677 F.3d 519 (3rd Cir. 2012), 10-4085, Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General of United States

Docket Nº:10-4085.
Citation:677 F.3d 519
Opinion Judge:SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Party Name:FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC.; American Society of Media Photographers, Inc.; Michael Barone; David Conners a/k/a Dave Cummings; Thomas Hymes; Townsend Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sinclair Institute; C1R Distribution, LLC d/b/a Channel 1 Releasing; Barbara Alper; Carol Queen; Barbara Nitke; David Steinberg; Marie L. Levine a/k/a Nina Hartley; Dave Leving
Attorney:Lorraine R. Baumgardner, J. Michael Murray (Argued), Berkman, Gordon, Murray & De Van, Cleveland, OH, Kevin E. Raphael, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Pietragallo, Gordon, Alfano, Bosick & Raspanti, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants. Thomas M. Bondy, Anne Murphy (Argued), Kathryn Wyer, United States Depar...
Judge Panel:Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. RENDELL, Circuit Judge, concurring.
Case Date:April 16, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 519

677 F.3d 519 (3rd Cir. 2012)

FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC.; American Society of Media Photographers, Inc.; Michael Barone; David Conners a/k/a Dave Cummings; Thomas Hymes; Townsend Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sinclair Institute; C1R Distribution, LLC d/b/a Channel 1 Releasing; Barbara Alper; Carol Queen; Barbara Nitke; David Steinberg; Marie L. Levine a/k/a Nina Hartley; Dave Levingston; Betty Dodson; Carlin Ross

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES Free Speech Coalition, Inc.; American Society of Media Photographers, Inc.; Michael Barone; David Conners a/k/a Dave Cummings; Thomas Hymes; Townsend Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sinclair Institute; Barbara Alper; Carol Queen; Barbara Nitke; David Steinberg; Marie L. Levine a/k/a Nina Hartley; Dave Levingston; Betty Dodson; Carlin Ross, Appellants.

No. 10-4085.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

April 16, 2012

         Argued Jan. 11, 2012.

Page 520

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 521

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 522

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 523

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 524

         Lorraine R. Baumgardner, J. Michael Murray (Argued), Berkman, Gordon, Murray & De Van, Cleveland, OH, Kevin E. Raphael, J. Peter Shindel, Jr., Pietragallo, Gordon, Alfano, Bosick & Raspanti, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants.

          Thomas M. Bondy, Anne Murphy (Argued), Kathryn Wyer, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellee.

          Fred T. Magaziner, Dechert, Mary Catherine Roper, American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, for Amicus Appellant American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

          Steven W. Fitschen, The National Legal Foundation, Virginia Beach, VA, for Amicus Appellee The National Legal Foundation.

          Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

         OPINION

          SMITH, Circuit Judge.

          Plaintiffs, a collection of individuals and entities involved with various aspects of the adult media industry, brought this action challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257 and 2257A (the " Statutes" ), which are criminal laws imposing recordkeeping, labeling, and inspection requirements on producers of sexually explicit depictions.1 Plaintiffs also challenge the

Page 525

constitutionality of certain regulations promulgated pursuant to the Statutes. Plaintiffs claim that the Statutes and regulations violate, inter alia, various provisions of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution— as applied and facially— and seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

         The government moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and with respect to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on ripeness and standing grounds under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The government also asserted that two of the Plaintiffs— FSC and Conners— were barred by issue preclusion from asserting that § 2257 violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs opposed the government's motion and moved for leave to amend their Fourth Amendment claim.

         The District Court granted the government's motion, dismissed the complaint in its entirety, and denied Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs appealed. We will vacate the District Court's order to the extent that it: dismissed in their entirety Plaintiffs' claims brought pursuant to the First Amendment (Count 1) and the Fourth Amendment (Count 4); dismissed Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief (Count 6) to the extent that it asserts a right to injunctive relief for violations of the First Amendment or the Fourth Amendment; and denied Plaintiffs leave to amend their Fourth Amendment claim. We will affirm the District Court's order in all other respects and remand the case for further proceedings.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. BACKGROUND OF RELEVANT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY LEGISLATION

