Filmmaker has been on press the last week so that has meant that we've been slacking on the blog. But one of the things I've been meaning to post about is the government's new "2257" regulations which, on the sheer basis of their audacity, should be provoking outrage in the independent world. Strangely, though, our indie sector has been quiet on this government intrusion on content creators, probably because it specifically targets adult entertainment.
Anyway,
this Newsday editorial does a far better job than I could have explaining why you should care about these new regulations. Here's an excerpt:
"Regardless of one's feelings about adult entertainment, the situation is a disturbing illustration of a larger trend in the Bush administration: the use of regulatory powers to advance a conservative moral agenda.
Part of a revision to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, the new regulations were quietly published last year and target a seemingly mundane part of the porn business - record keeping. While huge corporations such as Time Warner make a hefty profit broadcasting adult entertainment, porn is largely produced by smaller entities, often operating without even an office.
Individuals and small companies producing adult entertainment will be devastated by new regulations requiring them to provide copies of government-issued IDs for performers retroactive to 1995. In addition, these small producers, perhaps operating out of a garage or second bedroom, will need to have a public office, open at least 20 hours a week, where their records are available for inspection....
By focusing on regulatory enforcement, the Department of Justice cannily avoids repressing adult entertainment on the basis of content, knowing that the First Amendment presents a challenge that probably cannot be overcome. But the effect - suppression of protected speech, whether or not it is deemed obscene - is achieved outside the normal checks and balances of American government.
The Bush administration has a track record of attempting to regulate morality behind a smoke screen of law enforcement, bureaucratic rules and scientific research. These efforts are often focused on unpopular issues, where the administration is fairly certain that public opinion will provide protection, regardless of the ethics involved. Few citizens in an increasingly conservative America will fight to protect the constitutional rights of pornographers."
.
# posted by Scott Macaulay @ 7/07/2005 01:05:00 AM
Comments (4)
where is the ifp? where is sundance? where is the aclu? who will lobby on our behalf? jeff dowd?
i had thought that the indie community finally found a voice in the ifp with their role in helping resolve the academy screeners nightmare, but it seems they are too busy/scared to be a true proponent of the indie cause to take serious action and speak out against these kind of regulations. wouldn't it be nice if they used their established role within the indie community and their excellent rundraising team to facilitate some kind of meaningful campaign? well, i for one am not holding my breath.
#
posted by Ha_Ikar @ 7/08/2005 1:20 PM
where is the ifp? where is sundance? where is the aclu? who will lobby on our behalf? jeff dowd?
i had thought that the indie community finally found a voice in the ifp with their role in helping resolve the academy screeners nightmare, but it seems they are too busy/scared to be a true proponent of the indie cause to take serious action and speak out against these kind of regulations. wouldn't it be nice if they used their established role within the indie community and their excellent rundraising team to facilitate some kind of meaningful campaign? well, i for one am not holding my breath.
a35mmlife
#
posted by @ 7/08/2005 1:21 PM
EFF.org published an interesting article that outlines the impact these regulations would have on non-pornographic speech.
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/003741.php
I'm surprised there's been so little coverage of this. The independent movie industry needs to weigh in on this because so many non-pornographic films are now breaking the law. (Pola X, Intimacy, Romance, 9 Songs) Every movie produced since July 1995 has to comply with these regulations. Will these movies be banned in the States if producers are unable to share sensitive, personal information about their stars.
Last month, The Sundance Channel was showing an R-rated cut of Intimacy. According The Free Speech Coalition -- currently the only organization that's fighting these regulations -- a producer has to comply even if the sexually explicit material is censored. If these regulations are fully enforced, someone at Sundance could end up in jail. Or at the very least they'd have to litigate a costly and publicly damaging "child pornography" case.
#
posted by @ 7/09/2005 2:01 AM
This also affects indy filmmakers. These regulations affect any sexual conduct which includes showing genitals in certain ways, masturbation and s & m. Also, simulated sexual conduct is covered also. Indy filmmakers concerned about this should check out www.adultfilmmaking.com I downloaded their forms and purchased their legal kit for my indy vampire films... Their is always a lesbo vampire scene in my movie - in a light fun way.
Hitinface
Making movies can't seem to make money at it
#
posted by @ 12/28/2006 8:48 AM
