Mumbleporn? Swanberg revolutionizes full frontal!

Recalling his shocked dismay upon learning of all the governmental regulations around filmic depictions of sex, we'd like to think that director Joe Swanberg's participation in our SXSW panel, The Porn Police: Know The Rules, may have finally inspired him to cover his, um, ass.

In any case, we're very intrigued by the revolutionary technology he's utilizing on his new movie, Birthday Suit, an amazing advance that allows him to create the illusion of graphic sexual content. "If anybody, for even a split second, realizes that it's a digital erection, then we have failed," says Joe.

Here's a behind-the-scenes report from the set:

Birthday Suit from Jason Lewis

How about a thumbs up?!

We recently submitted a couple of proposals on topics we'd like to present at the next SXSW festival--and we'd love your thumbs-up support on either or both if you're so inclined.

Both proposals have been included in the SXSW 2010 PanelPicker, the rather sadomasochistic tool that the event uses to help determine which topics will ultimately be included... your "yes" votes and comments can definitely make a difference!

#1 - The Porn Police Are STILL at the Door
Not just for pornographers, the notion for this panel grew out of our work curating CineKink, as we noticed that entries submitted by filmmakers from the adult sphere typically included notice that federal record-keeping requirements for sexually explicit material had been properly met, while those coming from the independent film world did not. (If you’re thinking “2257, huh?” that could probably be you!) Making matters worse, the regulations have recently been expanded to cover not just actual or documentary depictions of sex, but simulated situations—ie fiction—as well.

Yikes, you say? Pick this panel!

#2 - Was It Something I Said? TOS And Content
Meanwhile, this panel was inspired by the frustrations we've experienced over the years trying to position and promote a sex-related endeavor on the internet--from finding a web host and sending email blasts, to processing ticket sales and donations, to creating an identity in social marketing and getting our videos placed on popular sites. Seemingly the old adage--“I’ll know it when I see it”--flourishes online, where murky definitions of what content is and is not allowed abound. One gatekeeper’s “inappropriate” is another’s “adult” is another’s “offensive, obscene and/or pornographic.” How are we affected as users and creators--and is there any recourse?

Wanna find out? Pick this panel!

Another kerfuffle down under!

We've just got word from Jennifer Lyon Bell that her CineKink award-winning short film, Matinée, has been banned from screening publicly in Australia.


















Jennifer's piece was scheduled to run tomorrow at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival. But the event has been informed by the nation's censorship board, the Office of Film and Literature Classification, that of all of the selections submitted for permission to screen as "unrated"--which is typically how Australian festivals are able to screen independent works which haven't gone through a costly classification process--Matinée could not be exhibited. (Another film presented at CineKink, Tony Comstock's documentary Damon & Hunter enjoyed this dubious distinction back in 2006!)

In a statement of protest published by MUFF, Jennifer questions the OFLC's decision:

The sexual relationship portrayed by the characters Mariah and Daniel in Matinée is not only a consensual, emotional and nuanced relationship, but their sex plays an important role in the story of the film. The story is not tacked on to the sex; rather, the story has everything to do with the way the characters continue to communicate nonverbally throughout the entire sex scene.

And festival director Richard Wolstencroft, after extolling the work's artistic merits and noting its relevance in promoting a positive view of female sexual empowerment, criticizes the ban as sexist and hypocritical in light of other recent descisions by the OFLC :

Lars Von Trier’s ‘Antichrist’ was recently passed by the OFLC for the Melbourne International Film Festival. This film depicts extremely high levels of sexual violence and genital mutilation, and encourages a phallocentric vision in its audience that touches on the idea that women are inherently evil. ‘Matinee’ depicts actual sex between two adults in a loving and consenting partnership, and significantly it focuses on the importance of women’s pleasure in sexual intimacy, and presents a remarkably strong female lead. Passing ‘Antichrist’ but banning ‘Matinee’ reveals a tendency in the OFLC to suppress films which strengthen female sexuality on screen and to allow films which encourage view that female sexuality is damaged, fractured or violent.

There's been some talk that MUFF will go ahead with its originally intended screening as an act of civil disobedience. That would be as part of the Mini Muff Session #5, scheduled for Wednesday, August 26 @ 7pm.

Hey...you got socially redeeming importance in my prurient interest!

