Bullshit!

The sixth season of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! kicks off tonight with the "The War on Porn," described thusly:

"Radical feminists claim porn leads to violence; rabid right-wingers claim it leads to addiction; and even former boy toy Donna Rice claims it’s hurting the children. None of these groups have any proof to back up their claims, but they’ve convinced the government to waste your money and invade your privacy while going after something that should be perfectly legal."



The episode debuts tonight at 10 pm, with multiple repeats.

(via Thomas Roche via XBiz)

Feel the shag between your toes!

From the Brighton Port Authority, the music video for Toe Jam, featuring a little David Byrne, some Dizzee Rascal, lots more 1970s aesthetics and inspiration to hire a choreographer for our next sex party!

Action Alert! Contact CBS and support Swingtown

Conservative media watch-groups and religious political extremists are already hard at work trying to get Swingtown pulled from the air. While we don't necessarily like to send them traffic, from the America Family Association there's this and from the Parents Television Council we have this little gem.

To counter the form letter complaints that are right now making their way into the FCC folders of various local CBS affiliates, now would be a good time to send a brief note of your support of the show. As a former programming director for a small-town station in a largely conservative market, we can assure you that your positive input will be most welcome!

See below for the how-to particulars and feel free to spread this info widely:

***
NCSF Entertainment Media Update for "Swingtown"

Show Title: Swingtown
Episode Title: "Pilot"
Original airdate: June 5, 2008
Series continues: Thursday, 10 pm
Network: CBS
Produced by: CBS Paramount Television
Executive Producers: Michael Kelley, Allen Poul and Carol Barbee

Description:
From the program's website - "SWINGTOWN, from the director of 'Big Love' and 'Rome,' traces two generations of friends and neighbors as they forge intimate connections and explore new freedoms during the culturally transformative decade of the 1970s. It portrays the ever-shifting "swing" of the pendulum that reflected the change in America's collective value system -- morally, politically and socially. After moving to an upscale lakeside Chicago suburb in July of 1976, Susan and Bruce Miller must confront temptation in the form of their provocative new neighbors, Tom and Trina Decker, while not abandoning their old friends Janet and Roger Thompson. As the adult couples evaluate whether to embrace or avoid newfound personal freedoms, the curious Miller and Thompson children begin to discover and assert their own morality and sexual identities as they come of age in a world on the precipice of change. In a shifting social climate -- defined by its music, fashion and style -- everyone in SWINGTOWN is confronted with personal choices, experimentation and varying attitudes."

More info, including clips and the most recent episode of the show, can be found at:
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/swingtown/


NCSF Reviewer's Note:
Originally intended for a cable network outlet, "Swingtown" has obviously been retooled to meet broadcast standards and withstand certain scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Nonetheless, while it shies away from nudity and direct depictions, the show still manages to take a refreshingly positive approach to sexual exploration and freedom. The most adventurous couple of the three featured, the Deckers, is presented as sharing a mutual enjoyment of their open marriage and seem to have a healthy, affectionate relationship. Similarly the Millers, introduced to the swing lifestyle in the first episode, are shown to be in love, but just seeking a little something to rev up their sex life.

It's a little difficult to predict where the series will go over the course of its initial 13-episode run, but given how quickly the Millers jump into the action - counter to what most swingers themselves would counsel - there are sure to be complications ahead. While there are likely some consequences to be faced down the line, hopefully the show will maintain the sex-positive tone it exhibited in its premiere episode.

In light of complaints already being registered from media watch groups and religious political extremists, the CBS network and its local affiliates deserve commendation for airing "Swingtown" and should be encouraged to continue its broadcast. (Reviewed by Lisa Vandever, NCSF Media Committee)


CRITICAL ACTION - GIVE FEEDBACK ON SWINGTOWN TO YOUR LOCAL CBS AFFILIATE:

Find your station here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/31/utility/main517034.shtml

(Hard copy letters are generally more effective, but sending an email is better than nothing.)


