Delivering Weekly Censorship Updates to the Adult Entertainment Industry
Vol. X, No. 18, May 11, 2007 - A Member Service of the Free Speech Coalition Free Speech X-press is researched and edited by Scott Ross.
Copyright 2007 Free Speech Coalition. Permission to reprint granted to FSC members; please give credit.
This X-press in brought to you by our exclusive sponsors Bellenjoy & ARS.
Please support our sponsors by selecting the logos above.
FBI Inspects 2257 Records of Two Adult Product Companies
The FBI has inspected 2257 records from both Shane's World Studios and the now defunct Moonlight Entertainment within a week of each other, a notable resurgence in activity after four months without a single inspection.
Moonlight Entertainment's former owner Marc Stone received a visit to his home on May 3.
"[FBI agent] Chuck Joyner called me and said that they wanted to check records on four movies," Stone told AVN.com. "I told him we were out of business, and since the address [for the custodian of records] was my house, he said he needed to come down and check 2257. He and a few other agents showed up, and they looked up the records; they were courteous and professional, and it wasn't a big, huge deal."
The agents spent about one hour examining the relevant papers. "There were two IDs they couldn't read right, but that was it; I'm just going to get them some better copies," Stone said. "The point is, make sure your 2257s are in order, because there are laws, and they're checking. If you don't have them right, they'll tell you what you need to fix; from what everybody else tells me, they're OK with it. I haven't heard of anybody having a real bad time with these visits."
Shane's World Studios had their 2257 records inspected on May 7.
"Approximately six agents came by this morning and were interested in ten titles," company owner Jennie Grant told AVN.com. "We promptly gave them all the records and they got to work. They were here for a few hours and then let us know our records were perfect."
Grant said she was pleased with the outcome and thanked her staff. "I realized we are prepared for this and we have a great staff that pays attention to detail."
The last prior 2257 inspection before Moonlight Entertainment's was K-Beech, which underwent an inspection last December. Only eleven adult production companies have been inspected to date.
http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=288696
FEDERAL LEGISLATION - HOW A BILL BECOMES LAW, Part II
By The Raben Group, WASHINGTON, D.C.
In our previous installment two weeks ago, we discussed the steps involved in launching a targeted lobbying campaign on Capitol Hill and provided an initial blueprint for the necessary outreach and coalition-building. Our fictitious advocacy group, the Eat Smart Coalition ("ESC"), is dedicated to stemming childhood obesity and has begun its canvassing efforts in Washington. ESC has found a Member of Congress to champion its bill that would mandate a nationwide switch to sugarless sodas in America's public school cafeterias, and that fictitious Member has begun to drum-up additional support. Now the real fun begins, as the language in the bill is heavily scrutinized and opposition mounts. The bill looks seemingly innocent and beneficial, but there's always a group that will be adversely affected by some portion of a piece of legislation, and it will lobby just as hard - if not harder - to fight the bill and stop it in its tracks.
By now, our bill's champion in Congress (let's call him Congressman Letts B. Fitt) has introduced his soda-banning bill and it has been assigned to a committee for examination and debate. Congress has many committees that cover a multitude of jurisdictional subject matters, from the judiciary to the environment to the military. The committees discuss the pros and cons of every bill that comes before them and hold open hearings with expert witnesses to get to the nuts and bolts of whatever is being proposed. Congressman Fitt's bill is primarily health-based, so it would most likely be assigned to the Energy & Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Health (each committee has multiple subcommittees which are specialized and streamlined in order to scrutinize legislation on a smaller scale. For example, the Judiciary Committee contains subcommittees on Intellectual Property, Immigration, Crime, etc).
In an effort to take a close look at the bill and make it as effective and fair as possible, the Health subcommittee (comprised of 18 Democrats and 15 Republicans, reflecting the larger numbers of the current ruling party), would organize a hearing on the bill in order to learn more about the effects of the legislation if enacted. The hearing would involve a panel of five or so experts, who would sit before the Members and answer any and all questions about the contents of the bill. This panel would most likely consist of a nutrition expert; perhaps a school principal who has seen first-hand the rapid weight-gain in students; a representative from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and, arguing against the bill, a senior executive from a large soda company.
