Mike,
I wanted to share with you my thoughts on the whole USC 2257 record keeping requirement. I think everyone is in agreement that child porn needs to be taken seriously and those producers and viewers of child porn need to be brought to justice. Much of my thoughts are shared by many of your colleagues in the adult industry.
USC 2257 currently defined will not do much to prevent child porn from being produced as those guilty of such heinous acts will not keep records. However, the solution I have come up seems much easier to implement and eases the burden on record keeping while still ensuring that all models are of the age of 18 at the time of production.
Similar to the DMV, when one wants to have a license to drive a car, they go down and pay the fee, pass the test, and are issued a license. Same goes for the those cities that require permits/licenses to dance in adult clubs. I propose that the government sets up a one stop shop for model verification. The process could be simple. If a model wants to be actively involved in the porn industry, they fill out an online application, submit a copy of their driver’s license that shows the date of birth and the model is assigned a Model ID #. The model cannot work UNTIL she receives an assigned ID number from the government clearinghouse. When a model goes to the shoot, they simply supply their model ID # for producers to hold for their records. This could prevent models from using multiple fake IDs and protect producers from accidentally producing porn with a minor because a model used someone else’s ID or a fake/forged ID.
Enforcement is simple too. If the government is concerned that a model may be a minor from a tip or report, they can simply check their database to verify the model’s age on file. This would prevent the need to make unannounced visits for record verification. If the model ID is not in the feds database, then they move forward with verification of the age. This could be applied to all producers of commercial pornography. Those making it for home and private use seemed to be exempt from USC 2257 requirements.
But wait. Who would pay for this program? Simple. The cost of the application fee could pay for this program easily. Producers that wish to verify age before production begins can pay a fee to be able to access and verify the model’s assigned ID number. This would help address the issue of keeping performers real name and addresses private from potential stalkers/murderers while decreasing the burden that all producers are currently expericining in regards to record keeping.
The problem I see is this. It makes sense. Naturally, it will not happen because the government rarely does anything that makes sense. IF the goal of USC 2257 is really to harass producers of porn, then I doubt we will ever see this implemented. If the government is TRULY concerned with preventing child porn, they would implement something like what I proposed as the sole purpose is verifying that the model is 18. Once they reach 18, there is nothing left to for the government to protect them from.
Now I can already see backlash. Why should performers have to pay to be able to work? It’s no different than the AIM tests they pay for. Its no different than any other profession that issues licenses for people to perform a job (doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc…) This is what should happen if keeping minors out of productions is the government MAIN INTENTION. If its to inconveience porn producers, then your industry has to worry about a lot more as more shit will be coming down the pike.
Britt
This is an interesting thought to me largely because it is somewhat outside the box thinking. As i first read through it I started thinking OK there’s legal problems with this, that wouldn’t pass constitutional muster and then it occurred to me….It has FEWER legal problems than 2257 does, constitutionally speaking.
I’m not big on the government solving problems in this matter but since they have decided that child pornography is a National Interest I will concede that the government does have an interest. The problem is they are looking for the boogie man in the wrong place.
All you have to do is set up a yahoo alert on the word “porn” and you will get 30-40 stories a day in the mainstream media on arrests for child porn and it will become apparent VERY quickly where the problem is.
Family members, friends of the family, clergy, daycare workers, teachers, policemen, doctors, lawyers…in other words people in positions of trust and power in regard to children, the more trust and power they have the more likely they are to associated with sexual exploitation and child pornography….don’t believe me…try it. You will be shocked.
2257 isn’t and never was a tool to combat CP it is and always has been a tool to harrass legitimate pornographers, who as a group have probably the lowest interest in CP. That saidI’m proud to have readers like Britney who can think things through better than the people we elect to represent us. Yes there may be some problematic areas but the truth is I think the basis of her idea is sound, prticularly with everyone now being required to get a social security number at birth and a national ID not far behind. Would an online resource be that hard to implement?
2 Responses
now this makes sense. unfortunately even if something sensible like this idea gets put into place there will always be someone trying take advantage of the system. this will lead to some clause where random inspections will need to be made. sucks but i suppose it’s a price we all have to pay.
I agree its to harass us and a possible tool to put us in jail for clerical errors. If it was just check ages they would stayed with the original simple method instead of the complicated your bound to be in violation method.