Mainstream gets it's taste of 2257

[sarettah]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr..._id=1001265009

Oct. 12, 2005
Buried clause could tag films, TV shows as porn

WASHINGTON -- 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, 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.

...........................................

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.

...............................................

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.

..................................................

[Sin]

Yeah, saw that on a couple other boards, its looking like its about to pass... unfortunately

[SykkBoy]

They'll probably just change it back to explicit from implied...
Hollywood has a better lobbying machine than we do...

[Dravyk]

More Bush wagging the porn dog bullshit.

[Jace]

You know, I have been wondering about something...does mrskin.com have all the 2257 docs for all the nakedness he has on his site? and if not, if this passes that will mean he will have to get all the required docs for every actor and actress he has up, right?

[Inabon]

2257 WHAT????

as soon as they start fucking with that powerfull part of the entertainment industry there will be a wave of phone calls to representatives and even the President saying

why are you fucking with us... we keep your people/voters/dumbasses entertained so you can go and do your own thing (invade other countries, make millons on oil etc) if you pass this our movies won´t sell and you will have more people paying attention to what you do and you won´t be able to do it so easily cause they will look at the gas price more closely and realize you are fucking with them etc etc.


2257 right now is just like the time hardcore banners were outlawed I have yet to see 1 person going to jail for it.

the best thing is that if it passes then it did and still won´t have much effect other than fuck with a lot of business and more people will jump the border or just leave porn.

[Peaches]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but why would mainstream care? IIRC, all actors must be members of SAG where information is gathered and I would ASSume they get required ids already due to labor laws regarding underaged workers.

HOWEVER, where I can see it affecting them is the secondary producer BS. If they treat them as they are treating us, every video store, Amazon, Netflix, etc. will need all the 2257 documents also.

[SykkBoy]

Originally Posted by Peaches

HOWEVER, where I can see it affecting them is the secondary producer BS. If they treat them as they are treating us, every video store, Amazon, Netflix, etc. will need all the 2257 documents also.

I think that's where Halloywood has the problem with 2257

I'd always assumed the Rebecca Shaffer law would apply to this type of thing.

[Sin]

Originally Posted by Peaches

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but why would mainstream care? IIRC, all actors must be members of SAG where information is gathered and I would ASSume they get required ids already due to labor laws regarding underaged workers.

HOWEVER, where I can see it affecting them is the secondary producer BS. If they treat them as they are treating us, every video store, Amazon, Netflix, etc. will need all the 2257 documents also.

This is the same news that came out in mid-Sept.

Source Link

Why Hollywood would care is exactly with the secondary producer deal... Within adult secondary producers are (in most cases) at least still webmasters, and can be considered working in the industry.

[quote]Calling it the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 2005, and claiming that it “strengthens the hand of law enforcement in investigating and bringing charges of obscenity,” Congressman Pence (R-IN) introduced new legislation Monday that would extend 2257 record keeping requirements to certain instances of mere nudity and to merely simulated sexual acts, and would also extend record keeping obligations to mere distributors of adult content, which would include retail stores that only sell DVDs or videos without touching the actual content.[/b]

I don't think that the megastars of Hollywood, would want their ID's quite THAT widely distributed... there's a lot of video stores out there, and a lot of creeps too, I'm sure there's some creeps running video stores.