NEWS: TV shows and Movies might become X-rated if this provision passes., page 1

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:33 PM

link

Any and all movies, series and media that have real or simulated sexual activitiy, nudity or sexualy tinted language would, by this provision in the Childrens Safety Act 2005, be classified as pornographic material and with this would cause the media industry to having to follow the same guidelines and regulations as the porn industry.

today.reuters.co m
Tucked deep inside a massive bill designed to track sex offenders and prevent children from being victimized by sex crimes is language that could put many Hollywood movies in the same category as hard-core, X-rated films.

The provision added to the Children's Safety Act of 2005 would require any film, TV show or digital image that contains a sex scene to come under the same government filing requirements that adult films must meet.

Currently, any filmed sexual activity requires an affidavit that lists the names and ages of the actors who engage in the act. The film is required to have a video label that claims compliance with the law and lists where the custodian of the records can be found. The record-keeping requirement is known as Section 2257, for its citation in federal law. Violators could spend five years in jail.

Under the provision inserted into the Children's Safety Act, the definition of sexual activity is expanded to include simulated sex acts like those that appear in many movies and TV shows.

"It's a significant and unprecedented expansion of the scope of the law," one industry executive said. "I don't think the studios would like being grouped in with the hard-core porn industry."

The provision, written by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., could have ramifications beyond simply requiring someone to ensure that the names and ages of actors who partake in pretend lovemaking as compliance with Section 2257 in effect defines a movie or TV show as a pornographic work under federal law. Industry sources say the provision was included in the bill at the behest of the Justice Department. Calls to Pence's office and the Justice Department went unreturned Tuesday.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

In 1988, a similar provision was ruled unconstitutional by the federal court here. Congress later rewrote it so that it included only actual sex acts, not the pretend acts in movies and TV shows.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Seems Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind is either trying to derail this bill that is there to help track sex offenders and prevent children from being victimized by sex crimes or hes trying to slip in an utterly rediculous provision into this bill knowing that it is to important to vote down.

I knew alot of rediculous laws are piggybacking into law by sneaking them into large important bills. But I never knew the rediculousness was of this magnitude.

The bill, with the Section 2257 provision included, already has been approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and is waiting consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This bill is said to be retroactive to 1995 which imho would cause each and every series, movie or TV show to having to be recalled for reediting in some cases causing great parts of movies and series to be having to be cut or certified as X-rated.

[edit on 13/10/05 by thematrix]

kenshiro2012

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:38 PM

link

What a wonderful way of enforcing one's ethical viewpoint on the nation.
Let us hope that the freedom of speach advocates start taking up the banner on this and get it removed

Umbrax

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 02:41 PM

link

I've been waiting for this day ever since they started rating TV shows.
My thoughts were that now that TV shows get a rating now we can have rated X TV.

Now here we are.

Jaryn

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 03:36 PM

link

Scarier thought: Bush just declared "War on Porn". Under this bill's auspices, that would be declaring war on almost all modern media.

I still stand by my philosophy that if you don't want your kids exposed to this stuff (or maybe you don't want it personally), turn off the TV, change the channel, don't go to the theater in the first place. Don't legislate your morality onto everyone.

marg6043

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 05:29 PM

link

He, he, now you can see the hidden agenda behind most of the new legislation that many states are trying to push.

Funny how something so good like taking care of our children's and protecting them is also going to take care and protect the adults along with the children.

When ideologies are promote and make into law it doesn't matter how they target if the desire result is achieved.

Let the politicians do the thinking for the adults in American after all that is why they got elected. Right?

Jaryn

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 07:14 PM

link

Sadly Marg, I think that is the way most of the honest politicians (I actually knew one, so I'm certain that some still exist) feel: that they know what is good for us, whether it's what we want or not.

I'll give you a perfect example: why do we have laws requiring people to wear seatbelts? Because it's "good for you" and we are obviously too stupid to realize that on our own, so they must force us to wear them.

I can't speak for everyone, but I for one don't want people deciding what I can and cannot do (with the obvious exceptions of harming others). If I want to watch "porn", that is my choice, if they don't, that is their choice.

If we aren't careful, we will end up in a totalitarian society where the govt will control everything you can (or can't) do, all achieved by tiny steps like this.

Zipdot

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:09 PM

link

Scarier thought: Bush just declared "War on Porn". Under this bill's auspices, that would be declaring war on almost all modern media.

Man, that's exactly what I was thinking. This is the most gd ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. Luckily it won't pass.

Zip

shantyman

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:21 PM

link

As a teacher and one who works with young people in a lot of extracurricular and church activities, I really dislike a lot of what I see on TV. The language, the innuendos, the sexual content - some rather blatant - is pretty disturbing. I see the influence that TV has had on children as young as third grade who can spout the latest South Park Chef hit song.

