WASHINGTON, DC — Judged against the full history of the record-keeping requirements commonly referred to within the adult industry as “2257,” 2006 was doubtlessly the legislation’s most active year to date.By comparison, 2007 has proven to be “all quiet on the 2257 front,” so to speak and so far.
There have been no significant developments in the case Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales, the FSC legal challenge to the 2257 regulatory scheme. Diane Duke, Executive Director of the FSC today said that, so far as she is aware, the legal challenge is “still sitting there, waiting on the judge.”
Nor have there been any 2257 inspections reported thus far in 2007; setting aside the inspection of Sebastian Sloane Productions (which was pursued in connection to a search warrant, and not a “pure” 2257 inspection), there were eight such inspections in 2006.
Last year also saw the first penalties for violations of 2257 handed down, following a guilty plea by Mantra Films (better known by the brand name Girls Gone Wild) admitting violations of 2257 record keeping regulations. Mantra as a company was fined $2.1 million, $500,000 of which owner Joe Francis was ordered to pay personally, stemming from his own plea agreement.
Thus far this year, the only known event of significance related to 2257 has been the appearance by Special Agent Chuck Joyner of the FBI at the Xbiz Hollywood conference in February.
Joyner’s presentation and his subsequent participation in a question and answer period were both significant and unprecedented events, to be sure. Even that appearance, however, stemmed from a meeting between representatives of the adult industry and the FBI that took place late last year.
Of course, it is always possible that inspections have taken place this year and simply have not been reported publicly. Arguably the wisest move for any producer who gets inspected is to not discuss their inspection with anyone beyond their legal counsel and the FBI agents conducting the inspection, at least pending resolution of the inspection.
There’s little doubt that significant developments with respect to 2257 are still in store this year – it’s just a little surprising there hasn’t seen more movement, already.
So, the (by now, quite familiar) question for 2257 remains; what’s next, and when is it coming?