ADDITIONAL ACTION - GIVE FEEDBACK ON SWINGTOWN TO THE CBS NETWORK:

CBS Television Network
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019

(While hard copy letters are generally more effective, you can also send a direct email to the network via a form on their website - http://www.cbs.com/info/user_services/fb_global_form.shtml.)


YOU CAN ALSO LEAVE INPUT VIA THE "SWINGTOWN" COMMUNITY MESSAGE BOARD:
http://www.cbs.com/primetime/swingtown/community/
(requires email registration)


HOW TO WRITE VIEWER FEEDBACK
Viewer letters are an effective way to convey a positive image of alternate sexual practices such as SM, swinging or polyamory. Your feedback can help to correct negative social myths and misconceptions about these types of practices, and may influence the future decisions of programmers and producers about the entertainment they provide. These letters help achieve the advocacy goals of the NCSF.

For more information and suggestions of points to include in your letter, see:
http://www.ncsfreedom.org/index.php?option=com_keyword&id=182

Please alert us to positive, negative or neutral stories about SM, swinging and polyamory at media@ncsfreedom.org

***
A joint Project of NCSF and ITCR: The Foundation of NCSF

The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination because of their sexual expression.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
822 Guilford Avenue, Box 127
Baltimore, MD 21202-3707
410-539-4824
media@ncsfreedom.org
www.ncsfreedom.org

The revolution will not be televised, but can be seen on various cable outlets.

A sprawling, four-part documentary, Sex: The Revolution, takes on just that when it airs on VH1 this week.

We missed the first episode ourselves, but as with all things VH1, repeats are a-plenty and there's still time to set your dvr! Or, if you're feeling a little more highbrow, catch the encores when they're broadcast on the Sundance Channel next week.

Starting with the sexual repression of the 1950s and moving into the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, the series promises to "... explore a time in American history that challenged centuries of traditional morality about sex. A time that eradicated people's fear, loathing and ignorance about sex. A time that promoted unprecedented sexual honesty and expression. And in the end, a time when laws were changed and rulings made to end censorship and legal retribution for people's private sexual behavior."

How much of a back-sliding we've experienced since then we'll try not to contemplate. And turn our attention instead to this clip from the series about Barbarella and the sexual trends that the movie exemplified:


video.vh1.com

Um. Pornography is in focus?

A twist on an old joke has cropped up around CineKink, surfacing more frequently around festival submission time:

"What's the difference between art and pornography?"

"Pornography arrives with its 2257 compliance properly identified."

Bah dump bump.

Anyway...an expansion on some of the topics we discussed during our recent SXSW panel, The Porn Police: Know the Rules, an article by attorney Alan Levy has just been published in The Yale Law Journal.

First tracing the history of federal 2257 record-keeping regulations and its recent judicial back-and-forths, the article then goes into the implications that they present to all filmmakers, including those working with actual and with simulated depictions of sexual conduct.

Mainstream filmmakers should be especially concerned with the language of the most recent published § 2257 regulations, in which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wrote, “Section 2257A requires that producers of visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct maintain records documenting that performers in those depictions not be minors.” Does this mean that a noted film such as Taxi Driver, in which a twelve-year-old Jodi Foster portrays a thirteen-year-old prostitute, is unlawful? What about the more recent controversial film Hounddog, which premiered at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival and portrayed twelve-year-old Dakota Fanning as a rape victim? Even a film nominated for Best Picture at the 2008 Academy Awards may be affected by § 2257A. Atonement has one scene of explicit simulated sexual conduct involving actress Juno Temple, who was seventeen years of age at the time of filming.

While filmmakers working in the adult arena are, for the most part, all too aware of the regulations, their existence seems to escape notice of documentarians who occasionally stumble into the realm of actual sexual conduct. (And again, we ask, what the hell does that mean?) And with the expansions presented by 2257A, a huge new class of fiction filmmakers is folded into the mix.

