US Government to Take a Hard Look at Horror

From the New York Times see full article

To drive almost anywhere here this week is to run a gantlet of advertising for movies about killing. All rated R for violence, among other traits, the films belong to what has become an annual winter-spring crop of horror and suspense. But the harvest is trickier than usual this year, as Hollywood braces for a new government review of the marketing of violent entertainment to the young.

The Federal Trade Commission is putting the final touches on a follow-up to its September 2000 report on the marketing to children of violent movies, music and video games. The first such assessment in three years, it will examine the selling practices of a mainstream entertainment industry that in the interim has become increasingly dependent on abductions, maimings, decapitations and other mayhem once kept away from studio slates.

Seven years ago the film industry narrowly avoided federal regulation of its advertising practices, as politicians, in the wake of the Columbine High School killings, called executives before a Congressional committee but eventually agreed to let Hollywood police itself.

The effectiveness of the resulting marketing guidelines is now being tested by rougher movies, competitors not bound by strictures that apply to the trade association’s major studio members, and a flourishing Web culture that has driven big openings in the last three years for harshly violent films like “Saw” or “Hostel” without much concern about the age of viewers.

If the new study were to find that the industry has violated or has outgrown its voluntary standards, it might kick the issue back into the political arena ahead of a presidential election. There it could trigger fresh calls for regulation, or even kill a gory source of relatively easy money.

Yet things become murkier when studios, which often attempt to block the underage from visiting their official sites for R-rated fare, deal with Bloody-disgusting.com, Arrow in the Head (joblo.com/arrow), Fangoria.com, or any of another dozen such Web sites. Hollywood companies commonly buy advertising on such sites. Perhaps more effectively, they also open the doors for set visits, early viewings, promotional contests and anything that will attract fans.

The operators of several such sites said they had no way of knowing how many of their visitors were under 17, but believed the numbers were substantial.

In its 2004 report, the Federal Trade Commission said that in 36% of their attempts, its underage “mystery shoppers” were able to buy a movie ticket without an age check in theaters, down somewhat from about half in 2000. Meanwhile 81% of the young buyers obtained R-rated DVDs without a check.

Bracing for the next report, the National Association of Theater Owners last fall provided the commission with a detailed description of its efforts to keep the unaccompanied young out of violent fare. But at the same time, the theater owners strongly criticized the studios’ home entertainment divisions for promoting versions of some of the same movies on DVD as being unrated and uncensored.

Contributing to the hype for Captivity

From Stuff see full article

In the wake of a public outcry against Los Angeles billboards and New York taxicab tops advertising the upcoming movie Captivity with images of the abduction, torture and death of a young woman, the film's producer said it will take down the offending ads.

After Dark Films, its theatrical distribution partner Lionsgate Films and the Motion Picture Assn. of America (MPAA) received phone calls objecting to posters.

The billboards, first posted March 13, feature four frames with captions above each one:

• Abduction shows Cuthbert with a gloved hand over her face
• Confinement features the actress behind a chain-link fence with a bloody finger poking through
• Torture depicts Cuthbert's face, covered in white gauze, with tubes shoved up her nose
• Termination shows her with her head thrown back, seemingly dead.

After Dark said the posting of the billboards was an accident. CEO Courtney Solomon said the wrong files were sent to the printer, who then passed them on to the billboard company without approval from any executives at After Dark.

Sources close to the MPAA said the organisation had not approved the four-frame ad for Captivity, and the posting of the ad was in clear defiance of MPAA rules and regulations.

Solomon added that the images on the billboard are not an accurate representation of the film, which stars Cuthbert as a woman who awakens to find herself being held in a cellar. This movie is certainly a horror movie and it's about abduction, but it's also about female empowerment, Solomon said.

We reshot the ending so the main character ends up in as much of a positive situation as the situation could allow. There is no rape or nudity in it, though it should be an R-rated movie. For the audience it's made for, it's satisfying to that audience. I'm sure that's not the same audience that's complaining about the billboards.

Punished by the MPAA

From UPI

The MPAA suspended for one month the rating on the film, Captivity, because of its graphic publicity campaign.

The MPAA's action was in response to the ad display of a woman's torture and death in Los Angeles and New York, which the MPAA disapproved as inappropriate for general public viewing.

The production company and its distributors will be required to clear promotional materials, as well as locations and venues of ad buys, for the film, the MPAA said. This is the first time this sanction has been imposed.

The sanctions in this case are severe because this was an unacceptable and flagrant violation of MPAA rules and procedures, said Marilyn Gordon, Senior Vice President of Advertising.

Once Captivity becomes eligible for rating consideration May 1, it will not be given priority scheduling.

   
Contributing to the hype for Wristcutters

From CNN see full article

Suicide prevention groups are dead set against the proposed ad campaign for the comedy Wristcutters: A Love Story, which plans to bill itself with posters showing people killing themselves.

The images will depict people jumping off a bridge, electrocuting and hanging themselves. The acclaimed film follows a group of people that have committed suicide as they take a road trip through purgatory.

You don't see people making fun of other causes of death, but you see it with suicide and mental illness, said Robert Gebbia, executive director of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP)

But Courtney Solomon, co-owner of After Dark Films, said the posters will be displayed as traffic-style stop or yield signs with a bar and circle over the illustrations, along with hearts to reference the film's romantic story line. He said the campaign may change before its mid-July rollout.