(image via SIU School of Law)

Given the promises made within the bold red circle on the cover, you can imagine our delight when we stumbled upon our parents' copy of the unexpurgated edition of Lady Chatterley's Lover, tucked way, way up high on the top shelf of their bookcase. And, if you happened to read the same tome as an eager youth, you can also appreciate our growing disappointment as we realized the book was a bit more, well, literary than some other titles found in their 1970s-era library.

All of that was possible thanks to a court decision made 50 years ago today--resulting from the efforts of Grove Press publisher Barney Rosset, who sued the US Postal Service for confiscating copies of the uncensored version of the novel, which had long been banned for its explicit descriptions of sex and liberal use of the f-word. As recounted in the New York Times, an attorney hired by Rosset, Charles Rembar, spotted a loophole in an earlier Supreme Court ruling and argued that while a work might be found obscene, it could at the same time present ideas of "redeeming social importance" - and qualify for First Amendment protections afterall.

Though obscenity battles continue on today, a ruling on July 21, 1959 in favor of Grove Press took away the Post Office's absolute authority to impound and restrict such works. And paved the way for Lady Chatterley's Lover to find its way to bookshelves throughout America, to be joined later by such subsequent Grove Press gems as the first US edition of The Story of O and "My Secret Life," the purported erotic memoir of a Victorian gentleman, along with many less prurient offerings over the years.

Barney Rosset's heroic skirmishes against censorship and the ups and downs of Grove Press are detailed in the recent documentary Obscene:

A fleeting f*@&!

The Supreme Court has upheld a crackdown by the Federal Communications Commission on the use of indecent language--even the fleeting utterance of a single expletive--on broadcast television. At least for now...

An earlier federal appeals panel had overturned recent FCC policy, which had arisen largely in response to brief and spontaneous exclamations during live awards programs from the likes of Cher, Bono and Nicole Richie, chiefly involving the ever-popular and--as referred to by the court-- "f-" and "s-" words.

This latest decision supports the FCC's contention that profanity referring to sex or excrement is always indecent, no matter the context. But, as noted in an AP account of the court's ruling:

Justice John Paul Stevens said in dissent that the FCC missed the mark in failing to distinguish how the offending words are used. "As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows," said Stevens, an avid golfer, "it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement.

While today's ruling dealt solely with whether the FCC had followed proper administrative procedures in establishing the new policy, still to be addressed is whether or not the restrictions are constitutional in the first place, with promising glimmers that the entire question of limits on broadcast speech may be reconsidered whole hog. Though Justice Clarence Thomas sided with the majority on this ruling, the AP story continues, he noted that the court's previous decision and an even earlier case "were unconvincing when they were issued, and the passage of time has only increased doubt regarding their continued validity."

The last major ruling by the Supreme Court on broadcast indecency was in 1978, when it upheld the FCC's case involving George Carlin's classic "seven dirty words," as so infamously recounted below:

Fire and brimstone

And likely a somewhat noxious smoke at that, as the good Reverend Eldredge--in a ceremonial burning and "holy hose-down"-- recently set flame to a cache of pornographic celluloid that was discovered in the old drive-in theater his church had recently purchased. The ritual was intended to purify the property and "make it holy" before taking full possession.

According to a Jacksonville, Florida newspaper:
Members of Christ Church Anglican discovered reel upon reel of '70s- and '80s-vintage X-rated movies recently when they took over the old Playtime Drive-In on Blanding Boulevard a few weeks ago. The Playtime showed X-rated movies in the '70s and early '80s, prompting police raids and protests, before switching to more traditional fare.

A church member, the story continues, estimated the destroyed stash at over a 100 films, with such titles as Kinky Business and Private Teacher giving pretty broad clues as to their contents. Both cited examples are from the era when the VCR was bringing about the demise of the pornographic film business--the first an obvious nod to the '80s mainstream classic Risky Business and featuring another icon of the era, Traci Lords.

But, while no one is likely to know for sure what reels were tucked away on the premises, the vintage ads posted at the Playtime Drive-In blog indicate a rich history of exploitation and other cheap, smutty fun stretching back a couple of decades.

Bullshit!

