Conference moira::naturism

145.0. "Nudity Labeling..." by MTA::SAPIENZA (Knowledge applied is wisdom gained.) Mon Mar 06 1989 14:43

    
       Just read this news article and thought it would be of interest
    to the noters/readers here. I'm especially curious to know what
    effect it might have on naturist publications such as CwS, etc.
    Feel free to enter your comments as replies to this note.
    
    
    Frank

    

                          Media Face Nudity Labeling
                              By Paul D. Colford
                      as appears in Long Island Newsday,
                        Part II, Page 3, March 6 1989
    
                       [Reprinted without permission.]
    
    When Congress passed a tough anti-drug bill last fall, few imagined
    that the measure would prompt a coalition of media interests to
    consider a class-action suit against the government of the United
    States. But a controversial rider to the bill has done just that. 
    
    The little-known amendment incorporated recommendations of the Meese
    Commission on Pornography. It stipulates that any printed or
    audiovisual product that contains "lascivious exhibition of the
    genitals or pubic area of any person" will have to carry a statement
    noting where the attorney general may examine records proving that
    those depicted are not minors. 
    
    That provision, and several others in the amendment, has publishers,
    retailers, magazine distributors and others sounding an alarm that the
    law will require burdensome recordkeeping, chill free expression and
    intrude on press freedoms protected by the First Amendment. The
    labeling requirement is scheduled to go into effect in August. 
    
    In recent weeks, librarians and others who believe they will be
    affected by the amendment, known as the Child Protection and Obscenity
    Enforcement Act, have been meeting to discuss its ramifications and
    decide what action to take. According to sources familiar with the
    meetings, the lead attorney in the anticipated suit will be Bruce
    Ennis, who is known for his work on First Amendment cases; possible
    co-plaintiffs include the American Library Association, the American
    Booksellers Association, the Magazine Photographers Association, the
    Magazine Publishers Association and several other large trade and
    professional organizations. 
    
    "The whole thing's a mess," said Judith Krug, director of the American
    Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom. As Krug sees it,
    the law would preclude any display and availability of anything with
    full frontal nudity, particularly views of the pubic area, whether
    medical texts or art books. 
    
    "Labeling is in direct violation of our principles," she said, because
    it stigmatizes the material for consumers. "We believe they should make
    up their own minds." 
    
    "Of course we are concerned about it, because it concerns intellectual
    freedom," said Lauren Moye, a spokeswoman for the New York Public
    Library. 
    
    Retailers wonder if Playboy magazine, films that contains some nudity
    or even, say, published prints of Michelangelo's frescoes will have to
    be tagged as sexually explicit when the labeling requirement goes into
    effect. In addition, the need to label all potentially actionable
    material produced since 1978 presents a daunting logistical problem for
    business that have large inventories. 
    
    Failure to comply may bring serious penalties, including fines, prison
    terms and forfeiture of property. 
    
    "I am positive that the vast majority, rather than take a chance, will
    discontinue anything with nude pictures," said Maxwell J.
    Lillientstein, general counsel of the American Booksellers Association.
    "It would be simpler than having to constantly monitor which
    publications have the legend and which do not." 
    
    Producers and distributors of materials that may come under the law's
    purview say they find themselves in an awkward position. That is, they
    welcome the effort to curb child pornography and to penalize those who
    profit from it, but they object to language in the law that they
    believe needlessly complicates their own activities. 
    
    For example, the section dealing with labeling says that a magazine,
    book or video produced since 1978 which contains sexually explicit
    "visual depictions" must have a statement noting who is responisble for
    keeping records on the individuals shown. Those records must include
    original documents such as birth certificates and a list of all
    pseudonyms that the depicted persons might have used. 
    
    The statement must go in books and magazines "on the first page that
    appears after the front cover," according to guidelines drafted by the
    attorney general. "All films and videotapes shall contain the statement
    ... before the opening scene." 
    
    "The bookseller now has to know which of his many books contain
    sexually explicit pictures and he has to make sure that they have the
    required legend on them," Lillienstein said. "If there is nudity, but
    there is no legend on the material, I, as an attorney, would have to
    say they are at risk." 
    
