Rape on camera is legal by 1st Amendment ?

Author	Post
ekarth Deactivated User 211 Posts 1/10	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 2:37AM Although I'm a porn addict otherwise, it makes me sad. Recently, I had been to latinaabuse website, and one of the clips starring some random girl named Karina and it was the sickest porn-clip I ever saw. there was no staged-acting it was plain RAPE on camera with the girl crying and doing the scene only for money. I don't even think she was told before the shot, about what they were going to do with her. Upon listening to the interview audio carefully, it seems that the girl was brought by some brothel madam who talks on her behalf from behind the camera, as she is unable to speak English. heck i don't even think she was told before that shoot that they were going to film it. there are plenty of deepthroat sites where women apply tonnes of black-mascara and then use glycerin or water to make it look like they've been crying so much that all mascara is running away because of that hard deepthroat. but this particular wasn't in that fake acting line, atleast for me, this didnot look like it was a staged event. The girl keeps crying during the scene and her tears were real. I feel psychologically disturbed after watching. and making mockery of this whole exploitation, the website on its 2257 page says All performers appearing in this web site were adults age eighteen or over at the time images were created and they appear here exclusively in roles depicting them as adults. The owners and operators of this web site believe its content to be non-obscene erotic expression protected by the First Amendment. Click to expand Erotic expression protected by 1st amendment!!?? what the....**** it wasn't any fantasy or erotic type forced or rough sex. it was plain RAPE on camera done for money. Its obvious that there is an audience who enjoys it hence there are producers who produce such filth, but sad thing is that they're using 1st amendment to justify it. Edited by - ekarth on Jul 6 2010 [Link]
ma meeshka Iconoclastic Member 3939 Posts 4/06	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 3:11AM I'm not defending the site, but you make your case with a lot of assumptions. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 3:21AM Also, for someone who is so disgusted by the site, he really does a good job of giving it free advertising. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 4:09AM ^ Well, he hasn't sold me, but I agree that if guys abusing women isn't your thing then going to a site called "LatinaAbuse" seems counterintuitive. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 4:16AM ma meeshka wrote: I'm not defending the site, but you make your case with a lot of assumptions. Click to expand They always do. These guys come out of the woodwork like cockroaches every now and then. Edit - That isn't to say these guys running these sites are helping the image of porn at this point in time. Whether it is or isn't consensual, it looks bad and we have enough to deal with with just trying to keep porn legal at all. By the way, Ekarth, it must be pretty amazing living in a world where nobody knows how to act. I've seen a few of the scenes from the various "Abuse" sites and they are hard. I honestly can't tell if they're acting (Or at least exaggerating somewhat) or not. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/6/2010 4:33:25 AM [Link]

pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 11:06AM You should pose this question to Max Hardcore who is now serving his sentence in a federal prison for making the same genre of content. He was convicted of obscenity violations in Tampa last year. Part of the reason why he was convicted was because of the "rape simulation" aspect of his content. He even had actresses testify on his behalf that the sex was consensual. [Link]
Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 4:21PM Erotic expression protected by 1st amendment!!?? what the....**** Edited by - ekarth on Jul 6 2010 Click to expand that is truly a new concept to you? (That site again is latinabuse.com. that's latinabuse.com l-a-t-i-n-a-b-u-s-e.com Your one stop academic shop for 1st amendment debate. L-a-t-i-n-a-b-u-s-e.com. This message comes to you from latinabus....wait, I mean ekarth. [Link]
AsianAnalPantyhoserGuy Deactivated User Ass fucking/ foot fetish/ pantyhose= insanity! 465 Posts 3/10	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 11:13PM ekarth, I believe I understand what you are saying, and I'm working on getting a decent e-mail account so we can discuss certain things on a more personal level, if you wish. The porn industry is utilizing a very useful conditioning tool. Women are degraded, violence is glorified, and rape fantasies are nurtured for a very calculated reason. We are constantly being conditioned to accept these things as normal. When anything is pointed out regarding this, we get the "freedom of speech" mantra. True, it is our right to express these fantasies, but it is becoming easier to find sick material, and very difficult to find porn that is truly erotic. When it is pointed out for what it is, people get mean and sarcastic, believe me I know. Believe me, I don't care. One edge is about conditioning males to treat females as sex slaves. The other edge is about putting porn on the table, seen as something that should be banned. There are mechanisms in place that wish we had no "freedom of speech". They will create the worst material allowable by law, and being back-stabbers, they will say to the masses,..."this must be banned". We need to "do it for the women", or "we need to do it for the children", is what they will say. After the dust settles, we will mostly have video games that teach us how to butcher people and stack our bling. [Link]
elgringoviejo58 Senior Member 1460 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 6 2010 : 11:28PM Why are even pornfan folks so quick to seek censorship as the remedy. Ought not the priority to be to punish the Madame if indeed she committed a criminal act. [Link]
