Magazine Article	Articles Archive

Who would guess a nearly 20-year-old U.S. porn law would suddenly leap out as a threat to gay cruising sites? But the porn record-keeping law, which mandates elaborate records for anyone depicted in sexual conduct, is only one of a number of the legal weapons -- forged in the sex wars -- that are finding unexpected second lives in new domains.

Twinned at birth?

In America, sex-offenders have to register with the state, are subject to continual public exposure and shaming, and may be raided and searched by the police at any time. That's to say, they increasingly share a status with anyone who appears in sexually-explicit images. Porn record-keeping rules make porn actors and producers more and more like registered sex-offenders. Both face raids at any time. Both forfeit their privacy. And both are subject to harassment for their sexuality.

O

View our poll archive

ne woman who stars from home on her own porno webcam reports getting an average of 1500 hits on her site's record-keeping compliance page. "This is either the work of one very dedicated FBI agent who visited that page dozens of times a day, day after day," notes "Taliesen," a former porn actor turned industry muse, "or it's an indication that thousands of individuals who have no right to know this woman's legal name and address now have access to that information."

"Particularly for women, it's like putting out a sign that says 'Come and stalk me,'" says Mark Kernes, senior editor of Adult Video News.

Fuzzy law

"Lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" is a concept as big as all outdoors. The phraseology was invented to snare more images as kiddie porn -- the only area where it was invoked. The Supreme Court did its part, agreeing in 1995 to the notion that such "exhibitions" could be photos of models completely clothed. Now the 2006 Adam Walsh Act repurposes the concept as a weapon especially against portrayals of SM and bestiality. Non-explicit images on such themes can now be prosecuted for violating records rules -- for being "lascivious exhibitions" -- with penalties up to five years per image. Yet those rules might be expected not to apply because the actors are, say, fully clothed and engaged in, say, whipping or petting rather than overt sex.

Ideas that can't be questioned

Ideas so bad you're a criminal to have them. Over the past generation, images of young people expressing their sexuality have been declared so toxic that they're illegal to possess (even by young people themselves). An idea you're not allowed to have -- now that's a legal doctrine too nifty to sit at home alone on a Saturday night! Sure enough, Gordon Brown has asked it out on a date. Britain's Labor government is pushing to extend the possession ban to "extreme" erotica depicting violence or pain. "Extreme" porn offenders would end up on the UK sex-offender register, be subject to police raids anytime, and could forfeit the right to leave the country.

Legal black holes for all

Civil commitment -- a way of locking up forever people who are sane, have no sentences hanging over them, but who might possibly commit crimes in the future. It's a concept initially invoked in the 1990s against people labeled "pedophiles." Speed ahead to the present and the new federal civil-commitment scheme, brought to you again by the 2006 Walsh Act. Proposed DOJ regulations issued this summer extend the scope of U.S. civil commitment to HIV-positive persons -- in custody for any reason -- who've ever had (even fully-protected, low-risk) sex without revealing their status. Because it's not "punishment," evidence can come from self-confession, hearsay, medical records, or any other source. Allegations need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, even though what's at stake is likely a life sentence.

Author Profile:  Bill Andriette
Bill Andriette is features editor of The Guide
Email:	theguide@guidemag.com