The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed H.R. 972, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, and some of its definitions could spell real trouble for the adult entertainment industry.
The main problem is the bill's use of the term "commercial sex act," for whose definition this bill directs the reader to the Trafficking Victims Protection law, 22 U.S.C. Sec. 7102(3). That section reads, "The term 'commercial sex act' means any sex act on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person."
That definition, of course, fits the activities in every adult feature ever made, where one or more people engage in masturbation, intercourse or similar behavior, and likely most of the action available on adult webcam sites as well.
While the beginning of H.R. 972 refers to international trafficking, which may cause troubles even for some industry personnel who facilitate the willing immigration of Europeans or Asians to the U.S. to appear in adult features, Title II of the bill relates to "Combatting Domestic Trafficking In Persons."
Recall that at both of the adult industry-related hearings which Sen. Sam Brownback has held this year, the senator made a point to ask various witnesses about whether human sex trafficking played any part in the adult entertainment industry, and he reported that he had met with a Los Angeles councilman to discuss that issue, without giving details.
Now comes the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act which, first of all, commands the U.S. Attorney General to conduct a study which addresses "sex trafficking and unlawful commercial sex acts in the United States," which is to include "the estimated number and demographic characteristics of persons engaged in sex trafficking and commercial sex acts, including purchasers of commercial sex acts"; "the estimated value in dollars of the commercial sex economy, including the estimated average annual personal income derived from acts of sex trafficking"; "the number of investigations, arrests, prosecutions, and incarcerations of persons engaged in sex trafficking and unlawful commercial sex acts, including purchasers of commercial sex acts, by States and their political subdivisions"; and "a description of the differences in the enforcement of laws relating to unlawful commercial sex acts across the United States."
Of course, the above list refers to "unlawful commercial sex acts" – but as adult producers well know, many states – notable exceptions are California and New York – have criminalized the making of an adult feature within their borders, and that last point to be included in the Attorney General's report will likely deal with those laws; although to what effect, we can't currently be sure.
And then there's the question of obscenity: If an adult tape or disk is found by a jury to be obscene, would that mean that the sex acts depicted therein would be found, retroactively, to have been unlawful commercial sex acts? We already know that it's impossible to tell, when making an adult movie, whether a jury will one day find it to be obscene. It's not a far stretch to imagine a judge declaring that a movie found to be obscene therefore contains unlawful commercial sex acts.
H.R. 972 also requires the Attorney General, in consultation and cooperation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to "conduct an annual conference in each of the fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and thereafter conduct a biennial conference, addressing severe forms of trafficking in persons and commercial sex acts that occur, in whole or in part, within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
In specific, one purpose of that conference is to "disseminate best methods and practices for training State and local law enforcement personnel on the enforcement of laws prohibiting sex trafficking and commercial sex acts, including, but not limited to, best methods for investigating and prosecuting exploiters and persons who solicit or purchase an unlawful commercial sex act."
Undoubtedly, that refers to pimps and johns of prostitutes – but does it also refer to people who make adult features that may one day be found to be obscene? Recall that H.R. 3726, which was later added as a rider to H.R. 3132, contains a section "prohibiting the production of obscenity as well as transportation, distribution, and sale." That section, if it survives its trip through the U.S. Senate, would allow the federal government to target the production of adult features within any state, rather than having to wait for the finished product to be shipped across state lines.
Since it's impossible to tell, when making an adult movie, whether it will someday be found to be obscene, and the commercial sex acts therein "unlawful," it seems likely that one thing the Attorney General and his conference participants will be investigating will be how the adult industry makes its features, who recruits the talent for them, and how those people are paid.
Anyway, H.R. 972, which was sponsored by right-wing favorite Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) and has 103 co-sponsors, appropriates $2.5 million per year for these studies, plus more stipends for associated expenses. The bill in its present form was sent to the Senate on Dec. 15 for action by that body, which likely won't occur until sometime in the new year.
Happy holidays!
