m4msex.com Web site director Steven Alexander said his site would not remove nude photos or require signed release forms from members posting them, although it is possible they could be prosecuted.

By DYANA BAGBY
Jun 24 2005, 6:59 PM  |     |     |  

Some gay male cruising sites received a temporary reprieve Thursday from enforcement of expanded federal regulations that, according to the Web sites, seriously threatened the use of nude photos that are a staple of their popularity.

The U.S. Department of Justice agreed with critics of the regulations to delay enforcement until Sept. 7, some 30 days after a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for Aug. 8. An adult industry trade group, the Free Speech Coalition, filed for a temporary restraining order barring enforcement on June 20. -IMG-

The rules, which may have forced the removal of explicit imagery, were set to go into effect Thursday. But the agreement delays enforcement against any members of the coalition or plaintiffs in the lawsuit until Sept. 7

Donna Gibbs, spokesperson for PlanetOut Inc., owner of Gay.com, a member of the Free Speech Coalition, said Friday that the agreement meant it was "back to business for us."

"All our members’ photos are available, including the adult photos," Gibbs said. "We are following this issue very closely and have started pre-screening photos on all our sites so if this decision is reversed and we are again living under these regulations, we have a greater measure of comfort [our content] adheres to the rules outlined in 2257."

Gay.com posted a statement that said, "We bent over backwards to defend your right to view and share photos of guys bending over. Adult photos and Video Chat on our site are once again available for public viewing by consenting adults — thanks to an agreement that stops the U.S. Dept. of Justice from expanding restrictions on online content."

A handful of sites, including Gay.com, BigMuscleBears.com, BigMuscle.com and m4m-usa.com, reacted to the regulations by alerting members and evaluating their policies prior to the agreement that was reached between the DOJ and the Free Speech Coalition on Thursday.

BigMuscleBears.com and BigMuscle.com recently issued a statement to members asking them to not post images depicting sexual fluids or any kind of anal penetration due to the revisions in the federal regulations. Nudity was still allowed, according to the statement, but both sites recommended only solo images be posted as part of a self "policing" process.

Bigmuscle.com and BigMuscleBears.com, operated by two men identified as Andy and Bill on the sites, could not be reached for comment Friday.

Steven Alexander, Web site director for gay male site m4m-usa.com — also known as m4m4sex.com — recently issued a statement to its members regarding the new regulations and blamed the Republican administration of President George Bush for infringing on First Amendment rights. Alexander did respond to requests for comment this week.

Open records

The law under President Bill Clinton was updated to include "secondary producers" — such as Web masters that post submitted sexually explicit photos — because of child pornography found on the Internet. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado in 1998 threw out the law in the Sundance Associates v. Reno case. The court ruled in this case that 2257 does not include "secondary producers."

But in May 2005, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales decided to pursue secondary producers again, making punishment of violations retroactive to 1995.

The U.S. District Court in Denver is set to hold a preliminary injunction hearing on Aug. 8, after which the judge will determine whether to issue a further injunction, according to Tom Hyme, a spokesperson for the Free Speech Coalition.

John Nowacki, a spokesperson for the Department of Justice, said Friday that the law has been in place since 1992, but the "proliferation" of child pornography on Web sites required 2257 be "updated and clarified."

Revisions were also made after Congress extensively revised the child exploitation statutory scheme in the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act, which President Bush signed into law in 2003, Nowacki said.

In May, the DOJ issued a press release about Gonzales’ decision to revise 2257. It stated, "the definition of ‘pornography producers’ includes producers of visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct published on the Internet.

"It also clarifies the means by which a producer must verify the identity and age of each performer and the manner in which records of these verifications must be kept," the press release continued. "Additionally, the final rule establishes a detailed structure for conducting administrative inspections of pornography producers’ records to ensure that children are not being used as performers in sexually explicit depictions."

On June 16, the Free Speech Coalition filed a lawsuit against Gonzales in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado claiming the new regulations are unconstitutional.

The DOJ does not comment on pending lawsuits, Nowacki said.

‘Not a grace period’

A master list of members will be submitted to the Special Master on June 29, and will include all coalition members as of June 25. At no time will the DOJ have direct access to the FSC membership list, which will remain under seal, according to the FSC.

Personals Web sites, such as Gay.com and bigmuscle.com, are at "serious risk," Hymes said. Photos on gay cruising sites that depict masturbation, for example, are still illegal despite the agreement reached Thursday and are considered a federal crime, he said.

The agreement essentially took the place of the temporary restraining order the FSC was seeking but, Hymes stressed, "is not a grace period."

"This is only a stipulation between the parties that [the DOJ] will not enforce the regulations during this time period," he said. "This is a temporary speed bump before the big case."

Hymes said the agreement should allow those who manage adult Web sites to rest easy for now.

"The picture will be much clearer a few months from now," Hymes said. "These sites may not be investigated now, but during this time, if there is illegal activity, the Web sites are responsible."

"The Web sites can conduct business," he added. "But the bottom line is they should attempt to comply as completely as is practical. For many companies, these regulations are not practical, if not impossible."

In a brief filed before the June 24 agreement, the DOJ argued the FSC was seeking to "deprive the government of an important tool in the fight against child pornography."

"The creation and distribution of child pornography and the further distribution of material a

Permalink