There is not a direct link to the editorial that will discussed because the site contains images that can be considered offensive and are not work-friendly. The page itself has no offensive images. www. bmezine.com/news/pubring/20050703.html
What do you think of this? The legislation ostensibly is designed to protect minors from being sexually depicted in “adult” industries. Will this code and its application actually do that? If that is not its aim, just what is? Is this a form of censorship or revocation of civil liberties? Is it justifiable? What are your opinions dealing specifically with the site I linked?
My thoughts: I think this little bit of legislation is sneaky. The burden placed on the producers is ludicrous. Under the thin guise of protecting minors in the creation of sexually-explicit material they are violating the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. And if it is not violating it is scooching damn near it.
Violates the First: This code supresses and interfers with free speech by making it so burdensome to record keep upon pain of fine and imprisonment; last I heard adult material is constitutionally protected, unless declared “obscene” by a jury. The producers are now required to document retroactively for the past 10 years. The industry is already required to confrim the age of the actors. This legislation adds nothing more than nitpicking to make it that much harder to perform business, making the adult-entertainment industry tacitly illegal.
Violates the Fourth: Paragraph © states that:
At “all reasonable times”? What is “reasonable”? It seems to me that the producers are not guaranteed against unreasonable and warrantless search and seizure when their potential prosecutors are allowed access anytime.
Violates the Fifth: The records (that the producers are being forced to maintain can be used against them if they are accused of violating the law [paragraph (d), sec (2)]. What happened to not being compelled to bear witness against yourself?
The slant on how the legislation affects international producers and actors is interesting. I am not sure how valid Mr. Larrat’s claim is.
I am not sexactly sure how this actually affects bmezine.com itself. The code states that it “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 never actually states if it includes electronic media, although it does include the vague phrase “or other similar matter,” in reference to the publications it is enforcing [paragraph (h), sec (3)]. It seems a bit stretched to include this site in its enforcement, IMO, but I suppose people will see it as pandering to salacious and prurient interests and I know a slew of people will believe that material is “obscene.”
I will acknowledge that my understanding and knowledge of law is limited. I am willing and happy to be schooled on that. What do you have to say?