Are pornography retailers required to show proof of age?

I was involved in a conversation about the proof-of-age record keeping porn producers are required to do now, but none of us knew whether retailers, like the Lion’s Den, are required to do the same record keeping if they sell a pornographic DVD. (I’m trying to find it online and am not sure what I’m reading.)

Who does and doesn’t have to provide proof of age of the actors/models in explicit material?

Under the recent changes, apparently they do. They seem to be considered “Secondary Producers”.

However, as this was considered ridiculously unrealistically unfair (how are retailers supposed to get a hold of legal documents for all the people involved in every product they sell, and what are the privacy and safety implications of that information being constantly made available across the world?), there are currently legal proceedings in action, so it’s all in a sort of limbo at this stage.

I am not familiar with this, but wouldn’t it, at least under the U.S. system, require the authorities to prove that an actor in a pornographic film IS underage in order for a prosecution to take place, and not on the citizen to prove that he is NOT breaking the law?

If you’re thinking it’s “innocent until proven guilty” that should get them off the hook, it doesn’t apply here. By forcing them to require proof of age, you’re not accusing them of a crime. You’re just making a regulation. If law enforcement thought that an actor was underage, then yes, the burden of proof is on them. But with the law in place, you can charge the producers w/ breaking the law (not checking age).

If you were correct in this case, then the same could be said of any regulated industry. The state couldn’t say that medication has to have a child-proof lid, cuz, hey, the burden is on the government to prove children swallow pills.

In other words, authorities ARE required to prove the actor was underage if they want to prosecute. That has no bearing on Congress making laws.

So, just to be clear, a brick-and-mortar shop that sells sex videos would have to have these proofs on their premises?

That’s what the vagueness of the wording would imply, but that’s part of why it’s in the courts at the moment: to clarify and hopefully remove anything so ridiculous as that kind of expectation.

There is a possibility that at the end of it all, that will be a requirement. I don’t think it’s being enforced yet, but you’d have to ask a current adult retailer to know for sure.