In fact, some legal pundits think the victory itself will be short-lived.
On Dec. 16, Hatch introduced S. 2140, a bill that he said would strengthen enforcement tools regulating online adult content on the Internet.
Among the new requirements sought by S. 2140, Hatch is looking to apply the same record-keeping requirements to those who produce depictions of simulated conduct, instead of just depictions of actual conduct as 2257 currently demands.
“I think [this bill] contains a big mistake in targeting simulated sexual activity,” attorney Joe Obenberger told XBiz. “Presently the only thing defined in 2257 is actual depicted content.”
Despite “the mistake,” however, Obenberger doesn’t see the bill as anymore than “window dressing.”
“I think Hatch has been misled,” Obenberger said. “He is insulated by so many layers of insulation that he might as well be at the North Pole. I think he thinks he is doing something positive and he’s not. This bill is just window dressing. It doesn’t really change anything.”
The bigger issue at hand, Obenberger said, is still the issue of secondary producer requirements laid out by 2257, which he said could be hard to beat, especially within the current administration.
One of the arguments laid out by FSC against this requirement has been based on privacy, which Obenberger doesn’t think will come out victorious in the end.
“I wish it were contrary, but the issue is: How much privacy does someone surrender when there are already laws on the books requiring that these records be stored and passed along to secondary producers?” Obenberger said. “I think the argument is that once they waive their right to privacy about what they sound and look like while engaged in sexual activity, then by operation of law they also are surrendering their privacy as to their identify for the transaction involving the sale of the images.”
