule's lack of prior
announcement of inspections. Advance notice, the commenter stated,
would allow producers to put records in proper order and ensure that
someone would be on the premises when investigators visited. The rule
should specify what happens in cases in which no one is present when
the investigator arrives. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Advanced notice would provide the opportunity to falsify
records in order to pass inspection. Lack of specific case-by-case
notice prior to inspection will promote compliance with the statute and
encourage producers to maintain the records in proper order at all
times, as is contemplated by the statute. The rule will specify that
inspections are to occur during the producer's normal business hours.
The inspection process clearly does not contemplate warrantless forced
entry solely because no one is present when the investigator arrives.
One commenter commented that the proposed rule appeared to require
hard copies of records and suggested that digital copies be permitted
in order to simplify storage and indexing. The Department adopts this
comment. Records may be maintained in either ``hard'' (paper) form or
digital form, provided that they include scanned forms of
identification and that there is a custodian of records who can
authenticate each digital record. The regulation has been revised to
clarify this point.
One commenter commented that the regulation should permit the
statement to be located on main menu screen of a DVD, rather than
requiring the statement to appear in the movie itself. The Department
declines to adopt this comment. The statement cannot be severed from
the actual depiction because that could lead to confusion on the part
of the public as to the applicability of the statement in cases, for
example, when there is more than one film on a DVD or when a movie on a
DVD is also available in other contexts in which the statement must be
appended (e.g., posted on a Web site).
One commenter commented that the list of acceptable forms of
performer identification in the proposed rule is unduly restrictive and
argued that college and employer identification cards should be
acceptable. The Department declines to adopt this comment. The
regulation properly requires a government-issued identification
document because other forms of identification are too susceptible to
forgery to accomplish the purposes of the Part.
One commenter who supported the proposed rule stated that he
created a system to help webmasters comply with the rules and protect
the identity of individuals depicted in the images while allowing
verification by law enforcement. The commenter stated that no
webmasters took advantage of his system because, he said, they believe
that there is an extremely remote possibility of being prosecuted for
non-compliance and that the Sundance ruling protects them. The comment
tends to demonstrate that the claim by industry groups that the rule is
unconstitutionally burdensome is
[[Page 29615]]
exaggerated. Nonetheless, the Department does not endorse this
commenter's particular system as it has no means to determine whether
the system actually works.
One commenter commented that the provision for inspections every
four months is too frequent and is an invitation for harassment. Some
businesses are so small and static that the required records are
unlikely to change over a particular four-month period. The Department
declines to adopt this comment. The regulations necessarily are
designed to provide an adequate inspection interval for the most
prolific producers as well as the relatively small-scale producers. The
Department has determined that limiting the frequency of inspections to
every four months will allow inspectors to keep pace with major
producers while at the same time avoid excessive inspections of smaller
producers. Moreover, four months denotes the maximum frequency of
inspections; inspectors may inspect less frequently at their
discretion.
Privacy
Sixty-two commenters commented that revealing personal information
of performers, for example, in the form of their addresses on drivers'
licenses used as identification documents in compliance with this
regulation, is an invasion of performers' privacy and could lead to
identity theft or violent crimes. Forty commenters commented that
including the names and addresses of businesses where the records at
issue are located would similarly lead to crimes against those
businesses. The Department declines to adopt these comments. While the
Department is certainly concerned about possible crimes against
performers and businesses that employ them, the necessity of
maintaining these records to ensure that children are not exploited
outweighs these concerns. Furthermore, specifically regarding personal
information about performers required to be provided to primary
producers, the Department notes that the information required is no
different from that required by other forms of employee or business
records, such as social security numbers and dates of birth required
for tax reporting purposes, emergency contact numbers in case of health
problems, or addresses used to transmit paychecks. Regarding
information about producers, such as their physical location, that
those producers must include in their statements, the Department notes
that producers are already required, under the current Part 75
regulations, to include that information. Finally, regarding personal
information about performers that must be transmitted to secondary
producers, the Department again notes, first, that such information is
already required by the current Part 75 regulations, and, second, that
none of the commenters presented any evidence that a hypothetically
possible crime, such as the stalking of a performer, was in any way
tied to the dissemination of the information about a performer provided
to a producer in compliance with Part 75.
Another commenter proposed that secondary producers be required to
store sanitized (i.e., without personal information such as home
address) hard or digital copies of performers' identification documents
along with a notarized affidavit from the primary producer stating the
location of the complete records. The Department declines to adopt this
comment. Although the Department understands the commenter's desire to
protect private information about performers from being too widely
disseminated, it believes that the suggested plan would be overly
burdensome on primary producers and add an unnecessary layer of
complexity to the record-keeping process. Primary producers would be
required first to sanitize the identification documents and then to
draft, sign, and pay for a notarized affidavit. It is simpler and less
burdensome simply to have primary producers transfer a copy of the
records to secondary producers.
One commenter also commented that the proposed rule may force
foreign primary producers to violate foreign laws regarding protection
of information. If primary producers in foreign countries decide to
comply with their home privacy laws and not provide materials to U.S.
entities, the regulation will chill the availability of materials and
speech to U.S. citizens. The Department declines to adopt this comment.