pervlens Member 29 Posts 3/10	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 1:40AM Just because some one states they 'believe they are protected by the first-amendment' doesn't mean that they are! [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 2:46AM pornlaw wrote: You should pose this question to Max Hardcore who is now serving his sentence in a federal prison for making the same genre of content. He was convicted of obscenity violations in Tampa last year. Part of the reason why he was convicted was because of the "rape simulation" aspect of his content. He even had actresses testify on his behalf that the sex was consensual. Click to expand Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but is it not true that the presence of consent was inconsequential to the case against MH? From what I understand, since he was indicted for obscenity, not rape, the point at issue was whether not his material was considered legally obscene in that community, regardless of whether or not it was consensual. Of course, having the female talent testify on his behalf was a tactic to help his case. But like you pointed out, it makes no difference to people who want to eradicate porn, regardless of its genre. MH could have been making softcore lovey-dovey vanilla condom porn, and that particular jury would still have convicted him. [Link]
fu_q All-Star Member Marv Montag (@PornOfYore) 2506 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 10:51AM Relevant to this topic, I recall a case in NYC -- and I can't find the link -- in the last few years (?) in which someone was convicted of rape for acts that they shot on video but was acquitted on the corresponding obscenity charges. I got the impression that it was just some weirdo-type, as opposed to anyone mainstream. (Wish I could find the link...) [Link]
Kelli Member NaughtyNews.Network 220 Posts 8/08	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:11AM Rape on camera is not legal. It is falls under the category of obscenity and anything "obscene" is illegal in the US. [Link]
pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:19AM realtip wrote: pornlaw wrote: You should pose this question to Max Hardcore who is now serving his sentence in a federal prison for making the same genre of content. He was convicted of obscenity violations in Tampa last year. Part of the reason why he was convicted was because of the "rape simulation" aspect of his content. He even had actresses testify on his behalf that the sex was consensual. Click to expand Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but is it not true that the presence of consent was inconsequential to the case against MH? From what I understand, since he was indicted for obscenity, not rape, the point at issue was whether not his material was considered legally obscene in that community, regardless of whether or not it was consensual. Of course, having the female talent testify on his behalf was a tactic to help his case. But like you pointed out, it makes no difference to people who want to eradicate porn, regardless of its genre. MH could have been making softcore lovey-dovey vanilla condom porn, and that particular jury would still have convicted him. Click to expand I wouldnt say consent was inconsequential. I wasnt there and therefore I can only form an opinion from what I read and was told. I can tell you that as an attorney I always want my clients to appear to be the "good guys" when sitting in front of a jury. Consentual staged acts of rape can have a profound effect on a jury member and not in a good way. I would warn any client of the possible ramifications of distributing "rape-like" content, whether it is completely consentual or not. [Link]
posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:20AM Reading the Porn Pool sometimes makes me think you could shoot someone in the head on camera and people here would call it free speech. [Link]

fu_q All-Star Member Marv Montag (@PornOfYore) 2506 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:25AM ^There were plenty of films distributed of people being shot in the head during the Cold War...propaganda pieces, actually. Keep in mind that the freedom of speech aspect of things only comes into play regarding obscenity specifically. If you commit a crime in filming, you're still liable for that crime itself. (i.e. the case above regarding NYC that I wish I had a link for -- the person still was convicted of rape...) [Link]
markaudess Marie Madison Media 68 Posts 2/04	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:42AM Kelli wrote: Rape on camera is not legal. It is falls under the category of obscenity and anything "obscene" is illegal in the US. Click to expand Just to take this a step further, technically, filming ANY illegal activity is Illegal. For example, filming someone actually shooting up Heroine or Snorting Coke. If it's real drugs, it's illegal. Proving it, is a complete different story, however. - Mark Maddy G Productions [Link]
posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 12:18PM @ fu_q: I can understand people are opposed to the obscenity thing. I think it's bullshit, too. What I don't understand is why everytime someone gets creeped out about particularly rough porn everyone jumps to the defense of the pornographer, pretending all is sound and dandy in porn-land and discomfort is either acted or the girl's fault. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 1:17PM pornlaw wrote: I would warn any client of the possible ramifications of distributing "rape-like" content, whether it is completely consentual or not. Click to expand You'd think this would be common sense. Sometimes I wonder what's really going on with these people. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 1:18PM posthum wrote: Reading the Porn Pool sometimes makes me think you could shoot someone in the head on camera and people here would call it free speech. Click to expand Free speech for the person with the camera or the person with the gun? Edited by - randomprecision on 7/7/2010 1:21:07 PM [Link]
posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 1:21PM Since porn shoots aren't documentaries of what's happening regardless of whether a camera is present, both will be in the same boat. Edited by - posthum on 7/7/2010 1:23:53 PM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 1:25PM posthum wrote: @ fu_q: I can understand people are opposed to the obscenity thing. I think it's bullshit, too. What I don't understand is why everytime someone gets creeped out about particularly rough porn everyone jumps to the defense of the pornographer, pretending all is sound and dandy in porn-land and discomfort is either acted or the girl's fault. Click to expand I never said discomfort is the girl's fault. I said it's the girl's responsibility to press charges if she thinks something was way over the line. As a viewer, you can't expect me to sit out here and try to figure out if every porn flick I watch is consensual. I have to assume it was until I hear the girl say it wasn't. If I see a girl getting slapped and gagging on a cock in one movie on a Tuesday and I see her gagging on another cock with a fresh tattoo the next Tuesday, I'm going to have to assume the