For all, it is critical to know both the rules and the risks - and to work together in protesting their chilling presence.

To read more of Alan's article: How “Swingers” Might Save Hollywood from a Federal Pornography Statute

Too hot for Dallas!

The perennial crowd-pleaser and CineKink award winner, Filthy Food, has run into another flap of controversy, this time at the AFI Dallas International Film Festival.

According to director T. Arthur Cottam, the trailer for the film was prevented from being posted to the event's website for fear of offending AFI Dallas sponsors and the already printed cover for Day 3 of the festival's newspaper was ordered destroyed and replaced because it prominently featured an image (above!) from the film. (A bootleg copy of the original cover has been posted to the Dirty Little Shorts Yahoo Group.)

But an interview with T. - and a red carpet photo with a giant banana - did make its way into Day 11 of the AFI Dallas Daily News and touches upon controversies past and present. From the intro:

A nectarine, a banana, cookie dough – all banned. All forbidden to be shown onscreen at a film festival in Italy because they apparently would end civil society as we know it (or at least, as the Italians know it). That is the talent of T. Arthur Cottam and his film, FILTHY FOOD, in a nutshell. By the sheer weight of his presentation, he made some fruit and some dough naughty. More than naughty – disgusting, even.

Judge for yourself. You can watch the trailer, below. Or visit Atom Films to watch the smutty masterpiece in its glorious entirety!

Yay, um... Fox?

Fox Television is standing firm (sorry) in the face of a $91,000 fine thrust (yep!) upon it by the Federal Communications Commission for a single episode of its reality series, Married by America.

Despite Fox's argument that the material in question was not statutorily indecent, an FCC analyst maintained:
Even with Fox's editing, the episode includes scenes in which partygoers lick whipped cream from strippers' bodies in a sexually suggestive manner. Another scene features a man on all fours in his underwear as two female strippers playfully spank him. Although the episode electronically obscures any nudity, the sexual nature of the scenes is inescapable, as the strippers attempt to lure partygoers into sexually compromising situations.
(taken from Variety via Defamer)

While that might sound like the plot-line of your typical mid-season replacement sitcom - "the guys run amuck!" - the amount of the fine was originally $1.2 million, levied to include all 169 stations, at $7,000 each, airing the 2003 episode. That amount has since been reduced by the FCC so that only the 13 stations that ostensibly received complaints would be fined, but even that degree of outcry is suspect. Through just a bit of sleuthing, journalist Jeff Jarvis uncovered that the number of complaints was not 159, but merely 23. And of those, all but two were identical form letters, boiling down to three original complaints out of millions viewing.

Instead of paying the reduced amount, Fox will file a request that the FCC completely reconsider the fine. In another case currently pending Supreme Court review, Fox also successfully sued the agency over a new restriction on "fleeting" expletives.

The world watches. (Or pretends otherwise, but secretly Tivos.)

Warm tidings of comfort and joy!

Tonight... CineKink @ Pioneer presents a holiday double-header of works from Comstock Films, offering up tidings of love and joy in their ground-breaking series of documentaries about the passions of real-life lovers.

Then, join us around the corner for a cup of holiday cheer.















Screening - 7pm:
Pioneer Theater
155 E. Third Street (@ Avenue A), NYC

Afterparty - 9 pm:
China 1
50 Avenue B (@ Fourth Street), NYC

More info and tickets are here!

Finally, some 2257 sanity!

The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals injected a good dollop of sanity into the ongoing legal wrangling over the 2257 federal record-keeping statutes, yesterday declaring them overly broad and unconstitutional.

Responding to government contentions that the regulations are necessary in fighting child pornography and that the laws place restrictions on conduct rather than speech, the court responded that these arguments are not persuasive. As reported in XBIZ, Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy, writing for the majority, points out that child pornography may more likely be considered conduct because the underlying conduct is illegal. She then gives us this money quote:

“Adult sexual conduct is not illegal and it is in fact constitutionally protected … The regulation of visual depictions of adult sexual activity is not based on its intrinsic relation to illegal conduct. It is, therefore, a regulation of speech, because both the photograph and the taking of a photograph ‘bear … [a] necessary relationship to the freedom to speak, write, print or distribute information or opinion.’”

