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, Informative)
Since the summary didnt tell it: "Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable," 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."
It's nice that theres no problems killing people in movies, but once theres some titties you go to jail in usa :)
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, Informative)
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.
You must not have looked very recently - protected speech does not include anything that falls under a Chaplinksy test(Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568) [wikipedia.org] and while erotic content does not nessessarly fall under that list, obscene material does - and that is what the federal law is dealing with "obscene erotic content"
Right to free speech (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right to free speech (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:4, Informative)
I doubt they'll do prison time. I suspect this because they copped a plea to get their sentence down to a year and a day, and a sentence of a year and a day is typically imposed (rather than something shorter) because this is the minimum sentence that makes the defendant still qualify for alternative punishment (I forget the federal term of art, but it something evocative of the more famous "parole"--there is no parole for federal law, however).
Porn is obscene only if it has no plot (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
Re:Porn is obscene only if it has no plot (Score:5, Funny)
So if shit eating had taken place while trying to overthrow an evil wizard, it would be okay.
What a moronic restriction on free speech.
Re: (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 Goa
Re:Porn is obscene only if it has no plot (Score:5, Funny)
"So if shit eating had taken place while trying to overthrow an evil wizard, it would be okay."
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmm... wouldn't this apply to almost everything on YouTube that reaches "viral" status? (Like monkey's casually drinking their own urine fresh from the tap, etc...)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Extreme Teen 24: contains a scene of a naive supposed young girl being talked into having sex by an older man. The actress involved was over 18, however dressed and acted like a young girl.
Cocktails 2: various scenes of women drinking vomit, saliva and other bodily fluids. It was the director's cut version of the film that was cited in the case.
Ass Clowns 3: a female journalist is being raped by a gang led by Osama bin Laden; the journalist is freed and the gang members killed. The director's cut version also contains a scene where Jesus steps off the cross and has sex with an angel.
1001 Ways to Eat My Jizz:
Forced Entry: The film depicts the beating, rape and murder of women by a serial killer, who is eventually killed by a mob of vigilantes. There are three scenes which graphically portray rape and murder, and women are also spat on. 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." 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.
Sounds like it doesn't appeal to my prurient interests. But a porn distributor with only four titles isn't much of a distributor, and the imprisonment, forfeiture, and all that other nonsense will surely affect distribution of other, non-"obscene" titles that might well appeal to someone.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
And then we had no porn, and no one came for me.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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! '
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: (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 somethin
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: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: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: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: (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: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: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.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Your lack of empathy for other humans has been noted, meatbag.
So has yours, meatbag.
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.
Try again, son.
OK, if they commited those crimes, they should be charged for them. Distribution of obscene recordings that were created lawfully should still be legal.
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: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: (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 t
Re: (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
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: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: (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: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: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:5, Informative)
Let's assume there was nothing actually slipped into her drink. Professional filmmakers, including a lot of XXX, don't get a model's release signed by anyone who has used drugs or alcohol in the hours before. They don't allow booze or drugs actually on the set. They take the time to check proof of age and consent, because they have to take the time to check a current HIV test anyways. They are regulated by laws, not just ones for the adult industry, but ones that apply to all film studios or professional photographers. The laws that say you check HIV status are part of workplace safety laws that affect, for another case, any stuntperson who might get a bleeding injury. The laws about booze and drugs are film industry wide, although I recall Nina Hartley once explaining that the adult industry had more incentive to stay squeaky clean on them than anyone, so nobody used them as an excuse to shut a production down. This isn't just about a few people conducting a normal private transaction (like me taking a date out to a bar). On one side, we have a business, bound by special regulations that affect all such businesses and not just the adult subset.
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: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:5, Insightful)
So they made kinky porn? Well damn, lock them up and throw away the key guys!
lol America
I don't know about that (Score:4, Funny)
"Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable,"
I don't know about that. I've got a pretty good imagination.
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?
Where's Larry? (Score:5, Informative)
He was appalled by the hypocricy of the Clinton blow job thing and took out a full page ad in the Washington Post offering a million dollars for anyone who could prove they had an affair with a congressman or senator. The ad produced sex tapes and a scandal that embarased the FBI and forced the speaker of the house to quit. When sentenced to three months for refusing to name his sources he threw an orange at the judge and shouted "You fucking pussy, is that the best you can do".
When facing 25yrs for "organised crime" ( ie: publishing Hustler ), he was asked by the judge if he had anything to say before sentencing, he replied "You haven't made one intelligent decison in this case, I don't expect you to start now".
