In the latest edition of The Pocket Part Professor Ann Bartow responds to Alan Levy’s earlier piece How”Swingers”Might Save Hollywood from a Federal Pornography Statute. Bartow argues so “eager was Levy to ‘save Hollywood’ from having to keep records to verify that performers engaging in actual sexually explicit conduct are legally adults, that he grossly distorted the meaning and effect of 18 U.S.C. § 2257.” She also argues that, “[i]ronically, while exaggerating the negative impact of § 2257, [Levy] simultaneously underestimated the problematic nature of a different statutory provision potentially requiring record keeping for performers who engage in simulated sexual conduct.”
A more detailed version of the linked essay is available here.
–Ann Bartow
It is not clear how asking requiring the proof of legality can be construed as an ABRIGING (shorening) act. If the act is proven legal, nothing is lost. If the act is not legal, the suposed act or behavior must be written into law, pass contitutioanlity, and thus become legal. Monetary concerns do not seem to have a place of contention in such a procedure. The confirming of legality, or the issuance of constitutional legality, would seem to be the opposite to abridgement. As a layperson my understanding of the word ABRIDGED may be flawed. Also the meaning of the words “comercial” and “distribute” have much weight. Those of us not versed in legal wrangling over the meanings should be able to understand intent, outcome, and ability to correct. So any faulty legilation can be altered or abollshed. Even Ben Franklin allowed that he made mistakes and must be corrected sometimes.
I hope my poor spelling does not indicate poor thought. I just am trying to understand this, please forgive my mistakes.
Poor spelling is one of the three signs of a brilliant mind. (The other two are bad handwriting and a messy desk).