Page 44 - AVN June 2012

LEGAL BRIEFS
Obscenity 2257
IRA ISAACS FOUND GUILTY
ON ALL COUNTS IN LOS
ANGELES TRIAL
After deliberating for less than two hours on
April 27, a Los Angeles jury found Ira Isaacs
guilty on all five counts in his week-long
obscenity trial.
“I’m very disappointed with this outcome,”
Isaacs stated shortly after the verdicts were read,
but he didn’t find them surprising. Earlier in the
week, he had confided that he felt he had “long
overstayed my 15 minutes of fame,” and just
wanted the trial to be over—an understandable
reaction since this was his third time before a
court and jury on these same issues.
Isaacs looked pensive as the jury filed into the
courtroom shortly after 1 p.m., and was visibly
shaken as the jury foreman read the “guilty” ver-
dicts on five counts of producing, selling and
shipping the four charged movies: Mako’s First
Time Scat, Hollywood Scat Amateurs 7 and 10,
and Japanese Doggie 3 Way. Each charge could
net him five years in (likely) a minimum-securi-
ty federal prison.
A tentative sentencing date is set for August 6.
THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS REVERSES
DECISION IN ‘FSC VS. HOLDER’ CASE,
REMANDS CASE BACK TO LOWER COURT
The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals on April 16 overturned a July
2010 district court decision to dismiss a lawsuit that challenged the con-
stitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 2257A. In a unanimous ruling
by a three-judge panel—which included an opinion written by Judge D.
Brooks Smith, with a concurring opinion by Judge Marjorie O. Rendell—
the district court’s ruling in FSC vs. Holder was partially invalidated and
the case was remanded back to the lower court “for further proceedings.”
The suit was originally filed by the Free Speech Coalition and 14
other plaintiffs. Attorneys J. Michael Murray and Lorraine Baumgardner
represented FSC and the other plaintiffs in the suit, which challenged
2257 and 2257a on grounds that the regulations violate the First,
Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution—and in doing
so abridge the rights of adult producers and threaten the privacy rights
of adult performers.
Today’s decision represents a significant victory for the plaintiffs and
their attorneys. “We are thrilled today with the victory today, in the
Third Circuit, reversing the District Court’s decision dismissing consti-
tutional challenges to 2257 and 2257a,” said Murray. “We’re excited the
Third Circuit agreed the First and Fourth Amendment claims are
worthy and we’re looking forward to returning to District Court.”
FSC responded to the call for comments ahead of the deadline set by
the DOJ, detailing objections to the burdens placed on primary and
secondary producers by 2257 and 2257a regulations, which govern age
verification record-keeping for adult content producers.
Disciplinary Action
SCHOOL DISTRICT FIRES
FORMER ADULT PERFORMER
TO AVOID ‘DISRUPTION’
On April 18, the Oxnard Unified School District decided
unanimously to terminate Stacie Halas, after it surfaced
that the 31-year-old science teacher had a past as an
adult performer.
Superintendent Jeff Chancer said, “If she were to
return to the school district, it would be a disruption.”
Halas, who appeared on BigSausagePizza.com, the
footage of which may also have found its way onto a
volume of the Big Sausage Pizza DVDs released
between 2005 and 2008, performed under the name
Tiffany Six.
The decision by Oxnard to fire Halas is not an
anomaly. In the other cases around the nation in which
a teacher has been outed as doing some porn in the
past, discipline has been swift, harsh and unapologetic.
Diane Duke, executive director of the Free Speech
Coalition, provided the following comment to AVN
about Halas’ firing: “Many adult performers work to
put themselves through school—especially now when
support for education has hit an all time low,” she said.
“Ms. Halas worked in a legal industry in order to sup-
plement her income, allowing her to go to college and
better her life. Unfortunately, instead of supporting the
responsible decision that she made, the Oxnard school
district decided to discriminate against her.”
LEGAL NEWS
42 | AVN.com | 6.12