The movie takes place in purgatory, and its message is that love is better than suicide, Solomon said, adding that the film may even help prevent suicide.

   
Internet world protected from unconstitutional law

From the BBC see full article
See also BBC Forum Who should police the internet?

A US federal judge has overturned a law designed to protect children from viewing internet pornography, saying it violated the right of free speech.

The law made it illegal for websites to provide children access to "harmful" material, but it was never enforced.

Judge Lowell Reed of Philadelphia said other means of protection, such as software filters, were more effective.

Judge Reed said that while he sympathised with the need to protect minors, the 1998 Child Online Protection Act was problematic. It is not reasonable for the government to expect all parents to shoulder the burden to cut off every possible source of adult content for their children: I may not turn a blind eye to the law... to protect this nation's youth by upholding a flawed statute, especially when a more effective and less restrictive alternative is readily available.

Conceptually, age verification is a very good thing, but no one has come up with a good way to do it yet—and that's where everyone's focus should be: trying to come with a good, viable method for that type of system, said First Amendment attorney Robert S. Apgood. Unfortunately, age verification seems to get all of its focus on the adult industry, and that only accounts for 1 percent of the Internet. Cooperation of government agencies will give us a vehicle to accomplish these goals together, but unfortunately, that just is not happening right now.

The act was challenged by civil liberties groups and sexual health and other websites, including the online magazine salon.com, which claimed it was too restrictive and unconstitutional.

The legislation would have fined commercial websites up to $50,000 and sentenced offenders to up to six months in prison.

This law is not really aimed at commercial pornography, but really reaches far beyond that to a broad range of valuable content, John Morris, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, told reporters.

The law was never enforced because it was immediately challenged when it was passed and subject to a temporary injunction in 2004 on the grounds that it was likely to be struck down.

Both supporters and detractors of the law predicted the ruling will be appealed or that Congress will pass new legislation.

   
Tennessee porn tax on hold

From WMC TV

A Tennessee senator has withdrawn for now a bill to cut the sales tax on food by imposing a hefty levy on pornography.

Senator Dewayne Bunch said he wants to become more familiar with the measure before working it through Senate committees.

Under the original plan, there would be a 25% tax on adult video stores, escort services, adult movie rental and pay-per-view subscriptions and on magazines, books and other adult materials.

The measure would also charge "adult cabaret" performers an annual $400 occupational privilege tax.

Contributing to the hype for Transformers

From SciFi.com see full article

Shia LaBeouf, who stars in Michael Bay's upcoming Transformers movie, told SCI FI Wire that executive producer Steven Spielberg had to appeal a decision by the Motion Picture Association of America to give the film a dreaded R rating. Spielberg fought back and got the PG-13, LaBeouf said in an interview. It's just because of the intensity. There are not a lot of breathers. It's like whoosh!

It's not clear if Bay, the action director cut anything to get the lower rating. LaBeouf said that an early cut of the film earned an R rating simply because it was so suspenseful.

Update: 12A

Passed uncut at 12A by the BBFC

Update: Oops Misquote

Transformers was never a R rating. Shia LaBeouf later admitted that he got mixed up between 2 movies he is in, Transformers, and Disturbia which was reduced on appeal from R to PG13 (and has always been a 15 in the UK)

Contributing to the hype for Grindhouse

From Monsters & Critics see full article

The MPAA may have issues with the rating of Grindhouse, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's cinematic tribute to the graphic, nudity-filled flicks that once screened in the gnarly movie palaces of every major city.

The Weinstein Company is releasing the picture April 6th. But, some of it is so graphic and outrageous for a major Hollywood studio, there's no question it's headed for an NC-17 without big cuts, says a Page Six insider, who got to see an early screening of the film.

Grindhouse is two movies combined, one by Tarantino, the other by Rodriguez - with an intermission between them.

During the break, phoney trailers will be shown with campy titles like Werewolf Women of the SS, directed by Rob Zombie: In one scene, a cute, topless girl is roughly tied down on a table by evil female Nazi experimenters who begin draining her blood and, as she screams in agony, they brand her like livestock with a coal-hot steel swastika. And every girl in the Nazi concentration camp is topless.

Page Six reports: Some cuts definitely will have to be made. There's no question, said their studio insider.

Update: Grinding Out an R

The film has now been R rated, and as yet, there is no suggestion that cuts were actually required.

Judge orders return of DVDs seized on basis of no rating symbol

From AVN

After a recent court victory, Florida authorities were forced to return thousands of adult DVDs confiscated from a Sumter County X-Mart Supercenter.

Sumter County sheriffs raided the adult store about a year ago, confiscating almost the entire inventory of movies, 22,500 titles in all.

Authorities confiscated the material on the claim that all movies must display an official rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) on the packaging. However, a Sumter County judge ordered the DVDs be returned to X-Mart owner Evgueni Souliaguine, ruling that the statute had "many 'vagueness' problems."

The judge added: The title of such movies, as well as the pictures on the DVD’s cover, probably do more to put the public on notice of the DVDs content than does any rating system. Moreover, this Court speculates that any patron of X-Mart or similar stores would be fully aware of the content of the DVD or videos sold in such stores and that a labeling of Not Rated or NR would be meaningless.

Sheriff's investigators told reporters while it is unlikely they will use that statute again, they will still monitor X-Mart to make sure the store is not violating any other state obscenity laws.

