Porn and the rest of us

October 12, 2005 7:53 PM

What you watch 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 hardcore, 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.
posted by halekon (41 comments total)

Who would have thought that those nice family-values Republican lawmakers would have such affinity for backdoor (legislative) action?
posted by clevershark at 8:07 PM on October 12, 2005

You! With the Sin City DVD!! Into the Van!!
posted by Balisong at 8:07 PM on October 12, 2005

Yeah, but I'm FOR children's safety. Therefore, I must vote YES!
posted by klangklangston at 8:18 PM on October 12, 2005

In related news, the next military supplemental appropriations bill will be called the "puppies and kittens act of 2005".
posted by clevershark at 8:22 PM on October 12, 2005

So does this mean I have to buy my copy of Pretty Baby now?
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:23 PM on October 12, 2005

This makes total sense because Hollywood has a long history of sexually abusing children in summer blockbusters. Scarlett Johanson was raped repeatedly by Clydesdales in The Horse Whisper. If only this bill had been passed whenever that movie came out.
posted by Falconetti at 8:36 PM on October 12, 2005

well, so much for yet another adaptation of Lolita anytime soon.
posted by shmegegge at 8:37 PM on October 12, 2005

And violence and gore are all still ok tho, right?
posted by amberglow at 8:37 PM on October 12, 2005

OK? They're practically mandatory!
posted by clevershark at 8:39 PM on October 12, 2005

SEC. 803.
posted by destro at 8:56 PM on October 12, 2005

So, will the Pentagon have to go do this for every Abu Ghraib snap and video?
posted by trondant at 9:10 PM on October 12, 2005

If violence is ok, but sex is bad, what about necrophilia?
posted by iamck at 9:35 PM on October 12, 2005

destro: In order to maximize uselessness, thomas.loc.gov (like most US Government database websites) isn't linkable.
posted by nmiell at 9:35 PM on October 12, 2005

This doesn't sound very liberal to me.
posted by Meatbomb at 10:42 PM on October 12, 2005

Children haters. All of ya!
posted by kosher_jenny at 11:23 PM on October 12, 2005

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.

I guess this is just like other the labling gone mad (warning lables, nutritional info, electronics FCC/UL type, etc). Is it necessarily a bad thing that packaging disclose as much as possible?

"There's not one shadow of any evidence that the movie industry doesn't protect children."

What about that movie with Nichole Kidman and the kid? I'd suggest that there is at least a little shadow.
posted by tomplus2 at 11:28 PM on October 12, 2005

And violence and gore are all still ok tho, right?
posted by amberglow at 11:37 PM EST on October 12 [!]

It's like Scott Thompson said, some body fluids are okay to eroticize, others aren't.
posted by Rothko at 11:44 PM on October 12, 2005

Yes, surely, this is a story that calls out for snarky comments.

I've seen MeFi go downhill over the past few months, but I've got to say it still shocks me when I see 16 posts, of which maybe 2 or 3 have anything substantive to say, and the rest of you think draconian and sickeningly pandering legislation is a great opportunity to make cute jokes.

We truly get the government we deserve.
posted by wolftrouble at 11:48 PM on October 12, 2005

Disgusting.
posted by angerbot at 12:41 AM on October 13, 2005

"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".

This fellates. For several reasons. First, if the logic behind it is to legally register and hope to limit pornographic utterances of any kind in one medium, why are others not targeted? Second, what seems pornographic to the puritans of one generation may be cute or tame to another - cf. all those smouldering kisses in black and white movies. Third, the physical nature of actual porn films is so different to that of posed sex scenes in Hollywood - you just don't need the same rules to protect / oversee actors.

If they wanted to do something like this for books... but wait, they don't. And the reason: people who are puritan enough that they daren't look down for fear of noticing their own genitals just don't want to SEE 'things like that'.

And if they don't want to see it you can't see it either.

Even though this is the 21st century.

I wish Stanley Kubrick would rise from the dead and start smiting all round him in the House.

