Obscenity definition for my argument would be material that fails the miller test but not material that is of real illegal sexual acts.
Currently, in the United States there are many laws that deal with obscene movies. Should obscenity laws dealing with movies be revoked? Should the first amendment extend to obscene movies?
If someone films a legal act but its distasteful and is deemed obscene should there be a criminal penalty?
Example...lets say a person has videotaped a scat scene, and it is concluded it has failed the miller test, and is obscene should there really be a criminal penalty. Or should people be able to have the right to watch obscene content if that person so chooses to in the privacy of his or her home. If a studio uses the mail to discreetly mail an obscene video tape to a willing buyer should it be guilty of a crime?
Where is the victim? Where is the harm? What is the benefit to society? Is it fair for someone to have to follow someone elses morals or religous beliefs?
Should studios really be able to work fully in a legally protected realm and not a gray area?
Some example pros and cons
Pros -Eliminating a confusing and very subjective law "some people can deem anal sex obscene while others wouldn't" -Protect a highly demanded industry -Filming of distasteful obscene but legal acts would mesh with the principles of free speech, a free country and the constitution -Obscenity is Victimless -Obscenity is Consentual -Growth of the economy
Cons -people that like to have people follow their own morals would be offended that it exists
--- Conclusion Children should be protected from seeing obscene content and only people that specifically seek obscene matter should be exposed to it. Videos containing real illegal sexual acts or sexual acts with people under age 16, would replace obsenity on the books as prosecutable and have those penalties as currently outlined. For example, selling a tape containing adultery would be illegal only if sold in a state where there was a criminal law against adultery and the adultery was an actual real life adultery or if an actor was under 16. Hopefully antiquated laws could be repealed such as the adultery law in some states at the same time of this law going into effect.
haha, you know what's funny is all the people who complained about the nudity in the movie 'Hostel' and several people said they went with their parents and were embarrassed by the sex and nudity in the film. Now maybe I'm dumb I don't know but since when is sexual scenes more disturbing than showing people brutally tortured and murdered. "OMG Mom I'm sorry I took you to see this I didn't know there would tits I just thought it was guys getting their heads bashed in with a hammer till their brains oozed out"
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Mar 27 2007 : 3:34AM
Obscene movies are, by definition, illegal.
You can certainly make a good argument that the concept of obscenity is fundamentally in conflict with the First Amendment, and that obscenity laws should all be struck down. But that's not going to happen in the foreseeable future.
This is a very tough one for me. I believe very strongly in the 1st amendment and the constitution and individual freedoms.
I have never been amused, fascinated by, or interested in bathroom humor, or body functions. I find scat and puke repulsive. I’m not interested in pee.
That said I’m more repulsed by infringements on civil liberties and civil rights.
Justice Potter Stewart said during and obscenity trial “I know it when I see it”
I do to Justice Stewart and I will censure it myself.
I think before we allow people to legally make, appear in, watch or purchase scat or puke movies or magazines. They should be required to under go psychiatric counseling. They should try to find out why they have a desire to see someone eating shit, being raped, or forced to puke on a cock. They should have to have periodic follow ups too.
They should have to try to find why they have these desires.
They should carry very strong content warnings and very strongly recommend viewers seek psychiatric help.
I spoke only of scat and puke but extreme S&M and rape could also be added to the counseling list.
The moment you make that first concession that some speech is just too horrible and offensive and shouldn't be allowed, you're already well on your way down that slippery slope (at least halfway, I'd say). It doesn't matter how noble your intentions were ion stifling the speech. It's the first domino and the rest will surely follow. It's only a question of time.
The question isn't "Should obscenity be illegal"? Rather, it should be, "when will practically everything be illegal"? You can see it already. Now it's "hate speech" that is coming under fire. Everybody believes in free speech until they get upset or offended. Then...something just HAS to be done! A chip here, a chip there. Who misses them?
"Obsenity" is a made up word. It has no objective meaning. It's newspeak at it's most blatant.
Edited by - randomprecision on 3/27/2007 12:51:08 PM
Are you serious? You don't have to go through all that to buy a gun or drive a car... but you think watching a video requires a mental check-up?
If there's anything I've learnt from visiting forums like this it's that no one knows WHY they like things... they just know they do. And I can live with that.
I think a warning is enough to make people with weak stomics or conservative morale able to avoid scat or gory movies.
Unfortunately, probably not. And equally unfortunate is the fact that this mindset is probably not at all uncommon in certain political circles. This is what's really creepy, if you ask me (a reference to a similar topic in another recent thread).