As long as we're cleaning up pornography, everything else will fall into place

From AVN see full article

The United States has been rocked for the past couple of weeks over the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys (USAs) from their districts around the country, but according to the New York Times, at least two of those firings were apparently due to the USAs' failure to get on board the administration's anti-pornography train.

In rating the prosecutors, Mr. Sampson [Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' chief of staff] factored in whether they 'exhibited loyalty to the president and attorney general'.

Paul K. Charlton in Arizona and Daniel K. Bogden in Nevada, were faulted as being 'unwilling to take good cases we have presented to them, according to another e-mail message to Mr. Sampson, referring to pornography prosecutions.

It is therefore not far-fetched to think that the federal indictments obtained in Arizona last May against 5-Star Distribution and JM Productions, for materials sent by 5-Star to federal agents in Virginia, were yet another attempt to pander to the administration theocon supporters.

I think it certainly plays to their religious base, opined prominent First Amendment attorney Luke Lirot: because unfortunately, people of that ilk, as long as the government's fighting pornography, everything else in the world is rosy, which is just an indication of how truly misguided those people actually are. 'As long as we're cleaning up pornography, everything else will fall into place', and that's just insane. It's a waste of resources and it has absolutely no beneficial impact on any aspect of our society.

Some have voiced doubt about the Bush administration's dedication to prosecuting adult business owners; the firing of two U.S. Attorneys because they would not go along with the government's anti-porn agenda should put an end to such doubts.

Cinemas whinge about unrated DVDs

From Delaware Online

The The National Association of Theatre Owners called on studios to stop releasing uncensored and unrated DVDs.

The comments, made by association president John Fithian marked the latest split between the people who make movies and the people who show them.

The association, which represents operators of more than 29,000 screens, has criticized studios before for releasing too few family films, too many R-rated movies and for allowing the window between when a movie is released in theaters and when it hits video shelves to get too small.

Some popular DVD titles, particularly R-rated films such as American Pie and The 40-Year-Old Virgin, offer unrated discs that include scenes not seen in theaters.

The marketing campaigns say 'unrated' and 'uncensored,' Fithian says. But what the studio is really saying, Fithian maintains, is: 'Kids, don't go see the rated movie in cinemas. Come get the real stuff here.' It's bad for the ratings system and it's bad for the cinema business.

Journalist in jail for refusing to hand over protest video

From CPJ

The Committee to Protect Journalists is disappointed that a freelance video blogger will remain in jail after a court-appointed arbitrator was unable to mediate a settlement that could have led to the journalist’s release. Joshua Wolf has spent 198 days in jail, the longest incarceration of a journalist in U.S. history, for refusing to provide the court with a videotape of a 2005 protest.

Wolf’s tape documents clashes between demonstrators and San Francisco police during a June 2005 protest by anarchists over a Group of 8 economic conference. One police officer was injured, and some protestors allegedly tried to set a police cruiser on fire. A federal grand jury is investigating the alleged crimes. U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup held Wolf in contempt of court and ordered him jailed on August 1. Wolf was briefly released on bail pending appeal but was ordered back to jail in September.

Last month, a federal judge appointed U.S. Magistrate Joseph Spero to arbitrate the dispute. Wolf’s attorney, Martin Garbus, had asked the judge to consider privately viewing the videotape to determine whether the contempt charges against Wolf could be dismissed.

Spero said in a court filing that four hours of negotiations had failed to reach a settlement. Wolf could remain in jail until July when the grand jury’s term expires.

So just rename adult films as R rated and let the kids watch them anyway

From Variety see full article

MPAA chairman-CEO Dan Glickman has been working to fine-tune the movie-ratings system. But this week at ShoWest, he will face his biggest hurdle yet: trying to make NC-17 respectable.

The awkwardly named rating, which originated in 1990, has become synonymous with tainted goods.

Parents have been pressuring Glickman to find a solution to the dilemma that the R rating is too broad, encompassing everything from a few swear words or brief flashes of nudity to repeated scenes of stomach-churning mutilation and disembowelments.

The biggest complaint is that, with parental permission, children and teens are allowed to see R's, and parents think the definition of R is too wide-ranging to guide them. The goal is to find a category for some films that are now informally called "hard R's" -- i.e., content so graphic that no one under the age of 17 should be allowed to see it at all in theaters. The new generation of horror pics, eg, Saw and Hostel are pushing the limits of the "hard R" category.

Because of the realities of the marketplace, one idea that has been floated is to create a disclaimer for R-rated pics, saying it isn't appropriate for children, period. And there's been talk in the past of creating a rating between PG-13 and R.

The major studios have released only 19 films rated NC-17. The highest grossing was MGM's 1995 Showgirls. Studios say some exhibitors won't book NC-17 films, and some daily newspapers refuse to carry ads for such pics. (An unrated film, in contrast, is considered on a case-by-case basis.) Blockbuster, too, refuses to carry DVDs rated NC-17.

Stronger warning about kids viewing R rated movies

Based on an article from Cinema Blend see full article

The MPAA are adding a new advisory on to the R-rating which says, Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them to R-rated motion pictures.

A poster headed Attention Parents: Exercise Responsibility suggests for R rated films that parents should: Think before taking your kids.

 Though the R-rating restricts anyone from under 17 from entering alone, it allows any child of any age in as long as they have a parent with them.

Arkansas to hike their level of fines

Based on an article from X Biz

With little debate and scant opposition, Arkansas lawmakers passed HB 1569, a measure that would increase the maximum fine for obscenity to $250,000.

