Legal Issues in Truly Abusive Porn

Author	Post
gorilladong Deactivated User 6 Posts 1/11	Posted - Nov 5 2011 : 11:59PM So I was thinking today about some sites that I won't mention and wondering why they aren't sued and/or prosecuted. I am specifically talking about the type of porn where the girl is obviously being forced to do something she does not want to do OR NO LONGER WANTS TO DO. I am guessing that these producers cover their ass by stating in their contracts that the women are being paid for rough anal/deep throat/face-fucking etc. It would seem that there are still some issues that you cannot cover with a contract. 1. Obscenity: yeah, it is hard to define and varies by community but the legal standard is patently offensive to the average member of the community, not the average porn addict in the community. When you are talking about the internet you are talking about an internet standard which more liberal than the standard in say, Dothan Alabama. However, I can't think of any community where the AVERAGE member would not find porn that traffics in race-based humiliation and admitted degradation in conjunction with the usual crying, puking, slapping, spitting to be less than patently offensive. 2. Sexual Assault/Rape: These laws vary from state to state but I am pretty sure that REGARDLESS of what your contract says, you retain the right to withdraw your consent to the sex at any time. Now in some of the Kink material, there is bondage, ball gags and rough sex but nowhere do you get the idea that the woman is actually being raped or sexually assaulted. On the other hand, when the girl is obviously trying to pull her head away from a cock that is jammed down her throat and the guy is forcing her head onto his cock and preventing her from getting away, this looks a lot like a criminal act (because it is). Of course, the problem for the actress is that most of the time, they finish the scene even if they were in fact sexually assaulted. This looks bad at a trial. If they immediately left the scene after the assault took place, it seems that they could then pursue both criminal and civil remedies. Bottom line, I think it is a matter of time before more of these producers go to prison or some actress makes a lot of money off a lawsuit or both. [Link]
Sraddha Member 91 Posts 11/10	Posted - Nov 6 2011 : 7:29AM 1. Obscenity =/= "patently offensive" 2. I once saw Tom Cruise attempt to kill a man, or at least assault him, and no one's ever tried to prosecute him. Of course, it was in a film -- and films aren't real life. Perhaps the same adage applies to porn. [Link]
LCF All-Star Member Non Prevalebunt! 10364 Posts 1/05	Posted - Nov 6 2011 : 12:14PM I don't like abusive sex or too rough sex either but I'm wondering , how can you state that a girl has been forced to do what she don't want to or she don't wanted anymore? Surely not from a staged performance where almost anything is acted and the lines are script. So how? [Link]
David Cop-a-feel Deactivated User Trust me, honey, it gets better 323 Posts 10/10	Posted - Nov 6 2011 : 12:26PM Well as far as I know most of these producers cover their asses with release forms,etc. The only one I know who's had the accusation of rape (though no charges laid) from a model/performer for filmed acts meant for public consumption is Max Hardcore. I forget the name of the girl who said it(Neesa?) but she's all over Youtube. [Link]
gorilladong Deactivated User 6 Posts 1/11	Posted - Nov 6 2011 : 12:43PM Sraddha wrote: 1. Obscenity =/= "patently offensive" 2. I once saw Tom Cruise attempt to kill a man, or at least assault him, and no one's ever tried to prosecute him. Of course, it was in a film -- and films aren't real life. Perhaps the same adage applies to porn. Click to expand Patently offensive is one of the elements of obscenity. The other two are "appealing to the prurient interest" and "no redeeming social value". The other two are kinda a given in porn although there are some exceptions. Therefore, the "patently offensive" element is usually the hardest to prove. As far as the scripted nature of the abusive sex, there are some clips where the reasonable viewer can see that the girl is no longer a willing participant in what is going on at the time. Porn stars are not generally good actresses and some of these clips look pretty clear that she is being forced. Whether or not she goes on to finish the scene, I think that an assault has occurred when it is clear that 1. the girl does not consent to what is going on at the moment and 2. the guy is forcing her to continue to participate in what is going on Whether or not consent is withdrawn would be a question for the jury to determine. Juries determine these questions all day every day across the nation. I am just sayin' that I have seen some clips on efuckt where I think a jury would determine that consent has been withdrawn. The fact that the girl is a porn star or a "ho" will not come into the equation in a court of law. Sexual habits are not generally admissible to impeach a witness. If I were a criminal prosecutor, I would charge obscenity and sexual assault together. That way, the more the producer tried to wiggle away from the sexual assault charges by saying that "it was just part of the script" the more he is admitting to producing material that is patently offensive. [Link]