The rule is no different from other forms of labeling requirements
imposed on foreign producers of, e.g., alcohol, tobacco, or food items
that are imported into the United States. In order to sell in the U.S.
market, foreign producers must comply with U.S. laws. This rule applies
equally to any sexually explicit material introduced into the stream of
commerce in the United States no matter where it was produced. Foreign
producers have the option of not complying with the rule, but then
their access to the U.S. market is justly and lawfully prohibited.
Miscellaneous
Five commenters commented that the proposed rule would hurt U.S.
businesses and remove money from the U.S. economy by driving the
pornography industry to other countries. In addition, these commenters
claimed, most sexually explicit web sites are, in any event, already
located in other countries and the rule would be ineffective in
regulating them. Similarly, one commenter commented that the proposed
changes will be ineffective in addressing the problem of child
pornography because most, if not all, of child pornography web sites
are located outside the United States.
The Department disagrees with these comments. First, the purpose of
the statute, and the rule to implement it, is not to drive the
pornography industry out of the United States. Rather, the purpose is
to protect children from sexual exploitation, and the rule is designed
to do so while not burdening protected speech. The D.C. Circuit, in
American Library Ass'n v. Reno, held that the current regulations are
not unconstitutionally burdensome, and the final rule is merely a
refinement and update of those regulations. Thus, the pornography
industry should not in fact be driven overseas. Indeed, the commenters
do not provide any evidence either for their proposition that most
sexually explicit web sites are in fact based abroad or for their
proposition that those web sites that are located in the United States
will relocate. Second, the Department does not currently exercise
jurisdiction over foreign web sites, but it must promulgate regulations
within its legitimate jurisdiction in the United States in order to
accomplish the purpose of the statute.
Two commenters suggested that rather than regulating sexually
explicit Web sites, the Department should invest more resources into
fighting child pornography through education of parents and children
and through enhanced criminal investigation. In response, the
Department points out that it currently invests significant resources
in criminal investigation and prosecution of child pornography and in
other activities to promote the protection of children. The final rule
is part of this effort and is aimed at preventing any child pornography
from being produced under the guise of constitutionally protected
sexually explicit depictions and must necessarily require legitimate
businesses to maintain the records at issue. One commenter supported
the Department's
[[Page 29616]]
position, as the commenter stated, because of concern about
exploitation of children.
One commenter commented that certain types of files--e.g., .jpeg
and .gif photos--cannot have a statement appended when uploaded. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. The rule makes clear that
whenever Internet depictions are involved, the statement must appear on
the website's home page, not on the image itself.
One commenter commented that the term technologies is improperly
used in Sec. 75.1(a), which states that the proposed rule's
definitions of terms ``are not meant to exclude technologies or uses of
these terms as otherwise employed in practice or defined in other
regulations or federal statutes * * *.'' The Department declines to
amend the proposed rule in response to this comment. The Department
believes the commenter may have misunderstood the sentence. As Sec.
75.1(a) explains, the definitions in the rule are not used in their
technical senses and do not, therefore, exclude any particular type of
technology, or technologies, currently existing or invented in the
future on the basis of the language used in the Part.
The same commenter objected to the proposed rule's use of the
phrase ``myriad of'' in the definition of the term Internet in Sec.
75.1(f). The Department declines to adopt this comment. According to
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed., 2003), ``Recent
criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form
myriads and in the phrase myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief
that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective *
* *. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as
Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to
occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid
it.'' Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 821 (11th ed., 2003).
One commenter commented regarding a minor drafting error in which
Sec. 75.2(a)(1) of the proposed rule incorrectly referenced the
definition of an identification document in 18 U.S.C. 1028. The
Department has eliminated entirely the reference to 18 U.S.C. 1028,
which is redundant in light of the final rule's defined term picture
identification card.
One commenter suggested that the regulation state that no person
convicted of pedophilia, endangerment of a minor, or any sexual
misconduct involving a minor be eligible to produce sexually explicit
material or act as custodian of records required by the regulation. The
Department is unable to adopt this comment, because the suggestion goes
beyond the Department's authority to implement the statute.
Two commenters suggested alternative means to implement the
statute. One suggested that the Department establish a national ``sex
ID'' system with which performers would register with the government in
a national database. In the commenter's scheme, the model would receive
an ID number that would be superimposed on images of the performer,
enabling federal law enforcement officers to determine compliance with
the rule by cross-referencing the ID numbers with the database. Another
suggested that each producer store required identification records,
indexed by URL, on a computer server in a password-protected folder
made available to law enforcement. The Department declines to adopt
these suggestions because it believes that they would be more
burdensome on both the Department and producers to create, implement,
and manage than the record-keeping system established by the rule. In
addition, creation of such systems would likely require several years'
work and delay implementation of the statute's record-keeping
requirements.
Similarly, two commenters suggested specific additions to the
record-keeping requirements in the proposed rule. One commented that
two forms of identification should be required of performers. The
Department declines to adopt this comment because it believes that one
form of valid photo identification is sufficient to establish the
identity and age of the performer and that requiring more would be
overly burdensome on businesses and performers themselves.