The sixth season of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! kicks off tonight with the "The War on Porn," described thusly:

"Radical feminists claim porn leads to violence; rabid right-wingers claim it leads to addiction; and even former boy toy Donna Rice claims it’s hurting the children. None of these groups have any proof to back up their claims, but they’ve convinced the government to waste your money and invade your privacy while going after something that should be perfectly legal."



The episode debuts tonight at 10 pm, with multiple repeats.

(via Thomas Roche via XBiz)

Feel the shag between your toes!

From the Brighton Port Authority, the music video for Toe Jam, featuring a little David Byrne, some Dizzee Rascal, lots more 1970s aesthetics and inspiration to hire a choreographer for our next sex party!

Action Alert! Contact CBS and support Swingtown

Conservative media watch-groups and religious political extremists are already hard at work trying to get Swingtown pulled from the air. While we don't necessarily like to send them traffic, from the America Family Association there's this and from the Parents Television Council we have this little gem.

To counter the form letter complaints that are right now making their way into the FCC folders of various local CBS affiliates, now would be a good time to send a brief note of your support of the show. As a former programming director for a small-town station in a largely conservative market, we can assure you that your positive input will be most welcome!

See below for the how-to particulars and feel free to spread this info widely:

***
NCSF Entertainment Media Update for "Swingtown"

Show Title: Swingtown
Episode Title: "Pilot"
Original airdate: June 5, 2008
Series continues: Thursday, 10 pm
Network: CBS
Produced by: CBS Paramount Television
Executive Producers: Michael Kelley, Allen Poul and Carol Barbee

Description:
From the program's website - "SWINGTOWN, from the director of 'Big Love' and 'Rome,' traces two generations of friends and neighbors as they forge intimate connections and explore new freedoms during the culturally transformative decade of the 1970s. It portrays the ever-shifting "swing" of the pendulum that reflected the change in America's collective value system -- morally, politically and socially. After moving to an upscale lakeside Chicago suburb in July of 1976, Susan and Bruce Miller must confront temptation in the form of their provocative new neighbors, Tom and Trina Decker, while not abandoning their old friends Janet and Roger Thompson. As the adult couples evaluate whether to embrace or avoid newfound personal freedoms, the curious Miller and Thompson children begin to discover and assert their own morality and sexual identities as they come of age in a world on the precipice of change. In a shifting social climate -- defined by its music, fashion and style -- everyone in SWINGTOWN is confronted with personal choices, experimentation and varying attitudes."

More info, including clips and the most recent episode of the show, can be found at:
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/swingtown/


NCSF Reviewer's Note:
Originally intended for a cable network outlet, "Swingtown" has obviously been retooled to meet broadcast standards and withstand certain scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Nonetheless, while it shies away from nudity and direct depictions, the show still manages to take a refreshingly positive approach to sexual exploration and freedom. The most adventurous couple of the three featured, the Deckers, is presented as sharing a mutual enjoyment of their open marriage and seem to have a healthy, affectionate relationship. Similarly the Millers, introduced to the swing lifestyle in the first episode, are shown to be in love, but just seeking a little something to rev up their sex life.

It's a little difficult to predict where the series will go over the course of its initial 13-episode run, but given how quickly the Millers jump into the action - counter to what most swingers themselves would counsel - there are sure to be complications ahead. While there are likely some consequences to be faced down the line, hopefully the show will maintain the sex-positive tone it exhibited in its premiere episode.

In light of complaints already being registered from media watch groups and religious political extremists, the CBS network and its local affiliates deserve commendation for airing "Swingtown" and should be encouraged to continue its broadcast. (Reviewed by Lisa Vandever, NCSF Media Committee)


CRITICAL ACTION - GIVE FEEDBACK ON SWINGTOWN TO YOUR LOCAL CBS AFFILIATE:

Find your station here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/utility/main517034.shtml

(Hard copy letters are generally more effective, but sending an email is better than nothing.)


ADDITIONAL ACTION - GIVE FEEDBACK ON SWINGTOWN TO THE CBS NETWORK:

CBS Television Network
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019

(While hard copy letters are generally more effective, you can also send a direct email to the network via a form on their website - http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml.)


