Page 113 - AVN July 2013

(continued from page 60)
was still climbing by the time Lawrence left the inspec-
tion team. He said he discovered the additional produc-
tion companies though a variety of sources, including a
list published by the Los Angeles Times—and by collecting
cards from companies exhibiting at adult conventions in
Las Vegas and Los Angeles, which Lawrence attended.
He added the inspection team had concentrated on
DVDs and web pages, and did not attempt to inspect the
records of still photographers, book publishers or art
galleries. He also said they didn’t try to inspect people
who made sexually explicit videos of themselves, mostly
because he wouldn’t be able to locate them. However, he
said that he was aware that government programmers had
estimated that there were possibly 1.2 million sexually
explicit websites, and while he wasn’t sure which produc-
ers were involved with them, at least some would have
been added to the list of possible inspectees.
Judge Baylson also did some questioning, getting
Lawrence to agree that most performers were adults and
clearly over 18—and then asked about altering digital
images to make subjects appear older. Lawrence said he
had never seen such alterations in the inspected material.
On cross by Murray, a question of whether the 2257
statute had changed since 2007. (It hadn’t, though
Lawrence initially said that it had.) Murray then went
into more detail regarding some of Lawrence’s inspec-
tions, concentrating on the various actions he took that
in other circumstances would have required warrants. As
Murray pressed Lawrence on inspection details, Judge
Baylson asked whether he would be done soon, and get-
ting a negative response, adjourned court for the day.
Day 6: A Familiar Face on the Stand
even areas beyond those where the records were stored or
inspected), were touched upon in Murray’s questions
about several other inspections as well.
Murray also questioned the witness as to whether he
was familiar with how searches in criminal investigations
would be conducted with a search warrant, and later, at
the direction of Judge Baylson, the witness went over all
of the differences between warranted searches and 2257
investigations. (Hint: when executing search warrants, the
agents do wear jackets that say “RAID” in big letters on
them.)
Finally, Murray asked Lawrence whether, if the law
were changed to required photo IDs only for performers
who were under 25 years old it would make inspections
harder? Lawrence said it would, because he expected that
many disputes would arise between inspectors who
thought a particular performer appeared to be a minor
and producers who would argue that the performer was
over 25 years old. Also, when asked if producers would
keep ID records on performers if not required to do so by
2257, Lawrence opined that they wouldn’t.
keepIDrecords on
by 2257, FBISpecial Agent
Stephen Lawr enc e
With two days of testimony remaining, most of the testi-
”When asked
ifproducerswould
perf ormers if not
r equiredto do so
mony on Day 6 revolved around the plaintiffs’ Fourth
opined that they wouldn’t
Amendment claims of privacy violations under the law,
and plaintiffs’ attorney Murray hit that point home in his
continued questioning of FBI Special Agent Stephen
Lawrence.
As he had begun to do the day before, Murray took
Lawrence step-by-step through the 2257 inspections he
and his “contractors”—all retired FBI agents them-
selves—performed on the companies Alexis Lord and
Angry Young Man, with the Lord inspection having been
On redirect examination, DOJ attorney Kathryn Wyer
brought out that producers rarely read the letter which
had been created by the FBI’s Office of General Counsel
detailing a producer’s duties under 2257 that the inspec-
tors handed to company owners when they first entered
the premises.
After both parties had completed their questioning,
Judge Baylson asked what range of records the inspection
team dealt with. Lawrence said the smallest inspection
looked at only one binder or records, but at larger
companies, there could be several file cabinets full.
The day’s second witness was retired FBI Special Agent
Charles Joyner, the second agent in charge of the FBI
inspection team, who related some of his law enforce-
ment experience. DOJ attorney Wyer took Joyner
through several of the 20 inspections for which he had
been in charge, and elicited details of those inspections
much as she had from the previous witness. In general,
Joyner said that his team never forced their way into any
business or home in order to inspect, and that they never
entered the premises without the invitation of the owner.
Finally, Joyner noted that the inspection regimen had
been curtailed after the Sixth Circuit decision striking
down 2257 in the Connection Distributing case, and that
done at the company owner’s home.
In the case of Angry Young Man, however, Lawrence’s
report of the inspection contained troubling information.
In reviewing videos created by the company which
claimed to have been filmed surreptitiously in locker
rooms and showers on military bases, Lawrence deter-
mined that the movies may have criminally violated the
Universal Code of Military Justice, and reported his find-
ings to the Naval Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS)
for possible prosecution. He also determined that approx-
imately 90 percent of the performers used by Angry
Young Man were off-duty military personnel, and also
reported that fact to NCIS.
The Fourth Amendment problems of inspectors access-
ing private residence and office areas without a warrant,
and photographing those buildings’ interiors (occasionally
the inspection team had been disbanded after February
2008.
On cross, Joyner testified that he had conducted several
inspections in a company’s reception area without being
allowed further access to the building, although the FBI’s
photographer was allowed to take pictures of the
company’s file room. That issue became somewhat
controversial, with Murray trying to prove that for legal
purposes, the reception area was private and generally not
open to the public. Joyner noted that some companies he
had inspected had no records at all but that he had not
detected anyone attempting to use fraudulent records.
The day’s final witness was Dr. Mark Zimmerman, a
professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Public
Health, who as part of a study of adolescent health and
their transition to adulthood, asked a group of more than
800 18- to 24-year-olds whether they had ever sent or
received sexts. The study had taken nearly two years, was
conducted online and was published in the peer-reviewed
Journal of Adolescent Health. After Zimmerman’s
testimony, court recessed for the day.
Day 7: Plaintiffs’ Final Expert Testifies
Judge Michael M. Baylson convened court a little later
with one witness, Dr. Daniel Linz, name familiar to the
adult industry, as DOJ attorney Hector Bladuell brought
out during cross-examination. Linz is currently a profes-
sor of communications at UC-Santa Barbara who has
done multiple studies for the adult industry on adverse
secondary effects.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Murray spent a good 15 minutes
going over Linz’s qualifications stretching back over 30
years that involved adult content: “a significant amount
of research in that area,” he testified, including research
into the effects of porn viewing on various segments of
society. To that end, Linz said he’d viewed millions of
images, assuring the court that he’d never seen child porn
distributed through regular commercial venues like adult
book- and video stores or websites.
Central to Linz’s testimony was his Google searches for
various porn-related terms. He also had done a search for
the latest research into child porn, looking at articles, FBI
reports, the studies co-authored by government witness
Wolak, and even a 2010 Justice Department report to
Congress regarding trading of child porn images over P2P
networks, which he said represent the most common
method of disseminating child porn.
One of Linz’s most important points was his opinion,
after reviewing all of the above material that child porn
accounted for only about 1 percent of all adult-
oriented/sexually explicit material available on the web.
Murray then asked if Linz could quantify the amount of
porn featuring young-looking performers who depict
actors who are obviously adults. Linz testified that the
ratio of “teen porn” to all porn was about 10 percent.
Murray noted that government expert Dines had
concluded that fully one-third of all porn featured young-
looking performers. Linz disputed that figure, based on
his own researches, but when Murray noted that that
meant that fully two-thirds of all porn did not feature
7.13 | AVN.com | 113