Under the current law, Arkansas imposes a maximum fine of $15,000 for obscenity. But Rep. Shirley Walters, who introduced the bill, said the current penalty doesn’t go far enough to deter those who seek to profit from the sale of obscene material: There are several places here in Arkansas where these businesses are owned by out-of-state corporations and a $15,000 fine would be just a slap on the wrist. This would allow a judge or jury to access up to $250,000 for a felony obscenity charge.

Adult entertainment attorney Larry Walters told XBIZ a $250,000 fine is beyond what most states and the federal system provide for, adding that it may prove to be unconstitutional: There's this idea that people in adult entertainment make so much money, that the fines need to be huge. That's not always the case. States pass these laws looking to catch the big fish, but often they ensnare the little guy.

The bill does not speak to jail time for those convicted of obscenity in the state. The bill goes to the state Senate for approval.

Missouri nutter wants age limit set to 21 for adult entertainment

Based on an article from X Biz

A Missouri nutter is sponsoring a new bill that would regulate adult businesses’ hours of operation, impose zoning restrictions and raise the age limit of patrons and employees from 18 to 21.

The bill would make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to enter an adult bookstore, cabaret or video store unless he or she is making a delivery or repair.

It would also require adult stores to operate from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and remain closed Sundays and state holidays. Scott says Bartle’s office would prefer to treat adult-oriented stores like mainstream businesses.

We would like to invite tourists here, Scott said. We have made a lot of efforts to promote Missouri as a family-friendly state.

Bartle has sponsored several bills seeking to repress adult businesses in the past.

Texas police raid a Chippendales show

From abc13.com

Texas Police arrested eight Chippendales dancers and three others during the first of three sold out performances accusing them of violating the Lubbock's adult entertainment ordinance.

Officers raided Jake's Sports Cafe about 30 minutes after the show started and the venue was closed. They arrested the venue's manager, the show's promoter and the dancers' manager along with the dancers in front of a disgruntled crowd of women.

Shortly after, several hundred women began chanting, Bring them back, bring them back and the City Council sucks, the City Council sucks.

Authorities say the dancers violated a city ordinance which bars contact between entertainers and patrons. Lt. Greg Stevens of the Lubbock Police said the dancers were simulating sexual positions with audience members.

Comparatively, it's a classy production, said Greg Jackson, Jake's Sports Cafe booking agent, adding that Chippendale dancers do not take off all their clothes.

Sex industry restrictions in Virginia

From AVN

A proposed sex shop ordinance is on the agenda as residents of King George County can comment on a proposal that would apply tougher laws to adult businesses.

The changes would cap operations for sexually oriented businesses at 12 hours a day and 72 hours per week. Supervisors also increased the distance between shops and residential properties from 2,000 feet to just under a mile. Additionally, with the new ordinance, store owners would have to locate in industrial zones and would need a special exception permit from the board before opening.

The ordinance would apply to nightclubs, movie theaters, bookstores, video stores, modeling studios and strip clubs.

Some residents have called for an outright ban on adult businesses, but the county attorney has warned supervisors that such tactics could leave King George open to a First Amendment lawsuit.

   
Mayor drops plans to ban the N-Word

From Gamasutra

After facing intense opposition against a proposed ordinance that would have outlawed the use of the "nigger" in his town, Brazoria Mayor Ken Corley announced that he would drop the proposal altogether.

Corley's decision brought applause from most of the 200 people who gathered in the middle of Main Street to discuss the issue.

While almost all speakers said they condemned the use of any racial epithets, most said the Brazoria County town of 2,800 has few racial problems, and the proposed ordinance would cause more problems than it would cure.

A violation would have been a Class C misdemeanor, the lowest category of offense, which is punishable by a fine of up to $500.

David Hudson, an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University, said the proposal clearly would have violated the First Amendment.

   
New York bans the use of the word 'nigger'

From New Zealand Herald

New York City symbolically banned use of the word 'nigger' today, the latest step in a campaign that hopes to expunge the  racial slur from hip hop music and television.

The City Council unanimously declared a moratorium that carries no penalty but aims to stop youth from casually using the word, considered by most Americans to be the most offensive in the English language.

The New York City measure follows similar resolutions this month by the New York state assembly and state senate, and supporters of the ban are taking their campaign to The Recording Academy, asking it not to nominate musicians for Grammy awards if they use the word in their lyrics.

Many rap artists and young New Yorkers toss the word around as a term of endearment or as a substitute for black, angering some black leaders who consider those who use it as ignorant of the word's hate-filled history in slavery and segregation.

Councilman Leroy Comrie, a sponsor of the moratorium, said the campaign against the word has gained strength since comedian Michael Richards spewed it in a racially charged tirade in Los Angeles.

Comrie also asked TV network Black Entertainment Television to stop using the word in its shows.

A Grammy spokesman said he doubted the academy's 11,000 voting members would support any measure that might censor artists: They are not going to be supportive of something that excludes someone simply because they are using a word that is offensive, said Ron Roecker, vice president of communication for the Recording Academy.

Law proposal to ensure that censors see all of a game's content

Has anybody considered the possibility of allowing plug-ins of add-on content that is simply not written yet.

From CNET News

A US Senate Republican has renewed his push to slap new regulations on the video and computer game industry, including a ban on "deceptive" labels by ratings outfits.