These witnesses would field concerns from committee members and answer each and every question to the best of their respective abilities during the hearing. Once the hearing has concluded, the congressmen and congresswomen on the committee would rewrite the bill to reflect any changes that should be implemented post-hearing and then either vote for or against the bill's passage. This is when the real horse-trading and wheeling and dealing begins. Lobbyists for the soda company obviously want the least-restrictive language possible in this bill so their profits aren't hit too hard if sodas are banned from high school cafeterias. These lobbyists, most of them former congressional staffers, proceed to call on their still-on-the-Hill friends in order to quietly add language to the bill in the company's favor or remove language that harms it. With 33 Members of the subcommittee all being bombarded by different interest groups with different views, decisions must be made and deals worked out. If a Member has both a large soda company and a huge elementary school population in his or her district, how does he or she balance the interests? The soda company might go out of business if the bill passes, and that means lost jobs. Yet the health of the students is affected by the sodas being served to them at schools, so isn't that just as important or more so? Who wins and who loses?
Therein lies the challenge of balancing out the needs of divergent constituencies. The third and final installment appears next week…
Flexing Your Political Muscle
By Matt Gray, FSC contract lobbyist
SACRAMENTO, CA
Why should you care? -- Because they’re trying to put you out of business.
Depending upon the issue, a mailed letter to an elected official from a resident (“constituent”) within their voting district is estimated to represent the same viewpoint as between 600 other constituents for a high profile issue, and more than 2000 constituents for a lesser-known issue.
The adult entertainment industry employs more than 50,000 people in one form or another throughout California. That is a large voting block which under-utilizes its political capital (i.e. writing letters), insofar as constituent involvement in the process is concerned.
Right now, the industry faces a tough piece of legislation, AB 1551, by Assemblyman Chuck Calderon. This bill seeks to impose multiple taxes upon adult materials. Consider for a moment what the political downside is for the politicians who will be asked to vote on this “anti-porn” legislation?
Will it drive businesses out of the state? Yes, but every industry says that when facing more taxes, and the claim needs to be reinforced by constituent input.
Will it reduce profit margins and place these California businesses at an unfair competitive disadvantage to non-California businesses who will not have to pay the same tax when selling to the same customers you seek to satisfy? Yes, but lawmakers aren’t seeing the bigger picture, and they think their constituents don’t care.
Is it unconstitutional and likely to be challenged in court? Yes, but “that’s something for the court to decide, not the Legislature,” say lawmakers.
Will it irritate their constituents? We hope so, and that is where you can help out most.
If you’re a California resident, go to Mhttp://192.234.213.69/smapsearch/framepage.asp (sometimes you need to click “Find” more than once to get results), and enter your home address. Find out who your Senator and Assembly Member are, and write a brief letter (today) in your own words, to let them know how awful this legislation is and that, as your elected representative, you respectfully request their immediate action to stop this legislation.
Take one or more of the following statements and put them into you own words. Don’t send e-mails (they’re largely ignored), but you can fax your letter if that makes it easier.
Position Statements: 1. AB 1551 will significantly reduce already low profit margins and will have to be passed on the consumer. The adult entertainment industry relies upon discretionary consumer income to sustain itself, and cutting into customers’ budgets will cause a reduction in the amount of product being purchased. Fewer products being purchased means fewer workers are needed, and the ripple effect would be felt in those businesses which supply adult entertainment venues as well. Ultimately, AB 1551 will result in lost jobs in your district.
Or
2. The adult entertainment industry is already at a competitive disadvantage to businesses outside of California which either pay no sales tax when selling to Californians, or are pirating our products and selling over the internet to our customers. AB 1551 would actually help the competition and make it harder for California businesses by further undercutting profit margins and ultimately reducing tax revenues to the state.
Or
3. AB 1551 is premised upon false and irresponsible claims about the adult entertainment industry. The bill aggressively claims the industry causes adverse “secondary effects” upon surrounding communities when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Multiple independent, peer reviewed and published research projects from both within California and throughout the country prove without a doubt that there is no evidence to support the claims made within AB 1551. To the contrary, positive secondary effects have been shown, due to vigilant self-imposed security measures, self-regulation, and good neighbor policies and practices. AB 1551, on its face, is misleading and untrue.
“Form letters” are largely disregarded, so remember to put the above into your own words. When a lawmaker reads it, it shouldn’t look identical to the one your neighbor just sent.
Letters should be brief and to the point, but feel free to give that personal touch and tell the lawmaker you are the breadwinner for your home, you support X number of children, and you vote!
It could be considered a crime to demand the lawmaker vote one way or another under threat of you voting against them (or taking any other action). So, obviously avoid that.
