US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity 574
angry tapir writes "The husband and wife owners of a California company that distributed pornographic materials over the Internet have been each sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Extreme Associates and owners Robert Zicari, also known as Rob Black, 35, and his wife, Janet Romano, aka Lizzie Borden, 32, pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet."
Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
In August 2003, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates for violating federal obscenity statutes. In January 2005, a district court judge dismissed the indictment, saying that the federal obscenity statutes were unconstitutional. The government appealed, and Buchanan argued the case in October 2005 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In December 2005, the appeals court reversed the decision of the district court and held that the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity do not violate any constitutional right to privacy. The case was then remanded back to the district court.
Wow.. just Wow. What the fuck has happened to the US? What happened to free speech? Wasn't all this shit worked out in the 70s? Why the hell was the unconstitutional finding to do with privacy and not freedom of speech?
Please tell me the next stop is to the supreme court where this will be sorted out.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nice that theres no problems killing people in movies, but once theres some titties you go to jail in usa :)
'We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene! '
The Brits had sense enough to run the Puritans out (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, they came to America.
This doesn't make sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm extremely confused... I don't see anything wrong here.
Is porn illegal in the US?
Did someone forget to tell the multi-billion dollar industry?
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
So they made kinky porn? Well damn, lock them up and throw away the key guys!
lol America
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so much dead as just highly crippled by the past 8 years of having religious zealots in control.
And yet this is what gets censored. (Score:5, Insightful)
Carlin had it right: I'd rather my kids saw images of two people making love than of two people killing each other.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for the extra info, though I still have to say it's a stupid law. I can't help but think that if the teenage girl had been graphically murdered they'd be nominated for Oscars rather than put in prison :\
Re:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Insightful)
"simulated rape" is a crime?
That's fucking ridiculous.
How long before simulated murder is a crime?
This sort of attitude really bugs me... (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."
In what way is this protecting people? Presumably they were only supplying this stuff to people who paid for it, not projecting it onto the side of schools or posting it to small children.
I don't understand this attitude of protecting people from things they want to do, and I don't see why the state should intervene (assuming all the parties involved consented).
It seems to be the same logic as used by opponents of gay marriage, who claim that it will somehow destroy the institution of marriage. How will someone else getting married to someone of the same sex, in any way change yours or anyone else's marriage? In the same way, how does the production of this material (again, assuming consent on all sides) "degrade us all"? It doesn't degrade me, I had nothing to do with it, don't watch it, and am unaffected by it. This whole idea of "someone's doing something I don't like, therefore I can object and stop it" is just narrow minded control-freakery.
Thanks for protecting the public... (Score:5, Insightful)
The American Taliban strikes again.
Re:This is why they were prosecuted (Score:3, Insightful)
I see nothing wrong with this.
As long as the actors are legal and the sex (and other acts) are consensual.
Anyone know where I can get the one with Jesus fucking an Angel? That's hilarious.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Who decides what's "normal"? And why should only being an interest of a minority of people make it acceptable to criminalise them? This is the same argument people make of gay material.
If anything, targetting a minority should be seen as worse, not better. I appreciate you don't approve of the ruling, but the sentiment is still worrying - imagine gay material being banned, and someone saying "But it's not like we're talking about anything normal here"?
Torture porn (Score:5, Insightful)
If the teenage girl had been graphically murdered they'd be nominated for Oscars rather than put in prison.
And if she had been portrayed as being chained in a dungeon and having various body parts sliced off in slow motion, it'd be pretty much every third dvd now playing at Blockbuster.
So the lesson: Sex porn is illegal but torture porn is perfectly OK. Nice job assholes.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to agree, someone sitting over top of a female squatting and taking a dump, seems to violate some kind of law, but when a guy does it to another guy, no problem. Pooper films as I call them have been around for so many years, they are just NOW figuring out they exist?
Snuff films, rape, etc...you have all types, but they have been around for sooo many years, are they saying we can't publish them on youtube or are they saying the contents of the film are illegal, this is what I would like
better explained, as well, being so cryptic about what is going on in the movie, does not help the average joe follow any sort of precedent, if you need to tell us taking a dump on someone and filming it is criminal, then say it, stop indirectly saying some sort stuff happened, which should not have happened, but we think it was bad enough to prosecute.....sounds like that bit from Team America for christ's sake....or are we not allowed to swear anymore as well?