Now, anyone fancy making up a quick list of which films after 1995 are going to have to be edited and re-released on DVD because directors understandably can't be bothered to get federally entangled?
posted by paperpete at 1:54 AM on October 13, 2005

wolftrouble, this is a no-brainer. There really isn't much to add to the debate, because it's plainly obvious to everyone thus far to comment that this is assinine and unacceptable. What the fuck do you want, a march on washington?

get over yourself, and next time contribute something positive. These "mefi sucks" comments are what's actually poisoning mefi, among other things.
posted by shmegegge at 5:07 AM on October 13, 2005

Violence is good. Natural, loving sex is bad mmmkaaay.
posted by evilelvis at 5:11 AM on October 13, 2005

It never ceases to amaze me how the conservatives who label Iran "evil" would be so at home in that country - if the mullahs all wore crosses instead of turbans, of course.
posted by blendor at 6:16 AM on October 13, 2005

I'm so glad that the party of limited government, the Republicans, are in office. All Democrats ever do is whine "think about the children" as they introduce ineffectual and costly legislation.
posted by substrate at 6:37 AM on October 13, 2005

So, which is it: is the Supreme Court aggrandizing its own power by striking down more and more federal legislation, or is it simply that Congress keeps passing stupid fucking laws like this? Perhaps Congress has forgotten that a similar provision was ruled unconstitutional in 1988? Idiots.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:46 AM on October 13, 2005

Let's leave the outrage out of the door and look at what's really happening by reading the proposed text.

SEC . 121. PUBLIC ACCESS TO SEX OFFENDER INFORMATION THROUGH THE INTERNET.

What ? So let's say somebody is erroneously inserted into this database and lynched by an angry mob..who's gonna pay for this ? In this section we also read

Exception- To the extent authorized by the Attorney General, a jurisdiction need not make available on the Internet information about a sex offender required to register for committing a misdemeanor sex offense against a minor who has attained the age of 16 years.

who has attained the age before the offence or also after ? That's convenient..I guess they're giving time to be Born Again and see Jebus ? Yeah right, tell that to the victim of violence.

EC . 115. DURATION OF REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.
A sex offender shall keep the registration current--

(1) for the life of the sex offender, if the offense is a specified offense against a minor, a serious sex offense, or a second misdemeanor sex offense against a minor

Well your times spent looking at naked boobs will land you in the database of evvvulll..where freaks of any religion will be able to target you because you said a girl she has nice boobies you molestah !

What is really criminal is that this is the same as a proscription list or a mullah proclaimed sentece of death in a country of bigots like U.S.A or Iran.

SEC . 124. IMMUNITY FOR GOOD FAITH CONDUCT.

The Federal Government, jurisdictions, political subdivisions of jurisdictions, and their agencies, officers, employees, and agents shall be immune from liability for good faith conduct under this title.

Some expert lawyer please explain the sense of this ? It seems like a disclaimer so that if in good faith I throw you in database I'm immune from liability ?

SEC . 806. PROHIBITING THE PRODUCTION OF OBSCENITY AS WELL AS TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, AND SALE.

Section 1466- Section 1466 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting `producing with intent to distribute or sell, or' before `selling or transferring obscene matter,'

I soooo suddendly find Metafilter obscene if Matt doesn't pay my cause service or I'm going to give a bunch of talibans in occidental suits the power to decide that.
posted by elpapacito at 7:01 AM on October 13, 2005

elpapacito, you might want to try quoting the section actually being discussed here.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:18 AM on October 13, 2005

I don't think anyone's linked to the text of the bill yet. Section 803 of the bill aims to modify Title 18, section 2257 of the U.S. Code.
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:07 AM on October 13, 2005

MrMoonPie, destro tried to link to the text, but as nmeill pinted out, that database in unlinkable. After a while, clicking on that link will give everyone the following mesage:

Please resubmit your search.
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.

posted by raedyn at 8:32 AM on October 13, 2005

So, for simplicity:

H.R.3132
Children's Safety Act of 2005 (Referred to Senate Committee after being Received from House)


SEC. 803. STRENGTHENING SECTION 2257 TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN ARE NOT EXPLOITED IN THE PRODUCTION OF PORNOGRAPHY.

Section 2257 of title 18 of the United States Code is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(l), by striking `actual';

(2) in subsection (b), by striking `actual';

(3) in subsection (f)(4)(A), by striking `actual';

(4) by amending paragraph (1) of subsection (h) to read as follows:

`(1) the term `sexually explicit conduct' has the meaning set forth in subparagraphs (A)(i) through (v) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;';

(5) in subsection (h)(4), by striking `actual.';

(6) in subsection (f)--

(A) at the end of paragraph (3), by striking `and';

(B) at the end of paragraph (4)(B), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(C) by inserting after paragraph (4)(B) the following new paragraph:

`(5) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to refuse to permit the Attorney General or his or her delegee to conduct an inspection under subsection (c).'.

