Arizona- State lawmakers are moving to let crime victims sue the publishers of books, movies and songs if they believe the items persuaded their attackers to break the law.

But the sponsor said producers of “mainstream” materials have nothing to fear.

HB 2660, sponsored by Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert, [pictured] would set up a three-part test to determine when the producers of certain items can be held civilly liable. advertisement

First, a jury must conclude that the materials would “promote or persuade” another person to commit terrorism or any felony. There also would have to be evidence the producer benefited from selling the material.

Finally, a plaintiff would have to prove the item “was a cause” in someone else committing the crime.

Keith Perkins, director of the Never Again Foundation, provided members of the House Judiciary Committee with a graphic description of videos that not only show individual and gang rape and violence against women but what he believes amount to a “how-to” instruction manual.

He even gave a copy of pictures from some of the videos to Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, chairman of the committee, to illustrate the kinds of activities in the videos, which can be downloaded from the Internet. Farnsworth took a quick look, said he was repulsed and returned the folder to Perkins.

Farnsworth also specifically refused to have the pictures put into evidence, as they would remain part of the permanent public record.

“Studies by the FBI have found that 81 percent of violent sexual offenders regularly viewed violent pornography,” Perkins told lawmakers. “Most of those who go out and commit violent sexual acts use these videos to incite them.”

Perkins said the legislation does not seek to charge the producers of these materials with crimes. But he said it is only fair that they pay their share of the damages, costs he said now are borne largely by the victims themselves and by society as a whole.

He said no civil charges could be brought against the publishers until some person actually has been convicted of a crime. Only at that point, Perkins said, would a victim have the chance to sue.

And Perkins said the additional requirements of having to show the item was dangerous and that it was a cause of the crime ensure that innocent companies will not be found guilty.

Perkins said those protections also ensure that even the producers of what otherwise might be considered pornographic material would face no liability.

The difference, he said, is 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).”

The liability is not limited to cases of rape. Any victim of any felony could sue.

But Perkins said he believes even graphic movies about violence, although clearly showing crimes being committed against non-consenting victims, would not fall within the law.

“Most of those, to me, seem like they would be more of a documentary nature,” he said. But Perkins said if a movie had the message of “going out and join this gang,” there might be liability.

He said, though, some “rap” lyrics where 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.

Only Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, voted against the measure, but not because of any First Amendment concerns, she said.

Sinema, the only woman on the committee, said she worked as a rape-crisis counselor for three years and said she has been threatened because of her outspoken position on some issues. According to her, the net effect of the legislation would be to have the liability for the crime divided between the actual criminal and some producer.

“I believe that these horrific crimes that occur to women every day in our country are, and must always be, held only to the individual who creates that offense,” she said. “In order to be true to the concept of perpetrator accountability, we can provide no excuse, no matter how graphic it may be, to an individual … who chooses to go and offend against a woman in this way.”