LCF All-Star Member Non Prevalebunt! 10364 Posts 1/05	Posted - Nov 6 2011 : 1:01PM You are making too many unproved assumptions "the reasonable viewer can see that the girl is no longer a willing participant in what is going on at the time" and "Porn stars are not generally good actresses and some of these clips look pretty clear that she is being forced" If you sue someone make sure you have valid proofs , what is a "reasonable viewer"? Someone who never saw any porn before? someone morally offended by porn? Someone like me who don't like rough porn? Also pornstars aren't generally good actresses , maybe, but some are how do you know for sure what acting skill has the performer in that clip? What is "pretty clear"? If the performer has acting abilities nothing is clear or everything is even too clear but acted and I'm not even an attorney what kind of clips are we talking about? regular or BDSM? some site called punishment? I'm asking because for example there is a site owner who performs as she is abused some times but you know what she's the owner , the one who pays the bill , will you sue her because "being (generally) a bad actress it is "pretty clear" that she doesn't want to and is forced to continue? Also "patently offensive" what? Who is offended surely not those buying such thing , I don't like them but I'm not pointing my finger to those who do. You're putting that "patently offensive" thing as a given , as a proven fact, which is not and is actually disputable Let's put some examples here there is some actor who do perform exactly what you said ,dominant rough sex spit , slapping and so one of them is a Spanish guy he as been called because of this , not only but a main actress one of the biggest names in porn , one of those can afford to refuse and to choose what to do , was the first in line to be treated as such , not only this she has a site and is a director , she HIRED him to be treated as such , there was a line of actresses wanting to work with him but the one we are talking about managed to work with him at least 4 times in few days , also there was a line of sites she stopped working with , but she resumed her cooperation just to work with him , even in a more extreme way she performed a bondage (tied) playing as a submissive part while him played the abusive dominant part , it was all acted , the girl HAS acting abilities and often performs in so called vanilla porn , comedies , parodies featured movies , but the point is that she WANTED all that. Edited by - Laurie Cameron Fan on 11/6/2011 1:22:28 PM [Link]
gorilladong Deactivated User 6 Posts 1/11	Posted - Nov 6 2011 : 7:59PM Laurie Cameron Fan wrote: You are making too many unproved assumptions "the reasonable viewer can see that the girl is no longer a willing participant in what is going on at the time" and "Porn stars are not generally good actresses and some of these clips look pretty clear that she is being forced" Click to expand By reasonable viewer, I meant someone who has the ability to see when a girl is clearly trying to end a particular sex act. Perhaps it is a poor choice of words because what everything boils down to in a legal sense is the reasonable person standard, not the reasonable viewer standard. You have to look at all the circumstances to determine when consent is withdrawn so I can't say there is one magical act that shows withdrawn consent. I would say if the actress is actively trying to push away and she has a cock down her throat so that she cannot say "no" there is a decent chance that her consent has been withdrawn. Of course SHE would know better than anyone else whether or not she is consenting to this and that is why in these hypothetical legal scenarios, I would envision her as the complaining witness/plaintiff that would bring the action/charges. No one else really has standing to sue besides the victim, so no, I would not sue. "Patently offensive" certainly is a vague and disputable term. However, that is how obscenity is defined in US law. Under US law, patently offensive is defined by the average member of the community. Still, whether or not something is patently offensive would be a question for the jury to determine. If things like this were always clear cut, we wouldn't need juries at all. If there is no reasonable question of fact, the judge can then enter what is called a directed verdict. I am not citing specific examples because I didn't intend this thread to be about any one particular site but about a certain genre of porn. If you really need examples, you can surf efuct for a while and you will find some examples. trimmed quote Edited by - heynow on 11/8/2011 3:11:18 AM [Link]