YOU CAN ALSO LEAVE INPUT VIA THE "SWINGTOWN" COMMUNITY MESSAGE BOARD:
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/swingtown/community/
(requires email registration)


HOW TO WRITE VIEWER FEEDBACK
Viewer letters are an effective way to convey a positive image of alternate sexual practices such as SM, swinging or polyamory. Your feedback can help to correct negative social myths and misconceptions about these types of practices, and may influence the future decisions of programmers and producers about the entertainment they provide. These letters help achieve the advocacy goals of the NCSF.

For more information and suggestions of points to include in your letter, see:
http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_keyword&id=182

Please alert us to positive, negative or neutral stories about SM, swinging and polyamory at media@ncsfreedom.org

***
A joint Project of NCSF and ITCR: The Foundation of NCSF

The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual expression.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
822 Guilford Avenue, Box 127
Baltimore, MD 21202-3707
410-539-4824
media@ncsfreedom.org
www.ncsfreedom.org

The revolution will not be televised, but can be seen on various cable outlets.

A sprawling, four-part documentary, Sex: The Revolution, takes on just that when it airs on VH1 this week.

We missed the first episode ourselves, but as with all things VH1, repeats are a-plenty and there's still time to set your dvr! Or, if you're feeling a little more highbrow, catch the encores when they're broadcast on the Sundance Channel next week.

Starting with the sexual repression of the 1950s and moving into the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, the series promises to "... explore a time in American history that challenged centuries of traditional morality about sex. A time that eradicated people's fear, loathing and ignorance about sex. A time that promoted unprecedented sexual honesty and expression. And in the end, a time when laws were changed and rulings made to end censorship and legal retribution for people's private sexual behavior."

How much of a back-sliding we've experienced since then we'll try not to contemplate. And turn our attention instead to this clip from the series about Barbarella and the sexual trends that the movie exemplified:


video.vh1.com

Um. Pornography is in focus?

A twist on an old joke has cropped up around CineKink, surfacing more frequently around festival submission time:

"What's the difference between art and pornography?"

"Pornography arrives with its 2257 compliance properly identified."

Bah dump bump.

Anyway...an expansion on some of the topics we discussed during our recent SXSW panel, The Porn Police: Know the Rules, an article by attorney Alan Levy has just been published in The Yale Law Journal.

First tracing the history of federal 2257 record-keeping regulations and its recent judicial back-and-forths, the article then goes into the implications that they present to all filmmakers, including those working with actual and with simulated depictions of sexual conduct.

Mainstream filmmakers should be especially concerned with the language of the most recent published § 2257 regulations, in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote, “Section 2257A requires that producers of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct maintain records documenting that performers in those depictions not be minors.” Does this mean that a noted film such as Taxi Driver, in which a twelve-year-old Jodi Foster portrays a thirteen-year-old prostitute, is unlawful? What about the more recent controversial film Hounddog, which premiered at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival and portrayed twelve-year-old Dakota Fanning as a rape victim? Even a film nominated for Best Picture at the 2008 Academy Awards may be affected by § 2257A. Atonement has one scene of explicit simulated sexual conduct involving actress Juno Temple, who was seventeen years of age at the time of filming.

While filmmakers working in the adult arena are, for the most part, all too aware of the regulations, their existence seems to escape notice of documentarians who occasionally stumble into the realm of actual sexual conduct. (And again, we ask, what the hell does that mean?) And with the expansions presented by 2257A, a huge new class of fiction filmmakers is folded into the mix.

For all, it is critical to know both the rules and the risks - and to work together in protesting their chilling presence.

To read more of Alan's article: How “Swingers” Might Save Hollywood from a Federal Pornography Statute

Too hot for Dallas!

The perennial crowd-pleaser and CineKink award winner, Filthy Food, has run into another flap of controversy, this time at the AFI Dallas International Film Festival.

According to director T. Arthur Cottam, the trailer for the film was prevented from being posted to the event's website for fear of offending AFI Dallas sponsors and the already printed cover for Day 3 of the festival's newspaper was ordered destroyed and replaced because it prominently featured an image (above!) from the film. (A bootleg copy of the original cover has been posted to the Dirty Little Shorts Yahoo Group.)

