Is Violent Pornography Illegal ?

Author	Post
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 8:52AM It would be interesting to hear, especially from persons knowledgeable on matters of free speech and expression as well as to directors/producers presently involved in this genre, as to what is the legal position in various countries with regards to "violent pornography". I have heard that recently in the UK, laws have been passed to ban possession of all forms of "violence porn", following the claims that such material was linked to a sensational killing in that country. Any thoughts and information on the situation in US and Europe ? Which directors and studios are presently selling aggressive or violent porn, and do you think that these producers are going to be targetted for producing these movies in the near future ? [Link]
leatherface Senior Member 1258 Posts 7/07	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 11:44AM I have heard that recently in the UK, laws have been passed to ban possession of all forms of "violence porn", following the claims that such material was linked to a sensational killing in that country. Click to expand what do you mean with "violence porn"? Non consensual acts, or rough stuff in general? [Link]
Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 11:52AM think of it as ice hockey....the same applies. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 12:22PM what do you mean with "violence porn"? Non consensual acts, or rough stuff in general? Click to expand any porn depicting violence including consensual porn, animations etc naturally porn with non-consensual violence is illegal, it always has been, but what about consensual violent porn movies, this is what they are going to be banning. Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/9/2008 12:36:51 PM [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 1:39PM From a purely legal perspective, violence is typically defined as a willful act of aggression intended to cause damage to someone. Abuse is sometimes entered into the lexicon as well. But "intent" has to imply that the recipient did not want/desire that act to be performed. Therefore, I'm not certain how you would go about proving a strong case against "violent porn" since a release is in place from all performers in the first place. Porn that PORTRAYS violence, even simulated violence, might run afoul of obscenity statues, as these are so hard to define and truly open to a jury to define in most cases. But frankly, I've seen mainstream movies that portray much more extreme scenes of violence than anything I've ever seen in porn. Movies displaying dismemberment, death, rape, murder, etc....anything rated NC17 and most slasher films, for example. How are these movies "OK" but violence in porn is considered not OK? It's like most other issues relating to porn....the industry just doesn't have a collective backbone or financial capability to defend itself en-masse. Porn is pretty much every producer for themselves....almost any of the porn producers who goes on trial finds themself quickly ostracized by the industry. Now if you saw a movement afoot to go after all the slasher films that glorify homicide and domestic violence, you bet your life you'd see a collective defense formed out of Hollywood to defend THOSE films as "free speech." But since porn=sex, it's just an easy-to-prosecute target. [Link]

Clam Digger Deactivated User Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good. 2268 Posts 1/05	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 1:48PM MarcoClimax wrote: what do you mean with "violence porn"? Non consensual acts, or rough stuff in general? Click to expand any porn depicting violence including consensual porn, animations etc naturally porn with non-consensual violence is illegal, it always has been, but what about consensual violent porn movies, this is what they are going to be banning. Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/9/2008 12:36:51 PM Click to expand Assuming you are making reference to U.S. law, you are being rather imprecise in your use of the word porn. Porn is not just confined to capturing of live sex acts between humans or humans and animals on electronic video. There is also pornographic literature, which is certainly not illegal. It can be in the form of depictions on the walls of caves or on ruined bath houses in Pompey, for example. It can take the form of cartoons or animations. Anyway such "porn" violent or otherwise is not illegal. Even the filming of illegal or deviant behavior is not illegal. It is evidence however that could be used to prosecute such behavior. If someone films a non-consensual rape,it is the rape itself that is illegal and not the filming of it. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 2:13PM Even the filming of illegal or deviant behavior is not illegal. It is evidence however that could be used to prosecute such behavior. If someone films a non-consensual rape,it is the rape itself that is illegal and not the filming of it. Click to expand well thanks for clarifying this. i sure aint an expert on this, but it is a concern that UK government has in effect blamed violent porn for a homicide, and has created a law in accord with the relatives of the victim to this murder, banning violent porn that they claim caused the offender to perpetrate the act. Isnt this going to effect laws in the US also ? Now if you saw a movement afoot to go after all the slasher films that glorify homicide and domestic violence, you bet your life you'd see a collective defense formed out of Hollywood to defend THOSE films as "free speech." Click to expand well this is what is so disconcerting, if they have started doing it with violence in porn, are mainstrean movies with sexual violence going to be next ? Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/9/2008 2:17:56 PM Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/9/2008 2:25:55 PM [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 2:32PM Most likely won't happen because a) Hollywood has Washington, DC in their back pocket thanks to all the distribution of political campaign funds in the first place and b) If our government were to go after a complete ban on slasher flicks, you'd see a "new" government emerge in favor of affirming slasher films as upholding free speech...and this new government is the funded replacement from Hollywood for the old one. Again, follow the money. Porn money only lines the pockets of the porn industry. Hollywood money lines the pockets of Hollywood, to be sure, but there is sooooo much more to go around and much of it ends up with SIG's and lobby groups meant to further protect the commercial ventures of Hollywood. If Porn ever got it's collective act together, they MIGHT be able to accomplish similar political clout, but it's doubtful. They aren't organized and anywhere near as large as Hollywood. And thanks to feminism and organized religion, porn is a far easier (and more popular) target in the first place. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 2:48PM a) Hollywood has Washington, DC in their back pocket thanks to all the distribution of political campaign funds in the first place ...Porn money only lines the pockets of the porn industry. Hollywood money lines the pockets of Hollywood If Porn ever got it's collective act together, they MIGHT be able to accomplish similar political clout, but it's doubtful. Click to expand well this makes me feel a little better, i never realised Holywood had so much sway in politics, but its still a concern that the porn industry is being targetted in this way. its almost as if the porn industry is being used as a scapegoat by politicians, to be blamed for all the sexual violence that is happening around us. [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 3:37PM You are 100% correct. Porn is an easy scapegoat because it's a small % of the relative population who will actually STAND UP for porn and the freedom to watch/consume same. There is another interesting, albeit different, story brewing out there. Monitor the videogame industry. Videogames are very mainstream now and have been robbing Hollywood of $$ that would otherwise be spent on movies/DVD's for passive entertainment. It's very interesting how violent videogames are being targeted as a "societal ill" when videogames have yet to show anything near as graphic as depicted in your average slasher flick. But since videogames are largely the domain of under-the-voting-age population, they have no collective voice to push back on politicians who wish to kill them off via legislation. As popular as the Grand Theft Auto series is/was, it's still a drop in the bucket versus the Halloween franchise. Again, follow the money....a lot of popular, front-page news about the evils of video games and evils of porn only exist because those front-pages are owned by much more powerful/influential ventures who wish to eliminate threats to their livelihood. Edited by - lubenluv on 8/9/2008 3:39:20 PM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 3:47PM Yes. I believe such a law was recently passed in the UK. And yes. It was passed based upon public hysteria following a murder when the guy who did the murder turned out to have "violent porn" in his possession. As far as I know, no similar law has been passed or is pending in the US. But they could probably prosecute it under obscenity. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if similar legislation doesn't pop up in the US in the near future. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 4:43PM videogames are being targeted as a "societal ill" when videogames have yet to show anything near as graphic as depicted in your average slasher flick Click to expand exactly, this is a classic example of targetting everything that combines sex and violence. its almost like you can have sex, ok, and you can have violence, ok, but dont try and mix sex with violence, cos then you gonna get banned, gee cummon these are drawings, what next. I wouldn't be surprised if similar legislation doesn't pop up in the US in the near future. Click to expand i have this terrible feeing that its going to happen, i dont know why. it just seems like theres some big wheels in the UK government pushing this. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 5:08PM MarcoClimax wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if similar legislation doesn't pop up in the US in the near future. Click to expand i have this terrible feeing that its going to happen, i dont know why. it just seems like theres some big wheels in the UK government pushing this. Click to expand Here's a good guess. Some people believe that criminals aren't smart enough to come up with their crimes on their own. They believe everything would be honky dory of nobody was ever "influenced" by a song or a game or a movie. They've conveniently forgotten a lot of history but that's OK because everybody does. And then there's this. It is possible that someone who is very deeply disturbed in the first place could be triggered by something he or she saw, read or heard. That really can't be denied. But of course, if we base all of our laws upon that kind of thinking, adults won't have anything for entertainment but cartoons and other kid stuff. Which would only make matters worse because there are already enough adults who are basically overgrown children. Yes. These people really do want to bring us all down to the level of a 3rd grader. It sounds stupid and it is. But it's true. Edited by - randomprecision on 8/9/2008 5:10:06 PM [Link]
Gunzo Senior Member 1377 Posts 2/05	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 5:27PM I've noticed that people not into porn or opposed to it find violence in porn that is clearly not violent at all (i.e. mild slapping, spanking and choking), likely because they've been brainwashed to look at porn as something vile that don't reflect 'real' sex in any way. So a law could be quite devestating and make porn incredibly dull if the producers would choose to turn down the intensity. I'm concerned about the lack of real in-depth sexual education for real life in our society, many claim to learn a lot from watching porn and it shouldn't have to be like that... they shouldn't watch a porn and find out that it's possible to fuck the asshole too... [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 5:34PM i mean it seems absurd, did the person commit murder because he watched violent porn, or did he watch violent porn because he found himself leaning to commit murder. there is no way of proving it. how can they say that they know the answer. berl kutchinsky, danish professor of criminology, did a lot of studies showing that legalizing pornography reduced aggression. take a look at Japan, where sexual crime rates dropped, despite a culture of violent porn over there, so why these contradictions ? maybe its a political, religious thing also, i dunno ? [Link]

RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 6:14PM MarcoClimax wrote: i mean it seems absurd, did the person commit murder because he watched violent porn, or did he watch violent porn because he found himself leaning to commit murder. Click to expand The "porn" in question wasn't exactly porn as you and I know it. It was a particular type of porn. From what I understand, it was something like fake snuff. In other words, it was porn that depicted people being raped and killed. It wasn't real but it seems some people decided that the guy must have done it because of the porn. My view? If watching a movie will cause people to act out, we're in trouble. We won't be able to watch anything. Obviously, I don't believe the guy did it because of the porn. I believe he had the inclination and that's why he had the porn. So what they did was they jumped to the conclusion that only a murderer (or, more accurately, someone who was going to murder) would be interested in this kind of porn so they outlawed it. That way they can arrest anyone who has it. The way they see it, they're preventing crime before it happens. They're probably right in some cases. Maybe even many cases. But they're going to hurt a lot of innocent people who would never hurt anyone if they vigorously enforce it. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 6:35PM the thing is, if they are right, then maybe they feel that by eliminating porn, they will eliminate or control sexual violence. now i dissagree with these guys, in fact i think the opposite will happen. if they do eliminate it, people will be more predisposed to acting out their violent fantasies, cause there wont be movies to watch, so some folks will, as it were, go out and "make their own movies". thats what a few well known sexual murderers actually did, they made their own movies of their crimes, maybe they did that because they couldnt find a movie they liked. its difficult to understand what its all about. i suppose its all a guessing game. [Link]
Dave_K99 Member 497 Posts 12/07	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 8:17PM The thing I find strange about UK law is that, from what I understand, the extreme porn doesn't even have to be particularly pornographic. It doesn't have to be a movie, or feature full nudity, let alone show any actual sex. Even something suggestive, like a horror movie still showing a bikini babe being threatened by a knife wielding maniac, or a shot of a fully clothed woman tied to a rack, could be illegal. How about a porn spoof like The Texas Vibrator Massacre? There a fair few mainstream porn movies that flirt with violence and non-consensuality. I even remember one of the JM Perverted Stories series featuring fake necrophilia, something specifically banned by the new law. Would owning those DVDs be punishable by jail time and a place on the sex offender register? Anti-porn activists, who fought for this law, don't seem to make much of a distinction between mainstream porn and the stuff that's banned. Most believe that all pornography is rape recorded on film, that it's all abusive and causes violence against women. They've made it clear that they'd like to see everything banned, including softcore magazines and strip clubs. If people get a thrill from sexualised violence or necrophilia, there are any number of mainstream horror movies they can watch. How about stuff like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit? Shows like that often feature rape and murder, yet they're on TV while a lot of children are still watching. Is that stuff really less graphic than most of the "extreme porn" that's banned? I don't believe that watching a bad actress get splattered in red paint, or looking at a gory pencil sketch, would make someone go out and commit murder. Like violent video games, it's just a convenient scapegoat for societies problems, and an easy first target for censorship advocates. Who'd want to stand up and defend it? [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 10:23PM Liz Longhurst in UK may feel happy that she has managed to get this law passed, but she is in for a surprise, little does she realise that this law is actually going to make things worse. I am sorry about what happened to her daughter Jane, but I dont think this is going to help the situation, instead its going to make things worse. people who were viewing violent porn in UK in movies, are now gonna start looking for outlets to their sexual frustration, in the real living world. i am sorry but she has tried to put the fire out by putting oil into it. [Link]
Dave_K99 Member 497 Posts 12/07	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 7:19AM I've never really bought the argument that things like porn and violent movies act as some kind of safety valve. That people will act out their aggression shooting bad guys in a video game, when they'd otherwise have grabbed a gun and started shooting people for real. The evidence for this doesn't seem any more compelling than the anti-porn/violence claims. I think that fucked up people are going to do fucked up things whether or not they can watch porn or play Grand Theft Auto. [Link]
DoNotLitter Member "0" 11 Posts 8/08	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 4:59PM First off, if we are classifying this "violent porn" as being obscenity, while the government does have the right to regulate obscenity, it does not have the right to make criminal private possession of obscenity (such as the case apparently in the UK now) because of the individual's constitutional right to personal privacy. However the protection does not extend beyond the home. Thus, importation, distribution, and exhibition of obscene materials can be prohibited. Having said all of this, the government may try to sneak in some legislation for this "violent porn" under another constitutionally alloted power. As for the whole slippery slope argument everyone likes to make on this board, they are right. The law is not stationary, it is constantly moving through interpretation, and to the people in the US that look to the UK and say "that would never happen hear" you're dead wrong. Just a few more judges of a certain slant on that court and you can watch many of the rights you have taken for granted melt away. With regard to the argument that watching violence influences one toward violent behavior, many studies indicate that that is precisely the truth, which is crap, because many studies also indicate the exact opposite. Studies are funded by someone, and are always subject to some agenda. Whatever happened to personal accountability? You kill somebody you GET THE CHAIR or GO TO PRISON, don't blame it on the TV! I have a question that may be a little off topic (but was sort of alluded to above), and maybe some of the more senior posters could direct me to a thread that may answer my question. Why is it that such a large industry such as the adult industry, does not have some universal lobbying structure to represent their interests in congress? I can't think of any other multi-billion dollar industry that doesn't have someone greasing palms in Washington. Or maybe they do, and I am just mistaken. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 5:37PM DoNotLitter wrote: First off, if we are classifying this "violent porn" as being obscenity, while the government does have the right to regulate obscenity, it does not have the right to make criminal private possession of obscenity (such as the case apparently in the UK now) because of the individual's constitutional right to personal privacy. However the protection does not extend beyond the home. Thus, importation, distribution, and exhibition of obscene materials can be prohibited. Having said all of this, the government may try to sneak in some legislation for this "violent porn" under another constitutionally alloted power. Click to expand I would just like to know what part of the constitution invalidates the first amendment? I don't see that the government has any right at all to censor speech. The first amendment does not leave any wiggle room. It says "Don't do it. Period". Edited by - randomprecision on 8/10/2008 5:38:22 PM [Link]
DoNotLitter Member "0" 11 Posts 8/08	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 6:31PM RP wrote "I would just like to know what part of the constitution invalidates the first amendment? I don't see that the government has any right at all to censor speech. The first amendment does not leave any wiggle room. It says "Don't do it. Period". You are absolutely right RP, the text of the FA is very clear, but as with everything else in the law, exceptions start to creep in. Now some of these exceptions stem from the practicalities of establishing a society and order, unfortunately though some exceptions stem from individuals or groups on crusades, and are more a result of personal/moral convictions that the individual wishes to push on the whole of society rather than utility. I'll go ahead and list some of the current exceptions to absolute freedom of speech, but keep in mind that each of these exception has a test that it must pass in order to be considered valid under the constitution: 1. The speech creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. This would be the guy that yells "FIRE" in the crowded movie theatre, while that is technically speech, it is illegal. 2. It constitutes "fighting words" as defined by a narrow, precise statute. I could go into an explanation but it isn't really relevant. 3. The speech, film, etc., is OBSCENE. This is the one we are looking at, and the test is set out as as description or depiction of sexual conduct that, taken as a whole, by the average person, applying contemporary community standards: a) Appeals to a prurient interest in sex; b) Portrays sex in a patently offensive way; c) Does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value-this prong uses the national reasonable standard person. This would be standard that individuals like Max Hardcore would have real problems with. It is important to note that this is a matter almost purely for the jury. Also this does not apply to personal possession of obscenity. This is also where they place child porn. 4. Defamatory speech, or defamation, which may be subject to some form of tort action. 5. Restrictions on commercial speech, or false or deceptive advertising. I think the thing we should remember is that the law of the land while based on the words of the constitution is only a part of our legal framework, when we factor in judges on the high court interpreting and creating law (which by the way I completely oppose). So you are right, their is no part of the constitution that invalidates the FA, that would be crazy, but what has happened is that FA just like the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and so on has been interpreted to mean a certain thing with certain exceptions. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 7:17PM DoNotLitter wrote: With regard to the argument that watching violence influences one toward violent behavior, many studies indicate that that is precisely the truth, which is crap, because many studies also indicate the exact opposite. Studies are funded by someone, and are always subject to some agenda. Whatever happened to personal accountability? You kill somebody you GET THE CHAIR or GO TO PRISON, don't blame it on the TV! Click to expand But see, this goes back to what I said earlier. The goal some of these people have is preventing crime before it happens. Which, nobody can really blame them for wanting to do so. Especially if someone you care about has been a victim. So the way they go about it is arresting everyone who might have the slightest inclination towards that sort of violence. Which is basically using an elephant to crack a nut. You know, sure. If you just arrest everyone, you're bound to bust a few bad guys. This could be called industrial strength law enforcement. Just throw them all in the can and don't worry about the innocents. It is revelatory of the fact that the people behind these laws are very selfish individuals. They care only for themselves and they don't care who they hurt. They're angry at the world because they suffered some kind of injustice. When they fight back, it's often indiscriminate. [Link]
DoNotLitter Member "0" 11 Posts 8/08	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 8:31PM Once again I think you're right RP, but to an extent. I truly can't fault someone who has gone on a crusade to right some injustice that they perceive within society, even if they do approach it from a "selfish" perspective. I value the process of political change too much, and after all isn't that at least partially part of democracy that we can bring about change by our actions. Besides that, since we are talking about free speech, even though these crusaders may be kooks, aren't they entitled to voice their kooky opinions. Many times these individuals are simply guilty of being uninformed people with little or no vision. Where this looses me, and where I see the real problem coming into play is when the crooked ass politicians get involved. As an elected official that individual has a responsibility to not only represent his constituency, but also work toward the betterment of the union through sound judgment and wisdom. Instead, what occurs is politicians use many of these so called crusaders or crusader groups as atms and pawns (just like the rest of us) to get TV time, and beat their chests when re-elections come back around claiming that they "are tough on crime" shamelessly pandering so they can keep their soulless asses in office. I often think that in the ninth circle of hell their is satan devouring three individuals for all of eternity a politician, a televangelist, and Charles Nelson Riley. [Link]

RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 8:47PM DoNotLitter wrote: Many times these individuals are simply guilty of being uninformed people with little or no vision. Click to expand Sure. But history is full of examples of what happens when the opinions of these people are actually given credence. The danger isn't that they have these opinions. It's that often, the public is gullible enough to go along with them. [Link]
DoNotLitter Member "0" 11 Posts 8/08	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 9:24PM RP wrote "Sure. But history is full of examples of what happens when the opinions of these people are actually given credence. The danger isn't that they have these opinions. It's that often, the public is gullible enough to go along with them. " That is precisely the point that I am trying to make with the second paragraph of my last post. Within our system their are levels of checks and balances, checks on the state and checks on us as crazy citizens. Within this system it is the elected representative that is supposed to tell snake handler Jimmy that he is not going to push Jimmy's legislation to require every church in the country to have a cobra behind the alter because it isn't good law, but since Washington is broken this too often doesn't happen, especially if Jimmy's got cash. So instead of our government functioning the way it is supposed to and these people being shut down from the jump, they have their agendas pushed. So let's fix Washington, yeah right, they have been trying to do that since before their was a DC, so we come to an impasse. Now having said that I'm OK with some of these crack pots getting their way, because I want to know that if I ever have something that I want my congressmen to address he will do it (if I got the cash of course) As for the dee duh dee public, your right, they are gullible, but they choose to be and it is their choice to make. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 10:01PM DoNotLitter wrote: As for the dee duh dee public, your right, they are gullible, but they choose to be and it is their choice to make. Click to expand I fail to agree. If they can infringe upon our rights, their rights mean jack. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 12:50AM violent pornography is all about the make believe world of film and cinema, there are no real scenes of violence in these movies, its all just about actors and raunchy entertainment. on the other hand there is so much real violence being perpetrated in the name of religion, why is it that the authorities dont ban religion ? When Jim Jones brainwashed hundreds of his followers into believing that they needed to committ suicide, or when David Koresh declared war on the FBI, or when recently the Russian pastor Pyotr Kuznetsov and 30 of his followers threatened the authorities with suicide, or when the IRA was bombing pubs in London, wasnt this clear evidence of religions perpetration of violence, so how come the authorities never considered banning religion. I think its because they refuse to admit that religion poses a real danger to society. [Link]
pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:40AM Your answer lies in the definition of community standards and "taken as a whole." Obscenity in the US is governed by the Supreme Court decision of Miller. From Miller, we have a 3 part obscenity test. Violent porn itself is not illegal until the producer/distributor is prosecuted for obscenity. If the jury decides that the film/video/literally work is indeed obscene then the producer/distributor is found guilty and the work is deemed obscene in that judicial district. That work is not obscene anywhere else. So the question posed really doesn't have any answer. This is the problem with obscenity prosecutions. There is no true answer. Michael www.AdultBizLaw.com [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:17AM Your answer lies in the definition of community standards Click to expand sure, there have to be controls to stop people committing rape and murder, whilst filming it, and its right that most communities are against this. but doesnt a lot of this anti-porn sentiment have to do with puritan religious ideas and indoctrination. the belief that we are some form of perfect utopian society, that is not allowed to faulter or make a mistake. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:47AM MarcoClimax wrote: sure, there have to be controls to stop people committing rape and murder, whilst filming it, Click to expand Why? Rape and murder are already illegal. Should we charge CNN with obscenity for filming 9/11? [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 4:09AM Good point. Also, dont forget CNN's filming of Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma city bombing of the Alfred P.Murrah Federal Building, when so many died on the anniversary of the FBI's fire bombing of the Branch Davidian, Waco, compound of David Koresh. Seems like one form of religious violence leads to another, maybe we should ban those movies also. Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 6:09:09 AM [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 10:25AM Read Waller's "Less Laws, More Order" sometime for a very enlightening look at just how futile "laws" are at PREVENTING crime. Laws allow us to DEAL with those who violate them by giving society the ability to punish those who would disrupt our daily lives. But they do very little, if anything, to actually help prevent crimes. Crime prevention is almost entirely an issue of societal tools such as parenting skills, active and visible enforcement agencies (police) and for some percentage of the miscreant community the threat of punishment. The laws themselves do nothing other than to establish the boundaries between what society deems as acceptable versus unacceptable. I'm not saying laws are useless....they play an important role. But society as a whole has this skewed belief that a new law somehow will "fix" the problem when, it's been proven, it seldom has ANY impact whatsoever. And if you believe Waller (and I do), the second most popular "fix" is to throw more enforcement out on the streets....bigger police budgets, bigger prisons, etc. In the USA, expenditures for police, judicial and correctional expenses went from $36B to $204B and continues to climb annually. What he argues is that this is a blamestorming approach...people need to feel like they are "doing" something and so they do the easiest thing possible...pass another law to outlaw an easy target. By the way, Waller is huge proponent of outlawing all handgun ownership in the USA. I am totally against this idea, but I read his work with an open mind and suggest you do as well. His premise is, overall, one of targeting the root of criminal activity...the home. You want to stop crime, you have to learn to focus on the very unpopular and politically incorrect root cause and that is that parents (as a group) just aren't spending enough time with their kids because they are selfishly too focused on their own pursuit of happiness and justify it by letting "society" raise their kids for them instead. [Link]
Loraine Senior Member 1559 Posts 3/04	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 10:33AM MarcoClimax wrote: violent pornography is all about the make believe world of film and cinema, there are no real scenes of violence in these movies, its all just about actors and raunchy entertainment. on the other hand there is so much real violence being perpetrated in the name of religion, why is it that the authorities dont ban religion ? When Jim Jones brainwashed hundreds of his followers into believing that they needed to committ suicide, or when David Koresh declared war on the FBI, or when recently the Russian pastor Pyotr Kuznetsov and 30 of his followers threatened the authorities with suicide, or when the IRA was bombing pubs in London, wasnt this clear evidence of religions perpetration of violence, so how come the authorities never considered banning religion. I think its because they refuse to admit that religion poses a real danger to society. Click to expand What's "real" and what's "pretend or make believe". I think we can be pretty sure that if someone is getting slapped in a Hollywood flick we're not actually seeing someone getting slapped. If we someone getting slapped in a porn vid is it pretend? I'm not asking if a slap constitutes violence, just about this notion of real and pretend. [Link]

LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 10:44AM Loraine wrote: What's "real" and what's "pretend or make believe". I think we can be pretty sure that if someone is getting slapped in a Hollywood flick we're not actually seeing someone getting slapped. If we someone getting slapped in a porn vid is it pretend? I'm not asking if a slap constitutes violence, just about this notion of real and pretend. Click to expand I find it interesting that you'd pose your question in this manner. Why would a "porn slap" be any more/less real than a "hollywood slap?" Is it because we believe one to be choreographed, scripted and done by stunt professionals and the other to be an overtly hostile action? [Link]
DoNotLitter Member "0" 11 Posts 8/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 12:19PM LubeNLuv wrote: "I find it interesting that you'd pose your question in this manner. Why would a 'porn slap' be any more/less real than a 'hollywood slap?' Is it because we believe one to be choreographed, scripted and done by stunt professionals and the other to be an overtly hostile action?" I notice that posters on this topic keep bringing up violence as filmed on CNN or within a Hollywood Movie in a non-sex context as being equivalent to a slap in an adult film, I think it is important to note that the Supreme Court has determined that when sex is added into the equation standards do change. As was mentioned above by pornlaw when one is defining obscene material in a legal sense one must use the 3 part Miller Test of which the first part is that the material appeals to prurient interests (if you want to see the whole test look at my previous post 4 posts earlier). Under this part of the test The SC has found this material to include that which appeals to shameful or morbid interests in sex (this would include sadists). The important part as far as I can see is that the sadistic behavior must be the dominant theme of the material. The point that I am trying to make is that violence is violence as far as I'm concerned, but when an individual adds sex into the equation that violence at least in the eyes of the law takes on a different meaning. I should note that this is not my personal opinion I am just trying to provide my insight (such as it is). [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 12:52PM Read Waller's "Less Laws, More Order" Click to expand ok, this could be interesting What's "real" and what's "pretend or make believe". Click to expand what i meant was real violence, like for instance homicides, rapes, where the victims and offenders are not performing for a movie studio. I notice that posters on this topic keep bringing up violence as filmed on CNN or within a Hollywood Movie in a non-sex context as being equivalent to a slap in an adult film, I think it is important to note that the Supreme Court has determined that when sex is added into the equation standards do change. Click to expand am i wrong in saying then, and i know you didnt make these laws, but according to the law, if a person is for instance using a chainsaw on another person in a movie without sexual motivation, then does the law say that this will not influence the viewer into imitating this action, whereas if a person is sadistically beating a woman with sexual motivation then that will influence the viewer into imitating that action ? or does it get even more complicated than this ? [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:12PM Psychologists would have us believe that the mental line between sexual gratification and extreme acts of violence is virtually non-existent in the first place...they are so closely related as to be inseparable. I don't believe this theory, but it's prevalent. But I DO believe that banning of "violent porn" has nothing to do with crime prevention and will have zero impact on same. It's all about blamestorming and the misguided application of "social justice." _Someone_ needed to be punished, so they chose porn in the case of the UK. Edited by - lubenluv on 8/11/2008 1:13:29 PM [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:33PM The Bible sucks, thats whats causing all the problems. A lot of these Serial Killers were quoting texts from their Bibles whilst they were killing their victims. Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 8:05:00 PM Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/13/2008 11:15:52 AM [Link]
DoNotLitter Member "0" 11 Posts 8/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:37PM MacroClimax wrote: "am i wrong in saying then, and i know you didnt make these laws, but according to the law, if a person is for instance using a chainsaw on another person in a movie without sexual motivation, then does the law say that this will not influence the viewer into imitating this action, whereas if a person is sadistically beating a woman with sexual motivation then that will influence the viewer into imitating that action ? or does it get even more complicated than this ?" What your saying while it is an extreme example is kind or right, at least as far as the legal definition of obscenity goes and it being speech outside of First Amendment protection. Sounds completely screwed up doesn't it? Now this isn't to say that they couldn't try to restrict the "chain saw massacre" under some other existing exception (or new exception for that matter) to free speech protection, but as far as "obscene" material is concerned it is OK to film someone going ape shit and choppin up the fam in a movie. Now to answer, is this violent act more influential than a sexual violent act? Personally I think violence is violence, but if you take the perspective that laws represent the overall views of the people than yes, according to THIS law your right. I hate to tell some people but they have been pushing censorship all kinds on non-porn related material based on violence as well as a whole host of other perceived social ills. In some instances, such as restrictions on advertising certain products, they have even succeeded. Look, the fact of the matter is today that the government is slowly chipping away at your civli liberties, they have been for at least 100 years. The constitution is not a revered legal framework to these people, it is only a tool to bring about their desired outcome. So as far as they are concerned, bring on wire tapping w/o warrants, why not have censorship of the press and media, joe public doesn't get it these people don't give a fuck! Also is it so surprising that we have criminalized areas of sexuality? I hate to tell everyone, but if they don't think we are still dealing with some pretty heavy puritanical influences even today they are either willfully ignorant or functionally retarded. You've gotta remember plenty of politicians have been elected to office on the politics of sex. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:50PM i think more politicians should have illicit sex, visit prostitutes, get addicted to porn etc, like Jimmy Swaggart, they will become much better equipped to deal with these sort of issues. Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 8:04:15 PM Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/13/2008 11:14:03 AM [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 2:09PM May as well throw every single religious text in there while you are at it. Last I checked, this guy is a big fan of this book. Christianity doesn't hold the copyright on extremism. Ban one book, religious or not, and you are basically condoning the complete eradication of any "questionable" material...including violent porn. This is the 'slippery slope' referred to earlier in the thread. Edit That picture was taken at a UK protest rally, by the way. Source Edited by - lubenluv on 8/11/2008 2:29:29 PM [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 2:34PM “Christianity doesn't hold the copyright on extremism.” Click to expand Maybe not on global extremism, but it does hold the copyright on extremism of Christians within Christian countries, and isnt that what we are talking about ? Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 2:36:29 PM [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 2:42PM Christianity isn't an organization...it's a belief system. Same with Islam. The Pope could be considered the leader of the Catholic church, but that is just one facet of Christianity. Just as Islam, Judaism and other religions have their own leadership. You are using a very broad brush in your definitions which threatens to place you in the same bucket as someone who wishes to ban ALL pornography as being "degrading to women." All I'm saying is that there's an old adage out there that says when you point one finger at someone/something, the other four are pointing back at yourself. Be careful in assigning blame. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 2:57PM ʢ Christianity isn't an organization...it's a belief system. ʡ Click to expand Yes its a belief system that threatens to ban violent pornography. So why bring other religions into the equation. The US government is made up exclusively of Evangelical Christians/Protestants, besides one or two Catholics, as far as I am aware. Its the US government that is passing all these laws banning violent porn not other religions, so why blame others ? Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 2:58:09 PM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:03PM Loraine wrote: What's "real" and what's "pretend or make believe". I think we can be pretty sure that if someone is getting slapped in a Hollywood flick we're not actually seeing someone getting slapped. If we someone getting slapped in a porn vid is it pretend? I'm not asking if a slap constitutes violence, just about this notion of real and pretend. Click to expand That depends. Slaps can be faked. The majority of the slaps you see in porn probably aren't but most of them aren't that hard either. Nobody is going to die from being slapped. But it brings up an interesting point. Let's say Harrison Ford is slapped in a movie and for the sake of realism, he allows the woman to really slap him. Is anybody going to care? Again, it just goes to show this pathological thought process people have about sex. Everything is fine until sex comes into the picture. We'll sit and watch a race car driver die in a fiery crash and say "Ahhh. Too bad. I liked that guy". But if a woman gets roughed up a little in a porn flick (Even if she's fine with it. Especially if she's fine with it), everybody goes batshit. Edited by - randomprecision on 8/11/2008 3:04:36 PM [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:20PM MarcoClimax wrote: ʢ Christianity isn't an organization...it's a belief system. ʡ Click to expand Yes its a belief system that threatens to ban violent pornography. So why bring other religions into the equation. The US government is made up exclusively of Evangelical Christians/Protestants, besides one or two Catholics, as far as I am aware. Its the US government that is passing all these laws banning violent porn not other religions, so why blame others ? Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 2:58:09 PM Click to expand Wait a second, I think you've switched the focus of your arguments... The first post you made was about the UK banning so-called "violent porn." Now it's about the US banning same? And I hope you are aware that in many other countries, porn and almost anything resembling nude females is outlawed, sometimes with severe capital punishment if found in possession of same. Last I checked, China and Saudi Arabia are most definitely NOT governed by Christian men. So your argument that the Christian faith is largely responsible for the suppression of pornography doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For that matter, if you are a student of the legal system at all, you'd note that very few influential members of the judicial system are devotee's of any particular religion at all. Certainly it's fair to state that most of the USA's elected officials come from Christian backgrounds and may cater to Christian beliefs, but that's simply because to even BE an elected official almost guarantee's they were born and raised in this country. That's like saying the leader of France is just too French for your liking....kind of goes with the territory. If your topic is now that Christianity is trying to eradicate porn, that's old news. Thus far, porn remains a profitable enterprise within the USA, proving that Christianity as an Institution here isn't as powerful as you are painting it to be. I'm far more fearful of the "porn degrades women and is therefore evil" camp than I am of any baptist minister calling porn a sin. Evangelical Christians are a threat to porn, no doubt....on that I'll agree. But I think there are far greater threats to porn, the single biggest one being the industry itself who refuses to grow up and act like a business rather than a cottage industry. [Link]
tricia_devereaux Evil Angel DVD Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:27PM LubeNLuv wrote: Wait a second, I think you've switched the focus of your arguments... Click to expand LubeNLuv- While I've enjoyed skimming through your posts in this thread, I can pretty much guarantee you that if you've been posting your comments for the OP, they're falling on deaf ears. Take a peek at his profile. This was his first post ever, and it would seem that 20 of his 22 posts are in this thread. Can you say agenda? [Link]
LubeNLuv Senior Member 1854 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:30PM Ugh, well I thought the OP was asking serious questions and attempting to engage in a serious discussion...just saw they have a dedicated thread on Christianity trying to "subvert" porn. So agenda is now pretty clear. Thanks for the heads-up Tricia. [Link]
MarcoClimax Member 44 Posts 7/08	Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:51PM And I hope you are aware that in many other countries, porn and almost anything resembling nude females is outlawed, sometimes with severe capital punishment Click to expand well i certainly dont plan on making an issue on what is happening in non-Christian countries. you were the one who said that : 'Christianity doesn't hold the copyright on extremism ©' Click to expand you know as well as I do that international laws prohibit any country from interfering in the legal systems of other countries, so that even if all the Evangelists in the UK or US wanted to proselityze and change the laws of other countries, they are unable to do so by international law. [Link]

