Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder

Last updated

Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder
US-CourtOfAppeals-6thCircuit-Seal.png
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Full case nameConnection Distributing Co.; Rondee Kamins; Jane Doe; John Doe v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General
ArguedSeptember 10, 2008
DecidedFebruary 20, 2009
Citation(s)Panel opinion: 505 F.3d 545 (October 23, 2007)
En banc opinion: 557 F.3d 321 (February 20, 2009)
Case history
Prior historySummary judgment to the defendant, 95-01993 (N.D. Ohio)
Subsequent historyAppeal turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court without comment on October 5, 2009. [1]
Holding
The court held that the record-keeping requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Danny Julian Boggs, Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy, Boyce F. Martin, Jr., Alice M. Batchelder, Martha Craig Daughtrey, Karen Nelson Moore, R. Guy Cole, Jr., Eric L. Clay, Ronald Lee Gilman, Julia Smith Gibbons, John M. Rogers, Jeffrey Sutton, Deborah L. Cook, David McKeague, Richard Allen Griffin, Raymond Kethledge, and Helene White
Case opinions
MajoritySutton, joined by Boggs, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Gilman, Gibbons, Rogers, Cook, McKeague, Griffin, Kethledge
DissentKennedy, joined by Martin, Moore, Cole, Clay, White
DissentMoore, joined by Martin, Cole
DissentClay, joined by Martin, Cole
DissentWhite
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I; Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act

Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder , 557 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2009) [2] is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.

Contents

Section 2257 of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act requires those who create sexually explicit materials to maintain records of their model's age and identities, as a measure against child pornography. Connection Distributing, a publisher of swinging magazines, challenged the constitutionality of the statute, as individuals who posted on Connection's magazines would also be required to create and maintain such records, and provide them to the publisher.

In 2009, the Sixth Circuit ruled en banc that the provisions were not unconstitutional, while a panel of the court had decided in 2007 that the statute violated the First Amendment.

Background

Connection Distributing is a publisher of magazines devoted to swinging. The magazines acts as a venue for people interested in swinging to share their interests, preferences, and availability, and principally consist of advertisements that allow self-promotion by individuals. Individuals do not mention their full names in the advertisements, and 85-90% of advertisers do not reveal their faces. However, they are required to share their names, addresses and phone numbers with the publisher. Connection forwards responses to ads for a fee and allows subscribers to call a 900-number service to contact advertisers. [2] [3]

Section 2257 of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act places record-keeping requirements on "primary" and "secondary" producers of actual sexually explicit material. Primary producers, who create a visual representation of sexually explicit materials, must create and maintain records of the performers' age and identity. Secondary producers are those who publish sexually explicit materials, or upload such content to a website, or manage the content of the website; a secondary producer may meet the requirement by obtaining a copy of the primary producer's records. A regulated entity that fails to follow these requirements is subject to criminal penalties. The Act makes it a felony not to comply with these requirements, and a producer convicted of violating the Act may be fined and subject to as many as five years in prison. [2]

Section 2257 is part of the Congress' effort to protect children from the pornographic industry. Prior to 1988, Congress tried to prevent the pornographic industry from exploiting children in two ways. First, it proscribed all pornography, whether or not it involved children. Second, it banned all other pornography involving children under the age of 18. However, research showed that these two measures did not effectively protect children mainly because the industry's inclination to use youthful-looking actresses, which made it difficult to find out whether children were used in obscene publications or movies. Therefore, in 1988, the Congress enacted the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act. And section 2257 of the Act laid out the requirements set forth above. [2]

Procedural background

In 1995, Connection filed a complaint, challenging the record-keeping provisions of Section 2257. [2] In Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 285 (6th Cir. 1998), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Connection's motion for preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. § 75 (the related administrative law). [3]

On remand, the district court granted summary judgment against Connection. A panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded the case such that it could be reconsidered in light of recent Supreme Court precedents. [2]

District court opinion

After the Sixth Circuit panel remanded the case, Connection filed an amended complaint, again seeking a preliminary injunction, while the government sought summary judgment. The district court denied the preliminary injunction and granted summary judgment to the government. [2]