(7) in subsection (h)(3), by striking `to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted' and inserting `actually filming, videotaping, photographing; creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being; or digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct';

(8) in subsection (a), by inserting after `videotape,' the following: `digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, or picture,'; and

(9) in subsection (f)(4), by inserting after `video' the following: `digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, or picture,'.
posted by raedyn at 8:36 AM on October 13, 2005

I've seen the internet go downhill over the past few years, but I've got to say it still shockes me when I see people who have no sense of humor.

Sometimes laughter is the only appropriate response.
posted by Foosnark at 8:39 AM on October 13, 2005

paperpete writes "Third, the physical nature of actual porn films is so different to that of posed sex scenes in Hollywood - you just don't need the same rules to protect / oversee actors."

Where would a film like brown bunny fit into this catagorisation?
posted by Mitheral at 8:52 AM on October 13, 2005

This bill is retroactive to 1995? Doesn't this constitute an ex post facto law? Isn't this forbidden by the Constitution
posted by waltb555 at 9:13 AM on October 13, 2005

that database in unlinkable

It's possible to link to individual documents on the THOMAS site, but not to particular sections of legislation. The link I posted will not time out.
posted by MrMoonPie at 9:14 AM on October 13, 2005

Yes, surely, this is a story that calls out for snarky comments.

I've seen MeFi go downhill over the past few months, but I've got to say it still shocks me when I see 16 posts, of which maybe 2 or 3 have anything substantive to say, and the rest of you think draconian and sickeningly pandering legislation is a great opportunity to make cute jokes.

We truly get the government we deserve.

You want more contstructive stuff and less snark? Fine.

Attention MeFi: if you think this and other aspects of the War On Porn stinks, pick up your phone and dial 1-877-SOB-U-SOB (877-762-8762). This -- beleive it or not -- is the toll free number for the Congressional switchboard. Ask to talk to the offices of your elected officials and tell them what you think. If you are more of an online type, you can look up and send email to your Representative and Senators.
posted by ilsa at 10:10 AM on October 13, 2005

monju: of course I might, but I don't feel obliged to, expecially when SEC 803 seems to be just -one- problem that seems minor to me when compared to the risk of being inserted into a public lynching database.

That of course doesn't reduce the relevance of SEC 803 ; indeed it does modify Section 2257 Title 18 in many articles, expecially by modifing actual sexually explicit conduct into sexually explicit conduct which (to the best my understanding) enlarges the scope of the law by targeting anything that one may deem to be "sexually explicit" as defined by subparagraphs (A)(i) through (v) of paragraph (2) of section 2256.

And the above mention 2256 reads

A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—

(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
[...]
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Point (v) is troubling. What exactly is lascivious to prudes may not be lascivious to others in a minefield that suggest not to display genitals at all ever or register each and every "suspicious" frame in the ways prescribed by law.
posted by elpapacito at 10:47 AM on October 13, 2005

So let me get this straight. Regulating sex is good but regulating industry is bad. Controling pollution is bad but controlling self-pollution is good. Getting fucked by the banking, pharmaceutical, and oil industries is good but getting fucked by another human being (unless it is your legal spouse of the opposite sex) is bad.

I tell you it is downright painful these days to watch the Republican dance.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:46 PM on October 13, 2005

Why don't they simply attach electrodes to peoples genitalia to shock the hell out of them when they think of anything but jebus and get it over with?

I thought the 1990s would make the 1960s look like the 1950s, but as it turns out the 1990's make the 2000's look like the 1984's.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:08 PM on October 13, 2005

Why don't they simply attach electrodes to peoples genitalia to shock the hell out of them when they think of anything but jebus and get it over with?

I thought the 1990s would make the 1960s look like the 1950s, but as it turns out the 1990's make the 2000's look like the 1984's.

(Would porn for the rest of us be pfestivus?)
posted by Smedleyman at 1:09 PM on October 13, 2005

this $%)&#$*&!!!! work computer sucks man!
posted by Smedleyman at 1:47 PM on October 13, 2005

smedleyman : for your cursing your genitals are going to be attached to the computer power unit, please bend over.
posted by elpapacito at 2:09 AM on October 14, 2005