Senator Sam Brownback reintroduced the Truth in Video Game Rating Act, first proposed last September. It calls for requiring video game rating organizations to play all games "in their entirety" before issuing labels and prohibiting game developers from withholding any "hidden" game content from raters. It would also punish ratings groups that "grossly mischaracterize" any game's content.

The current video game ratings system is not as accurate as it could be because reviewers do not see the full content of games and do not even play the games they rate, Brownback said.

The proposed regulations represent another reaction to a high-profile scandal surrounding the game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.

The bill's introduction drew opposition from the Entertainment Software Association, which lobbies for the video game industry. An ESA executive said the group believes the existing rating process is already sufficiently reliable and "remarkably useful" to parents.

Sen. Brownback's bill not only attempts to address problems that don't exist, but his recommendations are unworkable and will not help consumers, Carolyn Rauch, a senior vice president at ESA, said: For instance, how does one play a game in its 'entirety' when a game has no defined end?

A representative for the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) describes at its Web site how it goes about evaluating games. It says it requires game makers to submit answers to a "detailed questionnaire" about their products and a videotape or DVD that displays all "pertinent content," including the most extreme instances of sex, violence, language, drugs and gambling. They must also turn over pertinent content that is not playable, but will exist in the game code on the final game disc.

Brownback's bill also reflects his suspicion that those engaged in the rating process have conflicts of interest. It proposes directing the Government Accountability Office to issue a report on the effectiveness of the ESRB's rating system, with particular attention to whether the process would be better served if developed and administered by persons or entities with no financial interest in the video and computer game industry.

Texas nutters eye adult industry for extra revenue

Based on an article from X Biz

Two Texas lawmakers have introduced separate pieces of legislation that would tax adult-oriented businesses in order to raise funds supposedly for victims of sex crimes.

A bill drafted by Rep. Ellen Cohen would add a $5 cover charge to all strip clubs throughout the state. If passed, Cohen’s bill would raise approximately $40 million in revenue per year for the state. However, the state Legislature would have the right to spend as it sees fit any amount raised in excess of $12 million.

A similar bill proposed by Sen. Royce West would put the onus on the businesses. His bill would call for a $5,000 annual registration fee for any adult-oriented business. West said the opening of an adult mega-store near his office inspired his bill. His bill also would require adult businesses to notify local officials of their intent to open a store or club at least 60 days prior to arriving in a community. West said he also was considering an additional sales tax to items sold or rented at adult video stores.

Both bills call for the projected revenue streams to go toward state-sponsored anti-sex-crime initiatives.

According to adult entertainment industry leaders in Texas, attempts by lawmakers to link sex crimes with sexually oriented businesses is unfair. To say there’s a link between sexual assault and gentlemen's clubs is ludicrous, said Angelina Spencer, the executive director for the Association of Club Executives. These taxes are a ruse to burden the club owner because somebody finds the business morally reprehensible. There is no evidence that links an increase in sexual assaults among women to adult entertainment clubs.

The Vagina Monologues renamed in sensitive Florida

From the BBC

The stage play, The Vagina Monologues, has been renamed at a theatre in Florida after a complaint about the title. Each monologue somehow relates to the vagina, through themes including sex, rape, birth and mutilation.

It will be known as The Hoohaa Monologues, a child slang word for the female organ, after a woman in Atlantic Beach complained.

Bryce Pfanenstiel from The Atlantic Theatre said that the woman said she was "offended" when her niece asked her what a vagina was.

The play's director is said not to be happy about the change. The Vagina Monologues is being staged by a group of law school students who plan to donate all the proceeds to charity.

Sex toys remain illegal to sell in Alabama

From X Biz see full article

In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Alabama statute banning the commercial distribution of sex toys, saying that there is no fundamental right to privacy raised by the plaintiff’s case against the law.

According to the statute, it is unlawful for any person to knowingly distribute any obscene material or any device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.

In 1998, the Alabama chapter of the ACLU brought suit on behalf of several plaintiffs — chief among them adult toy retailer Sherri Williams — seeking to enjoin the statute. The recent ruling by the 11th Circuit marks the third trip through the appellate process for the case.

In his opinion affirming the Alabama District Court’s ruling, Judge Charles Wilson concluded that the state has a legitimate rational basis for the challenged legislation despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision — Lawrence vs. Texas which overruled anti-sodomy laws across the country.

Adult entertainment industry attorney Reed Lee said that the third decision by the 11th Circuit looks to be the last word on the case from that court. But he said the plaintiffs are likely to file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear the case is unclear. But Lee said, if the Court does not take the case, it says nothing about the merits of the law in question. In October, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in a Texas case banning the distribution of “obscene sex toys.”

   
FCC angling to regulate violent TV content

From Broadcast Newsroom

The FCC is readying a report that could set the agenda for US TV censorship. FCC sources confirm that the Media Bureau has circulated a Media Bureau TV violence report among the commissioners for their comment.

Media violence is an issue that surfaces periodically in Washington. Frequent media violence critic Senator Jay Rockefeller isn't waiting for the report, or for the courts: Obviously, the preference would be to have the industry police itself when it comes to excessive violence. However, if they can't or won't do it, then Congress must step in and address this growing societal problem One of the most basic steps we can take is to give the FCC authority to regulate violence.

A source confirms that Rockefeller will re-introduce a bill giving the FCC the authority to regulate violence as it does indecency He also expects the committee to hold hearings on TV violence.