Court of Appeals three-judge panel opinion

At the panel stage of the case, in Connection Distrib. Co. v. Keisler, the judges found that the record-keeping requirements of Section 2257 were overly broad and therefore violated the First Amendment. In the overbreadth issue it raised, the panel observed that the statute seemed to apply to private couples who create and keep sexually explicit images in their homes. [4] [2] The court held that the statute was facially invalid, and reversed the district court's judgment, directing it to enter summary judgment for Connection. [4]

Court of appeals en banc opinion

The Sixth Circuit addressed en banc the First Amendment claims made by the plaintiffs, first as an as-applied challenge by Connection to the record-keeping provisions of Section 2257, then as a facial challenge to the same statute. The court also considered whether the statute violated the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause as the plaintiffs claimed. The majority opinion written by Judge Jeffrey Sutton affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment to the government, while six judges dissented, four of them writing dissenting opinions. [2] [5] [6]

First Amendment claims

As-applied challenge

In its as-applied attack, Connection argued that the Child Protection Enforcement Act's record-keeping and disclosure provisions suppressed the free expression of Connection and its subscribers wishing to place sexually explicit advertisements in its magazines. [2]

The court disagreed, stating that the law was content-neutral, and therefore was subject to intermediate scrutiny, and not the more rigorous strict scrutiny, in deciding whether the statute violated the First Amendment. The court made this decision on the basis that the law addressed underage pornography issues, which were "secondary effects" of the expression, and did not address the effect of its content on its audience. As such, the court held that the record-keeping requirements of the statute could be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. [2]

Having determined that intermediate scrutiny applied in this challenge, the court then found that Section 2257 survived scrutiny, arguing that protecting children is a substantial government interest, and that universal age-verification is a reasonably tailored measure for many reasons. It rejected Connection's claim that the requirements placed barriers on the advertisers' interests in engaging in anonymous speech, stating that the claim was not credible, as Connection already required advertisers to submit their names, addresses, and phone numbers when placing an ad. When Connection remarked that Section 2257 made the information available to the government upon request, the court replied that "[the advertisers] have no more to complain about than every taxpayer in the country." [2]

In dissent, Judge Karen Nelson Moore maintained that strict scrutiny should govern the as-applied challenge. In reply, Sutton's majority opinion stated that Connection did not urge the court to apply strict scrutiny to the case, and that the reasons given in the opinion justified the decision. [2]

Facial challenge

As part of the facial challenge to the record-keeping requirements of Section 2257, Connection argued that the law would be unconstitutional as applied to a magazine of mature adult models, as it would be broader than is required, given the models would be clearly and visibly not minors. The court rejected this argument as a basis for invalidating Section 2257, stating that "Connection at most has identified a discrete application of the statute that may be problematic," [2] and that Connection failed to show substantial overbreadth required for facially invalidating the statute.

In dissent, Judge Cornelia Groefsema Kennedy remarked that there were costs in requiring case-by-case adjudication, as some individuals who are wrongfully chilled from speaking may decline to seek remedy, as litigation is time-consuming, and can be expensive. Kennedy also argued that the absence of a prior application of the statute to private couples who create and keep sexually explicit material should not doom the facial-overbreadth challenge. [2]

Fifth Amendment claims

The 2003 amendment to Section 2257 allows the government to use the records that must be maintained as evidence to other violations than only Section 2257. The three individual plaintiffs challenged the validity of the statute under the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause, as these records could implicate them in crimes. The court refused to resolve the merits of this claim on the basis that it was not ripe. The court noted that the claim was not fit for decision, as the government had not attempted to inspect any of Connection's records so far. [2]

Subsequent developments

In 2009, the Supreme Court denied the petition to reconsider the en banc decision of the Sixth Circuit. [1] [7] The decision is significant in maintaining that the record-keeping requirements of the Section 2257 are constitutional, and in its extended discussion of the overbreadth doctrine. [5] The decision has been strongly criticized by the adult entertainment industry. [8] [9] [10] [11] The Electronic Frontier Foundation states it is currently working with the Free Speech Coalition to challenge the 2257 regulations, [12] and filed an amicus curiae brief in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [13]

Related Research Articles

The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, title VII, subtitle N of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  100–690, 102 Stat. 4181, enacted November 18, 1988, H.R. 5210, is part of a United States Act of Congress which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws, part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">PROTECT Act of 2003</span> United States law regarding child abuse and violent crimes against children