first pornographer didn't rape her, kill her and bury her in a shallow grave. I'm also going to have to assume she didn't mind too much the first time. In the case of most porn, you tend to see the same girls doing the same content with different people over and over. What else should we think other than it's the girl's responsibility? I don't know about you but if it was me and I didn't like it, I'd stop shooting with directors who shoot rough porn or I'd just quit. And if it went too far, I'd press charges against them. What is it about that that is so difficult to communicate? Edit - I also meant to say that of course the porn director shares some of the responsibility for being as honest and clear with the talent as possible. It isn't the girl's fault if the director tells her it's going to be one thing and it's something completely different. Of course that's the director's fault. It IS her fault if she just lets it slide, never says anything and leaves us to believe she was cool with it even if it didn't look like it. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/7/2010 2:11:49 PM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 1:27PM Oh nevermind. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/7/2010 1:47:08 PM [Link]
Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 1:43PM Since it is oxymoronic to be raped by consent, this would simply be a film of a crime. The woman would have to complain it was against her will. [Link]
posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 5:28PM Even if the same performer doesn't come back to shoot that kind of scene again and again, there will always be the next 18 year old partygirl who hasn't studied the who-is-who of porn and can be deceived or bullied into doing something she wasn't prepared for. And just because some performers do keep comming back doesn't mean that consent can be assumed for every shoot on those sites. What I'm saying is that the business model of some sites doesn't necessarily have to rely on consent. True, doing guesswork as to whether everything was consensual may not be the customer's duty. Still, I can't help getting uncomfortable when consent is even a question. And if you're very young, without some sort of social support system, broke and whatnot, pressing charges against anyone is not something you're likely to do. Saying "everything is fine as far as I'm concerned unless I hear of a pornographer getting convicted for rape" is taking the easy way out in my opinion. [Link]

elgringoviejo58 Senior Member 1460 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 5:54PM If a crime is filmed we ought to be grateful as it provides evidence that can be used to punish the fuck out of the perpetrator. [Link]
screwcap Deactivated User I'm walkin' here........ 1032 Posts 6/10	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 6:22PM . [/quote] Just to take this a step further, technically, filming ANY illegal activity is Illegal. For example, filming someone actually shooting up Heroine or Snorting Coke. If it's real drugs, it's illegal. Proving it, is a complete different story, however. - Mark Maddy G Productions [/quote] I know your comment is broad brush but... "filming anyting illegal is illegal." But so far from the truth. dateline, 60 minutes, Hbo and Surveillance cameras prove otherwise. robberies, mail fraud, medical fraud, prostitution it goes on and is ugly. Edited by - screwcap on 7/7/2010 6:39:46 PM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 9:17PM posthum wrote: Even if the same performer doesn't come back to shoot that kind of scene again and again, there will always be the next 18 year old partygirl who hasn't studied the who-is-who of porn and can be deceived or bullied into doing something she wasn't prepared for. Click to expand How many times do we have to go through this on this board? I'll give a brief response but as many times as I've responded to this exact point in at least a dozen other threads, I will just refer you to the search button. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, if you don't study for the exam and you fail, it's hard to blame the professor. Or maybe a better analogy would be that if you don't research the work and then you hate the job, you can't expect the employer to change everything about his/her business just because you had no idea what the job was all about and you find the work they hired you to do unpleasant. And just because some performers do keep comming back doesn't mean that consent can be assumed for every shoot on those sites. Click to expand No. It means that from the viewers perspective, it has to be assumed. You can't watch porn if you're going to be sitting out here constantly asking yourself if it's consensual. These kinds of things have to be assumed until you have some kind of solid evidence to suggest otherwise other than what the scene LOOKED like on your screen. I agree a lot of times this kind of stuff looks real. So what? Is it? Frankly, after seeing a few of the "Facial Abuse" videos, I would be willing to assume the people who run those sites are some fairly shady operators. The only reason I ultimately come down marginally on their side is that they're obviously still operating. In this country, I don't think it would take more than a couple of real complaints from the girls to the right people in law enforcement to get these guys in some serious trouble. I don't know where they shoot but I don't imagine they've escaped the notice of every law enforcement agency that matters shooting the kind of stuff they shoot. In short, if we're aware of them, you can bet the FBI and Justice Department is. It defies all reason to even suggest they're flying under the radar. You don't fly under the radar with content like that in the US. So yes. These guys are pushing almost every limit you can think of. They're at least as bad as Max. Possibly worse. What I'm saying is that the business model of some sites doesn't necessarily have to rely on consent. Click to expand Are you kidding? Let me just ask you this. Hypothetically, If I were to go out clubbing and pick up a 19 year old girl, take her to my house and have my way with her and the next day she calls the police and says I raped her, do you think there's any way in hell I'm not going to get a visit from my friendly neighborhood police department? Just think about this in common sense terms. What you're saying is crazy. It takes nothing more than a complaint filed with the right person in America. In other countries? I don't know but I know in America, it doesn't take much. Hell, you can't even legally shoot porn in more than a few places here and even then you