         In 1978, Congress enacted the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 (" 1977 Act" ), Pub. L. No. 95-225, 92 Stat. 7 (1978) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251, 2252, and 2256), which criminalized the commercial use of children in sexually explicit materials. After the 1977 Act went into effect, much of the child pornography industry went underground and became noncommercial. See Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, Final Report, 408-09, 604-05 (1986) (the " Report" ). In response, Congress enacted the Child Protection Act of 1984 (" 1984 Act" ), Pub. L. No. 98-292, 98 Stat. 204 (codified as amended in various sections of 18 U.S.C., including §§ 2251-2254). The 1984 Act, inter alia, increased certain monetary penalties for distributing depictions of children engaged in sexual activity and broadened the protections of the 1977 Act to declare unlawful the production of noncommercial child pornography. Pub. L. No. 98-292 §§ 3 and 5 (no longer requiring that the production be for " pecuniary profit" ).

          In 1986, the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography issued its final Report, which found that although the 1977 and 1984 Acts " drastically curtailed [child pornography's] public presence," they did not end the problem and that " no evidence ... suggest[ed] that children [were] any less at risk than before." See Report at 608-09. The Report further found that producers of sexually explicit matter generally sought youthful-looking

Page 526

performers, which " has made it increasingly difficult for law enforcement officers to ascertain whether an individual in a film or other visual depiction is a minor." Id. at 618. The Report recommended that Congress " enact a statute requiring the producers, retailers or distributors of sexually explicit visual depictions to maintain records containing ... proof of performers' ages." Id. at 618. The Report also recommended that the location of this information be identified " in the opening or closing footage of a film, the inside cover of the magazine, or standard locations in or on other material containing visual depictions," and that the information be " available for inspection by any duly authorized law enforcement officer upon demand as a regulatory function for the limited purposes of determining consent and proof of age." Id. at 620-21.

         B. SECTION 2257

         In 1988, Congress enacted the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act, including § 2257, which adopted recordkeeping provisions similar to those recommended by the Report. See Pub. L. No. 100-690, § 7513, 102 Stat. 4485, 4487-88 (1988) (" 1988 Act" ).

         Section 2257, as amended, imposes three basic requirements on producers of adult media. First, any person who produces visual depictions of " actual sexually explicit conduct" must " create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed." 18 U.S.C. § 2257(a). The term " actual sexually explicit conduct" is defined to mean actual but not simulated: sexual intercourse, bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person. Id. at (h)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A). To ensure the reliability of these records, a producer subject to § 2257 must review each performer's photo identification and ascertain, inter alia, the performer's name and date of birth. 18 U.S.C. § 2257(b)(1). The producer must also ascertain any other name used by the performer in previous depictions. Id. at (b)(2). Second, a producer subject to § 2257 must " affix[ ] to every copy of any [visual depiction covered by § 2257] ... a statement describing where the records required by [§ 2257] with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located." Id. at (e)(1). Third, producers must maintain copies of their performers' identification documents at their " business premises, or at such other place[s] as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times." Id. at (b)(3) and (c).

         Producers subject to § 2257 may be exposed to criminal liability if they: " fail to create or maintain the records as required" ; " knowingly ... make any false entry in or knowingly ... fail to make an appropriate entry in, any [required] record" ; " knowingly ... fail to comply with the [labeling provisions of § 2257(e) ]" ; " knowingly sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer" any visual depiction subject to § 2257 that does not contain the label required by § 2257(e); or " refuse to permit the Attorney General or his or her designee for an inspection." 18 U.S.C. § 2257(f)(1)-(5). First time violators of § 2257 may be imprisoned for not more than five years. Id. at (i).

         C. SECTION 2257A

          Congress next promulgated the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (" 2006 Act" ), Pub. L. No. 109-248, § 503, 120 Stat. 587, including § 2257A. In enacting the 2006 Act, Congress made numerous findings, including that a substantial

Page 527

interstate market in child pornography continued to exist and that many of the individuals in this market distributed child pornography with the expectation of receiving the same in return. Id. § 501(1)(B).2

         Section 2257A regulates recordkeeping requirements for visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct— as opposed to § 2257, which regulates actual sexually explicit conduct. The regulations implementing § 2257A defined simulated sexually explicit conduct to mean

conduct engaged in by performers that is depicted in a manner that would cause a reasonable viewer to believe that the performers engaged...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP