Other than the obvious age restriction, what are the legal restrictions on what can be shown in porn? What about the restrictions on showing bondage with sex?
Unfortunately there are very few clear cut answers on this issue.
Most of what is legal and not legal is based on local city and state laws. However, due to several cases in the past that have been heard before the US supreme court, very few laws that restrict these kinds of specific acts can be ruled constitutional. The courts, and the legistlature, therefore then has to base whether something is legal or illegal on the standards of the individual community and what (according to that community) is considered appealing to the prurient interest and is considered obscene--as obscenity is not protected speech under the first amendment.
Obviously this makes for some pretty hairy law enforcement and prosecution standards--and makes for some very shaky ground as to how adult companies decide what and what not to produce. Then even if they produce something questionable, the retailers who sell the product might not sell it because they might deem it too much of a risk to distribute (as they would also be in the line of prosecution fire). This is the case with many pee videos, and yes... Max Hardcore videos.
There is no hard law about mixing bondage with sex, for example. But it has long been understood that that would be considered obscene in most communities, and that prosecutors would come after people who cross that line.
That's the answer. It's not pretty... but there it is anyway. I'm no expert though, and I'm sure others will have much more well informed answers than I do. If you look through past threads in the forum--especially with regard to Max Hardcore, your bound to find much more detailed discussions about this issue.
That seems ironic. My fuzzy understanding is that the 'community standards' thing was originally a very positive thing for free speech. Prior to a court judgement (1973?) anything deemed obscene in Jasper, Alabama could not be shown anywhere else, either. The court judgement essentially ruled that it could be shown in Times Square if the citizens there did not find it obscene (anybody who wants to be more accurate than this, please, step right up).
I don't suppose that under Bush and Ashcroft we're headed for allowing individual adults to decide for themselves.
I totally agree it's fuzzy! Not good. Just ironic that it was what opened the door.
Prior to that, if Deep Throat was obscene in Jasper, it couldn't be shown anywhere. After this ruling, you could try showing it anywhere - it could only be shut down on a location-by-location basis, and that made it not cost-effective to try to ban anything.
MLyons is essentially correct. The result of the Supreme Court ruling was to create individual rules for each and every "community" in the US. Thus, there is no standard porn companies can apply to make their videos acceptable nationwide. To date, the Congress and the courts have declined to clarify the issue, so unwritten rules apply. One of those rules, as MLyons noted, is that sex and bondage are kept separate, if barely so. Another is that scatologically themed porn won't be distributed. Companies are free to attempt to do so, but the likelihood that at least one community will object and sue their you-know-what's off is too high for them to find it profitable to attempt.
As aybesea suggests, when everybody has their own standard, then there is no standard. The deal with John Ashcroft, et al, is that he wants to apply his standard and understands that he can hand-pick the venue, thus the standard, to get the outcome he desires.
I've said this before but I think that any sexual activity between fully consenting adults should be their own business, period. But unfortunately here in the US, we have these ridiculous rules and regulations that prohibit many sexual acts that adults can engage in - especially when it concerns the porn industry. We can all take a lesson from the Europeans, at least they aren't so damn up-tight about showing fisting, golden showers and other exotic sexual practices that men and women have enjoyed for centuries. Oh well, guess Ashcroft & Co. will continue to use the US Constitution as toilet paper...
Items on the below list range from risky to outright illegal :When you consider that Max Hardcore has done at least four (and possibly five) of the above items in his movies, it's no wonder that he was finally prosecuted. He escaped with a hung jury result. However, chances are great that they'll go after him again sooner or later.
Another problem with the "community standards" law is the way they apply it. In essence nothing is really obscene under this law until a jury rules on it. Now in a normal legal setting you couldn't procecute someone who did something before it was illegal but here you can. The Free Speech Coalition has tried to get a judge to rule on the legality of a movie prior to release but the courts refused hence you don't know if it will offend their sensibilities until someone complains or the DA files charges.