might still get harassed for it. You can't even hire a (Willing) hooker in most US states without worrying about getting arrested. You are required by law to keep records on every girl you shoot even if you're making porn in the right place. Do you really think the scales are tipped in favor of these guys? Still, I can't help getting uncomfortable when consent is even a question. Click to expand On that, I totally agree. This is just common sense and I doubt there are many people who are comfortable with it. In the end, I think most of us can agree it only hurts porn and threatens the future of free expression. Like I said, I honestly don't know what these people are thinking and I sometimes wonder if they're really who and what they appear to be. You have to wonder what someone who does something so obvious and high profile like this is really up to. If they just wanted to make some bucks on porn, they could make relatively mundane porn and blend. Hell, they could even be fairly misogynistic (without going to such extremes) and still be relatively invisible in the din if they wanted to. They have to know their luck can't hold out forever making this kind of content that will invariably be met with this kind of scrutiny and criticism. So you have to wonder what exactly they plan to do when they get charged with obscenity or something? Did you ever wonder if maybe that's their real goal? Though I have little doubt that the guys running that site enjoy their work, I question their motives. I know someone who gets my gist is going to offer me a shiny hat soon so I'll just leave that to stew for a while. I have racks and racks of shiny hats and I'll wear them all proudly if only it means that people stop to wonder what's really going on here and ask the really uncomfortable questions. Saying "everything is fine as far as I'm concerned unless I hear of a pornographer getting convicted for rape" is taking the easy way out in my opinion. Click to expand Of course it's taking the easy way out. Why would I lose myself in a psychological maze trying to answer questions that I have no hope of answering? I could sit here and watch ten porn flicks and I couldn't say for sure all of them were consensual just by watching. How the hell do I know? It's just a movie to me. When I'm sitting here watching a Hollywood flick and I see a really dangerous looking stunt, I'm not thinking "Damn! That looked like it might have really hurt!". I have to assume if the director or the main star of the movie physically assaulted the stuntman, the stuntman would at least complain. I have to assume that even though it may look like someone is unbelievably distraught, they aren't too distraught to collect the paycheck. Otherwise, we have to question everything we see on a screen and I'm just not prepared to do that. And again I ask, why is it so different when it's females and sex? Edited by - randomprecision on 7/7/2010 9:22:28 PM [Link]
Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 10:28PM I don't think the girl looking unhappy or reluctant or whatever implies lack of consent. No means no. If she fought to get away and walk out, then that is a different thing. If she was unhappy and wished she hadn't taken the job, welcome to the work force. I'll never forget the one day I worked for a tree service. My back thought they raped me. [Link]
posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 10:32PM The fact that you take the time to compose a post as long as this and every sentence is an expression of concern that your porn might "go away" rather than concern about the well-being of performers (which is the thread's topic btw) speaks a volume, RP. [Link]
elgringoviejo58 Senior Member 1460 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 10:41PM I am moe struck by the naivete of some of the posts to which RP responded. [Link]
posthum Member 349 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 10:45PM ^ Okay, fine. I'll stay out of this thread and any other regarding this topic from now on. Giving a damn about the people who do the stuff people spank off to makes you too much of an unpopular minority round here. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 10:52PM posthum wrote: The fact that you take the time to compose a post as long as this and every sentence is an expression of concern that your porn might "go away" rather than concern about the well-being of performers (which is the thread's topic btw) speaks a volume, RP. Click to expand When you consider the fact that I don't have to respond to you at all and I already have (And have seen) enough porn to last me several lifetimes, you might consider that I'm concerned about more than just my own rights. Yes. I do care about other people. But I care about people who aren't going to have the right to fight back if these people are successful in bringing down porn with this bullshit. And it is bullshit and I have no shame for exposing it for what it is. You're right that I'm not that worried about a 19 year old who only has to stand up for herself if she really feels that violated. I'm not ashamed of that either. Freedom requires people to take responsibility for themselves. And that includes defending yourself and standing up for yourself. It isn't easier to do in any other country than it is in America. You can accuse someone of being a space alien in the US and the burden is on them to prove they aren't. I am concerned about freedom of expression in all areas because it's under attack every day from every angle. Religious speech, sexual speech, general expressive speech and even political speech. These are not the times to buy the pathetic excuses the traveling censorship salesmen are selling. The price we will pay if we do that is unfathomable. They are like any other kind of unscrupulous sales people. They will use whatever dirty tricks, deceptions, exaggerations or sleights of hand they can dream up to sell you the junk and once you fall for the sales pitch, you own it. They prefer to sell censorship out of a suitcase so they can be long gone when you figure out you got ripped off. I just don't understand what you want here? I agreed with you that the rough stuff is risky to shoot and not good for anyone. I agree that it would be better if they didn't make it at all. I agree that the stuff these guys shoot makes me uncomfortable. My only point of contention is that I expect victims to either speak up for themselves or they're not victims. And my other point was that we already have very effective laws to deal with things like non-consensual sex without getting tangled up in thorny speech issues. And by the way, I've made many lengthy posts on this and other subjects. I could respond to you with two words or none at all but I respect your opinion enough to give it a considered response. I like to talk. I like to debate. People who want to destroy what little freedom exists in the world in these hideous and precarious times have to be challenged. My own taste in porn tends way more towards the vanilla but I'm not foolish enough to believe my porn or anyone else's porn will be safe if we give another inch every time somebody gets offended. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/7/2010 11:21:29 PM Edited by - randomprecision on 7/7/2010 11:24:09 PM [Link]
fu_q All-Star Member Marv Montag (@PornOfYore) 2506 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:09PM posthum wrote: @ fu_q: I can understand people are opposed to the obscenity thing. I think it's bullshit, too. What I don't understand is why everytime someone gets creeped out about particularly rough porn everyone jumps to the defense of the pornographer, pretending all is sound and dandy in porn-land and discomfort is either acted or the girl's fault. Click to expand I don't wish the talent to do anything that they don't want to, either. That said, I'm not sure that it's as bad as it might appear at first glance in many cases. I do believe that there is a lot of acting going on in a lot of scenes that might otherwise appear rough. That said, I'm not a huge fan of rough porn...or porn where the actress appears to be uncomfortable...so I vote with my wallet and don't watch / purchase it. The approach that I believe to be most reasonable is the one where the crime (rape, assault) itself is what is punished--if there is one committed (big "if")--and not the use of speech-limiting obscenity charges. People should be tried for what they do and not stupid, tangential shit. Just my opinion. [Link]
fu_q All-Star Member Marv Montag (@PornOfYore) 2506 Posts 2/09	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:11PM screwcap wrote: Click to expand Just to take this a step further, technically, filming ANY illegal activity is Illegal. For example, filming someone actually shooting up Heroine or Snorting Coke. If it's real drugs, it's illegal. Proving it, is a complete different story, however. - Mark Maddy G Productions Click to expand I know your comment is broad brush but... "filming anyting illegal is illegal." But so far from the truth. dateline, 60 minutes, Hbo and Surveillance cameras prove otherwise. robberies, mail fraud, medical fraud, prostitution it goes on and is ugly. Click to expand +1 (The statement is incorrect--at least in the U.S.) [Link]

RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:12PM posthum wrote: ^ Okay, fine. I'll stay out of this thread and any other regarding this topic from now on. Giving a damn about the people who do the stuff people spank off to makes you too much of an unpopular minority round here. Click to expand I don't want you to stay out of it. Your thoughts are welcomed as far as I'm concerned. You are at least civilized and you don't seem to be trolling the way some of these censorship people do. [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Jul 7 2010 : 11:51PM pornlaw wrote: I wouldnt say consent was inconsequential. I wasnt there and therefore I can only form an opinion from what I read and was told. I can tell you that as an attorney I always want my clients to appear to be the "good guys" when sitting in front of a jury. Consentual staged acts of rape can have a profound effect on a jury member and not in a good way. I would warn any client of the possible ramifications of distributing "rape-like" content, whether it is completely consentual or not. Click to expand I agree. But I should have been clearer of what I meant by calling it inconsequential. What you say makes sense in that proving consent isn't inconsequential to making the person on the stand look less like a dirty old perv. But from a purely legal standpoint, is it not inconsequential to the crime of obscenity itself? Does proving that it was consensual have any relationship to proving that it's obscene? That's what I was trying to say. Yes, making your client look like one of the "good guys" (an almost impossibility in porn) is a good defense tactic. But does it have anything to do with proving or disproving the specific charges against him? Also, when you warn your clients against making certain types of content for whatever reasons, do you simply suggest that they not do it, or do you outright tell them not to do it? I can't speak for those working in the industry. But I like to thik that if I were a client of yours, I would appreciate the warning, but I would still make the type of content that I want to make. Despite the fact that some irrational people think that it only applies to convenient circumstances, I'm crazy enough to believe that the First Amendment still actually means something. [Link]
pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 4:55AM realtip wrote: I agree. But I should have been clearer of what I meant by calling it inconsequential. What you say makes sense in that proving consent isn't inconsequential to making the person on the stand look less like a dirty old perv. But from a purely legal standpoint, is it not inconsequential to the crime of obscenity itself? Does proving that it was consensual have any relationship to proving that it's obscene? That's what I was trying to say. Yes, making your client look like one of the "good guys" (an almost impossibility in porn) is a good defense tactic. But does it have anything to do with proving or disproving the specific charges against him? Also, when you warn your clients against making certain types of content for whatever reasons, do you simply suggest that they not do it, or do you outright tell them not to do it? I can't speak for those working in the industry. But I like to thik that if I were a client of yours, I would appreciate the warning, but I would still make the type of content that I want to make. Despite the fact that some irrational people think that it only applies to convenient circumstances, I'm crazy enough to believe that the First Amendment still actually means something. Click to expand You are confusing the issues. Consent really has nothing to do with obscenity. You also have to remember every single women who shoots for the sites you are talking about has to sign a model release and a 2257 document. Further they receive payment for their services. Thats not rape. Thats consent. There are actually a lot of pornstars that enjoy working for sites where they are submissive and are degraded. Just look at Kink.com to see the ones that do