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
I saw the documentary "Deep Throat" some time ago.
"Deep Throat" is regarded as a documentary, now ? Shit, Linda Lovelace is now my favourite research scientist !
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Im not very familiar with the laws, but as a US resident I can say:
Yes, laws against porn exist. Basically, its only 'obscene' porn that the laws target. Exactly what that means is very subjective, but since almost everyone looks at porn, 'obscene' porn is usually regarded as porn that most people dont look at. A few decades ago, bondage was obscene and was targeted by the government (not to good effect, however, as afterwords it became more mainstream). A few years after Bush became president a crackdown happened on porn sites, basically things that where overly rough where targeted (and produced by small-ish time porn makers, rather then large companies). This site was just one that was targeted.
So, to wrap up the US laws on porn production/distribution: anything thats popular enough to get noticed, yet niche enough not to cause a backlash if they are targeted, is fair game. If your looking to make porn and want to avoid being targeted: dont do anything that pushes the limits, especially (or perhaps, specifically) in areas that could be regarded as degration/humiliation by whoever happens to be in power.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words:
Portraying people fucking people = ok
Portraying people fucking people over = ok
Portraying people fucking people that they are fucking over = omg omg not ok.
The creators of "True Blood" should be jailed at once!
Re:This is why they were prosecuted (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw some movies worse than that! This dude keeps kidnapping people and hooking them up to machines that they can't escape from. The only way to survive is to admit something about yourself and sacrifice part of yourself or do some kind of other horrible act like cut the key out of somebody elses stomach. The worst one for me was a reverse bear trap on somebodies head which ripped their head in half when the timer went off. Needless to say I don't think anybody actually ever survived any of it.
Oh yeah these movies were called Saw. And I saw it in the cinema. The realism and gore was extreme. If these people were put away for making similar movies and selling them on the net then how can Amazon and Play.com sell the Saw movies? Surely every horror movie should be illegal and the directors and distributors arrested?
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material,
Uh, maybe I missed something here. Did they display their simulated rape in a public square? Is it "the public" or isn't it rather voluntary customers of such material?
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder why they didn't say, half way through the show "Why are you laughing? What's funny about what I'm saying? Here's a petition stating that we want this shit sorted out. Sign it. It's going in this envelope on stage, and that envelope is going to Congress. I'm tired of this shit, and the fact that you're paying to hear me talk about it means you are too! Do something about it! Put your name down."
Instead, he said a few rude words in a sentence and the sheeple giggled.
Re:This is why they were prosecuted (Score:3, Insightful)
"* Forced Entry[16]: The film depicts the beating, rape and murder of women by a serial killer, who is eventually killed by a mob of vigilantes.[17] There are three scenes which graphically portray rape and murder, and women are also spat on.[3] Extreme's website called it their "most controversial movie" and "a stunningly disturbing look at a serial killer, satanic rituals, and the depths of human depravity."[18] Forced Entry was directed by Lizzy Borden and released in 2002. Again it was the director's cut version of the film that was cited in the case.[1]"
And, yet, the murder was okay. Everything was okay. If these movies contained no visible sex. It's nothing but the inclusion of sex on camera that causes a problem. Had the sex been off-camera, then we'd be happy with the film content? Wow. America is a sickly weird place. It's okay to cut off a womans head, but don't rape her first? Rape is horrible, and their are many many people who are living with that experience in their past. It's an unimaginable horror. How can it be okay to depict rape one way, but not another. Additionally how is it okay to show a woman's murder, but rape though vile and horrible, is survivable and it's not okay.
In the end we are talking about a film, a fake, nothing more. The real thing is the horror, murder and rape, but not the fake version. We're punishing people here because they made a film which simulates the crimes the federal justice department ignores to go after film makers?
Re:This is why they were prosecuted (Score:2, Insightful)
I was merely pointing out that it was not the nudity or sex acts themselves that was being prosecuted, but the violence and depravity that crossed the line (according to the courts).