I think you miss the point. Conservatives (at least a certain brand of them) have never been about warning labels at all. They want this kind of stuff banned entirely. And not to prevent them (or others who aren't into it) from accidentally seeing it. But rather, to keep anyone at all from seeing it. Because they believe they have the right to dictate what is "normal" and what is not and what is "healthy" and what is not. They believe the way they live their lives is the best and (most importantly of all) ONLY way for a person to live. They're not interested in making recommendations. They are interested in giving ORDERS. They are interested in the complete eradication of what they see as "abnormality".
Edited by - randomprecision on 3/27/2007 1:22:52 PM
I guess you're right, tragic as is sounds. But then, I think being anti like these people is a cover-up, there are police units who can legally watch child porn in order to put people downloading it in jail, perfect job for a pedophile, no? Shit runs both ways? I dunno...
I'm not to worried though, 'they' can't control billions of people using the internet, they're just wasting their time trying to. My middle finger is very very long... thank god.
if someone is into this, (peeing, fecalphilia, vomit) and is willing to do it.... the thing with obscenity is that everyone will have a different standard. some may find swallowing 5-10 loads of cum or taking multiple creampies in a scene to be obscene. i could watch scenes like that from this morning till tomorrow morning with no problem, and if someone told me that's completely disgusting and obscene and should be banned i'd say well if you don't like it don't watch it. you certainly have the right to avoid things that you find distasteful. but you do NOT have the right to tell me that i can't watch it, and you don't have the right to tell the studios not to produce it or the stars not to perform it, provided all are consenting and have prearranged the acts involved. i for one have no interest whatsoever in piss, shit, puke, or s&m, or even tranny porn, so i simply don't watch it. but i would never say it should be illegal and banned. after all, isn't that what the rating system is for, g, r, x? if it bothers critics that match, make an "o" rating for obscene. the closest argument that can be made towards banning those particular fetishes i guess would be hygiene. the whole "no persons or animals were harmed...." line. eating or rubbing shit or puke onto oneself cannot possibly by healthy. perhaps on those grounds critics could make a case. but as far as declaring something obscene or not just on a matter of taste or preference, it becomes like any other debate.
I think an issue being missed here is the idea of protecting the public (from itself, in a way). And not just as mentioned above (eating poop most definitely is unhealthy).
Drugs would be an example. Some say you should be able to ingest whatever you want; it's your body. On the far end of that scale, however, would be suicide. It's your body, yes, but does that mean one should be able to commit suicide? So in this case, the argument may be that "obscene" acts do harm (to the performers, the audience, take your pick).
I'm neither arguing for nor against it, just pointing this out.
I strongly dislike censorship. However, I do "self censor" meaning I don't seek out stuff that I personally find distasteful. I don't like it, I don't watch it. No problem. The moment someone says "I find XYZ offensive, so therefore YOU can't watch it" I have a problem. So, I guess to answer your question, I do not think we need laws governing what is or isn't cool to put on film. So long as the participants are of legal age and willing to do the scene, and there are folks out there willing to pay for this material I don't see a problem. Keep in mind, there are some people who find all porn (even the Vivid/cable variety) offensive and think it should be banned. It's hard to have a middle ground in this issue and not be a hypocrite. I personally find scat/pissing distasteful. Yet, I watch porn. It would be awfully hypocritical of me to say the kind of porn I like is okay, and the other stuff is criminal.
And I'd say to this...mind your own fucking business! Don't tell me that I can't watch a video for my own good.
I don't like the "faces of death" type videos, but that doesn't mean you can't watch them. If you want to watch something that is (in my view, anyway) sick and disgusting, go ahead and watch. As long as you're not causing harm to others, it's none of my business.
Psychiatrists have fucked up more people's minds than anything else. If you're not fucked up when you "seek psychiatric help", you will be after you've found it.
I am not so sure that my taste in porn should be protected as free speech, but I also don't want to see what I happen to like be considered illegal to produce and own (though it probably is).
- -B -I -G -m -i -k -e, here and there, over and out! - -
In Holland the Christian government want to ban bestiality movies. Now I'm not happy about that, not because I like bestiality movies but only because I'm afraid next they will ban rough sex movies like movies from Max Hardcore. I mean where will it end?
wow! bestiality... i didn't even think of that in my post. actually, though, i might have to agree with the ban on that. after all, you can get 2 adults to consent to various acts, but you really can't get a dog, horse, or whatever else to legally consent to any sex act.
The tactics conservatives Christians are using all over the world is trying to chip away at porn and sex really.
Liberal politicians have to have cover or they will be targeted at the next election.
