Black W Szh % Kkbokk 4 Kkbokk 2 Kkbokk d Mail d1 Would osearch.searchi Szh o Mail o Black o.csearchm Blackmailedslave Kkbokk zsearch4 Szh B Would a Blackmailedslave km337799.conil Black dlav Mail K Blackmailedslave lasearchk Would bksearch search Msearchi Blackmailedslave aZ1337310382721_RZAsearch% Blackmailedslave 3C Black M5%C8%D5%B1%BE%D0%D4%BD%BB%CD%BC%C6%AC. Mail 1search search. Black .search. Black §search2 Szh 5(search) Mail 1a9abcqu.com) Blackmailedslave Black 8 Blackmailedslave C Kkbokk F Blackmailedslave R Mail search Would 5 Blackmailedslave 5search(www.qjjyxx.com99 Blackmailedslave ) Szh Back to text at note 150.

151. 18 U.S.C. § 2257(f)(4) (1995) (making it an offence "knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer" any "book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce[d] in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce" but lacking the affixed information about the location of the records). Back to text at note 151.

152. A person selling or giving covered materials has a duty to ensure that the statement has been affixed to the materials, but no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept. 18 U.S.C. § 2257(f)(4) (1995). Back to text at note 152.

153. American Library Ass'n v. Reno, 33 F.3d 78, 81, 84-85. The District Court had found the Act unconstitutional, see American Library Ass'n v. Barr, 794 F. Supp. 412, 418 (D.D.C. 1992). Back to text at note 153.

154. 33 F.3d at 85 (citing City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, 475 U.S. 41 (1986)). Back to text at note 154.

155. Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 334 (1988) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Back to text at note 155.

156. Burson v. Freemen, 112 S. Ct. 1846, 1850 (1992); Boos, 485 U.S. at 319; Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 230 (1987); Heffron v. Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640, 648 (regulation "may not be based upon either the content or subject matter of speech"); Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 530, 537-38 (1980); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 462 n.6 (1980). Back to text at note 156.

157. 33 F.3d at 85 (citing Renton and Boos). Back to text at note 157.

158. Renton, 475 U.S. at 46-48. Back to text at note 158.

159. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968) (rejecting First Amendment challenge to law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards). Back to text at note 159.

160. American Library Ass'n, 33 F.3d at 84-85. Cf. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) (noting compelling governmental interest in eradicating evils associated with child pornography). Back to text at note 160.

161. 18 U.S.C. § 2257(d) (1993). Back to text at note 161.

162. American Library Ass'n, 33 F.3d at 94-95 (Reynolds, J., dissenting). In his later dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, Judge Tatel, who was not a member of the original panel, argued that,

The only class of producers whose behavior this statute is likely to influence--those who ignore the age of their models but would nonetheless refuse to employ individuals they knew were minors--could be equally deterred, with no corresponding regulatory burden on protected speech, by rewriting the child pornography statutes to impose criminal liability upon those who recklessly or negligently violate them. . . . While such an approach might allow a few individuals to escape liability by establishing that they had made a reasonable mistake about the age of the model, "even as compelling a societal interest as the protection of minors must occasionally yield to specific constitutional guarantees." United States v. U.S. District Court, 858 F.2d 534, 543 (9th Cir. 1988).

American Library Ass'n v. Reno, 47 F.3d 1215, 1216-17 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (Tatel, J., dissenting from denial of suggestion for rehearing en banc). Back to text at note 162.

163. See American Library Ass'n, 713 F. Supp. at 475. An earlier version of the record-keeping requirements of the Act was held to be unconstitutional in American Library Ass'n v. Thornburg, 713 F. Supp 469 (D.C. Cir. 1989), vacated as moot sub nom. American Library Ass'n v. Barr, 956 F.2d 1178, 1186 (D.C. Cir. 1992). Back to text at note 163.

164. 115 S. Ct. 2610 (1995). Back to text at note 164.

165. Bans on anonymous publication are not unprecedented. England banned anonymous pamphlets between 1637 and 1694, when licensing laws required that all books bear the name of the author and printer. W.S. Holdsworth, Press Control and Copyright in the 16th and 17th Centuries, 29 Yale L.J. 841, 848-49 (1920).

As detailed in Anonymous Note, supra note 9, at 1084-93 (giving examples from English, French and U.S. practice), a number of state and federal statutes have sought to restrict anonymous speech or the freedom of anonymous association. The Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on anonymous speech and association on several occasions. In Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan, 229 U.S. 288 (1913), the Court upheld a requirement that mailers wishing second class mailing status publish a list of editors and proprietors twice annually, but relied on a "now-outdated view of the first amendment," Anonymous Note, supra note 9, at 1089. In Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236 (1943), the Supreme Court upheld a pre-WW I statute requiring foreign agents to register with the Secretary of States, but several subsequent decisions, culminating in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), suggested that the Supreme Court had turned away from the analysis in Viereck, see Anonymous Note, supra note 9, at 1093-1102.

In United States v. Harris, 347 U.S. 612, 625 (1954), the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, 2 U.S.C. § 267 (1994), which requires those engaged in lobbying to divulge their identities. More recently, lower courts have sustained similar private identification requirements in other regulatory settings involving the workplace, see, e.g., Big Bear Super Market No. 3 v. I.N.S., 913 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1990) (upholding worker identification provisions of Immigration Control Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1324 against a void for vagueness challenge). Back to text at note 165.

166. See 713 F. Supp. at 477 (giving similar examples as one reason to hold that Act was unconstitutional). See supra text accompanying note 115 (describing FCC requirement that broadcast paid political advertisements identify sponsor). Back to text at note 166.

167. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105 Stat. 2394, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227(d)(2) (1995), requires the FCC to make rules requiring that fax machines mark the name and telephone number of a business or individual sending the fax on the first page of every transmission. 47 C.F.R. § 68.318 (1995) makes it unlawful

for any person within the United States to use a computer or other electronic device to send any message via a telephone facsimile unless such message clearly contains, in a margin at the top or bottom of each transmitted page or on the first page of the transmission, the date and time it is sent and an identification of the business, other entity, or individual sending the message and the telephone number of the sending machine or of such business, other entity, or individual. The telephone number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges. Telephone facsimile machines manufactured on and after December 20, 1992 must clearly mark such identifying information on each transmitted message. Facsimile modem boards manufactured on and after December 13, 1995 must comply with the requirements of this section.

For arguments supporting such regulation, see Michael M. Parker, Fax Pas: Stopping the Junk Fax Mail Bandwagon, 71 Ore. L. Rev. 457 (1992).