So water-boarding is legal and fictional depictions of (deviant) sex are illegal. The world is upside down.
The only thing obscene... (Score:5, Insightful)
is this verdict. Between the First Amendment and the Fourth I'm not sure that this is remotely constitutional. I could see the point if the person involved filed rape charges, but then it would be a case about rape, not obscenity. Totally stupid.
Re:Simulated Rape (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is why they were prosecuted (Score:3, Insightful)
It was the including Jesus in the porn that made the conservative right-wing at the DOJ go ape shit. Had they just stuck to bin Laden, they likly would have been nominated for an Oscar by the attorney general.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
While I think the Miller Test replaced "I know it when I see it" at the SCOTUS level, the fact of the matter is that the Miller Test is "I know it when I see it", just applied at a lower level. If this gets appealed, I'm sure the SCOTUS will just say "well, after the most dire of voires, the prosecutors managed to find 12 stuck-up prudes that were offended by your movie, so it's obscene". The real problem is that the government has managed to convince everyone that "obscenity" isn't speech. Since they control the definition of obscenity, they control the definition of speech.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Extreme Associates Wikipedia article gives you an idea of what they're being prosecuted for
That's filthy, disgusting, meritless, reprehensible, and none of the government's damn business. Two consenting adults filmed scenes that other consenting adults wanted to watch. That should be the end of the story.
I normally mean for my sig to be funny. Sometimes, like now, I don't.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's the rub, though; while there are certainly women in the porn industry with full knowledge and understanding and even enjoyment of what they are doing, a large amount of porn is nothing like that. A friend recently told me a story about a girl he knew from his hometown, and I will share the anecdote with you now: This girl's girlfriends got her to come down to LA to do "modeling" which then turned into drinking and drugs on a scale she wasn't used to, which then became "modeling with titties", then "modeling with a cock out", etc etc. She then wound up having violent sex she wasn't at all in to, then the tape got sold out of gas stations everywhere, and she couldn't show here face in her home town, now she's some kind of shut-in.
Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn. There's nothing happy about that story.
This is by no means the worst casualty of pornography, either. Most of the low-rent, low-pro videos you see which are about degrading women really are degrading women. That is in fact part of their appeal for their particular audience. I have nothing against pornography, but getting off on not-really-consensual sex where women were coerced and/or deliberately tricked into having it is sick, and it's wrong, and it's harmful to society.
Again, I'm not saying porn is bad. The Nixon administration even commissioned a report which was TRYING to find a link between consumption of pornography and harmful behavior, and failed. What I'm saying is that pornography which is designed to be degrading really is degrading in most cases, and furthermore it is often literally a form of rape. I know NOTHING WHATSOEVER about this particular case, but it is not at all impossible that this couple acted reprehensibly. There are numerous institutions producing pornography in California and distributing it over the internet, some of them much larger than this. If the point were to stamp out internet porn, then they would have gone after one of those, and made a larger dent.
With all that said: To see words from "U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan" saying that the public needs to be protected from lasciviousness truly makes me sick. The English kicked the Puritans out, and I think it's time for Americans to do the same.
Re:And yet this is what gets censored. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree with you. Most responses here seem to gloss over the actual content being discussed as "omg naked people!"
While I would defend the obscenity of this pornography on first amendment grounds, I would not want to defend it too aggressively while more worthy candidates might exist.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
but last I looked that was still protected speech..
If they're doing prison time for it, apparently it's not protected speech... maybe it should be, but it's apparently not.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn.
No, she was ruined by her own stupidity. Throughout your little anecdote, there's one thing you neglected to point out: she was a free actor who made her own choices. Were they *stupid* choices? Hell yes. But they were her choices to make. Now she gets to live with the consequences.
Right to free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans, Democrats, it doesn't matter, they're all out to fuck us in the ass (just not to make a video of it) and control everyone, with the end result of fueling their own greed.
Re:And yet this is what gets censored. (Score:4, Insightful)
While I would defend the obscenity of this pornography on first amendment grounds, I would not want to defend it too aggressively while more worthy candidates might exist.
