Related articles:

Senators kill bill to let victims sue video producers

Other articles by Howard Fischer:

2 bishops urge OK of ballot ban on gay marriages Lawsuit could void photo-radar tickets Judge to keep hands off election-fund law, for nowBiz finances survived AZ smoking ban Phx. TV station wants to ease cameras' access to courtrooms Judge scraps part of Ariz. public-election law Affirmative-action foes give up on 2008 ballot Taxes collected in Arizona continue to shrink Attorney seeks end to public matching funds Judge stalls ballot mailing over Prop. 104

General
VALLEY PROTECTIVE SERVICES
SECURITY OFFICERS Health Care
Mountain Land Rehabilitation
Physical Therapist Education
CESAR CHAVEZ SCHOOL NETWORK
K-12 MUSIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR Health Care
Sonora Behavorial Health
Executive Assistant Driver/Transportation
Pioneer Landscaping
Dieel Fleet Mechanic Technical
Unitek USA
Satellite Installers Construction
Green Valley Heating & Cooling
HVAC Service Tech

PHOENIX — A measure aimed at the producers of videos that are said to encourage rape and other crimes is drawing fire from lobbyists from more traditional media.

The state Senate Judiciary Committee will consider legislation Monday that would allow the victims of crimes to sue those who produce, publish or distribute books, movies, music or any other items that are considered dangerous or obscene, if those items could be considered a cause of the attack on them.

Chandler attorney Keith Perkins said it is designed to financially penalize those who produce videos distributed on the Internet that he believes are a "how to" guide on committing rape.

Perkins, who runs The Never Again Foundation, which represents rape victims in civil suits, said people who profit from these materials should be held accountable.

But a representative for the Motion Picture Association of America, Wendy Briggs, said House Bill 2660 is overly broad.

She said the legislation, which already has been approved by the House, could result in lawsuits against people involved in mainstream movies.

Briggs, who also represents video-game producers, said they, too, could be liable for items she would consider harmless.

A lobbyist for the Arizona Newspapers Association, John Moody, has his own complaints. He said the wording of the measure could leave newspapers and TV stations open to lawsuits for their investigative reporting.

Perkins, however, said the legislation he crafted isn't aimed at them and couldn't be used against them.

HB 2660 imposes liability on those involved in and benefitting from material that they knew, should have known or recklessly disregarded a significant risk that the items would "substantially assist, encourage or result" in another person committing "an imminent act of terrorism or a felony offense."

Moody said that could easily result in a lawsuit because of an investigative story about security vulnerability at an airport, "how you could walk right in without ever being checked carrying weapons or a bomb or whatever and something were to occur in the wake of that story."

That, however, would not be sufficient for someone injured in such an incident to maintain a lawsuit under Perkins' legislation.

A plaintiff also would need to prove that the material was "a cause" of the attack, as well as that the item either was obscene or dangerous. And that latter category requires a showing the material "is found by clear and convincing evidence to incite or produce an imminent act of terrorism or a felony offense."

Briggs said she takes little comfort from that language, especially given that juries will be asked to decide not just what a movie or game producer or distributor knew, but what they should have known.

She used the example of an interactive video game that teaches someone how to fly a plane.

"Should I now be reasonably sure that that's going to incite somebody to commit an act of terror?" Briggs said. "What about a movie, or a book, that teaches you how to shoot a gun straight?"

And Briggs said even the new movie "21," which deals with how students managed to defeat casinos at blackjack, could be seen as fitting the definitions in HB 2660, since it explains the whole concept of card counting used.

Perkins, however, said the various requirements plaintiffs would have to meet to collect damages ensure that innocent companies will not be found guilty.

In fact, he said even the producers of what otherwise might be considered pornographic material would face no liability. The difference, he said, is that even movies that "show everything" are depicting acts considered consensual.

"There is nothing in there designed to persuade somebody to go out and commit a felony," Perkins said. "The stuff that we're talking about here is the violent, non-consensual, brutal, tortuous, I-will-take-you-regardless-of-what-you want" materials.

However, he said some rap lyrics in which artists talk about rape and killing probably would subject the producers to civil liability.

"If it is promoting and persuading someone to commit a felony … then I have no problem holding them accountable as well," Perkins said.

Moody said the fact that a defendant ultimately would prevail in court does not make the legislation more acceptable.

He said the measure might actually encourage crime victims to sue media companies because they are the "deep pockets," while the victims' actual assailants have no assets.