I think 12 jurors from just about anywhere would agree with the prosecutor about any of the american bukakee's and gokkum's flicks.

Get men and women 35yo to 70yo with daughters in the jury box and it's a slam dunk.

About the only way they could pull it off is if they can load the jury with 18yo to 22yo pimply faced men, that have never had a relationship with a real woman. Get 12 of these guys and hand out the kleenex.

[Link]

All depends if the prosecutor wants to be a zealot, a no-holes-barred, extreme legal bukakkee, all out, no line he won't cross kinda prosecutor.

Either way, I like the arguments...it's all entertainment to me...and there will always be bukakee-cams and films the government mods can't get them all.

It's JM Productions' money...I'm not sure if it's solely their fight.

[Link]

Yeah. Maybe someday, my eyes will suddenly be opened and I'll finally understand why we need the government to tell us what is and isn't appropriate for us. Maybe I'll finally "get" why it's practically a matter of national security to make sure that people aren't jacking off. Yeah. millions of future Osamas are sitting around mindlessly pounding their puds watching "I love sperm", I'm sure.

[Link]

Your question is and assumption disguised as a question.

This is not personal or how I feel about it's legality...I'm a gambler and I think it's about the odds.

To bad for JM Productions... looks like they have been chosen to take the point.

Lawyers on both side will now take their share of what these women produce....imagine all the people making a living off of Ashley Blue's asshole alone.

[Link]

OJ Simpson is golfing. "Nuff said.

[Link]

I think the bickering has now shifted to "what the fuck is sex"

What about a 100 man bukakee while the woman is having a legal abortion performed? You could knock them up in 50 guy cream pie, do all kinds of preggo shots for 7 or 8 months and then, the grand finally. You could call the series " Bad Mommies I'd like to bukakee"

Now do you have to be close-minded to think THAT'S bad?

[Link]

Juries usually consist of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

[Link]

My beef is with the notion that adults shouldn't be free to do whatever they want with their own bodies. That's what it all boils down to. I don't care if people want to get pooped on, peed on, spermed on, whatever. That's what they like (or at least what they've chosen to do) and is none of my business. If someone can demonstrate to me why I should care if my local video store sells scat videos or bukkake videos, people eating bugs - whatever, I'm all ears but I don't see it happening. If I don't like it, I don't have to watch it. Just seeing it on a box cover as I browse through the store isn't going to scar me for life. I see my own bodily secretions every day. If it offends me, I'll get over it by the time I hit the front door.

Bestiality, I guess I can see why that wouldn't be tolerated. Animals aren't people and cannot consent. You do have to draw the line somewhere. I just happen to think (with bukkake, at least) they're trying to draw the line in a place where they have no business doing so.

[Link]

the legal system is fickle.

[Link]

The key word is "accepted". With the recent tilt of the nation to the right-wing side of the aisle, I'm sure most of the public, as a whole, would find sexually explicit movies and photos disturbing. However, some areas of the country are willing to "accept" these images as honest portrayals of consentual sex between adults above the age of consent. On the other hand, there is a segment of the population who although they are not willing to "accept" these images as the norm, are willing to allow production and ownership of these materials as a right protected by the constitution.

Things get a little fuzzy when companies like JM Production push the envelope to find out what is going to be considered "acceptable". As in DONKEY PUNCH, when is the line crossed between rough choking or a few open handed slaps given in the spirit of arousal before it becomes downright abuse doled out with closed fist and verbal taunts.

From time to time test cases need to come along to give correction to "playing field" and to clearly define what is considered "in bounds" and what is still taboo.

Edited by - Howie Feldersnatch on 1/12/2007 8:00:58 AM

[Link]

Edited by - LarryFarwell on 1/13/2007 1:10:18 AM

[Link]

In 1989, Supreme Court Justice Brennan stated, “the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable” (Texas vs. Johnson, 1989).

To date, there have been no significant victories in the struggle of those that wish to restrict free speech on grounds of obscenity.

Therefore, one can only conclude that intimidation and harassment are the main objectives in this case. Therefore, our best defense against future litigious nonsense of this kind may be to refrain from allowing our anxious feelings to be publicly accessible.

Additionally, please -- rest easy. Pornography is protected under the First Amendment, which allows the free expression of all ideas without regard to whether they are right or justifiable. It is a violation of the First Amendment for a government to pick and choose what types of expression are acceptable according to its own personal bias.

They always lose these things. As long as we have a Judicial Branch, they always will.

[Link]

Here you have several moderators of questionable IQ's who if they are PERSONALLY offended will make a decision for the other members what can and cannot be said.

Why do we find this acceptable here and not in the real communities where we live? We accept building codes of the communities we live in... why?

Why does moderation occur everywhere and in most all other activities and we accept it?

I assume it's for the general protection of the community and it's citizens.

I would still like to know how people sitting around in their homes jacking off to bukkake (or scat, for that matter) is going to harm me personally?

Privately owned web sites can do as they wish with regards to moderation. I don't own this site and therefore, must abide by the wishes of those who do if I want to post here.

I own my house. What goes on in my house (so long as I'm not harming anyone else) is my business. Most people want their houses built to code because they have to live in them and it could be a tad inconvenient for them if it were to suddenly catch fire or collapse.

They are not, however, protecting me from anything by going after adult video. They are simply attempting to inflict their version of morality on me (and everyone else).

[Link]

The whole point is... if moderation works so well for your private business, keeping it organize and such, why wouldn't those same sensibilities apply in public life and in the public arena?...where after all we are all owners.

[Link]

There are unmoderated areas of the internet (usenet, for example) where you can pretty much post whatever you like, but if you join a moderated forum you accept the rules of that particular forum.

In the country as a whole, there are no moderators, but you are expected to abide by the laws of your particular locale. If you choose not to, you can be punished by the local government, via the police and the courts.

[Link]

The actual point you made was valid.

And I believe you are a woman, and nothing you can say can change my mind.

[Link]

If I was a woman I would be so gay! I would be a "no dick anytime" lesbian for sure.

[Link]

Sure, why not?

Show me your tits.

[Link]