Huh? So now something has to be "worthy" in order for you to defend it as protected speech? Please... if you don't protect the worst kinds of speech (so long as said speech doesn't infringe on the rights of others (eg, libel)), your first amendment isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Re:Right to free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Throughout your little anecdote, there's one thing you neglected to point out: she was a free actor who made her own choices.
I neglected to point it out because it both goes without saying, and is only part of the story. It's clear that you're an insensitive bastard who has forgotten what peer pressure is like. In this story, numerous persons acted to intentionally deceive the woman in question, and that's what makes you an asshole for your interpretation.
Does the woman in question share the blame for her situation? Of course. Does that mean it's okay to intentionally coerce her into doing something she doesn't want to do through a combination of false pretenses and other lies? I say no. So does the law. A sufficiently intoxicated person cannot make informed consent... but this woman's spirit is already broken (as her users intended) and there will never be a court case.
Don't be so fucking intolerant of human error. You will probably fuck up someday. You have almost certainly fucked up repeatedly, and those with compassion for you have helped you out.
Now she gets to live with the consequences.
Bullshit. Now we all get to live with the consequences. We're all on this planet together.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Now we all get to live with the consequences. We're all on this planet together.
Really ? Because I haven't had any consequences of her drinking and going into porn. That's the point. She made dumb choices, now she lives with the consequences. Legislation should not restrict everyone's freedoms based wrong choices an individual might make that only affects him/her. No where in your story do you attribute any of her downfall to anything but peer pressure. That's too bad for her that she was weak willed and couldn't see what she was getting into until it was too late, and even then, she couldn't get out before it got worse (the modeling with titties should have clued her in if that's not what she wanted to do).
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they do. Course, here in the States, you can go to jail for 'possession of kiddie porn' for having copies of certain animes laying around, on the theory that some child somewhere was exploited to make it, even though, as anime, no children whatsoever were involved. Talk about victimless crimes, if no kids are involved, how can it be kiddie porn?
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
That prosecution has to be about the worst use of government funds ever. It makes the Iraq war look like a responsible use of government money.
Do you think she goes home at night and talks to her family about her tireless sacrifice in the never ending struggle against evildoers?
fake porn? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think all porn is fake.
Faked intimacy, faked excitement, etc.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we *please* stop with this calling-anybody-who-makes-a-bad-choice "stupid" bit? I'm really getting sick Slashdotters' lack of sympathy and contempt for humanity at large.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
They fed her drugs with the intent to impair her judgement, which is illegal; they obtained bogus consent when she was unable to provide informed consent, which is illegal. So why is it illegal for me to feed a chick booze until she passes out, then fuck her? Same shit, slightly different setting.
You're not seeing this right. All these things you say render her consent null and void and thus would mean that she should head to a Police station and file for rape charges. Not some kind of "distribution of obscene" material charges. Do you get it now ? If like you say she was forced into it, by being forced fed drugs and alcool AGAINST her consent, then the movies that were shot are not the crime itself, the rape is. Since you've changed the story around so much since people have started to call you on it (started out as a stereotypical girl from a rural area gets into the city and into porn) I'm inclined to think you're just full of shit and trying to play Devil's advocate here.
Re:And yet this is what gets censored. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Over the line is over the line? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well maybe one should seek conselling, but irrespective of that, if no one is being harmed, if it's not being put on prime time TV, why should it not be permitted? Are you seriously asserting that it's any of your goddamned business what these people do?
Quite frankly, the most disturbing thing here is how much some people ultimately despise liberty. I guess I can put you in that camp as an enemy of freedom.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Then they threw out the fourth amendment to prosecute the second.
Fantasizing about pedophilia is not illegal (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder why they didn't say, half way through the show "Why are you laughing? What's funny about what I'm saying? Here's a petition stating that we want this shit sorted out. Sign it. It's going in this envelope on stage, and that envelope is going to Congress. I'm tired of this shit, and the fact that you're paying to hear me talk about it means you are too! Do something about it! Put your name down."
