2257 Changes working through Congress

[chadknowslaw]

Yesterday a bill passed through the House of Representatives that will make changes to 2257 and then ADD a section that would require 2257 data be maintained for "simulated sexual conduct". [2257 A ]

Many of the arguments in the FSC case hinge on the theory that the Attorney General cannot define "secondary producers" because that goes farther than the law [which Congress makes] allows. If Congress includes "secondary producers" under 2257 then the best argument against it would be that the law is overbroad or unconstitutional in some way, a more difficult argument to win.

The language in the bill is confusing, and I still have not come up with a good interpretation as to what its effects would be. The most important section is Section 602.

Read it and lets talk.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c109Wr8cRI::

[Maj. Stress]

Chad,
Might want to double check that url. I've tried it a couple of times and the page 404's

[chadknowslaw]

Damn. Every time I try to copy and paste it only leaves a partial URL. I went to the Thomas Law http://thomas.loc.gov website and searched H.R. 4472. If you can paste the URL for me, I would sure appreciate it.
Chad

[natalie]

Hi Chad
Is it THIS ONE

[Maj. Stress]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...9cvZZ:e122168:
Natalie was way ahead of me on that one

[natalie]

Yeah lol I should stop fucking around and go back to work.

[waz]

those links dont work anymore

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.

[Toby]

I've read it, made no sense to me whatsoever. I'll wait for the translated version.

[Ms Naughty]

The link keeps coming up as "expired"

But is this the bit we're talking about?

SEC. 602. STRENGTHENING SECTION 2257 TO ENSURE THAT CHILDREN ARE NOT EXPLOITED IN THE PRODUCTION OF PORNOGRAPHY.

Section 2257(h) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `subparagraphs (A) through (D)' and inserting `subparagraph (A)'; and

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `which does not involve' and all that follows through `depicted' and inserting `with respect to which the Attorney General determines the record keeping requirements of this section are not needed to carry out the purposes of this chapter'.

SEC. 603. ADDITIONAL RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) New Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2257 the following:

`Sec. 2257A. Recordkeeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct

`(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which--

`(1) contains a visual depiction of simulated sexually explicit conduct (except conduct described in section 2256(2)(A)(v)), created after the date of the enactment of this section; and

`(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;

shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

`(b) Subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h)(2), and (I) of section 2257 apply to matter and records described in subsection (a) of this section in the same manner as they apply to matter and records described in section 2257(a).

`(c) As used in this section, the term `produces' means--

`(1) to film, videotape, photograph; or create a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, that constitutes a visual depiction of simulated sexually explicit conduct; or

`(2) to make such a depiction available to another, if the circumstances in which the depiction is made available are likely to convey the impression that the depiction is child pornography.

`(d) This section (other than to the extent subsection (b) of this section makes section 2257(d) applicable) does not apply to a person who produces matter described in subsection (a), and who--

`(1) ascertains, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the name and birth date of every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction, and maintains such information in individually identifiable records;

`(2) makes such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times;

`(3) provides to the Attorney General the name, title, and business address of the individual employed for the purpose of maintaining such records; and

`(4) certifies compliance with paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) to the Attorney General on an annual basis, and that the Attorney General will be promptly notified of any changes in that name, title, or business address.'.

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATIONS- The regulations issued to carry out section 2257A of title 18, United States Code, shall not become effective until 90 days after the regulations are published in the Federal Register.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of chapters at the beginning of chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2257 the following new item:

`2257A. Recordkeeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct'.

EDIT - XBiz has a decent article on it here:
http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=13811

Summary:
* Looks like it will become law by September
* It will then be challenged in court
* It includes simulated sex in its definitions which means that Hollywood will be lumped in with us dirty pornographers

Note: Please include all standard "I am not a lawyer" disclaimers in this and any other posts


EDIT AGAIN: Moderators, I hope it's OK to post this text verbatim from the gov site. Unfortunately it refers to CP without *s? Please delete if necessary.

[RawAlex]

Well, this is the house version, hasn't passed congress yet, and honestly the laws in this form are darn hard to read. Further, they have to make clear WHICH version of 2257 they are attempting to makes these amendments to. If they claim to be amending the 2257 as passed in 1995ish, then that would suggest that the house does not find that the "clarifications" that the DoJ tried to dump on us last year hold water, which could have the effect of negating all the work done by the FSC in the last year.

I look forward to one or the other of the online XXX lawyers to post up what the resulting code will look like so I can read it closely and attempt to extract some meaning from it.

Alex

[Linkster]

Alex - basic explanation of this is that the House approved it which means the Senate will approve it next and then the President will sign it - probably in the the very near future - these things dont take long once they have been passed by the house (usually about a week)

Overall what it does is make what the DOJ was attempting useless as this goes even further - and throws out Sundance completely.

I would expect it to be law before congress recesses for spring break and then the mandatory 90 days after it is published in the Fed Register.

I believe that the film industry will probably file the first objections as it would make any film they produce with simulated sex have to meet the same doc requirements as required for adult films (which would effect just about every PG and R rated film coming out of Hollywood right now)

It also instills that same secondary producer requirements that the DOJ was trying to put out - only with congress and the Prez signing it, it will be come law and then be challenged - a little different unless someone could get an injunction from enforcement the same day the Pres signs it

[RawAlex]

Linkster, I agree on much of it.

I think one of the areas of concern for hollywood may be those "coming of age" films where two minors engage in simulated sexual acts (simulated acts could include those "kiss, roll, closeup of clenching hands" type thing) which would technically now be illegal because the actors don't meet the age requirements.

I am also interested in all of this because it creates a whole different section (2257A) which only involves simulated sex acts, all of the new sections seem to be pertaining ONLY to simulated acts (they do not appear to be changin much of the wording in the existing 2257).

Not entirely sure WHY they are making a difference here, but there ya go.

Alex

[Tommy]

this part is a bit troublesome

`(2) to make such a depiction available to another, if the circumstances in which the depiction is made available are likely to convey the impression that the depiction is child pornography.

so that means the cable companys, video stores and even news stands need 2257 materials

[RawAlex]

Tommy, that is only on SIMULATED sex 2257A - they have no changed the straight 2257 rules.

Alex

[Lenny]

The lawyers are definitely going to get rich off of this one.
What a pain in the ass

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Linkster

I believe that the film industry will probably file the first objections as it would make any film they produce with simulated sex have to meet the same doc requirements as required for adult films (which would effect just about every PG and R rated film coming out of Hollywood right now)

An article I read when this first started suggested that if Hollywood had to file 2257 stuff, they would be disqualified from receiving all those nice multi-million dollar federal and state grants for filming in the USA.