[IP] Buried clause could tag films, TV shows as porn
Begin forwarded message:
From: EEkid@xxxxxxx
Date: October 12, 2005 8:57:18 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Buried clause could tag films, TV shows as porn
Buried clause could tag films, TV shows as porn
By Brooks Boliek
Wed Oct 12, 3:18 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - Tucked deep inside a massive bill
designed to track sex offenders and prevent children from being
victimized by sex crimes is language that could put many Hollywood
movies in the same category as hard-core, X-rated films.
The provision added to the Children's Safety Act of 2005 would
require any film, TV show or digital image that contains a sex scene
to come under the same government filing requirements that adult
films must meet.
Currently, any filmed sexual activity requires an affidavit that
lists the names and ages of the actors who engage in the act. The
film is required to have a video label that claims compliance with
the law and lists where the custodian of the records can be found.
The record-keeping requirement is known as Section 2257, for its
citation in federal law. Violators could spend five years in jail.
Under the provision inserted into the Children's Safety Act, the
definition of sexual activity is expanded to include simulated sex
acts like those that appear in many movies and TV shows.
"It's a significant and unprecedented expansion of the scope of the
law," one industry executive said. "I don't think the studios would
like being grouped in with the hard-core porn industry."
The provision, written by Rep. Mike Pence (news, bio, voting record),
R-Ind., could have ramifications beyond simply requiring someone to
ensure that the names and ages of actors who partake in pretend
lovemaking as compliance with Section 2257 in effect defines a movie
or TV show as a pornographic work under federal law. Industry sources
say the provision was included in the bill at the behest of the
Justice Department. Calls to Pence's office and the Justice
Department went unreturned Tuesday.
On Pence's Web site, the congressman contends that the provision is
meant to crack down on "so-called 'home pornographers' that use
downloading on the Internet and digital and Polaroid photography to
essentially create an at-home cottage industry for child pornography."
Industry officials contend that the way the provision is written, a
sex scene could trigger the provision even if the actors were
clothed. While the language is designed to capture "lascivious
exhibition of the genitals," other legal decisions have said that
"lascivious exhibition" could occur when the genitals are covered.
The bill, with the Section 2257 provision included, already has been
approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and is waiting
consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Industry executives worry that the provision, which is retroactive to
1995, will have a chilling effect on filmmakers. Faced with the
choice of filing a 2257 certificate or editing out a scene, a
filmmaker might decide it's not worth getting entangled with the
federal government and let the scene fall to the cutting-room floor,
the executives said.
"From the creative side of the street, there's concern that the
government of federal law enforcement would get involved in what you
were doing," one industry source said. "At some point, people would
be faced with the decision: 'Do I include the scene and register a
2257 or leave it out?' "
In 1988, a similar provision was ruled unconstitutional by the
federal court here. Congress later rewrote it so that it included
only actual sex acts, not the pretend acts in movies and TV shows.
The 2257 provision also has ramifications beyond the artistic as a
federal tax provision designed to stem runaway production is
unavailable to anyone required to register a 2257. Many state
incentives designed to entice filmmakers to shoot on location also
contain similar language.
Industry officials contend that the law is unnecessary. California
laws and industry practices protecting children from harm are among
the most stringent.
"The California law goes from soup to nuts," one industry executive
said. "There's not one shadow of any evidence that the movie industry
doesn't protect children."
While the provision is designed to ensure that children aren't
abused, its critics say it will do little to stem child sex abuse.
"Guys who are making this stuff don't care about reporting
requirements," one source said. "When they're caught, they're looking
at 30 years in prison. There's no indication they're going to fill
out the paperwork."
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/