enjoy - male and female alike. Not all, but some really do enjoy it and often return for additional work. The days of Linda Lovelace claiming that she was forced to perform at gunpoint are loooong over. I have never heard anyone relate a story to me that they were forced at gun point/knife point/threat of physical violence to perform sex on camera. Obviously, that type of content doesnt sit well with you. Then you shouldnt watch it. But there is a market for it and it continues to sell well. Some performers enjoy making it and some producers like creating it. I would say that qualifies for First Amendment protection. I believe if no one is harmed in making it and there arent children or animals involved then it requires First Amendment protection. The First Amendment stands for the proposition that the majority cannot silence the minority just because they do not like what the minority is saying. Actually the most unpopular speech deserves the most protection. If the First Amendment means something different to you, perhaps you should read the Congressional Record from the Continental Congress... Library of Congress Collection I am curious as to one of your statements. You stated "making your client look like one of the "good guys" (an almost impossibility in porn)." If you feel that the industry is filled with "bad guys" and problem people, why do you consume its product and even more so, why do spend your time posting your thoughts about the industry on a message board devoted to it? I can tell you there are quite a few "good guys" and "good women" in the industry. [Link]
Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 9:04AM There have also been a select few who don't appear to be "good guys" IMO, or at least walk a very fine line at times. And it's those that appear to walk a fine line that worry me sometimes. Porn operates on a very large spectrum, most mainstream, some not so mainstream. Not every company is a Vivid, Elegant Angel, or Wicked. There is room for abuse or intimidation in porn. A model release or 2257 release doesn't necessarily insure anything, especially when we are talking about porn on the lower end or not as well known. No still means no, even in porn. [Link]
markaudess Marie Madison Media 68 Posts 2/04	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 10:30AM screwcap wrote: I know your comment is broad brush but... "filming anyting illegal is illegal." But so far from the truth. dateline, 60 minutes, Hbo and Surveillance cameras prove otherwise. robberies, mail fraud, medical fraud, prostitution it goes on and is ugly. Click to expand +1 (The statement is incorrect--at least in the U.S.) Click to expand I knew when I clicked 'Post' I had generalized too wide. Both of you are correct. The law is complicated, and I'm certainly no lawyer, but I meant simply in terms of 'Entertainment'. Documentary's and News enjoy a different interpretation of 'Free Speech' in the eyes of the law. At least in the USA. And the lines are blurry, in the case of HBO's "Hookers on the Point", and MSNBC's "Marajuana Inc." What is considered 'News' is widely interpreted all by itself. Then there's the dude who suddenly made filming the Killing of Dogs for Profit somehow a 'Documentary'. It's all fucked up. That's why the smart producers 'Lawyer Up' before they head to the studio. - Mark [Link]
UnkwnUsr2 Member 443 Posts 2/05	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 11:37AM pornlaw wrote: The days of Linda Lovelace claiming that she was forced to perform at gunpoint are loooong over. I have never heard anyone relate a story to me that they were forced at gun point/knife point/threat of physical violence to perform sex on camera. Click to expand Guam wrote: I don't think the girl looking unhappy or reluctant or whatever implies lack of consent. No means no. If she fought to get away and walk out, then that is a different thing. If she was unhappy and wished she hadn't taken the job, welcome to the work force. I'll never forget the one day I worked for a tree service. My back thought they raped me. Click to expand Well I don't think you have to fight back physically or be threatened with violence in order for it to be non-consensual. This notion appears to me to be an oversimplification of human psychology. You can initially consent to a certain act but (in the case of porn) be presented with an act you haven't consented to initially and things can go really fast with the cameras rolling. There is no liability on behalf of the victim to defend him or herself or to walk off set or even complain. That doesn't change anything about the facts. Not everyone has this magical infinite willpower and inner strength that seems to be assumed to be omnipresent in America, where apparently it is expected of a rape victim to make great efforts to free him or herself or else it is obviously consensual. I reckon this isn't really how psychology of consent works. When you are overpowered there isn't really the strength to fight back incessantly, this is how rape works, and people are different. So the claim is that unless you fight back or run away you are consenting and that is ridiculous, humans don't work that way. Edited by - unkwnusr2 on 7/8/2010 11:39:51 AM [Link]
Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 11:49AM whenever a thread wanders into the Max/rape issue, it makes me wonder about S/M. I mean, that stuff can be such a better argument for obscenity....a sobbing bound girl with her tits turned black by ropes and huge ugly welts on her spanked ass. Why is that not a crime and sex that "looks" unconsensual is (considered by some people). Funny how you can brand assault a "fetish" and people accept it. [Link]
charn fubar 2880 Posts 12/09	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 1:29PM Porn is a business. Where money is involved, there will be crooks, frauds, extortionists, etc. Since the government hasn't yet prosecuted on the consent angle (unless I missed that in the long posts above) I expect many scenes are nonconsensual. The market is wide enough now to include the statistical probability that some directors don't care about the health of the porn industry or the consequences of pushing boundaries. [Link]
