Internet Content Rating

[LindaMight]

How many webmasters have this in their pages? Is ths for real or? I am attempting to comply with every regulation imagineable....including this one. And after reading the FSC Newsletter yesterday....I guess there will be even more to comply with.....

thanks!

http://www.icra.org/

The FSC news as of yesterday in case it was not mentioned on here..

2257 AND OBSCENITY PROVISIONS PART OF CHILD PROTECTION BILL
WASHINGTON, DC -- On a voice vote, the Senate has passed H.R. 4472, now called the “Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006.” According to several sources, it is expected that the House will pass the same version shortly, so that it can be signed by the President on the anniversary of the abduction of Adam Walsh. Adam Walsh, the 6-year-old son of John Walsh, was abducted and murdered in 1981, a crime which motivated John Walsh to become a victims' rights advocate and helped spur the formation of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.
Unfortunately, in addition to a range of provisions related to sex offenders, crime information databases, community safety programs and child pornography, the otherwise laudable bill also expands obscenity law as regards adult entertainment in some major respects and re-works 2257 record-keeping requirements to include so-called secondary producers and to expand the nature of images needing 2257 documentation. Under the Adam Walsh Act, 2257 records are required for lascivious display of the genitals, which brings soft-core imagery under the law and, in a separate section, “simulated sex,” such as one might see in mainstream movies.
We have followed the evolution of this bill in a number of X-Press reports since a bill (H.R. 3726) containing many of the same provisions was first introduced in the House by Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) in September, 2005. (See X-Press Report, “Bill Would Expand Government Powers,” 9/16/05)
In December 2005, a Senate version (S. 2140) containing some of the same language as the Pence bill was introduced by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), with Senator Sam Brownback (R-KN) as a co-sponsor. (See X-Press report, “Senate Version of Pence Bill Introduced,” 12/23/05)
The present bill is a composite of the two with various other amendments as well. One provision related to obscenity law that was in the Pence amendment is thankfully missing in the present bill, this being the expansion of U. S.C. Title 18 §3486 to include obscenity charges under the administrative subpoena powers (i.e. without a judge being involved) previously dedicated to child pornography cases. Still in the bill is an amendment to U.S.C. 18 §1465 which prohibits the production of obscenity as well as the transportation, distribution and sale of it. Under this change it would be illegal to produce obscenity with the intent to transport, distribute or transmit in interstate or foreign commerce. There is also an expansion of government civil forfeiture powers to include -- according to our initial reading of the bill language -- the use of misleading domain names in order to lure persons to view obscenity.
Regarding the 2257 record keeping provisions, it appears from the language -- which is by no means straightforward and will need some serious analysis by FSC attorneys -- that secondary producers such as webmasters will have to keep 2257 records going forward from the date the law goes into effect some months from now. FSC members who are secondary producers are protected against 2257 enforcement for the past by a court injunction. Going forward, under this new law, may be a different story.
During the legislative process, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) got quite involved, for obvious reasons, since “simulated sex” is stock-in-trade of the industry. Under Pence's original amendment, "any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape or other matter" that contained a simulated sex scene would come under the same government-filing requirements that adult films must meet. However, before the current bill could obtain its bipartisan, bicameral approval, legislators had to find a way to pacify Hollywood, which they managed to do with softball penalties and eased record requirements in the special section written for simulated sex. According to Brooks Boliek, writing for the Hollywood Reporter, although Hollywood isn't thrilled by the bill, the studios didn't want to give the appearance that they are standing in the way of legislation meant to help the government crack down on child abusers.
"To be clear, we support legislation that stops child pornography," the MPAA said. "But the original proposal would have subjected studios to criminal penalties, federal searches and near-impossible labeling requirements, none of which would have advanced the stated goal of protecting children. While this latest draft is not a perfect outcome, it is much better than it was."
“Near impossible,” is it? We quite agree. Too bad the final version leaves in “near impossible” labeling requirements for some but not for others. Is it too much to ask for laws to be fair and reasonable for all?
__________________________________________________________