Having said this, I am even more concerned about legislated morality. It's always a bad idea. When you start censoring content, how long before censoring ideas become acceptable? I support the V chip and parental controls. It truly is the responsibility of parents to monitor and control what their children are watching. I don't trust my government enough to hand over my constitutional rights. I - reluctantly - defend the rights of pornographers, nazis, klansmen, and other objectionable groups the ability to have as many forums for free expression as permissable by law. Once again, if you legislate the objectionable, who's to decide? Who watches the Watchman?

marg6043

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:31 PM

link

shantyman, I agree with you having work with children of school age from kinder to 8 grade.

The parents are the ones to control what their children watch not legislators and self proclaim religious advocate.

TVs and cables companies offer a variety of ways to control the programs on TV.

But when children go to another home and spend the night you never know what that particular family allow or not allow their children to watch.

I brought up my kids with everything and now as young adults I never had any problems with behavior or promiscuity.

When they ask what things mean I told them straight out.

Today everybody wants to monitor every bodies lives, bedrooms and bodies and that is the problems.

The more we tried to keep away from our children the more they will crave it.

Been curious is part of human nature the best thing to do is make sure that they learn from us the parents or whomever is the main parental figure.

[edit on 13-10-2005 by marg6043]

subz

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:35 PM

link

Enforcing these strict moral codes on the nation is righteous and for the good of the nation when Bush does it. When the Taliban did, or the Iranian mullahs do the same its a theocracy and oppressive. Just another example of some of the bigotry and hypocracy of the Bush administration.

shantyman

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:49 PM

link

Good points -

My wife and I have yet to be blessed with the joy - and overwhelming obligation - of parenthood. I certainly agree that once your child is at a friend's house, all your control is removed. This is certainly when being a good parent who explains your reasons is very important. While a bad child - and there are such - are not always the result of bad parenting, good children are almost always the result of good, caring parents.

I also agree with the hypocrisy inherent in the administration's stance on morality and the comparision to the Taliban - what an astute observation!
In my Civics class, I describe the KKK marching down my town's main street after filing the correct permits and such. The discussions that result from my assertation that they have the right to protection under the Constitution are ... very, very passionate to say the least. As much as I hate certain groups, videos, music, etc, I also would defend their rights vigorously. So far, this is what seperates the US from so many other nations past and present. I was willing to risk my life as a soldier to defend and protect these ideals. I would do it again - even for *shudder* "Sex and the City".

Jaryn

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:26 PM

link

subz, outstanding point! I hadn't thought of looking at it that way, but the similarities are shocking to say the least...wonder when they will decide that the clothing that american women wear is too revealing and needs to be lawfully mandated to be more 'proper'?

shantyman, I loved both your posts and agree 100%!

I might disagree with what people say, but I will defend their right to express themselves to my dying day. I might find most of what's on TV offensive (or just painfully stupid), but that just means I need to change the channel or turn off the TV. I could go on, but you get the idea.

No matter what my opinion on anything may be, it is my opinion and can't be used to force controls on others in the U.S. that I (also) fought for and that many before us have fought and died to create and preserve.

subz

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 10:47 PM

link

Originally posted by Jaryn
subz, outstanding point! I hadn't thought of looking at it that way

Showing people an alternative viewpoint than that of the mainstream is my goal here in ATSNN. You made my day with that comment

Originally posted by Jaryn
I might disagree with what people say, but I will defend their right to express themselves to my dying day. I might find most of what's on TV offensive (or just painfully stupid), but that just means I need to change the channel or turn off the TV. I could go on, but you get the idea.

Thats because you are not a theocrat. Opposition to a theocratic idea is exponential in nature, i.e. those with no theocratic tendencies do not oppose an idea any where near as strongly as another theocrat from a different religion.

That its people like Bush, Robertson and the Christian right in America who so strongly oppose the Iranian, Chinese and North Korean regimes is not because they are oppresive or theocratic, its because they are not Christian. To the Chrisitian right, communism is the abscence of christianity and Islam is an ancient foe. These are the real reasons Bush raises the ire of the American nation to rally against these "threats".

Originally posted by Jaryn
No matter what my opinion on anything may be, it is my opinion and can't be used to force controls on others in the U.S. that I (also) fought for and that many before us have fought and died to create and preserve.

Originally posted by shantyman
I was willing to risk my life as a soldier to defend and protect these ideals. I would do it again - even for *shudder* "Sex and the City".

I cannot display with words how deeply I respect soldiers with your attitude. The spirit of the WW2 soldiers is alive and well I see, to my deep appreciation. Simply, thank you.

[edit on 13/10/05 by subz]

Astronomer68

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 03:40 AM

link

Originally posted by subz
Enforcing these strict moral codes on the nation is righteous and for the good of the nation when Bush does it. When the Taliban did, or the Iranian mullahs do the same its a theocracy and oppressive. Just another example of some of the bigotry and hypocracy of the Bush administration.

Subz there is a little matter of degree here. Equating the two actions is misleading and inaccurate.