One commenter commented that the exemption statement in the rule is
unnecessary and redundant because if no statement is necessary, then
the regulation does not apply and no statement of any kind can be
required. The Department declines to adopt this comment for three
reasons. First, the Department notes that the exemption-statement
requirement was included in the previous version of the regulation.
Second, the commenter is wrong to state that it is redundant. Since a
primary or secondary producer could possess various sexually explicit
depictions, some subject to the regulation and some not, it would be
necessary for the producer to label both types, rather than only label
those that are subject to the rules and give the impression both to the
public and to government inspectors that the producer is not in
compliance with the regulation. Third, the lack of an exemption
statement could lead to a waste of resources by prompting inspections
where none were needed because, unbeknownst to the inspector, the
producer was exempt from the regulation.
One commenter commented that Internet Presence Providers (IPPs)
should receive the same exemption from the rule as Internet Service
Providers (ISPs). The Department understands that IPPs are similar to
ISPs in that they both act as hosts for web pages that are created and
owned by other persons. It appears, however, that IPPs can also take on
other responsibilities, including managing the operations of web sites
themselves. The Department has amended the proposed rule to exclude
web-hosting services to the extent that their employees are not, and
cannot reasonably be, engaged in managing the sexually explicit content
of the site (for either technical or contractual reasons). The
Department does not believe it is appropriate to provide a blanket
exemption from the regulation for IPPs because it would enable owners
of such web sites to disclaim responsibility for complying with the
regulation by asserting that the IPPs are actually engaged in regulated
activities while also exempting IPPs in toto, thus leading to a gap in
coverage of producers.
One commenter commented that the regulation should specify that a
record-keeper may refuse to speak to an investigator or may leave the
premises during an investigation, so that no questions arise regarding
whether the inspection rises to the level of custodial interrogation.
The Department declines to adopt this comment. A record keeper's
conduct during an inspection will not be regulated. To the extent that
it becomes necessary in any given case, both the government and the
individual will have available to them the full panoply of
constitutional and legal protections and authorities to allow a court
to determine, in the normal course of any prosecution that may arise
and on a case-by-case basis, whether a custodial interrogation occurred
at the time of inspection, and will bear the consequences of the
court's determination.
One commenter commented that the proposed rule did not define how
an inspector could copy physical or digital records during an
inspection. The Department declines to adopt this comment. The
inspectors will avail themselves of a portable photocopier or means to
copy digital records (e.g., computer disks) as needed, and the final
[[Page 29617]]
rule does not need to include details such as these.
One commenter commented that it is unclear whether a producer that
provides content to a secondary producer must maintain a list of its
URLs. According to the commenter, keeping such a list would be
impossible, given the number of URLs and the fact that many URLs are
generated dynamically, making the requirement technologically
impossible. Further, claimed the commenter, if a URL is required to be
indexed with an identification record, one URL (the site entrance)
should be sufficient. In addition, the commenter commented, URLs
outside the direct control of the content provider should not be
covered under the regulations, and secondary producers should be
permitted to simply list the producer's 2257 statement on the home
page.
The Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department
understands that it would not be possible to track or maintain records
of dynamically generated URLs. The existing regulations require
producers to maintain the names of the performers ``indexed by the
title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, or
other matter.'' See 28 CFR 75.2(a)(2). The rule updates this
requirement expressly to include Internet depictions by requiring that
this indexing also include any static URLs associated with depictions
of that performer and to maintain a copy of the depiction with the
static URL associated with the depiction. Existing regulations require
any producer to affix a statement describing the location of the
records, and permit producers to provide the address of the primary
producer, or, for secondary producers satisfying the requirements of
Sec. 75.2(b), the address of the secondary producer. See 28 CFR 75.6,
75.6(b); see also 28 CFR 75.2(b) (permitting secondary producers to
maintain records by accepting copies of records from a primary
producer). This rule merely updates this requirement to expressly cover
Internet depictions.
Regulatory Procedures
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of Justice has drafted this regulation in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The Department
of Justice drafted this rule to minimize its impact on small businesses
while meeting its intended objectives. Based upon the preliminary
information available to the Department through past investigations and
enforcement actions involving the affected industry, the Department is
unable to state with certainty that this rule, if promulgated as a
final rule, will not have any effect on small businesses of the type
described in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 601(3). Accordingly, the Department has
prepared a final Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 604, as follows:
A. Need for and Objectives of This Rule
Recent federal statutory enactments and judicial interpretations
have highlighted the urgency of protecting children against sexual
exploitation and, consequently, the need for more specific and clear
regulations detailing the records and inspection process for sexually
explicit materials to assure the accurate identity and age of
performers.
The identity of every performer is critical to determining and
assuring that no performer is a minor. The key Congressional concern,
evidenced by the child exploitation statutory scheme, was that all such
performers be verifiably not minors, i.e. not younger than 18. 18
U.S.C. 2256(1), 2257(b)(1). Minors--children--warrant a special concern
by Congress for several reasons as discussed more specifically in
relation to the inspection process. Children themselves are incapable
of giving voluntary and knowing consent to perform or to enter into
contracts to perform. In addition, children often are involuntarily
forced to engage in sexually explicit conduct. For these reasons,
visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct that involve persons
under the age of 18 constitute unlawful child pornography.