    Although backers of the amendment maintain that it was designed to
    target only adult bookstores and suppliers of hardcore pornography,
    critics fear that the law provides an all-too-encompassing definition
    of who is, in the law's words, "engaged in the business" of selling or
    distributing obscene material. 
    
    The law says that the offer to sell or transfer "at one time" two or
    more copies of an obscene publication, or a total of five or more
    publications and articles, "shall create a rebuttable presumption that
    the person so offering them is 'engaged in the busines' " of selling
    obscene matter. 
    
    One of the architects of language in the bill -- Paul J. McNulty,
    minority councel to the House Judiciary Committee's subcomittee on
    crime -- said he thinks it unlikely that Playboy or any mainstream
    trade books or textbooks will need to be labeled, because the new
    legislation does not toughen the definition of what is obscene beyond
    what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. 
    
    "To take this legislation and see it expanding into legitimate
    periodical, retail, video and distributor areas in unthinkable,"
    McNulty said, "because, even with regard to [combating] hardcore
    pornography, the government's resources are already limited." 
    
    "You'd have to be in the porn business to be concerned," said Paul
    McGeady, general counsel to Morality in Media, one of many groups that
    applauded the anti-obscenity language. 
    
    The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act resulted from the
    findings and recommendations released three years ago by Attorney
    General Edwin Meese III's Commission on Pornography. 
    
    Tacked by the Senate onto the otherwise popular anti-drug bill, the
    original wording of the obscenity amendment delayed passage of the law
    by the House of Representatives until the wee hours of Saturday, Oct.
    22. The vote, 346-11, was preceded by daylong negotiations between
    lawmakers who favored strong anti-obscenity language and those who
    feared the measure would endow the government with excessive powers
    against vendors who inadvertently carried materials found to be obscene
    under the Supreme Court's 1973 guidelines. 
    
    "The real concerns are how this law will interfere with the conduct of
    business," said Oren Teicher, executive director of Americans for
    Constitutional Freedom. 
    
    Others, though satisfied that the bill is not aimed at mainstream video
    and bookstores on every village green, have still voiced only cautious
    acceptance. 
    
    Burton Wides, a Washington lawyer who represents the Video Software
    Dealers Association and the National Association of Record
    Merchandisers, said "We'll have to see how prosecutors and judges
    interpret and try to carry out the law." 

                                 **********
    
   Accompanying the article is a 3/4 page picture of Michelangelo's statue
   of 'David'. (Which, if you're not familiar with it, is basically a
   statue of a naked man, with genitals fully exposed. NOTE: Art lovers
   please don't get on my case about this generalized description of the
   statue.) The caption to the photograph says: 

         "Some critics of the measure are concerned that the labeling
         requirement could extend to works of art: Would Michelangelo's
         'David' require a label?" 
    

    I believe the key phrase as quoted is "lascivious exhibition." 
    The American Heritage Dictionary defines lascivious as "Lewd;
    Lecherous."  I hardly believe that a "reasonable third party" (which
    is the most frequently used testin a court of law) would consider
    pictures of adults and children in a nudist camp/nude beach to be
    "lewd," or "lecherous."  Although this is a Federal bill, similar
    laws have been enacted in various states, without the deleterious
    effects on publications like CWS, the Bulletin, etc.
    
    I am sure that the law will be tested very quickly, after it has
    been enacted.  And except (hopefully) for the pornographers, it
    will be business as usual.
    
    Jack

    
    This really scares me!
    
    One: I see a steady erosion of rights guaranteed in the Bill of
    Rights. This situation is only one example.
    
    two: In some ways it is even scarier that they will *not* be trying
    to enforce the law completely. This lulls everyone onto thinking
    "Oh it's all right, they just want to put that sleazy bookstore
    downtown out of business." The problem with this thinking is that
    it allows these laws to be enacted an they collect on the books
    like time bombs. Sooner or later some fanatic will rise and use
    them against his opponents. These opponents could be perfectly good
    and honest citizens like you or me!