There are millions of angry men out there. These particular ones manage to make you laugh at things, which drains your anger of its potency and makes you accepting, and thus makes apathetic about what you were angry about. They made nihilism seem like it really wasn't so bad even as they shoved it in your face.
Because these particular men had that particular quality, they were given a voice that can reach billions where others were not given such a voice.
Does that answer your question?
Re:Don't blame the system (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:1, Insightful)
The 1st amendment might have had a chance if it had been armed ;)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of empathy has nothing to do with this. We can think it's sad and pity her, but that doesn't mean we're going to tolerate her poor choices being used as an excuse to foist laws and regulations on us.
It was HER POOR CHOICE, IT DOESN'T EFFECT US.
Even if we feel sorry for her.
STFU or learn to not argumentum ad hominem
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
you can call someone an idiot and be sympathetic at the same time
"That was REALLY fucking moronic bro, let me take you to the hospital to get that broken arm taken care of"
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
With idiots like you running around telling her what to do, and that she was a willing actor in the play, she probably feels like shit for "allowing herself" to get involved in this in the first place, and is too embarrassed to report it. Then again, that's the reason why so many rapes go unreported in the first place. Show some damned compassion already.
The OP's main points seems to be that the money involved in porn is just too much to keep producers honest. And they ruin lives to get it. There is no doubt, as far as I can tell, that real child porn victimises children. Here the point is that often, though not always, regular porn victimises women. (Then there are those who take a further extreme view, like the Catholic Church claiming that it also victimises the viewer, and those that may be married to a viewer of porn, but I don't see that gaining much traction here.) It's something that many people - mostly producers and viewers (and, oddly, some feminists) - want to sweep under the rug. We can't let it be swept out of sight if we want a rational, complete conversation on the topic. There is a human cost here, and too many people want to ignore it.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
We can't let it be swept out of sight if we want a rational, complete conversation on the topic. There is a human cost here, and too many people want to ignore it.
Agreed. But it has nothing to do with porn and, as you've already pointed out, everything to do with money and the semi-underground nature of the industry. The simple fact is that if you stigmatize the industry, all you do is push it *further* underground, which is precisely the opposite of what you should be trying to do if your goal is to protect those who participate in the industry.
Look, it's simple: porn exists, has always existed, and always will exist. So you have a choice. You can stigmatize it and push it underground, or you can work to increase societal acceptance and bring it out into the light of day. I prefer the latter approach. Then, if a women is victimized, she can feel free to go to law enforcement and demand justice. Meanwhile, the state can work to regulate the industry more effectively so that these sorts of things don't happen in the first place.
As an aside, I also hold the same beliefs regarding the sex and drug trades. Here, like the more extreme forms of pornography, you have free actors participating in victimless crimes, activities that are driven underground thanks to a society that stigmatizes those that choose to participate. And because they're driven underground, they can no longer be effectively policed and regulated. So, once again, there's two choices: stronger laws and stronger law enforcement, thus pushing these activities further and further underground, or a move toward normalization. I favour the latter, as I believe it would result in reduced crime and better protection for those involved.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
You could make that argument about any porn. Heck, you could probably make that argument about child actors too. It's a lame post-hoc attempt to justify an infringement on free speech for which there is no meaningful justification other than "I think it's icky".
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for standing up for free speech and freedom in general but this is not the fight you should take it to. Don't defend some fucked up porn stars for their 'freedom of speech'. If there is a case where free speech really matters, stand up for it then and there.
You don't wait until they come after something you care about. You defend all speech, even if you find it disagreeable. If you sit around and say "it's OK to throw the pornographers in jail, or break up the Illinois Nazis when they try to parade" you leave them too much weasel room. The government must be held to a standard that allows only such specific bans on speech as the classic "fire in a crowded theater". Once you grant them leave to start judging free vs prohibited based on notions like "decency", they'll go all over the fucking place with it.
Re:Where's Larry? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's an interesting version of history. It's not all true, but it's interesting.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable,"
Shouldn't there be a "CONSENTING WOMEN" in there somewhere?
Whats wrong with sexually degrading material? Whats wrong with OBSCENE material?
