Feds Want the Names of Every Porn Star to Protect the Children

My cable DSL was down - again - so I flipped on my television and saw an interview between Ron Jeremy and a TV Anchor person. Ron Jeremy - as the interviewer briefly mentioned - may not be a familiar face but he is a famous porn star known for qualities other than his acting ability. My attention span started to drift but then I heard that the Federal government had set its sights on creating a list of every porn star in America. The Act shared a nickname taken from the past - 2257 - because that was the short name of the similar bill signed by the Attorney General back in 2005. My hobbies do not swing towards these things but my curiosity was peaked about why in the world the Federal government would want to collect the names and private information of all porn stars currently working in the US?

After all, why does our government need yet another database on everybody?

The Long and Short of It

My first thought was to double-check the story online and luckily my cable DSL had sprung back into action. Sure enough, "the Department of Justice wants to come up with an official list of every porn star in America - and slap stiff penalties on producers who don't cooperate" (Fisher, 2007). The list would help the Federal Government enforce the Adam Walsh Child and Safety Protection Act, with the aim of providing minors further protection from starring in porn productions by keeping a list of ages and other personal information on record to ensure that all known porn stars are at least eighteen years of age. This is a noble goal and one that I agree with because of the predatory nature of portions of this industry towards children. Still, existing tax laws require employers to maintain records for both W2 and 1099 (contract employees). Why do we need another law? And - more importantly - was there an ulterior motive to this list?

The rule change required that every film maker would have "to keep photos, stage names, professional names, maiden names, aliases, nicknames and ages on file for the inspection of the department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section" (Fisher, 2007). In theory an admirable goal but bad timing. We have a Federal Government that cannot keep our Social Security information safe and whose primary Attorney is under fire for being less than truthful to Congress but we are expected to simply allow the collection of even more data on every citizen. All of a sudden, a few warning bells were starting to go off. Fail to keep records and the penalty is stiff - five years. "West Island porn producer Linda Aylesworth could face five to 10 years in a U.S. prison unless she breaks the vows she made to the countless sex performers she has dealt with over the last eight years" (Gravenor, 2007).

Two Peas in a Pod

Basically, the new law implies that Homeland Security and our various other Federal agencies cannot keep track of existing work records so they need more information on each actor to stop the ever-present menace of child stars participating in these films. Again, what about current 1099 and W2 filing requirements? Every employer must keep accurate data on each employee and accurate pay records or they can receive enormous fines from Federal and State Governments. Surely existing tax records provided enough detail to help the government determine keep track of every porn star. Every tax return lists occupations and just how many porn stars are there?

And contract labor - of any type - already has to be kept track of and reported to the government. Also, what about foreign porn stars? Yes, the law even had sections about these concerns but the central theme centered on a list of names, numbers, addresses and photos of every porn star whose work hits someone's small screen in the US.

What was this act really about? We are already supposedly protected against home-grown terrorists by the Patriot Act. We live in an age of wire tapping and eavesdropping on the candid conversations of millions of people in our country. Yet the Feds want a few more intimate details about everybody in this industry. It just seems a bit too much. So I decided to dig a little deeper and found that "the new restrictions wouldn't stop somebody who uses phony ID from performing in pornography" and not only that, but the law may be in violation of existing international laws.

And then a little known clause within the body of the original text came to light. "Any sales promotion, print or on the web, would have to include 2257 declarations, which include legal company or sole proprietor names, as well as street address - Those companies must create and indexing system, accessible by the production or catalog title, performer's name (including aliases, married or maiden name), declared by the producer that sold you the product," (Pardon, 2005). Wow. The potential for an Ebay Seller is astounding - keeping track of 2257 declarations in order to ship your sale.

Plus - some of the conditions are simply ludicrous. The materials - photos, etc - must be available to the Department of Justice for at least 20 hours per day and every film actor/actress with a live streaming website has to keep running tapes of their performances. These types of sanctions go beyond the need to simply prevent child porn stars from being exploited in the industry, and could potentially drive actual producers of child porn further underground, rather than getting rid of the problem.

Imagine buyers of child porn having to go even further 'under the table' to get such a video produced or purchased, and imagine if the popularity of doing so grew. Also - it is really plausible to expect that someone who actually produces and makes a living because of child porn -something that's already illegal - would just allow themselves to be exposed or run out of business just because they didn't send the required record information? More likely, they would indeed cooperate with the terms and send in the needed records - just not those of their child actors, but instead the records of other, adult participants on file. Child porn would stay very much alive as a niche industry, folks would just find new (and potentially harder to crack down on) ways to get the product to the buyer.

The Porn Industry Needs To Be Kept Under Control and This is a Law Which May Just Prevent That Possibility

Porn is a thriving industry that has many forms ranging from soft porn to hardcore. Children do need to be protected from unwillfully participating in these films but there seems to be little or no provision in this bill that protects children. Instead, the act is a series of requirements for database and record-keeping and the net effect might just be that the potential complications may outweigh what's gained if the courts set this bill free.

References:

Fisher, J. (2007). Fed's Porn Ultimatum New York Post retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://www.nypost.com/seven/08192007/news/nationalnews/feds_porn_ultimatum_nationalnews_janon_fisher.htm

Gravenor, K. (2007). Crisis in PornLand retrieved August 24, 2007 from http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/082505/news2.html

Pardon, R. (2005). Free Speech Attorneys Lash Out Over 2257 Rules retrieved August 20, 2007 from http://www.xbiz.com/news/8911