The PROTECT Act of 2003 is a United States law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse as well as investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against children. "PROTECT" is a backronym which stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Danny Julian Boggs</span> American judge

Danny Julian Boggs is an American attorney and a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its Chief judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

<i>Muntaqim v. Coombe</i> American legal case

Muntaqim v. Coombe, 449 F.3d 371, was a legal challenge to New York State’s law disenfranchising individuals convicted of felonies while in prison and on parole. The plaintiff, Jalil Abdul Muntaqim who is serving a life sentence, argues that the law has a disproportionate impact on African Americans and therefore violates Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act as a denial of the right to vote on account of race.

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge (born 1942)

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

Dennis Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Raymond Kethledge</span> American judge (born 1966)

Raymond Michael Kethledge is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008. Kethledge appeared on Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court of the United States nominees in 2016, and was described by press reports as a finalist in President Trump's nomination to replace Anthony Kennedy on the court.

United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a federal statute prohibiting the "pandering" of child pornography did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, even if a person charged under the code did in fact not possess child pornography with which to trade.

<i>Williams v. Pryor</i>

Williams v. Pryor, 229 F.3d 1331, rehearing denied, 240 F.3d 944 was a federal lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged an Alabama law criminalizing the sale of sex toys in the state. In 1998, a statute enacted by the legislature of the State of Alabama amended the obscenity provisions of the Alabama Code to make the distribution of certain defined sexual devices a criminal offense. Vendors and users of such devices filed a constitutional challenge to the statute in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against William H. Pryor, Jr., in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Alabama. The district court declined to hold the statute violated any constitutional right but determined the statute was unconstitutional because it lacked a rational basis. The State appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court ruling on October 12, 2000.

In People vs Freeman of 1988, the California Supreme Court stated that adult film production was to be protected as free speech under the First Amendment. They ruled that since such films did not include obscene images and indecency, and stayed within society's standards, the adult film industry should be granted the freedom of speech. Escaping highly regulated government intervention, regulation in the adult film industry has been limited to preventing child pornography. In the United States Code of Regulations, under title Title 18, Section 2257, no performers under the age of 18 are allowed to be employed by adult industry production companies. Failure to abide by this regulation results in civil and criminal prosecutions. To enforce the age entry restriction, all adult industry production companies are required to have a Custodian of Records that documents and holds records of the ages of all performers.

In the United States, child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states and is punishable by up to life imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000. U.S. laws regarding child pornography are virtually always enforced and amongst the harshest in the world. The Supreme Court of the United States has found child pornography to be outside the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between production, distribution, and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 18. U.S. law distinguishes between pornographic images of an actual minor, realistic images that are not of an actual minor, and non-realistic images such as drawings. The latter two categories are legally protected unless found to be obscene, whereas the first does not require a finding of obscenity.

<i>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland</i>

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute. The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a narrowing construction on the statute. Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down two overbroad provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech". The case was brought against the U.S. government by the Free Speech Coalition, a "California trade association for the adult-entertainment industry", along with Bold Type, Inc., a "publisher of a book advocating the nudist lifestyle"; Jim Gingerich, who paints nudes; and Ron Raffaelli, a photographer who specialized in erotic images. By striking down these two provisions, the Court rejected an invitation to increase the amount of speech that would be categorically outside the protection of the First Amendment.

<i>United States v. Kilbride</i>

United States v. Kilbride, 584 F.3d 1240 is a case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejecting an appeal from two individuals convicted of violating the Can Spam Act and United States obscenity law. The defendants were appealing convictions on 8 counts from the District Court of Arizona for distributing pornographic spam via email. The second count which the defendants were found guilty of involved the falsification of the "From" field of email headers, which is illegal to do multiple times in commercial settings under 18 USC § 1037(a)(3). The case is particularly notable because of the majority opinion on obscenity, in which Judge Fletcher writes an argument endorsing the use of a national community obscenity standard for the internet.

<i>Cook v. Gates</i> American legal case

Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42, is a decision on July 9, 2008, of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that upheld the "Don't ask, Don't tell" (DADT) policy against due process and equal protection Fifth Amendment challenges and a free speech challenge under the First Amendment, and which found that no earlier Supreme Court decision held that sexual orientation is a suspect or quasi-suspect classification.