The FCC report is the product of a more than two-year-old inquiry prompted by, among others, the now-chairs of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and Telecommunications subcommittee.

Among the issues the report addresses are the negative effects on kids caused by cumulative viewing, the limits on the FCC's power to regulate violence, and what the definition of "harmful" TV violence is. The report is said to suggest there are constitutional hurdles to regulating violence, but not insurmountable ones if Congress wants to give the FCC the power, and Rockefeller want to do just that.

   
FCC closing in on regulation of violent TV programming

Based on an article from CNN

A draft report being circulated at the Federal Communications Commission says Congress could craft a law that would let the agency regulate violent programming much like it regulates sexual content and profanity, by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching, for example.

In general, what the commission's report says is that there is strong evidence that shows violent media can have an impact on children's behavior and there are some things that can be done about it, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said.

The report also suggests that cable and satellite TV could be subjected to an "a la carte" regime that would let viewers choose their channels, a measure long supported by Martin: We can't just deal with the three or four broadcast channels, we have to be looking at what's on cable as well.

The report cites studies that suggest violent programming can lead to short-term aggressive behavior in children, according to an agency source who described the report.

The recommendations are sure to alarm executives in the broadcast and cable industries, members of the creative community and First Amendment advocates. Broadcasters are expected to object strenuously to any anti-violence regulatory regime, but have been skittish in going on the record.

   
Viewing porn in schools to be a crime

From X Biz see full article

Utah students who view porn at school not only could be suspended or expelled, but also charged with a misdemeanor according to a new proposed law.

Bud Bowman, R-Cedar City, who said there currently is no law that punishes students for viewing adult material on school grounds, is the bill’s sponsor. According to Bowman, the school leaders he spoke to have been supportive of the bill.

Under HB 100, viewing adult material on school-owned computers would be a class B misdemeanor, which can include penalties of up to six months in jail and hefty fines. Students in violation of this proposed policy would be turned over to local juvenile authorities.

A spokesman for the Salt Lake City School District said his district uses filters that block adult entertainment websites, along with many blogs and chat rooms.

We do a good job at keeping students away from [porn], but anything that can help encourage kids to stay away from that, especially in an education setting — we would be supportive of that, Salt Lake City School District spokesman Jason Olsen said.

   
Criminalising porn viewing in Utah schools advances

From Desert News

Utah Youngsters who look at pornography on a school computer or bring pornography to school could be charged with a class B misdemeanor under a bill, HB100, passed by the House on Thursday.

Republican Representative Bud Bowman said Porn in schools is not a major problem now, but it is in society where minors and adults alike can easily find nude pictures of men and women on the Internet.

Bowman said he doesn't see school officials expelling or suspending a teenager for looking at porn once or twice on a school computer. But for those cases where it happens time and again, police and juvenile authorities want the option of charging the teen.

An adult who deals in porn in a public school can be charged with a class A misdemeanor under HB100, which now goes to the Senate. A class B misdemeanor carries a $1,000 fine and zero to six months in jail. A class A is a $2,500 fine and up to one year in jail.

14th February

  YouTube Claim Copyright on Censorship...

Video featuring passages from Koran taken down

From Islamaphobia Watch
See also Nick Gisburne's website

At YouTube, you can say pretty much whatever You want, as long as it's not about Islam. If that's not true, YouTube user Nick Gisburne begs to differ after his account “his entire account“ was deleted for its "inappropriate content." What exactly did he say? Well, nothing really. He let the Koran speak for itself.

Gisburne is a self-described atheist with, at least from the one video, a deep questioning of Muslim claims about the Koran. To express his doubts about Islam being a religion of peace, Gisburne created a 10-minute video, entitled "Islamic Teachings" that was nothing but violent quotations taken from the Koran instructing followers to kill nonbelievers and speed their way to Hell where Allah will torture them forever.

It would seem quoting the holy book in a sort of testament against itself was over the line for someone working at Google-owned YouTube. Not only was the video deleted without any type of warning to the uploader, but the uploader's account was also deleted with only the explanation (or accusation) of submitting inappropriate content, a category usually reserved for nudity or video violence.

Nick explains about the Content of the 'banned' video on his website

The quotes I used are taken from Skeptics Annotated Quran. The Skeptic's Annotated Quran abbreviates the long, flowery language of the Quran into more legible, easily digestible form. Thus it is not strictly verbatim, but it is a valid translation. It is not a commentary, nor is it a distortion of the content of the Quran.

For example:

Qur'an text As for the Disbelievers, Whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom.

keptics Annotated Quran: Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom

Subsequently YouTube changed their reason for censorship from 'inappropriate content' to 'copyright violation'

You Tube contend that the removal of Nick's account was due to repeated copyright violation as they had previously removed video clips from Richard Dawkins' Root of All Evil, the scene with Ted Haggard. After that YouTube removed a video called Colbert vs Dawkins

12th February

  Battered by the Censor...

Teenage Mutant ninja Turtles take a pounding

From Canmag see full article

The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are funny action heroes, but they’re still martial arts badasses. They have to take out the bad guys, and that requires violence. Too bad the ratings board won’t allow the best parts of their fights in the new TMNT film.