But an interview with T. - and a red carpet photo with a giant banana - did make its way into Day 11 of the AFI Dallas Daily News and touches upon controversies past and present. From the intro:

A nectarine, a banana, cookie dough – all banned. All forbidden to be shown onscreen at a film festival in Italy because they apparently would end civil society as we know it (or at least, as the Italians know it). That is the talent of T. Arthur Cottam and his film, FILTHY FOOD, in a nutshell. By the sheer weight of his presentation, he made some fruit and some dough naughty. More than naughty – disgusting, even.

Judge for yourself. You can watch the trailer, below. Or visit Atom Films to watch the smutty masterpiece in its glorious entirety!

Yay, um... Fox?

Fox Television is standing firm (sorry) in the face of a $91,000 fine thrust (yep!) upon it by the Federal Communications Commission for a single episode of its reality series, Married by America.

Despite Fox's argument that the material in question was not statutorily indecent, an FCC analyst maintained:
Even with Fox's editing, the episode includes scenes in which partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies in a sexually suggestive manner. Another scene features a man on all fours in his underwear as two female strippers playfully spank him. Although the episode electronically obscures any nudity, the sexual nature of the scenes is inescapable, as the strippers attempt to lure partygoers into sexually compromising situations.
(taken from Variety via Defamer)

While that might sound like the plot-line of your typical mid-season replacement sitcom - "the guys run amuck!" - the amount of the fine was originally $1.2 million, levied to include all 169 stations, at $7,000 each, airing the 2003 episode. That amount has since been reduced by the FCC so that only the 13 stations that ostensibly received complaints would be fined, but even that degree of outcry is suspect. Through just a bit of sleuthing, journalist Jeff Jarvis uncovered that the number of complaints was not 159, but merely 23. And of those, all but two were identical form letters, boiling down to three original complaints out of millions viewing.

Instead of paying the reduced amount, Fox will file a request that the FCC completely reconsider the fine. In another case currently pending Supreme Court review, Fox also successfully sued the agency over a new restriction on "fleeting" expletives.

The world watches. (Or pretends otherwise, but secretly Tivos.)

Warm tidings of comfort and joy!

Tonight... CineKink @ Pioneer presents a holiday double-header of works from Comstock Films, offering up tidings of love and joy in their ground-breaking series of documentaries about the passions of real-life lovers.

Then, join us around the corner for a cup of holiday cheer.















Screening - 7pm:
Pioneer Theater
155 E. Third Street (@ Avenue A), NYC

Afterparty - 9 pm:
China 1
50 Avenue B (@ Fourth Street), NYC

More info and tickets are here!

Finally, some 2257 sanity!

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals injected a good dollop of sanity into the ongoing legal wrangling over the 2257 federal record-keeping statutes, yesterday declaring them overly broad and unconstitutional.

Responding to government contentions that the regulations are necessary in fighting child pornography and that the laws place restrictions on conduct rather than speech, the court responded that these arguments are not persuasive. As reported in XBIZ, Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy, writing for the majority, points out that child pornography may more likely be considered conduct because the underlying conduct is illegal. She then gives us this money quote:

“Adult sexual conduct is not illegal and it is in fact constitutionally protected … The regulation of visual depictions of adult sexual activity is not based on its intrinsic relation to illegal conduct. It is, therefore, a regulation of speech, because both the photograph and the taking of a photograph ‘bear … [a] necessary relationship to the freedom to speak, write, print or distribute information or opinion.’”

A perusal of the court's 27-page decision reveals more thoughtful consideration on the sweeping reach of the statutes, their chilling effects on free expression and the right to anonymity.

With greater analysis and updated FAQs still to come from the Free Speech Coalition, industry experts caution that the ruling applies to the 6th Circuit district only - and there's the likelihood of continued government appeals - and one has to wonder about those adult sexual activities not always considered to be legal conduct. Still, reason for some celebration indeed!

What's 2257 divided by 13?

And, once again, does it matter if you're a primary or a secondary producer?

We imagine we could claim some numerologically-significant superstition that prevents us from spending Friday the 13th dissecting the latest decision from the DoJ on 2257 regulations, which landed in our metaphorical laps yesterday. But to be honest, we'd really rather just declare the rest of the day a "summer Friday" and make sure we've got all our provisions laid up for tomorrow's Bi Bare Beach Bash at Sandy Hook's naked nude clothing-optional beach.

Fortunately, several others out there are already doing the heavy lifting. We'll just pass these links along, then print out the pages and stick them in our bag with the SPF30. Nothing like a little, light beach reading!