Author

Post

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 8:52AM

It would be interesting to hear, especially from persons knowledgeable on matters of free speech and expression as well as to directors/producers presently involved in this genre, as to what is the legal position in various countries with regards to "violent pornography". I have heard that recently in the UK, laws have been passed to ban possession of all forms of "violence porn", following the claims that such material was linked to a sensational killing in that country. Any thoughts and information on the situation in US and Europe ? Which directors and studios are presently selling aggressive or violent porn, and do you think that these producers are going to be targetted for producing these movies in the near future ?

[Link]

leatherface
Senior Member

1258 Posts
7/07

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 11:44AM

what do you mean with "violence porn"? Non consensual acts, or rough stuff in general?

[Link]

Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
2268 Posts
1/05

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 11:52AM

think of it as ice hockey....the same applies.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 12:22PM

any porn depicting violence including consensual porn, animations etc
naturally porn with non-consensual violence is illegal, it always has been, but what about consensual violent porn movies, this is what they are going to be banning.
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/9/2008 12:36:51 PM

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 1:39PM

From a purely legal perspective, violence is typically defined as a willful act of aggression intended to cause damage to someone. Abuse is sometimes entered into the lexicon as well. But "intent" has to imply that the recipient did not want/desire that act to be performed. Therefore, I'm not certain how you would go about proving a strong case against "violent porn" since a release is in place from all performers in the first place.
Porn that PORTRAYS violence, even simulated violence, might run afoul of obscenity statues, as these are so hard to define and truly open to a jury to define in most cases. But frankly, I've seen mainstream movies that portray much more extreme scenes of violence than anything I've ever seen in porn. Movies displaying dismemberment, death, rape, murder, etc....anything rated NC17 and most slasher films, for example. How are these movies "OK" but violence in porn is considered not OK?
It's like most other issues relating to porn....the industry just doesn't have a collective backbone or financial capability to defend itself en-masse. Porn is pretty much every producer for themselves....almost any of the porn producers who goes on trial finds themself quickly ostracized by the industry. Now if you saw a movement afoot to go after all the slasher films that glorify homicide and domestic violence, you bet your life you'd see a collective defense formed out of Hollywood to defend THOSE films as "free speech." But since porn=sex, it's just an easy-to-prosecute target.

[Link]

Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
2268 Posts
1/05

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 1:48PM

Assuming you are making reference to U.S. law, you are being rather imprecise in your use of the word porn. Porn is not just confined to capturing of live sex acts between humans or humans and animals on electronic video.
There is also pornographic literature, which is certainly not illegal.
It can be in the form of depictions on the walls of caves or on ruined bath houses in Pompey, for example. It can take the form of cartoons or animations. Anyway such "porn" violent or otherwise is not illegal.
Even the filming of illegal or deviant behavior is not illegal. It is evidence however that could be used to prosecute such behavior. If someone films a non-consensual rape,it is the rape itself that is illegal and not the filming of it.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 2:13PM

well thanks for clarifying this. i sure aint an expert on this, but it is a concern that UK government has in effect blamed violent porn for a homicide, and has created a law in accord with the relatives of the victim to this murder, banning violent porn that they claim caused the offender to perpetrate the act. Isnt this going to effect laws in the US also ?

well this is what is so disconcerting, if they have started doing it with violence in porn, are mainstrean movies with sexual violence going to be next ?
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/9/2008 2:17:56 PM
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/9/2008 2:25:55 PM

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 2:32PM

Most likely won't happen because a) Hollywood has Washington, DC in their back pocket thanks to all the distribution of political campaign funds in the first place and b) If our government were to go after a complete ban on slasher flicks, you'd see a "new" government emerge in favor of affirming slasher films as upholding free speech...and this new government is the funded replacement from Hollywood for the old one.
Again, follow the money. Porn money only lines the pockets of the porn industry. Hollywood money lines the pockets of Hollywood, to be sure, but there is sooooo much more to go around and much of it ends up with SIG's and lobby groups meant to further protect the commercial ventures of Hollywood. If Porn ever got it's collective act together, they MIGHT be able to accomplish similar political clout, but it's doubtful. They aren't organized and anywhere near as large as Hollywood. And thanks to feminism and organized religion, porn is a far easier (and more popular) target in the first place.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 2:48PM

well this makes me feel a little better, i never realised Holywood had so much sway in politics, but its still a concern that the porn industry is being targetted in this way. its almost as if the porn industry is being used as a scapegoat by politicians, to be blamed for all the sexual violence that is happening around us.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 3:37PM

You are 100% correct.
Porn is an easy scapegoat because it's a small % of the relative population who will actually STAND UP for porn and the freedom to watch/consume same.
There is another interesting, albeit different, story brewing out there. Monitor the videogame industry. Videogames are very mainstream now and have been robbing Hollywood of $$ that would otherwise be spent on movies/DVD's for passive entertainment. It's very interesting how violent videogames are being targeted as a "societal ill" when videogames have yet to show anything near as graphic as depicted in your average slasher flick. But since videogames are largely the domain of under-the-voting-age population, they have no collective voice to push back on politicians who wish to kill them off via legislation. As popular as the Grand Theft Auto series is/was, it's still a drop in the bucket versus the Halloween franchise.
Again, follow the money....a lot of popular, front-page news about the evils of video games and evils of porn only exist because those front-pages are owned by much more powerful/influential ventures who wish to eliminate threats to their livelihood.
Edited by - lubenluv on 8/9/2008 3:39:20 PM

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 3:47PM

Yes. I believe such a law was recently passed in the UK. And yes. It was passed based upon public hysteria following a murder when the guy who did the murder turned out to have "violent porn" in his possession.
As far as I know, no similar law has been passed or is pending in the US. But they could probably prosecute it under obscenity.
Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if similar legislation doesn't pop up in the US in the near future.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 4:43PM

exactly, this is a classic example of targetting everything that combines sex and violence. its almost like you can have sex, ok, and you can have violence, ok, but dont try and mix sex with violence, cos then you gonna get banned, gee cummon these are drawings, what next.

i have this terrible feeing that its going to happen, i dont know why. it just seems like theres some big wheels in the UK government pushing this.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 5:08PM

Here's a good guess. Some people believe that criminals aren't smart enough to come up with their crimes on their own.
They believe everything would be honky dory of nobody was ever "influenced" by a song or a game or a movie. They've conveniently forgotten a lot of history but that's OK because everybody does.
And then there's this. It is possible that someone who is very deeply disturbed in the first place could be triggered by something he or she saw, read or heard. That really can't be denied.
But of course, if we base all of our laws upon that kind of thinking, adults won't have anything for entertainment but cartoons and other kid stuff. Which would only make matters worse because there are already enough adults who are basically overgrown children.
Yes. These people really do want to bring us all down to the level of a 3rd grader. It sounds stupid and it is. But it's true.
Edited by - randomprecision on 8/9/2008 5:10:06 PM

[Link]

Gunzo
Senior Member

1377 Posts
2/05

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 5:27PM

I've noticed that people not into porn or opposed to it find violence in porn that is clearly not violent at all (i.e. mild slapping, spanking and choking), likely because they've been brainwashed to look at porn as something vile that don't reflect 'real' sex in any way. So a law could be quite devestating and make porn incredibly dull if the producers would choose to turn down the intensity.
I'm concerned about the lack of real in-depth sexual education for real life in our society, many claim to learn a lot from watching porn and it shouldn't have to be like that... they shouldn't watch a porn and find out that it's possible to fuck the asshole too...

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 5:34PM

i mean it seems absurd, did the person commit murder because he watched violent porn, or did he watch violent porn because he found himself leaning to commit murder. there is no way of proving it. how can they say that they know the answer. berl kutchinsky, danish professor of criminology, did a lot of studies showing that legalizing pornography reduced aggression. take a look at Japan, where sexual crime rates dropped, despite a culture of violent porn over there, so why these contradictions ? maybe its a political, religious thing also, i dunno ?

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 6:14PM

The "porn" in question wasn't exactly porn as you and I know it. It was a particular type of porn. From what I understand, it was something like fake snuff. In other words, it was porn that depicted people being raped and killed. It wasn't real but it seems some people decided that the guy must have done it because of the porn.
My view? If watching a movie will cause people to act out, we're in trouble. We won't be able to watch anything. Obviously, I don't believe the guy did it because of the porn. I believe he had the inclination and that's why he had the porn.
So what they did was they jumped to the conclusion that only a murderer (or, more accurately, someone who was going to murder) would be interested in this kind of porn so they outlawed it. That way they can arrest anyone who has it. The way they see it, they're preventing crime before it happens.
They're probably right in some cases. Maybe even many cases. But they're going to hurt a lot of innocent people who would never hurt anyone if they vigorously enforce it.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 6:35PM

the thing is, if they are right, then maybe they feel that by eliminating porn, they will eliminate or control sexual violence. now i dissagree with these guys, in fact i think the opposite will happen. if they do eliminate it, people will be more predisposed to acting out their violent fantasies, cause there wont be movies to watch, so some folks will, as it were, go out and "make their own movies". thats what a few well known sexual murderers actually did, they made their own movies of their crimes, maybe they did that because they couldnt find a movie they liked. its difficult to understand what its all about. i suppose its all a guessing game.

[Link]

Dave_K99
Member

497 Posts
12/07

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 8:17PM

The thing I find strange about UK law is that, from what I understand, the extreme porn doesn't even have to be particularly pornographic. It doesn't have to be a movie, or feature full nudity, let alone show any actual sex. Even something suggestive, like a horror movie still showing a bikini babe being threatened by a knife wielding maniac, or a shot of a fully clothed woman tied to a rack, could be illegal.
How about a porn spoof like The Texas Vibrator Massacre? There a fair few mainstream porn movies that flirt with violence and non-consensuality. I even remember one of the JM Perverted Stories series featuring fake necrophilia, something specifically banned by the new law. Would owning those DVDs be punishable by jail time and a place on the sex offender register?
Anti-porn activists, who fought for this law, don't seem to make much of a distinction between mainstream porn and the stuff that's banned. Most believe that all pornography is rape recorded on film, that it's all abusive and causes violence against women. They've made it clear that they'd like to see everything banned, including softcore magazines and strip clubs.
If people get a thrill from sexualised violence or necrophilia, there are any number of mainstream horror movies they can watch. How about stuff like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit? Shows like that often feature rape and murder, yet they're on TV while a lot of children are still watching. Is that stuff really less graphic than most of the "extreme porn" that's banned?
I don't believe that watching a bad actress get splattered in red paint, or looking at a gory pencil sketch, would make someone go out and commit murder. Like violent video games, it's just a convenient scapegoat for societies problems, and an easy first target for censorship advocates. Who'd want to stand up and defend it?

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 9 2008 : 10:23PM

Liz Longhurst in UK may feel happy that she has managed to get this law passed, but she is in for a surprise, little does she realise that this law is actually going to make things worse. I am sorry about what happened to her daughter Jane, but I dont think this is going to help the situation, instead its going to make things worse. people who were viewing violent porn in UK in movies, are now gonna start looking for outlets to their sexual frustration, in the real living world. i am sorry but she has tried to put the fire out by putting oil into it.

[Link]

Dave_K99
Member

497 Posts
12/07

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 7:19AM

I've never really bought the argument that things like porn and violent movies act as some kind of safety valve. That people will act out their aggression shooting bad guys in a video game, when they'd otherwise have grabbed a gun and started shooting people for real. The evidence for this doesn't seem any more compelling than the anti-porn/violence claims.
I think that fucked up people are going to do fucked up things whether or not they can watch porn or play Grand Theft Auto.

[Link]

DoNotLitter
Member

"0"
11 Posts
8/08

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 4:59PM

First off, if we are classifying this "violent porn" as being obscenity, while the government does have the right to regulate obscenity, it does not have the right to make criminal private possession of obscenity (such as the case apparently in the UK now) because of the individual's constitutional right to personal privacy. However the protection does not extend beyond the home. Thus, importation, distribution, and exhibition of obscene materials can be prohibited. Having said all of this, the government may try to sneak in some legislation for this "violent porn" under another constitutionally alloted power.
As for the whole slippery slope argument everyone likes to make on this board, they are right. The law is not stationary, it is constantly moving through interpretation, and to the people in the US that look to the UK and say "that would never happen hear" you're dead wrong. Just a few more judges of a certain slant on that court and you can watch many of the rights you have taken for granted melt away.
With regard to the argument that watching violence influences one toward violent behavior, many studies indicate that that is precisely the truth, which is crap, because many studies also indicate the exact opposite. Studies are funded by someone, and are always subject to some agenda. Whatever happened to personal accountability? You kill somebody you GET THE CHAIR or GO TO PRISON, don't blame it on the TV!
I have a question that may be a little off topic (but was sort of alluded to above), and maybe some of the more senior posters could direct me to a thread that may answer my question. Why is it that such a large industry such as the adult industry, does not have some universal lobbying structure to represent their interests in congress? I can't think of any other multi-billion dollar industry that doesn't have someone greasing palms in Washington. Or maybe they do, and I am just mistaken.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 5:37PM

I would just like to know what part of the constitution invalidates the first amendment? I don't see that the government has any right at all to censor speech. The first amendment does not leave any wiggle room. It says "Don't do it. Period".
Edited by - randomprecision on 8/10/2008 5:38:22 PM

[Link]

DoNotLitter
Member

"0"
11 Posts
8/08

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 6:31PM

RP wrote
"I would just like to know what part of the constitution invalidates the first amendment? I don't see that the government has any right at all to censor speech. The first amendment does not leave any wiggle room. It says "Don't do it. Period".
You are absolutely right RP, the text of the FA is very clear, but as with everything else in the law, exceptions start to creep in. Now some of these exceptions stem from the practicalities of establishing a society and order, unfortunately though some exceptions stem from individuals or groups on crusades, and are more a result of personal/moral convictions that the individual wishes to push on the whole of society rather than utility. I'll go ahead and list some of the current exceptions to absolute freedom of speech, but keep in mind that each of these exception has a test that it must pass in order to be considered valid under the constitution:
1. The speech creates a clear and present danger of imminent lawless action. This would be the guy that yells "FIRE" in the crowded movie theatre, while that is technically speech, it is illegal.
2. It constitutes "fighting words" as defined by a narrow, precise statute. I could go into an explanation but it isn't really relevant.
3. The speech, film, etc., is OBSCENE. This is the one we are looking at, and the test is set out as as description or depiction of sexual conduct that, taken as a whole, by the average person, applying contemporary community standards:
a) Appeals to a prurient interest in sex;
b) Portrays sex in a patently offensive way;
c) Does not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value-this prong uses the national reasonable standard person. This would be standard that individuals like Max Hardcore would have real problems with. It is important to note that this is a matter almost purely for the jury. Also this does not apply to personal possession of obscenity. This is also where they place child porn.
4. Defamatory speech, or defamation, which may be subject to some form of tort action.
5. Restrictions on commercial speech, or false or deceptive advertising.
I think the thing we should remember is that the law of the land while based on the words of the constitution is only a part of our legal framework, when we factor in judges on the high court interpreting and creating law (which by the way I completely oppose).
So you are right, their is no part of the constitution that invalidates the FA, that would be crazy, but what has happened is that FA just like the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and so on has been interpreted to mean a certain thing with certain exceptions.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 7:17PM

But see, this goes back to what I said earlier. The goal some of these people have is preventing crime before it happens. Which, nobody can really blame them for wanting to do so. Especially if someone you care about has been a victim.
So the way they go about it is arresting everyone who might have the slightest inclination towards that sort of violence. Which is basically using an elephant to crack a nut. You know, sure. If you just arrest everyone, you're bound to bust a few bad guys. This could be called industrial strength law enforcement. Just throw them all in the can and don't worry about the innocents.
It is revelatory of the fact that the people behind these laws are very selfish individuals. They care only for themselves and they don't care who they hurt. They're angry at the world because they suffered some kind of injustice. When they fight back, it's often indiscriminate.

[Link]

DoNotLitter
Member

"0"
11 Posts
8/08

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 8:31PM

Once again I think you're right RP, but to an extent. I truly can't fault someone who has gone on a crusade to right some injustice that they perceive within society, even if they do approach it from a "selfish" perspective. I value the process of political change too much, and after all isn't that at least partially part of democracy that we can bring about change by our actions. Besides that, since we are talking about free speech, even though these crusaders may be kooks, aren't they entitled to voice their kooky opinions. Many times these individuals are simply guilty of being uninformed people with little or no vision.

Where this looses me, and where I see the real problem coming into play is when the crooked ass politicians get involved. As an elected official that individual has a responsibility to not only represent his constituency, but also work toward the betterment of the union through sound judgment and wisdom. Instead, what occurs is politicians use many of these so called crusaders or crusader groups as atms and pawns (just like the rest of us) to get TV time, and beat their chests when re-elections come back around claiming that they "are tough on crime" shamelessly pandering so they can keep their soulless asses in office.
I often think that in the ninth circle of hell their is satan devouring three individuals for all of eternity a politician, a televangelist, and Charles Nelson Riley.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 8:47PM

Sure. But history is full of examples of what happens when the opinions of these people are actually given credence. The danger isn't that they have these opinions. It's that often, the public is gullible enough to go along with them.

[Link]

DoNotLitter
Member

"0"
11 Posts
8/08

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 9:24PM

RP wrote
"Sure. But history is full of examples of what happens when the opinions of these people are actually given credence. The danger isn't that they have these opinions. It's that often, the public is gullible enough to go along with them. "
That is precisely the point that I am trying to make with the second paragraph of my last post. Within our system their are levels of checks and balances, checks on the state and checks on us as crazy citizens. Within this system it is the elected representative that is supposed to tell snake handler Jimmy that he is not going to push Jimmy's legislation to require every church in the country to have a cobra behind the alter because it isn't good law, but since Washington is broken this too often doesn't happen, especially if Jimmy's got cash. So instead of our government functioning the way it is supposed to and these people being shut down from the jump, they have their agendas pushed. So let's fix Washington, yeah right, they have been trying to do that since before their was a DC, so we come to an impasse.
Now having said that I'm OK with some of these crack pots getting their way, because I want to know that if I ever have something that I want my congressmen to address he will do it (if I got the cash of course)
As for the dee duh dee public, your right, they are gullible, but they choose to be and it is their choice to make.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 10 2008 : 10:01PM

I fail to agree. If they can infringe upon our rights, their rights mean jack.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 12:50AM

violent pornography is all about the make believe world of film and cinema, there are no real scenes of violence in these movies, its all just about actors and raunchy entertainment.
on the other hand there is so much real violence being perpetrated in the name of religion, why is it that the authorities dont ban religion ? When Jim Jones brainwashed hundreds of his followers into believing that they needed to committ suicide, or when David Koresh declared war on the FBI, or when recently the Russian pastor Pyotr Kuznetsov and 30 of his followers threatened the authorities with suicide, or when the IRA was bombing pubs in London, wasnt this clear evidence of religions perpetration of violence, so how come the authorities never considered banning religion. I think its because they refuse to admit that religion poses a real danger to society.

[Link]

pornlaw
Member

578 Posts
10/05

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:40AM

Your answer lies in the definition of community standards and "taken as a whole." Obscenity in the US is governed by the Supreme Court decision of Miller. From Miller, we have a 3 part obscenity test.
Violent porn itself is not illegal until the producer/distributor is prosecuted for obscenity. If the jury decides that the film/video/literally work is indeed obscene then the producer/distributor is found guilty and the work is deemed obscene in that judicial district. That work is not obscene anywhere else.
So the question posed really doesn't have any answer. This is the problem with obscenity prosecutions. There is no true answer.
Michael
www.AdultBizLaw.com

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:17AM

sure, there have to be controls to stop people committing rape and murder, whilst filming it, and its right that most communities are against this.
but doesnt a lot of this anti-porn sentiment have to do with puritan religious ideas and indoctrination. the belief that we are some form of perfect utopian society, that is not allowed to faulter or make a mistake.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:47AM

Why? Rape and murder are already illegal. Should we charge CNN with obscenity for filming 9/11?

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 4:09AM

Good point. Also, dont forget CNN's filming of Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma city bombing of the Alfred P.Murrah Federal Building, when so many died on the anniversary of the FBI's fire bombing of the Branch Davidian, Waco, compound of David Koresh. Seems like one form of religious violence leads to another, maybe we should ban those movies also.
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 6:09:09 AM

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 10:25AM

Read Waller's "Less Laws, More Order" sometime for a very enlightening look at just how futile "laws" are at PREVENTING crime. Laws allow us to DEAL with those who violate them by giving society the ability to punish those who would disrupt our daily lives. But they do very little, if anything, to actually help prevent crimes. Crime prevention is almost entirely an issue of societal tools such as parenting skills, active and visible enforcement agencies (police) and for some percentage of the miscreant community the threat of punishment. The laws themselves do nothing other than to establish the boundaries between what society deems as acceptable versus unacceptable.
I'm not saying laws are useless....they play an important role. But society as a whole has this skewed belief that a new law somehow will "fix" the problem when, it's been proven, it seldom has ANY impact whatsoever. And if you believe Waller (and I do), the second most popular "fix" is to throw more enforcement out on the streets....bigger police budgets, bigger prisons, etc. In the USA, expenditures for police, judicial and correctional expenses went from $36B to $204B and continues to climb annually. What he argues is that this is a blamestorming approach...people need to feel like they are "doing" something and so they do the easiest thing possible...pass another law to outlaw an easy target.
By the way, Waller is huge proponent of outlawing all handgun ownership in the USA. I am totally against this idea, but I read his work with an open mind and suggest you do as well. His premise is, overall, one of targeting the root of criminal activity...the home. You want to stop crime, you have to learn to focus on the very unpopular and politically incorrect root cause and that is that parents (as a group) just aren't spending enough time with their kids because they are selfishly too focused on their own pursuit of happiness and justify it by letting "society" raise their kids for them instead.

[Link]

Loraine
Senior Member

1559 Posts
3/04

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 10:33AM

MarcoClimax wrote:
violent pornography is all about the make believe world of film and cinema, there are no real scenes of violence in these movies, its all just about actors and raunchy entertainment.
on the other hand there is so much real violence being perpetrated in the name of religion, why is it that the authorities dont ban religion ? When Jim Jones brainwashed hundreds of his followers into believing that they needed to committ suicide, or when David Koresh declared war on the FBI, or when recently the Russian pastor Pyotr Kuznetsov and 30 of his followers threatened the authorities with suicide, or when the IRA was bombing pubs in London, wasnt this clear evidence of religions perpetration of violence, so how come the authorities never considered banning religion. I think its because they refuse to admit that religion poses a real danger to society.
Click to expand

What's "real" and what's "pretend or make believe". I think we can be pretty sure that if someone is getting slapped in a Hollywood flick we're not actually seeing someone getting slapped. If we someone getting slapped in a porn vid is it pretend? I'm not asking if a slap constitutes violence, just about this notion of real and pretend.

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 10:44AM

I find it interesting that you'd pose your question in this manner. Why would a "porn slap" be any more/less real than a "hollywood slap?" Is it because we believe one to be choreographed, scripted and done by stunt professionals and the other to be an overtly hostile action?