Flinch Member 230 Posts 8/11	Posted - Nov 6 2011 : 10:21PM Just listened to an interview of Julia Ann. She talked about doing Pornstar Punishment. At the end they would ask if she consented to the scene, enjoyed it, would ever do it again, etc..? All without cutting or panning away, pretty much covering their asses if a girl had second thoughts about doing a rough scene like that. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Nov 7 2011 : 12:41AM In my opinion, "abuse" that both parties agreed to beforehand simply cannot be legally defined as criminal abuse. The whole thing is based upon one person doing something violent to another person against their will. The only way I see a problem is if the girl didn't know she was gonna be smacked around and so forth. In other words, they would have to be more or less tricked into doing it. This can apparently happen and sometimes does. That is no reason to go after the whole genre. Deal with the specific people who are causing the problems with consent. Obscenity is bullshit in general and especially in this context. [Link]
gorilladong Deactivated User 6 Posts 1/11	Posted - Nov 7 2011 : 7:34PM RandomPrecision wrote: In my opinion, "abuse" that both parties agreed to beforehand simply cannot be legally defined as criminal abuse. The whole thing is based upon one person doing something violent to another person against their will. The only way I see a problem is if the girl didn't know she was gonna be smacked around and so forth. In other words, they would have to be more or less tricked into doing it. This can apparently happen and sometimes does. That is no reason to go after the whole genre. Deal with the specific people who are causing the problems with consent. Obscenity is bullshit in general and especially in this context. Click to expand By "truly abusive" I meant porn where consent is in question. I don't personally agree with obscenity laws either but I have no problem with people being sued and prosecuted for profiting from their criminal acts. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Nov 7 2011 : 11:07PM gorilladong wrote: By "truly abusive" I meant porn where consent is in question. Click to expand Well, that doesn't really answer my question. Are you trying to say that the question of consent should be determined independently of what the girl herself has to say or are you saying if the girl complains, the case should be taken to court? I'm not clear on that. Like I said, if someone actually files a criminal complaint that someone has done something to them they didn't agree to, I don't have issues with it being settled in court. It is only when I think of a prosecutor just randomly prosecuting people for scenes that he/she thinks are non consensual with no input from the participants that I get a bit wary. I don't personally agree with obscenity laws either but I have no problem with people being sued and prosecuted for profiting from their criminal acts. Click to expand 1. That's like saying you don't agree with the drug laws but you have no problem with people you don't like being sent to jail for smoking pot. In such a case, I would ask this - Since you don't believe smoking pot is a crime in the first place, how can you agree with anyone being sent to jail for it? I basically don't believe obscenity even exists in all but the absolute worst cases. But generally, even in a case where someone is seriously harmed in some way during the making of a movie, the actual crime can be prosecuted for what it is. If it is rape, that's already illegal and they can be prosecuted for rape. Why do we need an extra penalty for doing it on camera? There isn't even any need to get into thorny speech issues and risk screwing up freedom of speech any more than it already is. It seems like to me that people are basically using this as an excuse to water down free speech just that much more. Every little bit counts. 2. You are apparently talking about circumstances under which it hasn't even been established that any real crime has been committed (Again, obscenity is BS in my opinion). As another poster pointed out, you seem to be basing this on assumptions. In this country, the presumption is of innocence and the only people who seem to really be complaining appear to be random viewers who buy/rent/steal rough porn and then are offended by what they see. Edited by - randomprecision on 11/7/2011 11:13:44 PM [Link]
Cyborger Member 14 Posts 11/11	Posted - Nov 7 2011 : 11:35PM I think the models choose not to violate their contract because a lot of people still look down on porn and a porn actress screaming rape in a courtroom probably won't go over well for her even if she's in the right. What they should do is make sure to get in writing what they will and will not do/accept. The porn series you're talking about featured a very well known actress and she didn't have the spitting, slapping, forced to throw up, racially offensive elements that the less known actresses did. And it's not just because she's more popular but because she knew what to sign and what not to sign and to make it very clear what she was up for and what she wouldn't want. Sraddha wrote: 1. Obscenity =/= "patently offensive" 2. I once saw Tom Cruise attempt to kill a man, or at least assault him, and no one's ever tried to prosecute him. Of course, it was in a film -- and films aren't real life. Perhaps the same adage