Colorado- Lawyers representing the adult sex industry appeared in federal court today to argue for a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of new rules that they say could remove sexual images on Web sites, including nude photos that are a staple of gay male cruising sites.

The Free Speech Coalition, which says it has gay organizations among its 3,625 members, is suing U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to prevent the Department of Justice from enforcing new regulations to U.S.C. 2257, dubbed “2257.” A hearing was scheduled for Tuesday afternoon in U.S. District Court in Colorado before Judge Walker Miller.

But instead of issuing a ruling, Judge Miller instead took all written material under advisement and said there would be a ruling as soon as.

“You should get a comparatively early ruling,” Miller said at the conclusion of today’s hearing.

Revisions to the law, which were set to take effect June 24, mandate producers and secondary producers of sexually explicit materials, including sites with personal ads, to keep identification and age records of all models and actors. The FSC argues that the revisions also cover members of sites who post nude images of themselves on gay cruising sites including Gay.com, Bigmuscle.com, men4now.com and adam4adam.com.

But enforcement of the revisions were put on hold on June 23 when the FSJ and federal officials agreed to delay enforcement until Sept. 7. M4msex.com Web site director Steven Alexander has said his site would not remove nude photos or require signed release forms from members posting them, although it is possible they could be prosecuted.

The FSC argues the restrictions are unconstitutional and would place an unnecessary burden on the operators of sites that simply reproduce thousands of graphic images received from members and force many businesses to shut down.

In a brief filed Monday, Assistant U.S. Kurt Bohn argues that the newly revised law must be enforced due to the widespread proliferation of child pornography on the Internet and that the new provisions do not violate the right to privacy.

“There is a sizable market for sexually explicit depictions of ‘teens’ and individuals with less mature physical characteristics,” Bohn argues. “In addition to heterosexual sex and lesbian and homosexual sex between young-looking performers, these Web sites included depictions of what purported to be incest.”

BigMuscleBears.com and BigMuscle.com, Web sites for gay men, recently asked members not to post images depicting sexual fluids or any kind of anal penetration on the sites due to the revisions in the federal regulations. Nudity was still allowed, according to the statement posted on the sites, but members were advised to post only solo images as part of a self policing effort.

Adam4adam.com includes a link allowing members to report what they believe may be a violation of the federal regulations.

The law considers secondary producers sites that allow paying members to post their own photos, according to Tom Hymes, a spokesperson for the Free Speech Coalition.

Nudity itself is not considered sexually explicit, but images of masturbation are included in the law’s definition and are subject to the new regulations, Hymes said. Posting the shots could be deemed criminal activity, he added.

For instance, a man posting a picture on a Web site fondling himself might have to prove to site owners that he is 18 or older, and documentation must be on file with the Web site that includes government-issued identification cards, Social Security number, name and address, he said.

“This is where the rubber meets the road. Our attorneys are cautiously optimistic [about the injunction hearing],” Hymes said Monday.