This rule merely provides greater details for the record-keeping
and inspection process in order to ensure that minors are not used as
performers in sexually explicit depictions. The rule does not restrict
in any way the content of the underlying depictions other than by
clarifying the labeling on, and record-keeping requirements pertaining
to, that underlying depiction. Cf., e.g., 27 CFR 16.21 (alcoholic
beverage health warning statement; mandatory label information).
However, compliance with the record-keeping requirements of this part
has no bearing on the legality or illegality of the underlying sexually
explicit material.
Moreover, the growth of Internet facilities in the past five years,
and the proliferation of pornography on Internet computer sites or
services, requires that the regulations be updated. In the final rule,
a number of definitions are revised to accomplish the application of
the rule to the modern modes of communication.
B. Description and Estimates of the Number of Small Entities Affected
by This Rule
A ``small business'' is defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) to be the same as a ``small business concern'' under the Small
Business Act (SBA), 15 U.S.C. 632. Under the SBA, a ``small-business
concern'' is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is
not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) meets any additional
criteria established by the SBA. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by
reference the definition of ``small business concern'' in 15 U.S.C.
632).
Based upon the information available to the Department through past
investigations and enforcement actions involving the affected industry,
there are likely to be a number of producers of sexually explicit
depictions who hire or pay for performers and who, accordingly, would
come under the ambit of the proposed rule. However, none of the changes
made by this rule affect the number of producers that would be covered.
The rule clarifies the meaning of an existing definition and how that
definition covers electronic sexually explicit depictions, but does not
expand that definition.
Pursuant to the RFA, in the proposed rule the Department encouraged
all affected commercial entities to provide specific estimates,
wherever possible, of the economic costs that this rule will impose on
them and the benefits that it will bring to them and to the public. The
Department asked affected small businesses to estimate what these
regulations will cost as a percentage of their total revenues in order
to enable the Department to ensure that small businesses are not unduly
burdened. No specific estimates of the economic costs that the rule
would impose were received.
The regulation has no effect on State or local governmental
agencies.
C. Specific Requirements Imposed That Would Impact Private Companies
The final rule provides clearer requirements for private companies
to maintain records of performers of sexually explicit depictions to
ensure that minors are not used in such sexually explicit depictions.
The final rule requires that these records be properly indexed and
cross-referenced. In the proposed rule, the Department specifically
sought information from affected producers on the costs of the record-
keeping, indexing, and cross-referencing requirements. No commenters
provided such information beyond qualitative assessments, which
[[Page 29618]]
are addressed in the Responses to Public Comments section of this
Supplemental Information.
Nevertheless, the Department is aware from those qualitative
statements that certain alternatives to the rule are possible. For
example, two commenters commented that the regulation should permit
third-party custody of records in order to reduce the burdens of
storing material at a producer's place of business and of maintaining
certain business hours in order to be available for inspection. The
Department believes that allowing third-party custody, however, would
be detrimental to the goals of the statute. It would unnecessarily
complicate the compliance and inspection processes by removing the
records from the physical location where they were initially collected,
sorted, indexed, and compiled. Furthermore, permitting a third party to
maintain the records would, if anything, exacerbate the concerns of
numerous commenters regarding the privacy of information on performers
and businesses by placing that information in the hands of another
party.
Other alternatives suggested by commenters included the
establishment of a national ``sex ID'' system with which performers
would register with the government in a national database, and the
creation of a password-protected database of identification records
available to law enforcement. As explained above, the Department
believes that they would be more burdensome on both the Department and
producers to create, implement, and manage than the record-keeping
system established by the rule. In addition, creation of such systems
would likely require several years' work and delay implementation of
the statute's record-keeping requirements.
The Department has, however, adopted numerous changes to the
proposed rule in response to comments that it was too burdensome. For
example, because commenters argued that the requirement that the
statement appear on the homepage of any web site was too burdensome,
the final rule permits web sites to contain a hypertext link that
states, ``18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance
Statement,'' that will open in a separate window that contains the
required statement. Likewise, in response to public comments, the
Department amended the proposed rule such that the final rule no longer
requires businesses to be available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 6
p.m. every day, but rather permits inspections during the producer's
normal business hours. Further, the Department modified the
requirements regarding the size and typeface of the statement in
response to public comments, as well as clarified that records may be
maintained in either ``hard'' (paper) form or digital form.
At the same time, the Department also rejected potential changes
that would extend the burdensomeness of the rule. For example, the
Department did not adopt a comment that two forms of identification
should be required of performers.
For these reasons, the Department believes that, although private
companies will be affected by the rule, the costs are reasonable in
light of the purpose of the statute and that it has imposed the
regulation in the least burdensome manner possible.
Executive Order 12866
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, Sec. 1(b), Principles of Regulation. The
Department of Justice has determined that this rule is a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, Sec. 3(f).
Accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
The benefit of the regulation is that children will be better
protected from exploitation in the production of sexually explicit
depictions by ensuring that only those who are at least 18 years of age
perform in such sexually explicit depictions. The costs to the industry
include slightly higher record-keeping costs and the potential time
spent assisting inspectors in the process of inspecting the required
records. In the proposed rule, the Department expressly encouraged all
affected commercial entities to provide specific estimates, wherever
possible, of the economic costs that this rule will impose on them.
Notwithstanding that request, not a single commenter provided any data
on this aspect of the rule. Accordingly, the costs that this final rule
will impose remain uncertain.
Executive Order 13132
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
Executive Order 12988
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in
Sec. Sec. 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995, 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C.
804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and
export markets.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule modifies existing requirements to clarify the record-
keeping requirements pursuant to Congressional enactments and the
development of the Internet.
This rule contains a new information collection that satisfies the
requirements of existing regulations to clarify the means of
maintaining and organizing the required documents. This information
collection, titled Inspection of Records Relating to Depiction of
Sexually Explicit Performances, has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. Although comments were
solicited from the public, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in the proposed rule, no comments
were received.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 75
Crime, Infants and children, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
0
Accordingly, the Attorney General amends chapter I of title 28 of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
0
1. Part 75 of title 28 CFR is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 29619]]
PART 75--CHILD PROTECTION RESTORATION AND PENALTIES ENHANCEMENT ACT
OF 1990 AND PROTECT ACT; RECORD-KEEPING AND RECORD INSPECTION
PROVISIONS
Sec.
75.1 Definitions.
75.2 Maintenance of records.
75.3 Categorization of records.
75.4 Location of records.
75.5 Inspection of records.
75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.
75.7 Exemption statement.
75.8 Location of the statement.
Authority: 18 U.S.C. 2257.
Sec. 75.1 Definitions.
(a) Terms used in this part shall have the meanings set forth in 18
U.S.C. 2257, and as provided in this section. The terms used and
defined in these regulations are intended to provide common-language
guidance and usage and are not meant to exclude technologies or uses of
these terms as otherwise employed in practice or defined in other
regulations or federal statutes (i.e., 47 U.S.C. 230, 231).
(b) Picture identification card means a document issued by the
United States, a State government or a political subdivision thereof,
or a United States territory, that bears the photograph and the name of
the individual identified, and provides sufficient specific information
that it can be accessed from the issuing authority, such as a passport,
Permanent Resident Card (commonly known as a ``Green Card''), or other
employment authorization document issued by the United States, a
driver's license issued by a State or the District of Columbia, or
another form of identification issued by a State or the District of
Columbia; or, a foreign government-issued equivalent of any of the
documents listed above when both the person who is the subject of the
picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required
records are located outside the United States.
(c) Producer means any person, including any individual,
corporation, or other organization, who is a primary producer or a
secondary producer.
(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an
image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to
the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to
the following:
(i) Photo or film processing, including digitization of previously
existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no
other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing,
and video duplicators;
(ii) Mere distribution;
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in
paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the
hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the depicted performers;
(iv) A provider of web-hosting services who does not, and
reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer
site or service; or
(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote
computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the
sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.
(d) Sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release refer to
commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not
refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter,
including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums,
schools, or educational organizations.
(e) Copy, when used:
(1) In reference to an identification document or a picture
identification card, means a photocopy, photograph, or digitally
scanned reproduction, and
(2) When used in reference to a sexually explicit depiction means
the sexually explicit image itself (e.g., a film, an image posted on a
web page, an image taken by a webcam, a photo in a magazine, etc.).
(f) Internet means collectively the myriad of computer and
telecommunications facilities, including equipment and operating
software, which constitute the interconnected world-wide network of
networks that employ the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
Protocol, or any predecessor or successor protocols to such protocol,
to communicate information of all kinds by wire or radio.
(g) Computer site or service means a computer server-based file
repository or file distribution service that is accessible over the
Internet, World Wide Web, Usenet, or any other interactive computer
service (as defined in 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(2)). Computer site or service
includes without limitation, sites or services using hypertext markup
language, hypertext transfer protocol, file transfer protocol,
electronic mail transmission protocols, similar data transmission
protocols, or any successor protocols, including but not limited to
computer sites or services on the World Wide Web.
(h) URL means uniform resource locator.
(i) Electronic communications service has the meaning set forth in
18 U.S.C. 2510(15).
(j) Remote computing service has the meaning set forth in 18 U.S.C.
2711(2).
(k) Manage content means to make editorial or managerial decisions
concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service,
but does not mean those who manage solely advertising, compliance with
copyright law, or other forms of non-sexually explicit content.
(l) Interactive computer service has the meaning set forth in 47
U.S.C. 230(f)(2).
Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.