I think the best way to fight them is load up the bill up, make it so sexually repressive that there’s is public outcry. Now that’s my own idea. I’ve never heard anyone else say it.
The key word here is 'legally'. I would agree with you about the horse, but many dogs will happily mount a woman (or any human being). It's probably more like masturbation, but dogs can be horny fuckers and you wouldn't necessarily have to force them. Of course that's not 'legal consent' but it isn't coercion either.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Mar 28 2007 : 8:18PM
. . . and to sell the film, import the film, send the film through the mail, transmit it over the internet, and so on.
But, the problem with that approach (besides that it makes too much sense) is that some of our states still actually have laws on the books prohibiting various sexual acts.
OK....I'm generally opposed to bestiality but you have an excellent point there. Why can you chop a cow into little pieces (blood spraying and all that) and eat it but if someone was making porn with people and cows, the whole country would be up in arms about it?
Now I certainly think it's ridiculous for people to have sex with animals. It doesn't turn me on in the slightest and I would not pay one cent to see it. It cracks me up to even think about it, actually. But of course, it's no laughing matter because there literally are people who would buy this and people who get very upset about it. But surely, killing animals is a bit worse than someone sticking their dick in them, no? Nobody asks the shelter animals if it's OK to euthanize them and I doubt they would "consent" to it if they could respond in any intelligible fashion.
So it is that it's apparently only wrong because it has to do with sex. That's the only thing I can think of. Of course, it it was happening and it was widespread, I would think it was wrong too. But I don't think a thing of eating a steak still dripping with blood. Interesting.
Edited by - randomprecision on 3/29/2007 6:24:09 AM
Well, you know they're not going to voluntarily remove those statutes, either. Most of them are rarely (if ever) enforced and most of the citizens of said states probably don't even know they exist but they're always there if they really want to nail somebody and can't find any real good reason. I mean, how many people these days don't have oral sex at some point or another? I'm pretty sure BJs are still actually illegal in at least a couple of states. How many people in those states, do you think, actually know they're breaking the law when they participate in a BJ? Would they demand the law be changed if they knew? Or would they be content to just assume that since nobody knows what they do behind closed doors, there's no point in shouting about it?
The religious right is too powerful for politicians to pass laws liberalizing sex or obscenities. Politicians would be targeted at the next election. Conservative politicians can run against porn liberal politicians cannot run in favor of porn.
So these laws are put on the books and like you say rarely enforced.
Right now I think were at a stand off. Neither side is confident enough to go to the Supreme Court.
It seems to me porn expanded and pushed further in the 6 yrs with conservatives in complete control than it ever has.
In 2003 we got a Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas that said you couldn’t make a law based solely on morality.
“Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers, holding that it had viewed the liberty interest too narrowly. The majority held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lawrence has the effect of invalidating similar laws throughout the United States that purport to criminalize homosexual activity between consenting adults acting in private. It may also invalidate laws against heterosexual sodomy based solely on morality concerns”
That over turns incest, bestiality and obscenity laws.
But the next president could appoint as many as 3 judges. If we elect a conservative president in 2008. That could send civil liberty and civil right into the dark ages for 15 to 20 years.
Do liberal politicians and judges like porn, support porn no. They support the constitution, support civil rights and civil liberties, and support keeping the government out of your life.
The government and police have used the mafia, drugs and gangs, child molesters, terrorist to destroy the 14th amendment. We need to bring back the 14th amendment
You say I hate porn this is all obscene they should all go to jail. Why should I care if the government intrudes in these people’s lives? Because these same judges will allow the police and government to intrude in every aspect of your life.
They will use this power against news people, activist, union organizers, church groups anyone who seeks change in the power structure.
Church groups don’t realize it, they won’t always be the darlings of the rich and powerful. One day the government will come snooping around them too.
I hate scat and puke but I can’t say it should be illegal.
I don't hate it. I just don't like it. But just because I don't like it, that doesn't mean I hate it. I'm indifferent to it unless someone wants to make it illegal. Because that particular law WILL affect someone and I don't think that someone is doing anything wrong or anything that's any of anyone else's business.
Not much to add to this full discussion of the obscenity issue, other than to note again that the law punishes depictions of sex much more stringently than it does violence. Obscenity prosecutions are relatively rare today, but that might change if a GOP president is elected next year, and we get more Scalias, Thomases, Robertses, and Alitoes on the SCOTUS. As recently as the 1960's it was not that rare for folks to be sent to prison on "obscenity" charges, and methinks that the religious right would like to see it happen again.
Trophy Wives 2 - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Mar 26 2007 : 7:54PM