chaotic_23 Member 339 Posts 1/06	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 2:46PM elgringoviejo58 wrote: If a crime is filmed we ought to be grateful as it provides evidence that can be used to punish the fuck out of the perpetrator. Click to expand Only if it actually results in that punishment. Otherwise, it just adds insult to the victim's injury. I know someone who, as a child, was molested and "starred" in kiddie porn. Not only did her abuser never get prosecuted, she knows for a fact that the videos are still floating around out there. RandomPrecision wrote: Are you kidding? Let me just ask you this. Hypothetically, If I were to go out clubbing and pick up a 19 year old girl, take her to my house and have my way with her and the next day she calls the police and says I raped her, do you think there's any way in hell I'm not going to get a visit from my friendly neighborhood police department? Click to expand Maybe not if you live in New York. Just think about this in common sense terms. What you're saying is crazy. It takes nothing more than a complaint filed with the right person in America. Click to expand I can't decide if your naivete is charming or not. In any case, you have a seriously skewed perception of how easy it is to get police to take rape cases seriously. You have to wonder what someone who does something so obvious and high profile like this is really up to. If they just wanted to make some bucks on porn, they could make relatively mundane porn and blend. Click to expand They probably figure the rape-fantasy market's less saturated. And again I ask, why is it so different when it's females and sex? Click to expand The answer to that depends on how often you believe coerced scenes to be. Personally, I assume they're a vanishingly small number, but if I had any reason to believe that there was a significant risk of watching a rape, I'd feel obligated to modify my viewing habits accordingly. But then again, I'm one of those crazy people who believe consumers are morally responsible for what they choose to consume, and the costs that go along with the production of those goods. Guam wrote: whenever a thread wanders into the Max/rape issue, it makes me wonder about S/M. I mean, that stuff can be such a better argument for obscenity....a sobbing bound girl with her tits turned black by ropes and huge ugly welts on her spanked ass. Why is that not a crime and sex that "looks" unconsensual is (considered by some people). Funny how you can brand assault a "fetish" and people accept it. Click to expand That's why Kink.com makes a point of having extensive post-scene interviews, to make it clear that everything was consensual. It doesn't matter if you find it hard to believe someone could enjoy being beaten, it's a simple fact that some people do. Edited by - chaotic_23 on 7/8/2010 3:07:54 PM [Link]
elgringoviejo58 Senior Member 1460 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 4:10PM Chaotic23-Isn't the fucken crime, the real fucken sin here that the human piece of shit that raped the child and videotaped the crime never faced punishment despite this highly probative evidence? Can any legal beagle or wannabe lawdawg enlighten this poor barefoot country bumpkin? [Link]
chaotic_23 Member 339 Posts 1/06	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 5:01PM elgringoviejo58 wrote: Chaotic23-Isn't the fucken crime, the real fucken sin here that the human piece of shit that raped the child and videotaped the crime never faced punishment despite this highly probative evidence? Can any legal beagle or wannabe lawdawg enlighten this poor barefoot country bumpkin? Click to expand I'm not privy to the details, but I think the molesters covered their tracks well enough to not get caught. Do you really think every video of a crime floating around out there has resulted in an arrest? Yes, it's gratifying when it happens, but that's an exception. [Link]
pornlaw Member 578 Posts 10/05	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 10:23PM From the posts I have read it simply appears that a majority of the posters just dont like this type of content. Its understandable. The answer is dont watch it. You have a right to not to expose yourself to it. But there's a market for it. Some performers love performing in this type of content. Some producers love making it. I know a lot of female performers that are very submissive and love to explore that side of their sexuality on and off camera. Its not the running away or fighting back that makes it consentual. When a model signs a model release, 2257 docs and hands over her ID to be copied, then does a "I loved every minute of it clip" at the end of the shoot and then cashes the check, its pretty much a done deal any prosecutor/Judge will NOT see it as rape... and its certainly not a case a DA can win. [Link]
Guam Member 613 Posts 2/07	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 10:24PM elgringoviejo58 wrote: Chaotic23-Isn't the fucken crime, the real fucken sin here that the human piece of shit that raped the child and videotaped the crime never faced punishment despite this highly probative evidence? Can any legal beagle or wannabe lawdawg enlighten this poor barefoot country bumpkin? Click to expand Which child/rape are you talking about? [Link]
realtip Deactivated User 2301 Posts 6/04	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 10:36PM pornlaw wrote: You are confusing the issues. Consent really has nothing to do with obscenity. You also have to remember every single women who shoots for the sites you are talking about has to sign a model release and a 2257 document. Further they receive payment for their services. Thats not rape. Thats consent. There are actually a lot of pornstars that enjoy working for sites where they are submissive and are degraded. Just look at Kink.com to see the ones that do enjoy - male and female alike. Not all, but some really do enjoy it and often return for additional work. The days of Linda Lovelace claiming that she was forced to perform at gunpoint are loooong over. I have never heard anyone relate a story to me that they were forced at gun point/knife point/threat of physical violence to perform sex on camera. Obviously, that type of content doesnt sit well with you. Then you shouldnt watch it. But there is a market for it and it continues to sell well. Some performers enjoy making it and some producers like creating it. I would say that qualifies for First Amendment protection. I believe if no one is harmed in making it and there arent children or animals involved then it requires First Amendment protection. The First Amendment stands for the proposition that the majority cannot silence the minority just because they do not like what the minority is saying. Actually the most unpopular speech deserves the most protection. If the First Amendment means something different to you, perhaps you should read the Congressional Record from the Continental Congress... Library of Congress Collection I am curious as to one of your statements. You stated "making your client look like one of the "good guys" (an almost impossibility