(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human
being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in
whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in
interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is
intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign
commerce and that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July
3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in
[[Page 29620]]
such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the
following:
(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by
the producer's examination of a picture identification card. For any
performer portrayed in such a depiction made after July 3, 1995, the
records shall also include a legible copy of the identification
document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and
recognizable picture of the performer, a legible copy of a picture
identification card. For any performer portrayed in such a depiction
after June 23, 2005, the records shall include
(i) A copy of the depiction, and
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site
or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction or, if no
URL is associated with the depiction, another uniquely identifying
reference associated with the location of the depiction on the
Internet.
(2) Any name, other than each performer's legal name, ever used by
the performer, including the performer's maiden name, alias, nickname,
stage name, or professional name. For any performer portrayed in such a
depiction made after July 3, 1995, such names shall be indexed by the
title or identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, URL,
or other matter. Producers may rely in good faith on representations by
performers regarding accuracy of the names, other than legal names,
used by performers.
(3) Records required to be created and maintained under this part
shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by
the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or
given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or
other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book,
magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image,
digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.
(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec.
75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and
maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in
Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this
section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name
and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the
records.
(c) The information contained in the records required to be created
and maintained by this part need be current only as of the time the
primary producer actually films, videotapes, or photographs, or creates
a digitally or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture,
of the visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct. If the producer subsequently produces an
additional book, magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter
(including but not limited to Internet computer site or services) that
contains one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged
in actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he
maintains records as required by this part, the producer may add the
additional title or identifying number and the names of the performer
to the existing records maintained pursuant to Sec. 75.2(a)(2).
(d) For any record created or amended after June 23, 2005, all such
records shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where
appropriate, by the legal name of the performer (by last or family
name, then first or given name), and shall be indexed or cross-
referenced to each alias or other name used and to each title or
identifying number of the book, magazine, film, videotape, digitally-
or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other
matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or
services). If the producer subsequently produces an additional book,
magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image,
digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited
to Internet computer site or services) that contains one or more visual
depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit
conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required
by this part, the producer shall add the additional title or
identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing
records and such records shall thereafter be maintained in accordance
with this paragraph.
(e) Records required to be maintained under this part shall be
segregated from all other records, shall not contain any other records,
and shall not be contained within any other records.
(f) Records required to be maintained under this part may be kept
either in hard copy or in digital form, provided that they include
scanned copies of forms of identification and that there is a custodian
of the records who can authenticate each digital record.
Sec. 75.3 Categorization of records.
Records required to be maintained under this part shall be
categorized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, and
retrievable to: All name(s) of each performer, including any alias,
maiden name, nickname, stage name or professional name of the
performer; and according to the title, number, or other similar
identifier of each book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or
other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or
services). Only one copy of each picture of a performer's picture
identification card and identification document must be kept as long as
each copy is categorized and retrievable according to any name, real or
assumed, used by such performer, and according to any title or other
identifier of the matter.
Sec. 75.4 Location of records.
Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make
such records available at the producer's place of business. Each record
shall be maintained for seven years from the date of creation or last
amendment or addition. If the producer ceases to carry on the business,
the records shall be maintained for five years thereafter. If the
producer produces the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or
other matter (including but not limited to Internet computer site or
services) as part of his control of or through his employment with an
organization, records shall be made available at the organization's
place of business. If the organization is dissolved, the individual who
was responsible for maintaining the records on behalf of the
organization, as described in Sec. 75.6(b), shall continue to maintain
the records for a period of five years after dissolution.
Sec. 75.5 Inspection of records.
(a) Authority to inspect. Investigators authorized by the Attorney
General (hereinafter ``investigators'') are authorized to enter without
delay and at reasonable times any establishment of a producer where
records under Sec. 75.2 are maintained to inspect during regular
working hours and at other reasonable times, and within reasonable
limits and in a reasonable manner, for the purpose of determining
compliance with the record-keeping requirements of the Act and any
other provision of the Act (hereinafter ``investigator'').
(b) Advance notice of inspections. Advance notice of record
inspections shall not be given.
(c) Conduct of inspections.
(1) Inspections shall take place during the producer's normal
business hours
[[Page 29621]]
and at such places as specified in Sec. 75.4. For the purpose of this
part, ``normal business hours'' are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time,
Monday through Friday, or any other time during which the producer is
actually conducting business relating to producing depiction of actual
sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not
maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, producers must
provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which
records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less
than twenty (20) hours per week.
(2) Upon commencing an inspection, the investigator shall:
(i) Present his or her credentials to the owner, operator, or agent
in charge of the establishment;
(ii) Explain the nature and purpose of the inspection, including
the limited nature of the records inspection, and the records required
to be kept by the Act and this part; and
(iii) Indicate the scope of the specific inspection and the records
that he or she wishes to inspect.
(3) The inspections shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably
disrupt the operations of the producer's establishment.
(4) At the conclusion of an inspection, the investigator may
informally advise the producer of any apparent violations disclosed by
the inspection. The producer may bring to the attention of the
investigator any pertinent information regarding the records inspected
or any other relevant matter.
(d) Frequency of inspections. A producer may be inspected once
during any four-month period, unless there is a reasonable suspicion to
believe that a violation of this part has occurred, in which case an
additional inspection or inspections may be conducted before the four-
month period has expired.
(e) Copies of records. An investigator may copy, at no expense to
the producer, during the inspection, any record that is subject to
inspection.
(f) Other law enforcement authority. These regulations do not
restrict the otherwise lawful investigative prerogatives of an
investigator while conducting an inspection.
(g) Seizure of evidence. Notwithstanding any provision of this part
or any other regulation, a law enforcement officer may seize any
evidence of the commission of any felony while conducting an
inspection.
Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.
(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or
picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet
computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions
of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct
made after July 3, 1995, and produced, manufactured, published,
duplicated, reproduced, or reissued on or after July 3, 1995, shall
cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing
the location of the records required by this part. A producer may cause
such statement to be affixed, for example, by instructing the
manufacturer of the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or
other matter to affix the statement.
(b) Every statement shall contain:
(1) The title of the book, magazine, periodical, film, or
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter (unless the title is prominently set out
elsewhere in the book, magazine, periodical, film, or videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or
other matter) or, if there is no title, an identifying number or
similar identifier that differentiates this matter from other matters
which the producer has produced;
(2) The date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication,
reproduction, or reissuance of the matter; and, (3) A street address at
which the records required by this part may be made available. The
street address may be an address specified by the primary producer or,
if the secondary producer satisfies the requirements of Sec. 75.2(b),
the address of the secondary producer. A post office box address does
not satisfy this requirement.
(c) If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also
contain the name, title, and business address of the individual
employed by such organization who is responsible for maintaining the
records required by this part.
(d) The information contained in the statement must be accurate as
of the date on which the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or
other matter is produced or reproduced.
(e) For the purposes of this section, the required statement shall
be displayed in typeface that is no less than 12-point type or no
smaller than the second-largest typeface on the material and in a color
that clearly contrasts with the background color of the material. For
any electronic or other display of the notice that is limited in time,
the notice must be displayed for a sufficient duration and of a
sufficient size to be capable of being read by the average viewer.
Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.
(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.
Sec. 75.8 Location of the statement.
(a) All books, magazines, and periodicals shall contain the
statement required in Sec. 75.6 or suggested in Sec. 75.7 either on
the first page that appears after the front cover or on the page on
which copyright information appears.
(b) In any film or videotape which contains end credits for the
production, direction, distribution, or other activity in connection
with the film or videotape, the statement referred to in Sec. 75.6 or
Sec. 75.7 shall be presented at the end of the end titles or final
credits and shall be displayed for a sufficient duration to be capable
of being read by the average viewer.
(c) Any other film or videotape shall contain the required
statement within one minute from the start of the film or videotape,
and before the opening scene, and shall display the statement for a
sufficient duration to be read by the average viewer.
[[Page 29622]]
(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture,
shall contain the required statement on its homepage, any known major
entry points, or principal URL (including the principal URL of a
subdomain), or in a separate window that opens upon the viewer's
clicking a hypertext link that states, ``18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping
Requirements Compliance Statement.''
(e) For all other categories not otherwise mentioned in this
section, the statement is to be prominently displayed consistent with
the manner of display required for the aforementioned categories.
Dated: May 17, 2005.
Alberto R. Gonzales,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 05-10107 Filed 5-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-14-P
Section 2257. Record keeping requirements
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, or other matter which -
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November
1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have
been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is
shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or
transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records
pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect
to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual
sexually explicit conduct -
(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document
containing such information, the performer's name and date of
birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of
his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer's present and
correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name,
alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the
information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection
and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by
regulation.
(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the
records required by this section at his business premises, or at
such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation
prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney
General for inspection at all reasonable times.
(d)(1) No information or evidence obtained from records required
to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as
provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as
evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not preclude the use
of such information or evidence in a prosecution or other action
for a violation of this section or for a violation of any
applicable provision of law with respect to the furnishing of false
information.
(e)(1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to
be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1)
of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form
as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement
describing where the records required by this section with respect
to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be
located.
(2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies
is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall
include the name, title, and business address of the individual
employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the
records required by this section.
(f) It shall be unlawful -
(1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to
create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and
(c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
(2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to
make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an
appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of
this section or any regulation promulgated under this section;
(3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to
fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any
regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection; and
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or
offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film,
video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with
materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or
foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate
or foreign commerce, which -
(A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the
effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit
conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have
been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is
shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or
transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as
set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the
records required by this section may be located, but such person
shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of
the statement or the records required to be kept.
(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to
carry out this section.
(h) As used in this section -
(1) the term ''actual sexually explicit conduct'' means actual
but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through
(D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;
(2) ''identification document'' has the meaning given that term
in section 1028(d) of this title;
(3) the term ''produces'' means to produce, manufacture, or
publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other
similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or
reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere
distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring,
contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the
participation of the performers depicted; and
(4) the term ''performer'' includes any person portrayed in a
visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to
engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.
(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not
more than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of
this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having
been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall
be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 5 years but not
less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of
this title, or both.
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,64702,00.html
09:50 AM Aug. 25, 2004 PT
Webmasters for adult sites are worried that both their profits and freedom to operate may suffer under recently proposed changes to a largely unenforced federal law requiring porn companies to document that performers are of legal age.
