US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity 574
Posted
by
timothy
from the your-honor-it-was-just-some-good-clean-fun dept.
from the your-honor-it-was-just-some-good-clean-fun dept.
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."
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking to myself... why is this any different to any porn site out there? Is porn now prohibited in the US?
I thought there was child porn or something like that, but, after reading TFA, I can't see a problem at all.
Re:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't really care if they were simulating bestiality.. its protected speech.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
When I read the summary I thought that the American couple was arrested while on vacation or on a business trip in a country like Iran or North Korea. Americans (et al) are trying to do their best to be like the countries that they demonize the most.
Frontline episode (Score:3, Interesting)
I remember that Frontline documentary episode. I believe these where the people that made videos of women being kidnapped, beaten, and gang raped. They did not show anything in the documentary, but they did show the Frontline camera crew that was filming the making of video had to stop in the middle because they could not watch anymore. Now, it might have been shocking stuff at the edge of what is possible to do with actors, but it was still within the bounds of the law as far as consenting parties willing to be filmed.
At least it is the kind of thing that is not up to a judge to decide what they find repulsive, otherwise we are on the slippery slope back to the 70's where more conservative taste will make any portrayal of sex illegal.
Re:Simulated Rape (Score:5, Interesting)
If Hollywood can get away with portraying real rape, why can't a porn producer get away with portraying a simulation of the same?
FFS, there's movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Last House On The Left" that show [what most people would consider to be] extreme depictions of rape, cannibalism, genital torture, and plenty of other perverse acts.
Even classics like Ingmar Bergman's "Aus dem Leben der Marionetten" feature rape scenes and stark violence.
Not simulated or implied rape, but real, violent, gory, crying-and-shitting rape.
There's a torrent compilation of over 130 rape scenes from mainstream movies. And the torrent poster states that this is just a "small sample" of what's out there.
But, apparently if it's done "ars gratia artis", it's OK - if it's done for profit+pleasure, all of a sudden we have a moral shit-storm.
Bullshit double-standards, and weak-assed half-measures, will be the end of this society.
Also, COCKS.
Re:This sort of attitude really bugs me... (Score:3, Interesting)
How will someone else getting married to someone of the same sex, in any way change yours or anyone else's marriage?
Because once gay people can marry, it's only a matter of time before those into bestiality are going to demand the right to marry the animal of their choice which of course will be allowed as same sex marriage is allowed. Then the next thing that will happen is obviously that people by the millions will divorce their god God fearing, 100% and then some heterosexual spouses and marry their sheep, chihaua's, tortioses, hedgehogs etc.
See, it is just a matter of applying fundemental(ist) logic and instantly you'll see why same sex marrige will change other people's marriages.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are you laughing?
I know what you are saying, but Bill Hicks did this in some of his material:
By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue with "Consentual vs. Non-consensual" is this; Because the drugs are illegal your friend would have come forward and charged said person and people with rape however since she faced jail time her right to justice was revoked under the American war on drugs. Now if the drugs were legal, she could have charged them with rape and conspiricy but that's her business not yours, she choose to hang her head in shame.
I've been held at knife point because somone I knew thought it might be a good idea to deal, because it was home invasion and this is Canada they went to jail / juvie. But you see my point?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm of the mind that in a free society, you don't get to decide what other people enjoy, providing whatever they enjoy does not involve minors or other people that cannot provide reasonable consent.
If these people want to drink bodily fluids, I have no problem with it. It's not my business.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
You are sooo full of it! Look, I knew a chap once who, driven by peer pressure, shot another person. Would you absolve him from any personal responsibility, too?
Once you get past your high school morose you will figure out that adults need to stand up to 'peer pressure' from time to time.
Re:Porn is obscene only if it has no plot (Score:3, Interesting)
"In Plain Sight" - a Multipurpose provocative treatment.
Act 1: China
Because of the Green Dam rules on new Chinese computers, hackers took to modifying the Green Dam's actual behavior. By using a keyboard remapping system, with patterns known to both sides, key messages were embedded in the grass grazed on by MudHorses.
Act 2: France
The French, typically known to resist the strongest forms of opression but struggling recently with rising political forces, worked with the owner of the French version of the Goatse man, which is now the most popular troll when the original Christmas Island copy was retired from full strength. For a fee, revolutionary data will be embedded steganographically into the image.
Act 3: USA
Spinning a darker twist on William Gibson, Stretchers are the new data couriers. Using medically safe pouches sewn into their regions, these couriers are outwardly bland, thus to fit the TSA profiles of Safe Citizens.
With a gripping plot and surprising research, look for In Plain Sight Coming Soon!*
*Pun Intended.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Great men with a poignant message, but ultimately totally ineffectual.
I wouldn't say so. They implanted critical thoughts into peoples minds and connected them to their pleasure centers. I think that's more powerful than signing a petition or going to a political rally. Next time something happens which is in some way connected to that thought, it will pop up again in these peoples minds and will have a major influence on their opinion.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
So why is it illegal for me to feed a chick booze until she passes out, then fuck her? Same shit, slightly different setting.
I think that hits the nail on the head. People do want to justify doing that, or similar. Some of their arguments are right, and some are bogus, but it often comes down to justifying their own desires. I think most of the people who sarcastically say "think of the children" actually don't give a rip about the children, even though many of their points and criticisms are valid. They argue with misdirection and half-truths.
Same thing with greed. Most upper-middle-class people think it should be illegal to break into people's houses and take their stuff, and they make rational arguments supporting their position. But when it comes to effectively stealing from other people by abuse of economic power, such as through actions that support market and currency manipulations, they have all kinds of fancy ways of justifying it and denying what they are doing.
I have no opinion about whether this particular ruling was good or bad, because I haven't dug into it deep enough, and slashdot summaries are almost always misleading. (What's up with that?) And I think porn should be legal. But its ridiculous for people to pretend that what they look at doesn't affect them. Watching a foolish drug user get fucked does hurt you, whether you understand it or not.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
You really did stick up for criminals and rapists, repeatedly. It took a lot of detailed explanation before you finally got that you were sticking up for criminals and rapists, in fact I don't think you really get it even now. Even when you finally admit some validity for the other guy's point, you're still throwing back terms like meatbag. You earned it, the person you're throwing it back at didn't. You're being just as bad as those ignorant people on juries who bought the "She was asking for it by the way she was dressed" argument.
I hope I still have some empathy for you. I won't call you names, and I hope you get empathy as painlessly as possible. Here's a hint though. When you really get that you really did all the things people are accusing you of, it's time to get a little humility and figure out how to appologise in a way that proves you learned something, not throw insults back. The insult just says you don't really think you were wrong at all.
Re:Where's Larry? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an interesting version of history. It's not all true, but it's interesting.
Which parts aren't, and what really happened?
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget their little legal litmus tests and stuff. It's like a religion, it's like shamanism, the average person can get nailed on something because we have so many obscure laws.