Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Justice Department Proposes Porn Star Database

Posted by Samhita Mukhopadhyay at 5:22 AM on August 22, 2007.


Samhita Mukhopadhyay: The reality of this plan is that many women will have their identities and personal information revealed to people that shouldn't have access to it.
recallmarycareycampaigning
Porn star and former gubernatorial candidate Mary Carey would ostensibly make the list.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Samhita Mukhopadhyay, originally appeared on Feministing

So I don't really know how this would be that different from USC section 2257, but to take an already faulty law to the next level, the US Dept of Justice wants to generate a list of all actors in the porn industry. The desire to do this is of course to prohibit the production of underage porn. However, the reality of 2257 has been that many women have had their identities and personal information revealed to people that shouldn't have access to it. Or rather people we don't want to have access to it, thusly making a potentially preventative measure backfire or often force performers to leave the country.

The new rules, proposed under the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act, would require blue-movie makers 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.

"The identity of every performer is critical to determining and ensuring that no performer is a minor," according to the new proposal.

The adult film industry plans to challenge the new rule as a violation of the First Amendment, said Paul Cambria, a lawyer for Hustler and other adult film companies.

According to one article the key difference will be that this new law covers all sexually simulative acts, not just explicitly sexual acts.

Click here to read the rest of this post.

Digg!

Tagged as: civil liberties, justice department, porn

Samhita Mukhopadhyay is an editor for Feministing. She is also is the Training and Technology Coordinator at Youth Media Council.


Dems' Godly God-Fest Ends with Prayer by Former Christian Coalition Leader
A leader among the "New Evangelicals."
Post by Joshua Holland. August 29, 2008.
John McCain is Older Than Alaska
23 years older.
Post by Isaac Fitzgerald. August 29, 2008.
Palin Thinks Hillary is a Whiner
These days Palin is all about praising Hillary's efforts, but she used to sing a different tune.
Post by Melissa McEwan. August 29, 2008.

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We doan need no more steenking federal databases.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 22, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to employ more useless government paper clip counters. Not all "jobs programs" are created equal--we got the Appalachian trail, among other enduring national resources from previous ones--but DHS (in general) and more specifically, government unions that push for any sort of expansion of "identity oversight" should be viewed as absolutely worthless. I know who I am; expanding government so that more bureaucrats know me won't do a damn thing to improve our Republic.

It doesn't matter if you're a porn star or a paperboy. No more federal I.D.'s, and get rid of the "Real I.D.".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Source Posted by: chaoslegs
Yeah...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Aug 22, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... because we all know what a HUGE problem we have with mainstream producers in a legitimate and legal business using minors in their productions, right?

I mean... its not like this is something highly illegal to do in the first place.... and as we all know, no one will go around the law by simply not registering, of course....

No... they just want control. More and more control.

The nazis didn't catalog who had guns so they could protect those who had them... they didn't catalog the jews so they could send them all birthday cards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Does anyone believe...
Posted by: cellorelio on Aug 22, 2007 6:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that producers of child porn are doing it in the light of day? No! People engaged in the production and distribution of such vile content will continue to do so and the underground channels by which it is distributed will continue to thrive.

Stupid, regressive law, most likely put forward by closeted child porn addicts in the administration. Just like all the anti-queer legislation proposed by people like Bob "$20 Blow Job" Allen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hollywood Bollywood
Posted by: Fairybear on Aug 22, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sooooo will this new listing include the folks who star in NC-17 rated movies? How about Richard Gere whose kiss of a Bollywood actress earlier this year resulted in charges and a near arrest.
Will it include Gay porn stars? Probably!
If this passes I would hope that Hollywood actors would flood the list demanding to be put on it....yeah like that's going to happen!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HMMM, GETTING EVEN??
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Aug 22, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could this just be more of the usual resentful bullshit from the GOP=Gathering Of Pervs to get even with that woman who was letting out names from her black book?
These gopervs stop at nothing to remain slime covered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Line up for a Dream Job
Posted by: ccluelessfl60 on Aug 22, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can just picture little sweaty clerks sitting around viewing the movies, so that they can state unequivocally that indeed these are porn stars. Later will come the personal interview to verify age of participants. That will probably be a hands on inspection,or what ever device they come Up with.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about we pass a law...
Posted by: Astroboy on Aug 22, 2007 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...which mandates that all massage parlors, escort services and legal whorehouses make public the names and addresses of all visits from politicians!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If they were serious...
Posted by: Suz on Aug 22, 2007 1:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...about protecting children from sexual exploitation, then they'd create a database consisting solely of republican politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If they were serious... Posted by: zipper696
» IIII love to love ya baby . . . Posted by: Itsthewater
If it's child porn they are after
Posted by: zipper696 on Aug 22, 2007 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The new rules, proposed under the Adam Walsh Child Safety and Protection Act, would require blue-movie makers 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.
"The identity of every performer is critical to determining and ensuring that no performer is a minor," according to the new proposal."

Surely all they need is an avidavit that the performer (heh!) is over the age of consent ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]