Opinion ID: 676986
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Labeling requirements

Text: 70 We now address appellees' concerns over the statements that both primary and secondary producers must affix to materials depicting sexually explicit conduct. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2257(e). The regulations provide, in relevant part: 71
72 (1) The title of the book, magazine, periodical, film, or videotape, or other matter ... or, if there is no title, an identifying number or similar identifier ...; 73 (2) The date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or reissuance of the matter; and 74 (3) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available.... 75 . . . . . 76 (c) The information contained in the statement must be accurate as of the date on which the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter is sold, distributed, redistributed, or rereleased. 77 28 C.F.R. Sec. 75.6(a)-(c). 78 As a general matter, we find permissible the requirement that producers affix statements to sexually explicit materials that identify where proof of the depicted performers' ages may be found. Requiring the creation of records is of little avail if they cannot be readily located. We do not find it overly burdensome to require that such statements be printed near the beginning of a book or magazine, or placed at the beginning or end of a film or videotape. See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 75.8. Appellees nevertheless challenge, as both overbroad and unnecessary to the purposes of the Act, the requirement that the statement be accurate as of the date on which [the sexually explicit material] is sold, distributed, redistributed, or rereleased. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 75.6(c). 79 On its face, the regulations' updating requirement would reach wholesale and retail transactions that lie entirely beyond the scope of the Act. See id. at Sec. 75.1(d) (defining sell, distribute, redistribute, and rerelease to include commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter covered by the Act). The Act, however, imposes the obligation to keep records and affix statements only on those who produce[ ] any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which ... contains ... depictions ... of actual sexually explicit conduct, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2257(a)(1); and it defines produces to mean produce, manufacture, or publish any [such material] ... and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter. Id. Sec. 2257(h)(3). Because the Act does not apply to those solely engaged in the sale of these items, its requirements may not be imposed on them. The Act cannot be read to require a magazine vendor, for example, to revise the statement in a pornographic periodical as of the date on which [it] is sold to a consumer. We find, however, that it is entirely appropriate to require that the information contained in the statement be accurate as of the date that such materials are published, produced, republished, or reproduced (in the sense of produced anew); and we uphold section 75.6(c) insofar as it is so applied. Cf. Final Rule, 57 Fed.Reg. at 15020 (the location statement must be current at the time of republication or reproduction). 80 Another objection concerns the application of the disclosure requirement to photographs exhibited in an art gallery. Because section 75.8 requires that such statements be prominently displayed, appellees assume that the statement would have to be affixed to the front of the photograph, thereby compromising its artistic integrity. This is sheer speculation. We suggest there may be other ways in which the purposes of the Act may be achieved without interfering with the aesthetics of photographs portraying sexual acts--such as affixing the statements to the backs of the pictures. Be that as it may, this question, and others like it, cannot be decided on the basis of hypotheticals. We possess no factual record of an actual or imminent application of [the Act (or the disclosure requirement) to photographs exhibited in an art gallery] sufficient to present the constitutional issues in clean-cut and concrete form. Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312, 321-22, 111 S.Ct. 2331, 2339, 115 L.Ed.2d 288 (1991). 81