applies to porn. Click to expand Are you being serious? Porn is real. Sure some of the little things they pretend are happening are just skits but the act of penetration/fellatio/sodomy etc. is very real so why would you even compare it to acting in a non-porn film? [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Nov 8 2011 : 5:40AM Cyborger wrote: Are you being serious? Porn is real. Sure some of the little things they pretend Click to expand You mean like when the chick pisses like a garden hose all the way across the room while screaming like an airplane going down and pretending she's having a squirting orgasm? That apparently had quite a few people who know virtually nothing about sex fooled until they started reading things online written by people who actually have some common sense. Or what about all the girls who have butt orgasms? Yeah. That's absolutely real! Would you even like to try and guess when a female orgasm is real and when it isn't? Sure. Sometimes you can be pretty sure of it but most of the time, it's either blatantly fake or ambiguous enough that I wouldn't stake any amount of money on it. Most of the time, I'm just cynical enough to believe the penetration just might be the only real thing in the majority of porn. Edited by - randomprecision on 11/8/2011 5:47:16 AM [Link]
SxDoctor Member 103 Posts 10/06	Posted - Nov 8 2011 : 10:11AM gorilladong wrote: As far as the scripted nature of the abusive sex, there are some clips where the reasonable viewer can see that the girl is no longer a willing participant in what is going on at the time. Porn stars are not generally good actresses and some of these clips look pretty clear that she is being forced. Whether or not she goes on to finish the scene, I think that an assault has occurred when it is clear that 1. the girl does not consent to what is going on at the moment and 2. the guy is forcing her to continue to participate in what is going on Click to expand Can you give examples of specific scenes? [Link]
gorilladong Deactivated User 6 Posts 1/11	Posted - Nov 8 2011 : 3:41PM SxDoctor wrote: gorilladong wrote: As far as the scripted nature of the abusive sex, there are some clips where the reasonable viewer can see that the girl is no longer a willing participant in what is going on at the time. Porn stars are not generally good actresses and some of these clips look pretty clear that she is being forced. Whether or not she goes on to finish the scene, I think that an assault has occurred when it is clear that 1. the girl does not consent to what is going on at the moment and 2. the guy is forcing her to continue to participate in what is going on Click to expand Can you give examples of specific scenes? Click to expand I can but I won't due to board rules. [Link]

leatherface Senior Member 1258 Posts 7/07	Posted - Nov 8 2011 : 3:43PM gorilladong wrote: RandomPrecision wrote: In my opinion, "abuse" that both parties agreed to beforehand simply cannot be legally defined as criminal abuse. The whole thing is based upon one person doing something violent to another person against their will. The only way I see a problem is if the girl didn't know she was gonna be smacked around and so forth. In other words, they would have to be more or less tricked into doing it. This can apparently happen and sometimes does. That is no reason to go after the whole genre. Deal with the specific people who are causing the problems with consent. Obscenity is bullshit in general and especially in this context. Click to expand By "truly abusive" I meant porn where consent is in question. Click to expand i don't know, i think that the consent is in question if the girl can't stop and go away. In other case, it's like a boxer who complains if the other break his teeth in the middle of a round, why do you have choose box as a sport? [Link]
gorilladong Deactivated User 6 Posts 1/11	Posted - Nov 8 2011 : 3:53PM RandomPrecision wrote: gorilladong wrote: By "truly abusive" I meant porn where consent is in question. Click to expand Well, that doesn't really answer my question. Are you trying to say that the question of consent should be determined independently of what the girl herself has to say or are you saying if the girl complains, the case should be taken to court? I'm not clear on that. Like I said, if someone actually files a criminal complaint that someone has done something to them they didn't agree to, I don't have issues with it being settled in court. It is only when I think of a prosecutor just randomly prosecuting people for scenes that he/she thinks are non consensual with no input from the participants that I get a bit wary. I don't personally agree with obscenity laws either but I have no problem with people being sued and prosecuted for profiting from their criminal acts. Click to expand 1. That's like saying you don't agree with the drug laws but you have no problem with people you don't like being sent to jail for smoking pot. In such a case, I would ask this - Since you don't believe smoking pot is a crime in the first place, how can you agree with anyone being sent to jail for it? I basically don't believe obscenity even exists in all but the absolute worst cases. But generally, even in a case where someone is seriously harmed in some way during the making of a movie, the actual crime can be prosecuted for what it is. If it is rape, that's already illegal and they can be prosecuted for rape. Why do we need an extra penalty for doing it on camera? There isn't even any need to get into thorny speech issues and risk screwing up freedom of speech any more than it already is. It seems like to me that people are basically using this as an excuse to water down free speech just that much more. Every little bit counts. 