Hollywood Concerned Over 2257

Printable View

10-13-2005, 03:48 AM
Lee

Hollywood Concerned Over 2257

Hollywood executives are expressing concern over a new American Government Bill which may put their films in the same category as hardcore porn. The Children's Safety Act of 2005 has a provision requiring any film or television show which includes a sexual image (including a simulated sex act) to meet the same government requirements in detailed record keeping as adult films. Any violators could face five years in jail. "It's a significant and unprecedented expansion of the scope of the law," one industry executive told the Hollywood Reporter. "I don't think the studios would like being grouped in with the hardcore porn industry."

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/stor...590432,00.html

It took them long enough but, at least now its more than the adult industry realizing the far reaching implications of these new 2257 regulations :thumbsup:

Regards,

Lee
10-13-2005, 07:16 AM
basschick

i was just thinking about this. if sim sex is grouped with hardcore as far as all the laws go, how will the studios possibly comply with 2257? they have years and years of minors in movies with sim sex, so even if they act as custodians, the i.d. won't be legal.
10-13-2005, 01:02 PM
tombarr

Great, now that they have paid attention... let's hope they throw lots of money behind getting it quashed.

The most interesting part is that to do so, Hollywood becomes the temporary ally of the Porn industry. :)
10-20-2005, 03:46 AM
Matt D

Update

Quote:

Rep. Pence Bends to Hollywood’s Demands, Revises Bill

WASHINGTON – Bowing to the demands of the mainstream entertainment industry, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., has promised to revise his proposed child pornography bill, HR 3736, giving mainstream movie studios a way to avoid compliance with U.S.C. 18 § 2257 regulations.

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=10870

So... Ultra-conservative Mike Pence caved after uber-rich, liberal Hollywood lobbyists leaned on him.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing for us?

Notice how it says Pence will change the bill so that mainstream studios can avoid compliance.

The key phrases here are "mainstream studios" and "avoid compliance."

By "mainstream" he means the richest and most powerful studios in Hollywood. "Avoid compliance" = loophole.

In other words -- O! Great Irony, you are a cocksucker! -- Pence will add a loophole to his Helen Lovejoy amendment, even though he created this amendment because he wanted to close a loophole.

Pence will probably use tricky lawyerese to amend his amendment in such a way that the richest, most powerful studios in Hollywood won't be affected at all. Independent and amateur producers, on the other hand, will get ass-raped.

Nicole Kidman can do full frontal nudity without being compelled to give a copy of her ID to every Blockbuster videostore clerk so long as the Weinsteins are her producers.

However, Jenna Jameson should buy a gun. Because, if the Pence bill stands, every videostore geek in American can find out where she lives by looking up her 2257 docs.
10-20-2005, 05:36 AM
gaybucks_chip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt D

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=10870

Pence will probably use tricky lawyerese to amend his amendment in such a way that the richest, most powerful studios in Hollywood won't be affected at all. Independent and amateur producers, on the other hand, will get ass-raped.

Standard "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer.

It would seem to me that any language that restricted speech on some people but not on others (for the same speech) would be unconstitutional and would be thrown out regardless of skillful attempts to word it to fly by... but who knows?