GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post - or were you 1 of the fools talking nonsense about how the intent of 2257

babygirlgangsta · 09-15-2005, 11:02 AM

was to target internet producers?

New Federal Law Proposes To End Adult Video Production
By: Mark Kernes

WASHINGTON -
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), one of the most religio-conservative politicians in Congress today, has introduced House Resolution (H.R.) 3726, which would amend several federal laws, including the Recordkeeping and Labeling Act (18 U.S.C. §2257). The move marks the Religious Right's most blatant attempt yet to destroy the adult video industry, this time by granting the Justice Department increased powers to target adult producers within a state, without having to wait for them to ship their product across state lines.

H.R. 3726, which was first introduced on Monday, has been added as a rider to the Children's Safety Act of 2005, H.R. 3132, which was scheduled for a full Judiciary Committee hearing today. However, H.R. 3132 was apparently fast-tracked, since the bill, with CPPA 2005 added to it, was passed by the House today, and now goes to the Senate for consideration ... and likely passage.

Dubbed the "Child Pornography Prevention Act of 2005," H.R. 3726 is an obvious swipe at the Free Speech Coalition's win in FSC v. Ashcroft, where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the sections of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that criminalized as "child pornography" material which "appears to be" or "conveys the impression" of minors engaging in sexually explicit activity, even if all the participants are adults. Conservatives are still smarting from that 2002 loss, and the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy is often cited as an example of "judicial activism."

But more than a swipe, H.R. 3726 is an attempt to reverse that victory. The bill would amend 18 U.S.C. §2257(a)(1), (b) and (f)(4)(A) to delete the word "actual" as a modifier for "sexually explicit conduct," thereby opening the scope of the law to any production that depicts sexual acts in any way, either actual or simulated.

For example, 18 U.S.C. §2257(a)(1) would now read, in pertinent part, "Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which-- (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of sexually explicit conduct ... shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction."

The new bill similarly would eliminate the "actual" from the portions of the law requiring producers to keep records of performers of "sexually explicit conduct" and would criminalize retailers from selling, for instance, a copy of Blue Lagoon or The Last Picture Show if it lacked the "2257 notice" universally seen on hardcore adult videos.

"If I'm reading this correctly, this expands the scope of 2257 to make it apply to simulations," commented attorney J.D. Obenberger. "Now, there's no constitutional difference in protection between hardcore and softcore depictions, so I don't think that by expanding the scope of it, there's a strong constitutional argument that's raised by this. I think they have the power to do this, and what they're doing is they're just making it a nastier, uglier world and saying, if it's simulated stuff, you still have to comply with 2257."

09-15-2005, 11:02 AM
babygirlgangsta So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 104	or were you 1 of the fools talking nonsense about how the intent of 2257 was to target internet producers? New Federal Law Proposes To End Adult Video Production By: Mark Kernes WASHINGTON - Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), one of the most religio-conservative politicians in Congress today, has introduced House Resolution (H.R.) 3726, which would amend several federal laws, including the Recordkeeping and Labeling Act (18 U.S.C. §2257). The move marks the Religious Right's most blatant attempt yet to destroy the adult video industry, this time by granting the Justice Department increased powers to target adult producers within a state, without having to wait for them to ship their product across state lines. H.R. 3726, which was first introduced on Monday, has been added as a rider to the Children's Safety Act of 2005, H.R. 3132, which was scheduled for a full Judiciary Committee hearing today. However, H.R. 3132 was apparently fast-tracked, since the bill, with CPPA 2005 added to it, was passed by the House today, and now goes to the Senate for consideration ... and likely passage. Dubbed the "Child Pornography Prevention Act of 2005," H.R. 3726 is an obvious swipe at the Free Speech Coalition's win in FSC v. Ashcroft, where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the sections of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 that criminalized as "child pornography" material which "appears to be" or "conveys the impression" of minors engaging in sexually explicit activity, even if all the participants are adults. Conservatives are still smarting from that 2002 loss, and the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy is often cited as an example of "judicial activism." But more than a swipe, H.R. 3726 is an attempt to reverse that victory. The bill would amend 18 U.S.C. §2257(a)(1), (b) and (f)(4)(A) to delete the word "actual" as a modifier for "sexually explicit conduct," thereby opening the scope of the law to any production that depicts sexual acts in any way, either actual or simulated. For example, 18 U.S.C. §2257(a)(1) would now read, in pertinent part, "Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which-- (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of sexually explicit conduct ... shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction." The new bill similarly would eliminate the "actual" from the portions of the law requiring producers to keep records of performers of "sexually explicit conduct" and would criminalize retailers from selling, for instance, a copy of Blue Lagoon or The Last Picture Show if it lacked the "2257 notice" universally seen on hardcore adult videos. "If I'm reading this correctly, this expands the scope of 2257 to make it apply to simulations," commented attorney J.D. Obenberger. "Now, there's no constitutional difference in protection between hardcore and softcore depictions, so I don't think that by expanding the scope of it, there's a strong constitutional argument that's raised by this. I think they have the power to do this, and what they're doing is they're just making it a nastier, uglier world and saying, if it's simulated stuff, you still have to comply with 2257."