in porn)." If you feel that the industry is filled with "bad guys" and problem people, why do you consume its product and even more so, why do spend your time posting your thoughts about the industry on a message board devoted to it? I can tell you there are quite a few "good guys" and "good women" in the industry. Click to expand The fact that the presence of consent is unrelated to the crime of obscenity is actually the point I was confirming. I agree that one has nothing to do with the other. It is true that every performer gives her consent to appear in every scene in which she performs. But that doesn't stop these ridiculous threads accusing pornographers of rape from repeateadly popping up. As far as degrading content goes, it just goes to show that "degrading" is a subjective term. I don't consider Kink.com to be "degrading." If you take away the ropes, it's no different from any other porn site. The same goes for Adult Doorway, Rocco, MH, Khan Tusion, and all the other guys who get people up in arms for supposedly making "degrading" content. Either people are way too hypersensitive and love to overexaggerate how extreme these guys are, or they just take this stuff way too seriously, or both. Regarding your statement that the "days of Linda Lovelace claiming that she was forced to perform at gunpoint are loooong over," that doesn't appear to be the case to hear some of the posters on this forum tell it. Just read the OP, for example. If I believed everything I read here, I would think that every girl who ever does a hardcore porn scene was being tortured into submission prior to the scene, and that any girl who doesn't constantly express her annoying overenthusiam by screaming loud obnoxious fake moans like a banshee all throughout the scene must have been dragged by her hair kicking and screaming onto the set. Personally, I enjoy edgy hardcore scenes as much as I enoy any other type of porn. The harder, the better. I remember when porn used to be much harder and more extreme than it is now. It apparently spoiled me because, again, the supposedly rough stuff that's being made now doesn't hold up to the stuff that was being made a few years ago which makes the currrent type of extreme gonzo look soft and boring by comparison. I wish that type of porn would return. I also agree that those who don't enjoy it simply should not watch it. I also know that there's a market for this type of content. I know this because, again, I am a consumer within that market. As a consumer, I can attest to the fact that the demand is not being supplied. I presume the reason for the lack of supply is due to fear which results from prosecutions and warnings such as the one you said you give to your clients. The First Amendment is indeed intended to protect unpopular speech as well, or as much, as popular speech. I have often repeated the exact same statement here myself. The problem is teaching people who don't understand that concept to finally be able to grasp it. Furthermore, when I wrote that making pornographers look like "good guys" is a near impossibility, I wasn't reflecting my own belief. I do not think pornographers, even those accused and convicted of obscenity, are bad guys. The meaning behind my statement is that it is nearly impossible to make them look like "good guys" to the wider society that refuses to recognize or accept different ideas of sexuality. In other words, when you put a pornographer on the witness stand in front of twelve jurors who feel the need to feign hatred of pornography in order to preserve their reputations within their communities, then even getting the Pope to testify on their behalf isn't enough to make them look like "good guys." To many people, these guys will always only be misogynist perverts who sexually exploit young vulnerable women who don't know any better. When people have this type of attitude, it is nearly impossible to convince them otherwise. Again, we don't need to look any further than this forum to see just how pervasive these erroneous judgements are. I agree that people who think this way are the problem, and I also wonder why they bother watching it if they feel that way. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 11:38PM chaotic_23 wrote: But then again, I'm one of those crazy people who believe consumers are morally responsible for what they choose to consume, and the costs that go along with the production of those goods. Click to expand Time to clear the air a bit. Let's filter out all the extraneous noise and present the essence of this... A rough translation... Thoughtcrime. Does that about sum it up? Now you can go and translate the clarity of that brief glimmer of honesty back into Greek. That's why Kink.com makes a point of having extensive post-scene interviews, to make it clear that everything was consensual. It doesn't matter if you find it hard to believe someone could enjoy being beaten, it's a simple fact that some people do. Click to expand Yes and it's not a bad idea. They should all do it. But it won't matter when they get plopped down into a courtroom where the jury doesn't have to see the whole work and the prosecution doesn't bother to show them that part. Because they only want them to see the tears, you see? Persecution isn't about the truth. The tears are the truth because if you cut out 99% of the rest of the thing, they're all you see. That's how porn haters see the world of porn. And even if the jury gets to see that part I'm sure there are still people who would go out of their way to believe that part of the video was faked and the offensive part (The part that offends them personally) is the part that's real. You'd be surprised what kinds of fancy editing tricks people's minds are capable of when they're offended. But it's even more perverse than it would at first seem because the part that really offends them is the fact that someone would consent to this in the first place. There must be some powerful dark overlord working his foul magic at work here because nobody would ever consent to letting someone slap them or spit on them or whatever. Well, that would be if everyone was like them. And there you have it. The thing that really offends some people is that everyone isn't just like them. And that is what is obscene about porn. Edited by - randomprecision on 7/9/2010 12:25:46 AM [Link]
elgringoviejo58 Senior Member 1460 Posts 1/07	Posted - Jul 8 2010 : 11:46PM Guam...any child rape will do to make my point. If the visual evidence of the crime is not marshaled to convict the perp, isn't the issue of whether the distributions of the depictions are obscene rather beside the point. Punish the rapist. [Link]