Aug 12, 2005  |  By: DYANA BAGBY  | COMMENTS     

Lawyers representing the adult sex industry appeared in a Colorado federal court Aug. 2 to argue for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of new federal rules they say could remove sexual images on Web sites, including nude photos that are a staple of gay male cruising sites.

U.S. District Court Judge Walker D. Miller may take up to three weeks to make a ruling on the injunction, according to Tom Hymes, spokesperson for the Free Speech Coalition.

The Free Speech Coalition is suing U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to prevent the Department of Justice from enforcing new regulations to U.S.C. 2257, dubbed “2257,” which mandates producers verify the ages of models, actors and others appearing in sexually explicit content and keep thorough records on them, including address, photo identification and their legal names.

The Aug. 2 injunction hearing took approximately three hours and Miller told attorneys for the FSC and U.S. government he wanted to make a decision “relatively soon,” Hymes said Wednesday. The actual lawsuit may not go to court for another six months to a year, he added.

Gay personals sites affected
The Free Speech Coalition, which says it has gay businesses among its 3,625 members, believes the new federal guidelines are unconstitutional, violate privacy laws and would place an undue burden on “secondary producers,” such as owners of personals Web sites with sexually explicit photos, including Gay.com, Bigmuscle.com, men4now.com and adam4adam.com.

Officials with the popular Craigslist.com, an online classified site that also posts some sexually explicit photos, are aware of the new guidelines and are “working on this with our lawyers,” said owner Craig Newmark. He declined further comment.

The government defines “sexually explicit conduct” as actual or simulated “sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.”

Revisions to the law, which were set to take effect June 24, were put on hold when the FSC and federal officials agreed to delay enforcement until Sept. 7.

In a brief filed Aug. 1, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kurt Bohn argued that the newly revised law must be enforced due to the widespread proliferation of child pornography on the Internet and that the new provisions do not violate the right to privacy.

“There is a sizable market for sexually explicit depictions of ‘teens’ and individuals with less mature physical characteristics,” Bohn argues. “In addition to heterosexual sex and lesbian and homosexual sex between young-looking performers, these Web sites included depictions of [what’s] purported to be incest.”

BigMuscleBears.com and BigMuscle.com, Web sites for gay men, recently asked members not to post images depicting sexual fluids or any kind of anal penetration on the sites due to the revisions in the federal regulations. Nudity was still allowed, according to the statement posted on the sites, but members were advised to post only solo images as part of a self-policing effort.

Adam4adam.com includes a “2257” link allowing members to report violations of the federal regulations.

In June, Gay.com, a member of the Free Speech Coalition, temporarily removed nude photos but re-posted them when the agreement was reached to delay enforcement until Sept. 7.

Steven Alexander, Web site director for gay male site m4m-usa.com — also known as m4m4sex.com — said it would not remove any photos despite facing possible federal prosecution.

“Sometimes things are just plain wrong and someone has to stand up and say no,” Alexander said in a statement issued in June.