Under Title 18, Section 2257 of the U.S. Code created under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, producers of adult magazines and movies must make identification documents available to federal inspectors on demand.
click here
But the suggested changes would bring an extensive array of new responsibilities to webmasters. While the current law applies to "primary producers" -- photographers, filmmakers and others who actually create adult material -- the new changes would affect "secondary producers," such as websites, that distribute content created by other companies. The result could have far-reaching consequences for the entire adult industry, but it would have a particularly harsh impact on online companies.
Critics say the proposed changes are politically motivated, an election-year move to shut down web porn providers from a conservative administration which has already declared its intent to crack down on smut.
"The proposed changes are horrible," said Clyde DeWitt, a columnist for the adult industry news site AVN and a partner in the Los Angeles office of First Amendment law firm Weston, Garrou & Dewitt. "Now, anybody who does anything to change an image -- duplicating a video, placing it on a website -- will have to have records available and indexed for inspection."
The proposal to change the laws follows a June report from Attorney General John Ashcroft to the House Judiciary Committee on the rule, revealing that there had been no inspections at all since the regulation's enactment in the mid-'90s. (Although the regulation was approved in 1988, a series of lawsuits delayed its initial enforcement.)
With that report, Ashcroft also delivered a 26-page proposal demanding updated regulations that would take into account technological changes created by the internet.
The proposed modifications were published in the June 25 edition of the Federal Register, and the Justice Department Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section issued an Aug. 24 deadline for written comments.
Under the proposed changes, some forms of ID now commonly used for age verification will no longer be accepted -- among them, Selective Service cards and college IDs.
Records for every model or actor would have to be indexed alphabetically by legal name ("or numerically where appropriate"), and include all stage names used since 1992.
The updated regulation would also mandate that records be cross-referenced by title, number or alternate identifier for every publication in which they're involved -- including print, broadcast, online photos, streaming video and other media. Critics say that requirement is overly broad -- if a performer's name appears on thousands of pages at a given porn domain, will the webmaster have to list each and every URL, even if some of them don't include still or video images bearing the performer's likeness?
Critics argue that the expanded requirements for keeping personal information on performers could be used by would-be stalkers or identity thieves, since it could include home address records. But the section of changes raising greatest concern among webmasters involves proposed mandatory records inspections.
Under the new rules, federal officers would not be required to give webmasters advance notice for inspections that could take place between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. local time any day of the year. Producers could be inspected as often as once every four months, and more often if "there is reasonable suspicion to believe that a violation" has occurred.
And under the draft language, inspections and potential seizure of evidence would not be limited to adult-related materials.
"Notwithstanding any provision of this part or any other regulation," states the DOJ draft, "a law enforcement officer may seize any evidence of the commission of a felony while conducting an inspection."
In anticipation that the proposed changes will be made law, some technology developers are already introducing products that will help webmasters cope with new record-keeping requirements.
Software development firm mx development recently announced the release of 2257 Register, a product touted as the first designed to help webmasters manage all performer records in a centralized database with digital copies of documentation files and identification photos.
At the same time, adult industry organizations have been lobbying against the proposed changes since the June 25 Federal Registry publication.
"Unlike enforcement of obscenity laws, which require vetting of community standards, this is 'yes or no, do you have the documents?' for webmasters," said one technology provider close to the matter who requested anonymity. "This is a much more efficient way to wipe out online porn, a goal Ashcroft has already stated."
"What does Ashcroft propose to do with regard to getting offshore sites to comply?" asked Humphry Knipe, producer and husband of veteran erotic photographer Suze Randall. Along with Penthouse and the American Library Association, Randall and Knipe sued the Justice Department in the early 1990s over the porn record-keeping requirements.
"The internet is an international entity. This could be yet another incentive for websites to set up business elsewhere," Knipe said. "This isn't a big deal for Hustler or Playboy, but what about some guy who operates a website out of his basement? Will he have to let agents into his home?"
Another requirement raising the ire of porn webmasters is a clause requiring that a statement regarding the location of the custodian of records be published in a typeface at least as large as that in which performers, producers, directors or company owners are displayed.
"If 'Playboy' is printed in 180-point type on a magazine cover, the 2257 disclosure would also have to be displayed in 180-point type," said DeWitt. "If you keep names in smaller size type, the law says it can't be smaller than 11-point type -- how does that work on websites or videotape, where font size is measured differently?"
"I could make a good case for the idea that these regulations are designed to harass people in the adult industry. We already have tough anti-child-porn laws," said DeWitt. "I see no good reason for many of these conditions, other than imposing an unnecessary harassment for people in a business which is a stated enemy of the Bush administration."
Citing Justice Department policy not to comment on pending legislation, DOJ Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section press secretary Michael Kulstad declined to speak with Wired News.
According to established federal agency procedure, the proposed changes can be made law once the DOJ reviews and considers public comments. If the proposals are enacted, enforcement is expected to begin in late September or early October -- just before the 2004 presidential elections.
Post a Comment
<< Home