Remember to include your home address, and sign the letter. Send it to:
The Honorable [insert their name here]
California State Legislature
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
A few letters are good, but even 100 letters would leave a lasting impact that there is a big issue for their constituents, and that they had better pay attention. Ask your friends and neighbors to send a letter (today). One stamp and 5-minutes of your time will help to save your industry. Do not delay.
Although this is a California legislative issue, if passed, California’s leadership will undoubtedly be replicated elsewhere in the country. If you’re a non-resident of California, encourage your colleagues in California to write to their own senators or assembly persons.
To review the research and reports for yourself, go to: http://www.thecapitalalliance.com/reports/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Gray is a senior lobbyist for Capital Alliance, a lobbying and government strategies firm in Sacramento. E-mail matt@thecapitalalliance.com or Tel. 916-444-5551
Lawyers for Red Rose Seek Dismissal of Obscenity Charges
PITTSBURGH, PA - Attorneys for Karen Fletcher, aka Red Rose, have filed a pretrial motion petitioning the court to dismiss the obscenity indictment against Fletcher for disseminating six allegedly obscene fictional stories on her Web site describing the torture and sexual abuse of children.
Fletcher counsel, Lawrence G. Walters, argues that obscenity laws are unconstitutional as applied to purely textual works.
"This case is a little unique," Walters told XBIZ. "We don't believe the content at issue here meets the threshold for obscene material, so we're asking the court to look at this before trial. We must protect Fletcher's 1st Amendment rights of free speech; her works have obvious literary value."
In the motion obtained by XBIZ, Lawrence argues that text is fundamentally different than pictures, because people process text differently. The defense is prepared to offer testimony from expert witnesses to this effect.
At issue in this case are six allegedly obscene works that were available on Red-Rose-Stories.com only for paid members, of which Fletcher claims there were only 29.
"Since the site in question is a membership site, no one could 'accidentally' stumble upon these stories; anyone could have stopped reading them before they were offended and there were warnings on the page," Walters said. "Red Rose's readers sought out this kind of material."
While textual works have been ruled to be obscene by the courts, they all come before the Miller vs. California ruling in 1973, which sets the definition of obscenity against community standards. Lawrence said the U.S. Supreme Court has not issued a definitive ruling on whether or not the written word can be judged obscene.
"…Over the past 34 years, the Government has never sought to prosecute speech composed exclusively from the written word," Lawrence said in the motion. "The absence of any post-1973 prosecutions under the federal obscenity statutes involving non-pictorial works reflects a sea change in the manner in which American society…views obscenity in a non-visual context.
"Such glaring lack of text-only obscenity cases further reflects a demonstrative evolution in community standards throughout the country, with respect to literary works, and recognition of the inherent serious value contained in such works."
Lawrence said that the government will file a written response to the motion and the court will then set a date for oral arguments.
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=22866
El Paso Passes Stricter Adult Business Laws
EL PASO, TX - The City Council unanimously adopted legislation earlier this week that place restrictions on sexually oriented businesses. The new ordinance establishes a six-foot rule for local strip clubs and requires adult retailers to designate an employee to be responsible for activities that take place within the store.
The six-foot rule states that nude or semi-nude dancers must maintain a distance of six feet from customers, which effectively bars lap dancing.
Adult video stores will be required to designate an employee to be responsible for monitoring all theater activity.
Adult Video Warehouse (AVW) manager Lee Wilson told El Paso's ABC-7, "If people can't go someplace in private, they're going to go somewhere else ... If they're not here in a controlled environment, they're going to be on the street or a back alley, parking lot ... Who knows where?"
San Antonio-based attorney Jim Deegear, who represents strip club Tequila Sunrise, had previously stated that that the city should expect a legal battle if the six-foot-rule should pass.
Mayor John Cook, who championed the ordinance, isn't intimidated by the legal threats. "This is America, anybody can sue anybody...but suing and winning are two different things."
http://www.kvia.com/global/story.asp?s=6481818
Mass. Town Defeats Adult Zoning Amendment
WESTPORT, MA - Town Meeting voters defeated a zoning amendment this past Monday that would have created an adult entertainment zone.
The Planning Board held a hearing on the proposed Adult Entertainment Overlay District, which would overlay a business district, on an amendment drafted by the town's law firm. Town Counsel David Jenkins told voters at Monday's meeting that the courts have determined that adult businesses retain a First Amendment right to locate and operate in a town, although they can draft ordinances such as the proposed zoning amendment to limit their location.