A perusal of the court's 27-page decision reveals more thoughtful consideration on the sweeping reach of the statutes, their chilling effects on free expression and the right to anonymity.

With greater analysis and updated FAQs still to come from the Free Speech Coalition, industry experts caution that the ruling applies to the 6th Circuit district only - and there's the likelihood of continued government appeals - and one has to wonder about those adult sexual activities not always considered to be legal conduct. Still, reason for some celebration indeed!

What's 2257 divided by 13?

And, once again, does it matter if you're a primary or a secondary producer?

We imagine we could claim some numerologically-significant superstition that prevents us from spending Friday the 13th dissecting the latest decision from the DoJ on 2257 regulations, which landed in our metaphorical laps yesterday. But to be honest, we'd really rather just declare the rest of the day a "summer Friday" and make sure we've got all our provisions laid up for tomorrow's Bi Bare Beach Bash at Sandy Hook's naked nude clothing-optional beach.

Fortunately, several others out there are already doing the heavy lifting. We'll just pass these links along, then print out the pages and stick them in our bag with the SPF30. Nothing like a little, light beach reading!

Proposed 2257 Regulation Changes Contain Compromises, Complications - Darklady for YNOT

New Proposed 2257 Regs Published - XBIZ

Atty. J.D. Obenberger Comments on Proposed 2257 Changes - AVN

Meet you back here next week with some coherent bullet points?

Yeah, so where do you get off?!

Quite alot of twisted knickers seems to be the result of a new video promoting European filmmaking. A rapid montage of sex scene clips builds and, er, climaxes to the slogan "Let's come together." Granted, the end image of an apparently male-only audience in rapt attention left us a wee bit skeeved, but we suspect much of the reported outrage was piqued by the inclusion of lovers that fall outside of strictly heterosexual and HWP parameters.

Or then again, maybe it's just any excuse for nationalism. Reports The Guardian:

Godfrey Bloom of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party described the film as "cheap, tawdry and tacky" and demanded to know the cost to European taxpayers. "You might say it's appropriate for them to put out films like this," he told the Sun newspaper. "Brussels has been screwing the UK for at least 30 years."

We probably shouldn't take comfort in this, but we're finding it oddly uplifting to know that moralistic posturing isn't restricted solely to this side of the pond.

Say what you will

Sorta, especially if it's in the form of a fleeting expletive. So said a federal appeals panel as it struck down Federal Communication Commission policies that had, in recent years, taken a tougher stance on so-called obscenties spoken on broadcast television and radio.

The challenge to the FCC indecency fines related specifically to utterances by such celebrity luminaries as Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie appearing on live awards broadcasts, generally involving variations on your basic "f-word" theme.

Reversing decades of a more lenient policy, the commission had found that the mere utterance of certain words implied that sexual or excretory acts were carried out and therefore violated the indecency rules.

But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”

As we sit back and ponder what might constitute a "reasonable person," we eagerly anticipate what ruling might soon come down on the matter of another celebrity's fleeting, bare nipple.

A little 2257 clarity?

Over at A Savage Place, there's a good bullet-point overview of last week's ruling in Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzalez, the organization's challenge of the revised 2257 regulations. (Hat tip Viviane's Sex Carnival)

In many ways a set-back for the FSC, the ruling does provide several points of clarity, giving definitions for several terms that have had many producers (and even so-called secondary producers - whatever those are) scratching their heads in wonder. Perhaps most immediately significant:

While producers do have to keep copies of the IDs of performers on file, they're allowed to blot out the day and month of the performer's birthdate and the performer's SSN and home address on those copies. That's a huge deal -- otherwise, think of the potential for identity theft and stalking if and when those records are released to "secondary producers", including retail outlets -- and I think it'll make the new 2257 regs a lot more palatable to people.