The MPAA set a mandate early on that nunchucks to the head will never pass a PG rating. Director Kevin Munroe said: They still use their weapons, it’s just you’ve got to kinda cut around it

Perhaps it’s best for the international marketability of the film. Nunchucks are absolutely illegal in the UK, said producer Thom Gray. You can't even show them being whipped around. You could show them in a belt but you can't show 'em [in use]. And the throwing stars are totally illegal. You get into Germany and Scandanavia and they really say, 'No way, that has to come out.'

It's not going to be that apparent in the fights because there's so much going on and your eyes are not even going to see it. But clearly we were told up front, don't whack anybody over the head with a nunchuck because it's going to come out.

TMNT opens to US theatres on March 23rd, 2007.

11th February

  Snicker Smacker...

Advert featuring accidental male kiss withdrawn

From Christian Today see full article

A Snickers commercial that aired during the Super Bowl and featured two car mechanics accidentally kissing has been immediately withdrawn following complaints from several gay rights organisations that labelled it as “homophobic.”

Mars Inc. also erased all related content on their website in response to the criticism. The company apologised for the infraction in a public statement, saying the commercial was intended to be funny, not offensive.

In the commercial, two auto mechanics are seen to be biting into a Snickers bar, each from either end. As a result, the two unintentionally kiss each other and become instantly uncomfortable.

Pro-homosexual organisations took offence to the commercial when later the two men begin tearing hair from their own chests so they could appear more “manly.” The characters’ reactions were viewed as demeaning.

The Snickers website also featured alternate endings to the commercial which viewers could vote on. One depicts a man grabbing a wrench to strike his coworker, who then responds by placing the other man’s head under the hood and slamming it shut.

I don't know what kind of mind-set it takes to think it's okay to slug another guy because of a mistaken kiss, said Neil G. Giuliano, president of Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation: It's just unacceptable.

10th February

 Extreme Argument...

   
Extreme Associates challenge the Miller test

From AVN

With the Extreme Associates obscenity trial still months away, the company's defense team has filed another motion to dismiss the indictments against Extreme and its co-owners Rob Black and Lizzy Borden. This time they are challenging whether the all-too-familiar Miller test for obscenity can be applied to the World Wide Web.

Their attorneys have asked Judge Gary Lancaster, whose brilliant analysis in granting an earlier Motion to Dismiss was later reversed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, to consider new arguments for dismissal; among them:

• That the federal obscenity statutes are unconstitutional;

• That the Miller test's requirement that the charged material be "taken as a whole" is impossible to accomplish in the context of the World Wide Web;

• That the "community standards" prong of the Miller test used in determining whether a particular work is obscene cannot be applied to an online "community";

• That obscenity code Sections 1461 ("Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter"), 1462 ("Importation or transportation of obscene matters") and 1465 ("Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution") are impermissibly overbroad;

• That the digital video clips charged do not fall within the range of tangible material eligible for prosecution under two sections of the obscenity law.

Should the Court decide that the above points are insufficient for a dismissal of the entire indictment, the motion also asks that the Court clarify certain points of law before the case moves forward:

• That the "material to be taken as a whole" regarding the charged video clips refers to the entire Extreme Associates website;

• That the applicable "community" within which the charges are to be considered, for the purposes of the Miller test, is the entire World Wide Web; and,

• In the alternative, if the Court rules that the "community" has to be a geographic area, that that community should be the Central District of California, where Extreme's headquarters are located, rather than the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the clips were originally viewed by postal inspectors.

8th February

 Game for a Fight...

   
Amazon refuse to ban cock fighting magazines

From Seattle pi

Amazon.com said it would keep selling two magazines about cockfighting, despite renewed threats of a lawsuit from the Humane Society of the United States.

But the online retailer said it would again remove videos that depict dogfights, months after the issue was originally raised by Humane Society officials.

The Humane Society said it plans to formally file a lawsuit Thursday morning in District of Columbia Superior Court, accusing Amazon.com of operating an illegal: animal-fighting paraphernalia sale and distribution scheme.

Humane Society officials originally threatened to sue Amazon.com last July, saying the online retailer was violating the federal Animal Welfare Act by offering The Feathered Warrior and The Gamecock, two cockfighting magazines.

Seattle-based Amazon.com, however, said Wednesday the magazines are legal and would continue to be sold on its Web site. Refusing to sell books or magazines simply because their messages may offend is censorship, spokeswoman Patty Smith said: The customer is the best judge of what is and isn't appropriate for their reading habits.

The Washington, D.C.-based Humane Society maintained the cockfighting magazines and the dogfighting videos violate federal animal cruelty laws, and said its lawsuit would continue. Cockfighting is legal only in Louisiana and New Mexico.

Last June, Amazon.com was among the companies that pledged to remove a DVD, Hood Fights 2,  from its Web site after complaints that the video showed scenes of dogs fighting, along with street fights between people.

That case was different than the cockfighting magazines, Smith said, because the video depicted actual violence.

   
Utah games censorship bill on hold again

From Gamasutra

The state House committee has voted to hold the infamous “games as porn” bill for a third time, following continued concerns over freedom of speech issues.

Republican Kay McIff has announced plans to draft a substitute bill to replace the now thrice defeated original.

The original bill attempted to amend an existing law preventing the sale of pornography to minors by categorizing violent video games as obscene, and has previously been approved by the Utah House of Representatives, only to stall at House level.

The Daily Herald quotes McIff as saying, I am concerned, when all the legal experts, including our own attorney general as well as the sponsor, tell us that the bill is likely to fail in a constitutional challenge. One where we cannot control the amount we spend, because we spend our side and then we are potentially obliged to spend the legal costs of the other side.