I think the proposed law is misguided at best and stupid at worst. The Supreme Court would have to find the law unconstitutional again. These types of things seem to pop up every two or three years due to pressure from some of the religious folks and/or because some congressperson wants to show he/she is holier than everyone else (and therefore ought to be reelected).

subz

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 04:00 AM

link

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Subz there is a little matter of degree here. Equating the two actions is misleading and inaccurate.

Not particularly Astronomer, legislation inspired by religion is either acceptable or it is unacceptable. Saying that legislation inspired by christianity is more acceptable (or less restrictive) than islam inspired legislation is unfair. Who are we to judge theocratic or atheist states when our laws are rife with religious inspiration.

If you asked a European or Latin American about about the level of censorship in America they would view the intolerance level to be unacceptable. If Janet Jackson's boob can illicit major uproar in your nation whilst scenes of murder and carnage are broadcast without impedipent you have to ask yourself why? Matters of degree are neither here nor there when your President is criticising the likes of the Taliban and the mullahs because they allow religion to inspire their laws. It really is cut and dry to me.

Astronomer68

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:10 AM

link

When the Taliban had gangs of enforcers roaming the streets beating people for not having a beard, or for wearing the clothing wrong or listening to music, that is pretty harsh by my standards--which are all I really have to judge things by. The attempt to essentially force film makers to do the censorship work so they don't have to put out the effort is not even in the same league.

Granted, if you give-em an inch, they'll take a mile (eventually), but figuratively that's what I mean--these piddly, annoying attempts are the first inch, while the Taliban had already gone the whole mile. I agree with you comment about the President being hypocritical in his public statements on morality and whole heartedly agree that morality cannot be leglislated and it shouldn't even be attempted. Society in general has it's own way of enforcing what the public at large sees as counterproductive.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

subz

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:17 AM

link

To me, religion meddling in the legislative process is akin to a crime. You can have different shades of murder and theft but essentially they are crimes. Any instance of religious teachings being passed as law is unacceptable to me. That includes the multitude of laws already on the books here in Australia, and the West in general, that have a religious undertones.

There is no connection between immorallity and nudity except for what religion has decreed. That there should be a 'war on porn' is ridiculous and, to me, there is clearly no difference between the Taliban's religious edicts and these American ones. Both are unacceptable and are oppressive. Different shades or not.

Astronomer68

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:20 AM

link

I can appreciate the consistency of your stance on this issue. However, I see things as different shades of grey, not just black or white. In-as-much as all the people in America need to get along with one another or the country just won't work, compromises have to be reached. What some find terribly offensive about public displays of acceptable private actions sometimes dictates that others who find legalized moral codes in general offensive, must reach such a compromise. As long as everyone remains cognizant of the needs & desires of others, everything usually works out ok. It's when one side or the other ceases to be considerate that everything goes to pot.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

jupiter869

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 06:35 AM

link

What I find astonishing is when I go to an R rated movie that may have a lot of sexual overtones or a real lot of blood and gore, there is VERY OFTEN parents bringing in their small kids. I'm not kidding, especially if we go to a movie on a Saturday afternoon.

I think there should be a law prosecuting PARENTS who are found out to allow their children to see improper material in the movies or tv. Parents need to be responsible for their children, not the government.

subz

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:39 AM

link

Originally posted by jupiter869
What I find astonishing is when I go to an R rated movie that may have a lot of sexual overtones or a real lot of blood and gore, there is VERY OFTEN parents bringing in their small kids. I'm not kidding, especially if we go to a movie on a Saturday afternoon.

I think there should be a law prosecuting PARENTS who are found out to allow their children to see improper material in the movies or tv. Parents need to be responsible for their children, not the government.

I totally agree. I remember when I was 16, myself and a couple of friends went to see Starship Troopers. It was rated M15+ here in Australia and I can vividly remember seeing kids that looked about 5 or 6 sitting there watching it with their parents. Not only was there disgusting amounts of gore but there was frontal nudity as well. The parents have the duty to police what their children do and see, not the government. I remember this occasion vividly because its the only movie I have contemplated walking out on mid-way through, it was that bad IMO due to the gratuitous gore.

Astronomer I too appreciate your compromising attitude to appeasing everyone. But whilst I do see much room for compromise in other areas, on this I do not. There will always be drama associated with allowing any religion into legislation, even if its small and to appease one faction or another. Lets say something as innocuous as bacon being dropped from the school cafeteria's menus to reduce the teasing or distress that might occur for some young muslims. There is a very valid argument for removing bacon...if you are a muslim, but the christians or jews would want their religious diets imposed as well.

I guess what I am trying to say is there is never a small enough, innocuous enough or acceptable enough amount of religion that can be implemented into law. It truly is a recipe for disaster because every religion is entitled to the same protections and freedoms, not just christianity. Not to mention the old chestnut of separation of church and state.

[edit on 14/10/05 by subz]