Meanwhile, a bit more eye-crossingly detailed, a memorandum on the ruling prepared by AVN's legal correspondent carefully emphasizes the most pertinent elements of the ruling and explains the implications of the case's rather convoluted "procedural posture." Bottom line?

...The court allowed FSC until April 16th to show why the law, as amended, is unconstitutional; and until the end of April for the government to reply. Therefore, any time after May 1, 2007, the court may rule that secondary producers are required to have copies of the records, have them indexed, and be subject to inspections.

Can we just go back to talking about our favorite kinky movies now?

COPA smackdown!

Last week a federal judge struck down the Child Online Protection Act, ruling that it was overly broad and unconstitutional. As reported in the New York Times: “Despite my personal regret at having to set aside yet another attempt to protect our children from harmful material,” Judge Reed wrote, he was blocking the law out of concern that “perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”

The decision is the result of a legal challenge, filed by the ACLU and several other plaintiffs, which had been underway since shortly after COPA became law in 1998. Under the provisions of COPA , websites would face severe penalties for failing to restrict access to "materials harmful to minors," with such a broad definition as to go beyond the usual (already suspect) standards of obscenity to possibly include mere nudity.

(Alright, we know the old adage about laws and sausages, but we just had to look. Here's an actual COPA passage: "...depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and...")

With the growth of web-based video sites and online distribution, the ruling is a definite positive, not just for our friends in the porn adult entertainment industry, but for every filmmaker looking to push even the slightest provocative edge - "Oh, my. Is that a post-pubescent female breast?!?" - in their work.

But before you start getting too jiggy on the internet, keep in mind that, despite seeming beliefs to the contrary, a particularly onerous obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act still remains on the books, along with the lingering possibility of receiving an unexpected and most unwelcome greeting from a western Pennsylvia-based prosecutor's office.

And, of course, there's all that 2257 rigamoral to be sorted out.

But still, a smackdown is a smackdown. Prost!

Um. Wow.

On our way out of the multiplex the other day, we noticed the rather demure posters for This Film is Not Yet Rated and a banner instructing us to visit IFC.com to see the posters "they wouldn't let us show you!" Later, in one of our regular moments of online procrastination, we actually remembered to do so.





We're not sure, but we assume that the "they" preventing you from seeing these posters in a theater lobby is the MPAA, the motion picture industry's trade association. And, using this instance as just an example, that might not be an entirely bad thing. While we're as down on censorship as anyone, we're not so keen on floating out of some dreamy rom-com to be smacked in the eye with a blazing image of seared flesh. (We should probably come clean with the revelation that branding is one of our own personal squick points.) (Come to think of it, both in the physical and in the marketing sense.)

But once we've left the town square and plopped down our $10.50 to see a particular film of our own adult-minded choosing, the determination of which images confront us should be left to the creativity of the filmmaker. And the process of classifying what is considered "adult" needs to be made transparent, so that filmmakers and audiences alike know where the line falls, as well as the how and the who behind that determination.

And that's where This Film is Not Yet Rated comes in. Directed by Kirby Dick--who holds a permanent place in our heart for the sensitive and engaging Sick: The Life and Death of Bob Flanagan, Supermasochist--the documentary delves into the whimsically arbitrary MPAA rating system and the power it wields over what we're ultimately allowed to see on the big screen. Featuring the candid anecdotes of such directors as John Waters, Kevin Smith, Matt Stone, Kimberly Pierce and Mary Harron, the film is particularly compelling in its look at the discrepancies in the MPAA's treatment of sex vs. violence and in an apparent aversion to homosexuality and the depiction of female sexual pleasure.

Opening in NYC and Los Angeles tomorrow, This Film is Not Yet Rated rolls out in several cities in the next weeks. Definitely make the effort to see it.