[Link]

DoNotLitter
Member

"0"
11 Posts
8/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 12:19PM

LubeNLuv wrote:
"I find it interesting that you'd pose your question in this manner. Why would a 'porn slap' be any more/less real than a 'hollywood slap?' Is it because we believe one to be choreographed, scripted and done by stunt professionals and the other to be an overtly hostile action?"
I notice that posters on this topic keep bringing up violence as filmed on CNN or within a Hollywood Movie in a non-sex context as being equivalent to a slap in an adult film, I think it is important to note that the Supreme Court has determined that when sex is added into the equation standards do change.
As was mentioned above by pornlaw when one is defining obscene material in a legal sense one must use the 3 part Miller Test of which the first part is that the material appeals to prurient interests (if you want to see the whole test look at my previous post 4 posts earlier). Under this part of the test The SC has found this material to include that which appeals to shameful or morbid interests in sex (this would include sadists). The important part as far as I can see is that the sadistic behavior must be the dominant theme of the material.
The point that I am trying to make is that violence is violence as far as I'm concerned, but when an individual adds sex into the equation that violence at least in the eyes of the law takes on a different meaning.
I should note that this is not my personal opinion I am just trying to provide my insight (such as it is).

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 12:52PM

ok, this could be interesting

what i meant was real violence, like for instance homicides, rapes, where the victims and offenders are not performing for a movie studio.

am i wrong in saying then, and i know you didnt make these laws, but according to the law, if a person is for instance using a chainsaw on another person in a movie without sexual motivation, then does the law say that this will not influence the viewer into imitating this action, whereas if a person is sadistically beating a woman with sexual motivation then that will influence the viewer into imitating that action ? or does it get even more complicated than this ?

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:12PM

Psychologists would have us believe that the mental line between sexual gratification and extreme acts of violence is virtually non-existent in the first place...they are so closely related as to be inseparable. I don't believe this theory, but it's prevalent. But I DO believe that banning of "violent porn" has nothing to do with crime prevention and will have zero impact on same. It's all about blamestorming and the misguided application of "social justice." _Someone_ needed to be punished, so they chose porn in the case of the UK.
Edited by - lubenluv on 8/11/2008 1:13:29 PM

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:33PM

The Bible sucks, thats whats causing all the problems. A lot of these Serial Killers were quoting texts from their Bibles whilst they were killing their victims.
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 8:05:00 PM
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/13/2008 11:15:52 AM

[Link]

DoNotLitter
Member

"0"
11 Posts
8/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:37PM

MacroClimax wrote:
"am i wrong in saying then, and i know you didnt make these laws, but according to the law, if a person is for instance using a chainsaw on another person in a movie without sexual motivation, then does the law say that this will not influence the viewer into imitating this action, whereas if a person is sadistically beating a woman with sexual motivation then that will influence the viewer into imitating that action ? or does it get even more complicated than this ?"
What your saying while it is an extreme example is kind or right, at least as far as the legal definition of obscenity goes and it being speech outside of First Amendment protection. Sounds completely screwed up doesn't it? Now this isn't to say that they couldn't try to restrict the "chain saw massacre" under some other existing exception (or new exception for that matter) to free speech protection, but as far as "obscene" material is concerned it is OK to film someone going ape shit and choppin up the fam in a movie. Now to answer, is this violent act more influential than a sexual violent act? Personally I think violence is violence, but if you take the perspective that laws represent the overall views of the people than yes, according to THIS law your right.
I hate to tell some people but they have been pushing censorship all kinds on non-porn related material based on violence as well as a whole host of other perceived social ills. In some instances, such as restrictions on advertising certain products, they have even succeeded. Look, the fact of the matter is today that the government is slowly chipping away at your civli liberties, they have been for at least 100 years. The constitution is not a revered legal framework to these people, it is only a tool to bring about their desired outcome. So as far as they are concerned, bring on wire tapping w/o warrants, why not have censorship of the press and media, joe public doesn't get it these people don't give a fuck!
Also is it so surprising that we have criminalized areas of sexuality? I hate to tell everyone, but if they don't think we are still dealing with some pretty heavy puritanical influences even today they are either willfully ignorant or functionally retarded. You've gotta remember plenty of politicians have been elected to office on the politics of sex.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 1:50PM

i think more politicians should have illicit sex, visit prostitutes, get addicted to porn etc, like Jimmy Swaggart, they will become much better equipped to deal with these sort of issues.
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 8:04:15 PM
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/13/2008 11:14:03 AM

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 2:09PM

May as well throw every single religious text in there while you are at it. Last I checked, this guy is a big fan of this book.
Christianity doesn't hold the copyright on extremism. Ban one book, religious or not, and you are basically condoning the complete eradication of any "questionable" material...including violent porn. This is the 'slippery slope' referred to earlier in the thread.
**Edit**
That picture was taken at a UK protest rally, by the way. Source
Edited by - lubenluv on 8/11/2008 2:29:29 PM

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 2:34PM

Maybe not on global extremism, but it does hold the copyright on extremism of Christians within Christian countries, and isnt that what we are talking about ?
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 2:36:29 PM

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 2:42PM

Christianity isn't an organization...it's a belief system. Same with Islam. The Pope could be considered the leader of the Catholic church, but that is just one facet of Christianity. Just as Islam, Judaism and other religions have their own leadership. You are using a very broad brush in your definitions which threatens to place you in the same bucket as someone who wishes to ban ALL pornography as being "degrading to women."
All I'm saying is that there's an old adage out there that says when you point one finger at someone/something, the other four are pointing back at yourself. Be careful in assigning blame.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 2:57PM

Yes its a belief system that threatens to ban violent pornography. So why bring other religions into the equation. The US government is made up exclusively of Evangelical Christians/Protestants, besides one or two Catholics, as far as I am aware. Its the US government that is passing all these laws banning violent porn not other religions, so why blame others ?
Edited by - MarcoClimax on 8/11/2008 2:58:09 PM

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:03PM

That depends. Slaps can be faked. The majority of the slaps you see in porn probably aren't but most of them aren't that hard either.
Nobody is going to die from being slapped.
But it brings up an interesting point. Let's say Harrison Ford is slapped in a movie and for the sake of realism, he allows the woman to really slap him. Is anybody going to care?
Again, it just goes to show this pathological thought process people have about sex. Everything is fine until sex comes into the picture. We'll sit and watch a race car driver die in a fiery crash and say "Ahhh. Too bad. I liked that guy". But if a woman gets roughed up a little in a porn flick (Even if she's fine with it. Especially if she's fine with it), everybody goes batshit.
Edited by - randomprecision on 8/11/2008 3:04:36 PM

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:20PM

Wait a second, I think you've switched the focus of your arguments...
The first post you made was about the UK banning so-called "violent porn." Now it's about the US banning same?
And I hope you are aware that in many other countries, porn and almost anything resembling nude females is outlawed, sometimes with severe capital punishment if found in possession of same. Last I checked, China and Saudi Arabia are most definitely NOT governed by Christian men. So your argument that the Christian faith is largely responsible for the suppression of pornography doesn't hold up under scrutiny. For that matter, if you are a student of the legal system at all, you'd note that very few influential members of the judicial system are devotee's of any particular religion at all. Certainly it's fair to state that most of the USA's elected officials come from Christian backgrounds and may cater to Christian beliefs, but that's simply because to even BE an elected official almost guarantee's they were born and raised in this country. That's like saying the leader of France is just too French for your liking....kind of goes with the territory.
If your topic is now that Christianity is trying to eradicate porn, that's old news. Thus far, porn remains a profitable enterprise within the USA, proving that Christianity as an Institution here isn't as powerful as you are painting it to be. I'm far more fearful of the "porn degrades women and is therefore evil" camp than I am of any baptist minister calling porn a sin. Evangelical Christians are a threat to porn, no doubt....on that I'll agree. But I think there are far greater threats to porn, the single biggest one being the industry itself who refuses to grow up and act like a business rather than a cottage industry.

[Link]

tricia_devereaux
Evil Angel DVD

Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous?
4283 Posts
4/00

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:27PM

LubeNLuv-
While I've enjoyed skimming through your posts in this thread, I can pretty much guarantee you that if you've been posting your comments for the OP, they're falling on deaf ears. Take a peek at his profile. This was his first post ever, and it would seem that 20 of his 22 posts are in this thread.
Can you say agenda?

[Link]

LubeNLuv
Senior Member

1854 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:30PM

Ugh, well I thought the OP was asking serious questions and attempting to engage in a serious discussion...just saw they have a dedicated thread on Christianity trying to "subvert" porn. So agenda is now pretty clear.
Thanks for the heads-up Tricia.

[Link]

MarcoClimax
Member

44 Posts
7/08

Posted - Aug 11 2008 : 3:51PM

well i certainly dont plan on making an issue on what is happening in non-Christian countries. you were the one who said that :

you know as well as I do that international laws prohibit any country from interfering in the legal systems of other countries, so that even if all the Evangelists in the UK or US wanted to proselityze and change the laws of other countries, they are unable to do so by international law.

[Link]