HOLLYWOOD, CA – Approximately a month after Representative Mike Pence (R-IN) first proposed adding Bill H.R. 3726 to the Child’s Safety Act of 2005, the legislation finally seems to have registered on mainstream Hollywood’s legal radar.Referring to Pence’s provision as “tucked deep inside a massive bill,” the Hollywood Reporter ran a piece today acknowledging the expansion of 2257 record keeping requirements which would take place were the bill to pass – an expansion that would have the effect of forcing Hollywood studios to comply with 2257 regulations, and eliminate a treasured federal tax break which is not available to productions subject to 2257.

Film industry representatives speaking anonymously with the Reporter fretted about the potential impact of the legislation, as well as the stigma that would come along with being pegged as creators of “sexually explicit” content.

“It’s a significant and unprecedented expansion of the scope of the law,” one of the unidentified executives said. “I don’t think the studios would like being grouped in with the hardcore porn industry.”

Many attorneys and critics of the proposed legislation have noted that the language of Pence’s bill could lead to a non-explicit sex scene being subject to 2257 requirements, even if the performers of the scene in question were clothed. While the troubling language in question is ostensibly designed to apply to “lascivious presentation of the genitals,” some recent legal decisions have held that a “lascivious presentation” can still occur, even if the genitals are covered.

“From the creative side of the street, there’s concern that the government of federal law enforcement would get involved in what you were doing,” one industry source told the Reporter. “At some point, people would be faced with the decision: ‘Do I include the scene and register a 2257 or leave it out?’”

Scenes with mere simulated sex, which is common in Hollywood movies, would also be subject to 2257 under the Pence provision.

In an interview with YNOT last month, First Amendment attorney Larry Walters pointed out that the bill also changes the existing language in the 2257 regulations which exempts mere distributors of adult content, such as retail stores and video rental outlets, making it possible that mere distributors would fall under 2257 record-keeping requirements should the provision be enacted. Although there are differing legal opinions regarding the ramifications of this provision in terms of mere distribution, such an interpretation could lead to all kinds of new record-keepers under 2257, possibly even Blockbuster Video.

Rep. Pence would rather focus on the supposed benefit the bill would present to those fighting the battle against child pornography, saying on his website that the legislation serves to “close a loophole that exists in federal law today that allows pornographers who produce child pornography at home with digital cameras, Polaroid cameras, or video cameras, downloaded on their home computers, to actually escape prosecution.”

“It’s time to protect the kids, it’s time to move the Child Safety Act, and it’s time to pass the Child Pornography Prevention Act as part of it.”

Hollywood executives, sounding very much like their peers in the adult entertainment sector, question how the proposed legislation, or the 2257 requirements themselves for that matter, would have any impact on the production or distribution of actual child pornography.

“Guys who are making this stuff don’t care about reporting requirements,” one source observed in the Reporter article. “When they’re caught, they’re looking at 30 years in prison. There’s no indication they’re going to fill out the paperwork.”