2. You are apparently talking about circumstances under which it hasn't even been established that any real crime has been committed (Again, obscenity is BS in my opinion). As another poster pointed out, you seem to be basing this on assumptions. In this country, the presumption is of innocence and the only people who seem to really be complaining appear to be random viewers who buy/rent/steal rough porn and then are offended by what they see. Edited by - randomprecision on 11/7/2011 11:13:44 PM Click to expand 1. I think marijuana laws are silly and that weed should be legalized yet if there is a violent drug dealer in my neighborhood, I am happy to put the drug laws to use in order to get him locked up/punished. I think if there the courts saw porn of actual sexual assaults as obscene, it would be no threat to free speech. 2. You are right, I don't know that any crime has been committed, only the girl knows for sure. But not all porn stars are the brightest bulbs. It is quite likely that they don't know their rights under civil and criminal law or are unwilling to pursue the issue for one reason or another. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Nov 9 2011 : 5:10AM gorilladong wrote: 1. I think marijuana laws are silly and that weed should be legalized yet if there is a violent drug dealer in my neighborhood, I am happy to put the drug laws to use in order to get him locked up/punished. Click to expand And so it goes. That's why people are rotting in prison for smoking pot. Because people like you won't do the mental work necessary to separate drugs from shootings. So everybody gets lumped into one great big "bad person" pile. It doesn't matter to you that the laws are unjust as long as they're only used against people you don't like. Perhaps the burden of proof on crimes like assault and murder is (justifiably) rigid and prosecutors often just prefer to go for the easy "drug dealing" charge. The one the public buys almost unquestioningly. I think if there the courts saw porn of actual sexual assaults as obscene, it would be no threat to free speech. Click to expand 1. What is the problem with prosecuting sexual assault (if in fact it is) as sexual assault? 2. That is what you think but you're wrong. Free speech does have many mortal enemies and they will never stop until they get what they want. You need to understand and apply the concept of cumulative damage here. Free speech is a strong principle but it is not indestructible. Like anything else, constant pressure takes it's toll. A little here, a little there. It does not matter if the stated intent was noble. In the end, all that will count is the damage done. 2. You are right, I don't know that any crime has been committed, only the girl knows for sure. But not all porn stars are the brightest bulbs. It is quite likely that they don't know their rights under civil and criminal law or are unwilling to pursue the issue for one reason or another. Click to expand Sorry but this just can't fly. The entire porn industry comes down if we don't insist that performers take personal responsibility for their choices. At the absolute minimum, this has to mean that if they think a real crime has been committed against them, they would take legal action on their own behalf regardless of what anyone thinks of them or any kind of unprovable blacklist. You could use these excuses for anything. You could say women can't consent to sex at all on these grounds. It's ridiculous. Yes. It is possible there are some real victims who allow themselves to be intimidated or who don't do what is necessary to bring things out into the open. I, personally, just can't buy into the whole thing where I'm going to just blindly assume that every hardcore rough sex scene is a full blown non consensual sexual assault because of the possibility that some girls might not want to make waves. I'm sure bad things have happened. This is probably the case no matter where you look if you dig deep enough. I like freedom and I think it's worth more to preserve it than to screw everything up because you're offended. Edited by - randomprecision on 11/9/2011 5:20:32 AM [Link]
Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99	Posted - Nov 9 2011 : 9:29AM gorilladong wrote: I can but I won't due to board rules. Click to expand and which rules would that be? an obnoxious webmaster trying to stir up controversy over his stupid websites over and over again. seriously, is this your marketing plan? don't you have anything better to do? [Link]