He also took on the Bush administration for the right to report from the battlefield after they went against 200yrs of journalistic tradition and made it illeagal at the start of the Afghan war, he set another important precedent by winning that one too.
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: (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:5, Informative)
U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan
That explains it. Buchanan was the zealot who (selectively) prosecuted Tommy Chong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beth_Buchanan#United_States_vs._Tommy_Chong_.282003.29 [wikipedia.org]
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?
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, 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:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
there's a documentary "Deep Throat" about the porn movie "Deep Throat" and events that surrounded it.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
I think he meant, "Inside Deep Throat." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Deep_Throat). I've seen it as well; it's not pornographic in and of itself and the subject (since it was a little before my time) cast light onto a secretive aspect of our culture. Porn has a long history in the U.S. and with Deep Throat, porn almost became mainstream (as in, your local theater would play shrek, batman, and "Journey to the center of the Bertha" or something). This documentary covers the rise and fall of the 'actors', the government scandal, and the changes it wrough on the industry.
-b
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: (Score:3, Informative)
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 :\
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: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?
fake porn? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think all porn is fake.
Faked intimacy, faked excitement, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
the porno videos involved in this case was about a teenage girl being raped by an older man.
So, close to 80% of porn made in Japan is illegal in the US then?
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
The key factor appears to be the content of the pornography. The feds may have given up on prosecuting the tamest stuff, but they have not given up on prosecuting the most hardcore material. The Extreme Associates Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] gives you an idea of what they're being prosecuted for:
.
Similarly, Max Hardcore [wikipedia.org] was put in the slammer early this year for similar material:
The short and long of the matter is that vague obscenity laws are still on the books, and technically all porn is still illegal because someone somewhere is going to find it obscene. The Feds know they can't win however, so they are choosing to prosecute whomever makes the stuff that offends them the most. Nothing has really been worked out since the 70s, the Feds just can't keep prosecuting everyone like they used to.
Re: (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)
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:5, Funny)
So the 1st amendment is dead.
Gunned down in the street by the 2nd amendment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so much dead as just highly crippled by the past 8 years of having religious zealots in control.
Re: (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.
Most amazing of all... (Score:5, Funny)
People are still getting porn delivered in the mail?
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:This doesn't make sense. (Score:5, Funny)
We *love* porn... until it's the kind that doesn't turn us on.
Prude: Someone who enjoys sex less than you.
Slut: Someone who enjoys sex more than you.
Simulated Rape (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently several "simulated rape" scenes in their film "Forced Entry" is what led them to be charged with committing a crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Zicari#Obscenity_prosecution [wikipedia.org]
Zicari asked for help from the rest of the Adult Entertainment industry and they declined- even Larry Flynt declined to help fight the charges.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-01-2009/0005053905&EDATE= [prnewswire.com]
Re:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Insightful)
"simulated rape" is a crime?
That's fucking ridiculous.
How long before simulated murder is a crime?
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:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, another individual who didn't think the summary told the whole story. Here are a couple more links:
The appellate court ruling [uscourts.gov]
The case summary from Wikipedia: United States vs. Extreme Associates [wikipedia.org]
I usually don't criticize on these kind of things but honestly, but would it take all that long to do just a little more digging before posting the story? (Yes, I realize it is easier to get readers to the rest of the work :-P).
Re:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't really care if they were simulating bestiality.. its protected speech.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
here is a further clarification
1973, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Miller v. California that materials are obscene if they satisfy a three part test:
(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the material taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; and
(2) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the material depicts sexual conduct in patently offensive manner; and
(3) A reasonable person, viewing the material as a whole, finds tha
crackdown on BD/SM websites since 2005 (Score:3, Informative)
The crackdown on BD/SM websites started in late 2005. It's the same reason that Insex [wikipedia.org] stopped producing clips. See also the following articles:
BD/SM Internet Sites Under Attack [sfbaytimes.com]
Tortured Logic [thestranger.com]
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.
In the USA... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And yet this is what gets censored. (Score:4, Funny)
Personally, if I wanted my kids to watch two people trying to kill each other, I woulda stayed married.
Re: (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: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.
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.
Re: (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 y
Thanks for protecting the public... (Score:5, Insightful)
The American Taliban strikes again.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
If I remember correctly, they didn't stop filming because they couldn't watch, but because it was conceivable they'd be charged with being an accessory.
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.
Don't blame the system (Score:3, Informative)
Mary Beth Buchanan is a bitch (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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: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: (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 cu
Re: (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: (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.