The need for the zoning regulation arises from an attempt by Deutch Donn Corp. of Fairhaven to build a strip club in the area. The Zoning Board denied the company's application for a special permit under the town's current ordinance, which was adopted in 1998 and amended in 2006.
The company has filed a civil suit in Fall River Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment in order to overturn the 1998 and 2006 ordinances.
According to the Standard-Times, four city residents spoke against the zoning amendment, warning that the character and economic development potential of the town would be diminished if the proposed adult entertainment district passed. No one spoke in favor of the proposed zoning amendment.
"We have a great heritage in Westport for standing up and defending that which is right, and this is one of those times," said Michael Andras Jr., speaking at Monday's meeting.
He argued that studies have shown that strip clubs deteriorate a community by introducing crimes not already there, like prostitution, and increasing existing crimes, like car theft, assault and battery, drug abuse, and destruction of property.
"The location of this strip club would attract primarily people from out of town," Andras contended. "Studies have shown that only 2 percent of the people who go there are from town." The studies Andras alludes to were not named.
Attorney Brian Corey Jr., who represents Deutch Donn, said on Monday that he expected the amendment would lose, and that he will press the suit now in court.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070501/NEWS/70501016/-1/SUB
Adult Retailer Settles With City for $220,000
SIOUX CITY, IA - Dr. John's Lingerie Boutique has settled their First Amendment lawsuit against the city for $220,000 according to an Associated Press report.
The city council approved the settlement on May 1, bring an end to the dispute which goes back to 2003, when John Haltom, the owner of Dr. John's, filed suit against the city claiming that the city's ordinances were too restrictive and in violation of his First Amendment rights.
Haltom claimed the city amended its ordinances to keep him from opening his store. He was granted an injunction to keep his store open while the case was pending. A federal judge later declared the ordinance unconstitutional.
Councilman Dave Ferris said it was in the best interest of city taxpayers to settle the case, which he says could have dragged on for years.
http://www.woi-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=6454400&nav=1LFX
Court Refuses to Halt Sales of Lucas' La Dolce Vita
NEW YORK, NY - Michael Lucas has prevailed in the first stage of a lawsuit brought against his Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita, a gay XXX movie, by International Media Films, which claims copyright ownership of the 1960 Federico Fellini film La Dolce Vita.
The lawsuit, claiming trademark infringement, tarnishment, and copyright infringement, was filed in February 2007, only weeks before Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita swept the GAYVN Awards winning 14 trophies.
A request by IMF for a preliminary injunction halting sales and distribution of Michael Lucas' La Dolce Vita was filed on March 15. IMF claimed that Lucas' movie caused irreparable harm to its product.
In a hearing held on Friday, April 27, Judge John G. Koeltl denied IMF's request, citing the five-month lag time between IMF's learning about the Lucas movie (October 2006) and it's requesting the preliminary injunction. Judge Koeltl said, in part, "The Court concludes that the plaintiff's delay seeking preliminary injunctive relief rebuts any presumption of irreparable harm to which the plaintiff is otherwise entitled."
Judge Koeltl's decision does not end the original lawsuit, which is now scheduled for the fall.
Lucas characterized the dispute as homophobic and anti-porn in a May 4 email blast announcing this first victory in the ongoing legal battle." How could anyone possibly confuse the two films with each other? And how could my movie tarnish the reputation of an old, black-and-white movie from the '60s that has a name most Americans can't even pronounce correctly?
"The judge denied the injunction, so, yes, we will continue distributing, selling, and promoting the film."
http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=288694
Email Xpress@freespeechcoalition.com for more information.
Because of 2257 litigation, it's critical that we have your company's information complete in our database. Are you SURE your company's information is complete? Email UpdateInfo@FreeSpeechCoalition.com to update your company's information now.
NOTE: The data we're tracking, related to 2257, has changed. Please update NOW.
MAY 11-13 - Sex and So Much More Show, Phoenix
MAY 26 - Arizona Fetish Ball, Scottsdale, AZ
JUNE 7-10 - Cybernet Expo, Tampa Bay, Florida
JUNE 22-24 - Erotica L.A., Los Angeles Convention Center
AUGUST 27-30 - Annual Gentlemen's Club Owners Expo, Las Vegas, NV
AUGUST 27-30 - STOREROTICA Convention and Tradeshow, Las Vegas, NV
SEPT 21-23 - ADULTCON, Los Angeles Convention Center
The worst thing in this world, next to anarchy, is government.
-- Henry Ward Beecher
A man begins cutting his wisdom teeth the first time he bites off more than he can chew.
-- Herb Caen