<i>Woollard v. Gallagher</i> Civil lawsuit

Woollard v. Sheridan, 863 F. Supp. 2d 462, reversed sub. nom., Woollard v Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865, was a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of Raymond Woollard, a resident of the State of Maryland, by the Second Amendment Foundation against Terrence Sheridan, Secretary of the Maryland State Police, and members of the Maryland Handgun Permit Review Board. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' refusal to grant a concealed carry permit renewal to Mr. Woollard on the basis that he "...ha[d] not demonstrated a good and substantial reason to wear, carry or transport a handgun as a reasonable precaution against apprehended danger in the State of Maryland" was a violation of Mr. Woollard's rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and therefore unconstitutional. The trial court found in favor of Mr. Woollard, However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review that decision.

The Child Protection Restoration and Penalties Enhancement Act of 1990 , Title III of the Crime Control Act of 1990, Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law  101–647, 104 Stat. 4789, enacted November 29, 1990, S. 3266, is part of a United States Act of Congress which amended 18 U.S.C. § 2257 in respect to record-keeping requirements as set by the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, also establishing prohibitions. The Act also amended 18 U.S.C. § 2243 and 18 U.S.C. § 2252 establishing and increasing penalties for sexual abuse of a minor. Also see Child Protective Services, for global practices and the approach of US.

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

<i>Planned Parenthood v. Rounds</i>

Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889, is an Eighth Circuit decision addressing the constitutionality of a South Dakota law which forced doctors to make certain disclosures to patients seeking abortions. The challenged statute required physicians to convey to their abortion-seeking patients a number of state-mandated disclosures, including a statement that abortions caused an "[i]ncreased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, along with its medical director Dr. Carol E. Ball, challenged the South Dakota law, arguing that it violated patients' and physicians' First Amendment free speech rights and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. After several appeals and remands, the Eighth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the South Dakota law, holding that the mandated suicide advisement was not "unconstitutionally misleading or irrelevant," and did "not impose an unconstitutional burden on women seeking abortions or their physicians." This supplemented the Eighth Circuit's earlier rulings in this case, where the court determined that the state was allowed to impose a restrictive emergency exception on abortion procedures and to force physicians to convey disclosures regarding the woman's relationship to the fetus and the humanity of the fetus.

References

  1. 1 2 "October 5, 2009 Supreme Court Orders" (PDF). October 5, 2009. Retrieved February 8, 2014.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557F.3d321 (6th Cir.2009).
  3. 1 2 Connection Distributing Co. v. Reno, 154F.3d281 (6th Cir.1998).
  4. 1 2 Connection Distrib. v. Keisler, 505F.3d545 (6th Cir.2007).
  5. 1 2 Hudson, David L. Jr. "Full 6th Circuit: Child-porn law is constitutional". First Amendment Center. Retrieved February 10, 2014.
  6. ↑ Bashman, Howard. "How Appealing". Archived from the original on August 19, 2012. Retrieved February 12, 2014.
  7. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (October 5, 2009). "UPDATE: New look at detainee case". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 12, 2014.
  8. ↑ Kernes, Mark (February 25, 2009). "Analysis: 6th Circuit Upholds 2257". AVN. Retrieved February 12, 2014.
  9. ↑ Kernes, Mark (October 5, 2009). "Supreme Court Denies Cert In Connection Distributing Case". AVN. Retrieved February 12, 2014.
  10. ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court Rejects 2257 Challenge in Connections V. Holder; Big Defeat for FSC". Adult FYI. October 6, 2009. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved February 10, 2014.
  11. ↑ Walters, Lawrence G. "Where Angels Fear to Tread – The Dangers of Asserting Unfair Competition Claims Involving 2257 Compliance". Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance. Archived from the original on April 8, 2014. Retrieved February 12, 2014.
  12. ↑ "Electronic Frontier Foundation, Legal Guide for Bloggers, Adult Material". August 25, 2011. Retrieved February 8, 2014.
  13. ↑ "Electronic Frontier Foundation, Free Speech Coalition v. Holder". July 2011. Retrieved March 5, 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.