damn right
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0430p-06.pdf







RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 07a0430p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________

CONNECTION DISTRIBUTING CO.; RONDEE KAMINS;

JANE DOE; JOHN DOE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

PETER D. KEISLER,* Acting Attorney General of the

United States,

Defendant-Appellee.

X----

>,----N

No. 06-3822

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.

No. 95-01993—John M. Manos, District Judge.

Argued: April 26, 2007

Decided and Filed: October 23, 2007

Before: KENNEDY, MOORE, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: J. Michael Murray, BERKMAN, GORDON, MURRAY & DEVAN, Cleveland, Ohio,

for Appellants. Anne Murphy, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,

D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: J. Michael Murray, Lorraine R. Baumgardner, BERKMAN,

GORDON, MURRAY & DEVAN, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Anne Murphy, Thomas M.

Bondy, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the court. MOORE, J. (pp. 18-22), delivered a

separate concurring opinion. McKEAGUE, J. (pp. 23-27), delivered a separate opinion concurring

in part and dissenting in part.

_______________

*Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler is

automatically substituted for former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

1

No. 06-3822 Connection Distributing Co., et al. v. Keisler Page 2

_________________

OPINION

_________________

KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Connection Distributing, Rondee Kamins, Jane Doe, and John

Doe (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to the

government. Plaintiffs had challenged the recordkeeping requirements 18 U.S.C. § 2257 placed

upon producers of images of “actual sexually explicit conduct” as violative of the First Amendment.

We conclude that the statute is overbroad and therefore violates the First Amendment, and

accordingly we reverse the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to enter summary

judgment for the plaintiffs.


Read more

Nucleus LiveJournal Plugin © Evgeny Lykhin