Some women like to be degraded. Hell most of them like when a men takes charge and tells them what to do in bed. Some women like to dominate men. IS that ok? What the fuck does it matter?
I fucking hate this shit land of oppressive laws known as America. Why is it that my "FREE" country continues to fail its own test at ever fucking opportunity. America is dead.
You know what truly is obscene? THE EVENING NEWS. That is obscene. Its not even news. Its not even real. Its complete bullshit designed to distract you with entertainment while the criminal politicians and corporations run away with murder living off the wealth of this country.
This country is a fucking vampire draining itself financially and ethically and dracula is telling you it will all be ok... just sit back and take it.
The war in iraq is fucking obscene. The politicians are obscene! The state of health care is obscene!
Reboot America please.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are referring to an adult woman making her own decisions as "Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn.".
AND THEN you go on arguing about how porn is degrading towards women? Mind bending!
Do you also refer to your mother as Top Shelf Pussy or does she not live up to that quality standard?
I would like to propose that it is not porn or sexist commercials that degrades women. It is our (both mens and womens) attitudes that does. You just gave us a great illustration of this. Women are not body part nor decorations.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
You do know that the law lets us charge the shooter, and then charge the people who pressured him to do it too? I mean that's basic to English and American common law, and if you're arguing that standard law somehow isn't treating personal responsibility properly, I've got to ask just what you want to substitute. In court, the 'coerced into porn' cases usually involve assigning personal responsibility to everyone, and it's quite possible for a jury to hold the young woman responsible for her own decisions, and the film producers for theirs, at the same time.
You might also want to be careful about the 'so full of it's and 'high school's. You're in the extreme minority position if you want to argue that personal responsibility overrides all related common law. When you're defending an unusual or unpopular viewpoint, with possibly extreme consequences, is no time to descend to personal attacks.
Re:Porn is obscene only if it has no plot (Score:2, Insightful)
The Miller test, established by the Supreme Court in 1973, is that something is obscene if all of the following are true:
Things like Eyes Wide Shut aren't obscene because they have a plot.
Aahhh. So that's why porn movies in the 70's always had really bad attempts at a plot.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
You do have to admit your story is very stereotypical. We've all heard it dozens of times before. Naive country girl from a small hometown moves into LA to get into acting and along the way, flirts with drugs/alcool/porn because of peer pressure and gets in over her head. If you really expected empathy for this kind of story, which is posted all over the Internet all the time, then tough because if I had to stop and feel empathy and compassion for every SOB story ever posted on the Internet I'd probably have slit my wrists by now.
The facts remain, the crime you describe here is not Porn itself, it's not the distribution of said Porn, nor is it the production of the porn. If your story (and every other story about those poor naive country girls) is true, then the crime here is rape. There's a very big difference between your story and the sentence being discussed here, and in no way does your story say anything about the porn industry, only some individual's abuse of naive country girls.
And we come full circle back to your comment that porn that is degrading degrades all women. This is patently false. First what is degrading to you or this naive country girl might not be to someone else. Who are you to decide what is degrading to others ? Your generalisation that came from an anecdote makes your post sound more trollish than someone that actually wants to discuss the state of the porn industry, its consumers and its actors.
Re:Porn is obscene only if it has no plot (Score:3, Insightful)
first of all, all of the above is subjective;
i.) a homosexual man watching two women have sex will not find it arousing.
ii.) if the purpose of the movie is to achieve an orgasm is that not a plot, or is it.
iii.) sex to a nun is offensive period, unless it the couple is married heterosexual, and done with the intension of procreation.
Would someone please tell me from a legal perspective how this is argued in a court and made to stand ? Fact is we live in (USA) one of the most diverse communities on the planet. How are we to use subjectivity to judge each other. Now on the other side we need laws, and rules to protect said community. I think I speak fo rmost when I say no one wants to raise a family in a would be Sodom and Gomorrah.
Re:As someone who was following the case... (Score:3, Insightful)
The DVD's contained material depicting simulated rape that was billed as actual rapes, participants who were advertised as being minors
So charge them with false advertising or conspiracy to commit rape, conspiracy to distribute child pornography and child abuse.