Proposed 2257 Regulation Changes Contain Compromises, Complications - Darklady for YNOT

New Proposed 2257 Regs Published - XBIZ

Atty. J.D. Obenberger Comments on Proposed 2257 Changes - AVN

Meet you back here next week with some coherent bullet points?

Yeah, so where do you get off?!

Quite alot of twisted knickers seems to be the result of a new video promoting European filmmaking. A rapid montage of sex scene clips builds and, er, climaxes to the slogan "Let's come together." Granted, the end image of an apparently male-only audience in rapt attention left us a wee bit skeeved, but we suspect much of the reported outrage was piqued by the inclusion of lovers that fall outside of strictly heterosexual and HWP parameters.

Or then again, maybe it's just any excuse for nationalism. Reports The Guardian:

Godfrey Bloom of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party described the film as "cheap, tawdry and tacky" and demanded to know the cost to European taxpayers. "You might say it's appropriate for them to put out films like this," he told the Sun newspaper. "Brussels has been screwing the UK for at least 30 years."

We probably shouldn't take comfort in this, but we're finding it oddly uplifting to know that moralistic posturing isn't restricted solely to this side of the pond.

Say what you will

Sorta, especially if it's in the form of a fleeting expletive. So said a federal appeals panel as it struck down Federal Communication Commission policies that had, in recent years, taken a tougher stance on so-called obscenties spoken on broadcast television and radio.

The challenge to the FCC indecency fines related specifically to utterances by such celebrity luminaries as Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie appearing on live awards broadcasts, generally involving variations on your basic "f-word" theme.

Reversing decades of a more lenient policy, the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules.

But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

As we sit back and ponder what might constitute a "reasonable person," we eagerly anticipate what ruling might soon come down on the matter of another celebrity's fleeting, bare nipple.

A little 2257 clarity?

Over at A Savage Place, there's a good bullet-point overview of last week's ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzalez, the organization's challenge of the revised 2257 regulations. (Hat tip Viviane's Sex Carnival)

In many ways a set-back for the FSC, the ruling does provide several points of clarity, giving definitions for several terms that have had many producers (and even so-called secondary producers - whatever those are) scratching their heads in wonder. Perhaps most immediately significant:

While producers do have to keep copies of the IDs of performers on file, they're allowed to blot out the day and month of the performer's birthdate and the performer's SSN and home address on those copies. That's a huge deal -- otherwise, think of the potential for identity theft and stalking if and when those records are released to "secondary producers", including retail outlets -- and I think it'll make the new 2257 regs a lot more palatable to people.

Meanwhile, a bit more eye-crossingly detailed, a memorandum on the ruling prepared by AVN's legal correspondent carefully emphasizes the most pertinent elements of the ruling and explains the implications of the case's rather convoluted "procedural posture." Bottom line?

...The court allowed FSC until April 16th to show why the law, as amended, is unconstitutional; and until the end of April for the government to reply. Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections.

Can we just go back to talking about our favorite kinky movies now?

COPA smackdown!

Last week a federal judge struck down the Child Online Protection Act, ruling that it was overly broad and unconstitutional. As reported in the New York Times: “Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”

The decision is the result of a legal challenge, filed by the ACLU and several other plaintiffs, which had been underway since shortly after COPA became law in 1998. Under the provisions of COPA , websites would face severe penalties for failing to restrict access to "materials harmful to minors," with such a broad definition as to go beyond the usual (already suspect) standards of obscenity to possibly include mere nudity.

(Alright, we know the old adage about laws and sausages, but we just had to look. Here's an actual COPA passage: "...depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and...")

With the growth of web-based video sites and online distribution, the ruling is a definite positive, not just for our friends in the porn adult entertainment industry, but for every filmmaker looking to push even the slightest provocative edge - "Oh, my. Is that a post-pubescent female breast?!?" - in their work.

But before you start getting too jiggy on the internet, keep in mind that, despite seeming beliefs to the contrary, a particularly onerous obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act still remains on the books, along with the lingering possibility of receiving an unexpected and most unwelcome greeting from a western Pennsylvia-based prosecutor's office.

And, of course, there's all that 2257 rigamoral to be sorted out.

But still, a smackdown is a smackdown. Prost!