Although a large number of other states have pursued similar anti-games legislation, the Utah bill was seen as the most openly problematic with regard to the U.S. constitution – with two constitutional law experts from the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment heavily criticizing the bill in an editorial for the Salt Lake City Tribune.

   
Commercial web addresses disallowed from kids' programmes

From CNET News

The Federal Communications Commission decreed that during shows geared toward children age 12 and under, cable and broadcast operators may not display addresses for Web sites that contain any links to commercial content. The rules took effect on January 2.

The entire new media landscape is one immense personalized ad targeted at kids, said Jeff Chester, director of the advocacy group Center for Digital Democracy, which has pressed the FCC to extend children's TV programming rules to the Internet.

The new rules came about because regulators were concerned that some broadcasters were using children's programming as a billboard for addresses to Web sites established solely for commercial purposes, and thus sneaking around federal law. Under the 1990 Children's Television Act, every hour of children's programming may contain only 10.5 minutes of advertising during weekends and 12 minutes on weekdays.

Under the new rules addresses for sites with commercial content can still be displayed during advertising so long as they're against the networks' allotted advertising minutes and "clearly separated" from show content.

The rules also permit the display of addresses for "noncommercial" Web sites during actual show broadcasts. Sites fit that bill if they offer a substantial amount of bona fide program-related or other noncommercial content, aren't primarily intended for commercial purposes, clearly label commercial content, and don't link directly to e-commerce sites or other pages with commercial material.

Nutters call for investigation into filming of Hounddog

Based on an article from the BBC

Twelve-year-old actress Dakota Fanning is the focus of nutters over a new movie, Hounddog,  that depicts her being raped by a teenage boy.

US religious groups are calling for a boycott, saying Fanning's appearance in the film is tantamount to child abuse.

Director Deborah Kampmeier has defended the film, saying issues like child rape need to be discussed in public: This issue is so silenced in our society. There are a lot of women who are alone with this story.

The criticism began before the film was screened, with the New York-based Catholic League calling for a federal probe into whether child pornography laws were violated during filming.

Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, also believes the rape scene falls foul of the law.

Fanning herself played down the controversy following the film's premiere: It's not a rape movie. That's not even the point of the film. It's not really happening. It's a movie, and it's called acting. I'm not going through anything. And for me, when it's done it's done. I don't even think about it any more.

During the rape scene, only Fanning's face, neck, shoulders, hand and foot appear on screen. Much of the scene takes place in darkness, punctuated only by the sound of Fanning's screams.

Prosecutors in two states said on Jan. 26 that they found nothing illegal about a movie shot in North Carolina and screened last week at Utah’s Sundance Film Festival.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who watched the movie last week with his state’s child sexual exploitation law in hand, said his concerns didn’t materialize on the screen.

None of the things on the Internet that people were saying about it were true, Shurtleff said. Not only does it not violate the statute, I think it’s a good message for people on the subject.

The opinion is shared by the district attorneys in the two North Carolina counties where Hounddog was filmed last summer.

Rex Gore, the Brunswick County district attorney, said there was no evidence that the scene constituted “sexual activity” under North Carolina law, so child exploitation didn’t occur. Even if a film contains simulated sexual activity, Gore said, it doesn’t cross the line into obscenity as long as the film has serious artistic value or is protected speech.

That outcry led state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, to begin work on legislation that would require any film seeking North Carolina’s 15% tax credit for television and movies to receive script approval from the state. Berger said the state should ensure its citizens aren’t subsidizing what many may consider inappropriate.

Copyright used for censorship

From Red Herring

Last Following a week’s worth of controversy about her behavior, Fox Broadcasting ordered clips of Paula Abdul swaying, appearing intoxicated, and answering questions on TV news programs in a nonsensical way taken down from YouTube this week.

The move raises questions about where the line should be drawn between copyright infringement and outright censorship. It also shows how quickly an embarrassing piece of footage can become a viral sensation now that videos can be easily uploaded to the web.

What Fox runs the risk of is using copyright law as a form of censorship, said Van Baker, an analyst at Gartner Media Service.

Any violation of what is known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is grounds for removal of videos on YouTube, a division of Mountain View, California-based search giant Google. However, there are also “fair use” laws that allow some content—such as short clips or satirical depictions of celebrities—to be aired online.

Some people would say this is an overly aggressive use of the takedown procedure [allowed in the DMCA], said James Nguyen, an attorney who specializes in entertainment and copyright law at the Los Angeles-based law firm Foley & Lardner. They’re within their rights … but most of the major TV networks don’t ask you to take down their other clips.

   
Utah suggests a split into a family Internet and an adult Internet

One size fits all nonsense

Based on an article from KSL

A Utah based non-profit organisation called the CP80 Foundation has proposed that two ports should be used for websites, which currently use the single port 80. One that is acceptable to children, families, education and business, and another which is open for all other legal adult content.

The Utah legislature is considering a resolution to the US Congress, asking that US Internet governing organizations implement the plan and its enforcement. Developers of the Internet Channel Initiative, as its called, say the Internet shouldn't belong to pornographers.

Ralph Yarro, Founder, CP80 Foundation: It's for everyone and its time to make an internet that's accountable to the people its supposed to serve. Yarro says the initiative leverages the current structure of the Internet to categorize Internet content into Internet ports or channels similar to cable television channels. There would be Community Port channe