Tom Byron

Pontus

Edited by - Pontus Maximus on 8/23/2003 4:53:41 PM

[Link]

And Hardware I just opened my bottle of Grape Knee high LOL

[Link]

Edited by - M.B. on 8/23/2003 9:46:04 PM

[Link]

Proud member of the church of Tina.

[Link]

Yes, there needs to be some limits placed on pornography. Most people would draw the line at child porn, bestiality, and snuff movies (including virtually all of even the most extreme 'raincoaters').

Voyeur32, you have your own notions of what is 'acceptable' porn, right? I guarantee you that there are a great many people in America who would find your tastes and interest in porn totally obscene and if they could, would ban the type of porn that you prefer to watch. Would that be acceptable to you?

If you don't like 'circus act' porn, then don't watch it. Plus, the local porn store (or stores) that you go to must be extremely tiny if they're not offering you enough variety to avoid the types of porn that you don't want to see (I can assure you that double anals, gapes, puking, and choking are all very easy to avoid in any porn store that I've ever been to). If this is not true where you live, perhaps you should shop (rent/buy) online.

Basically, what this boils down to is that either consumers can make their own choices of what porn to watch, or the Government can step in and make that choice for them. Which would you prefer, Voyeur32? Realize that they're not going to stop at just the type of porn that you find objectionable (so don't delude yourself).

Pontus

[Link]

Edited by - Drew Black on 8/24/2003 10:49:01 AM

[Link]

There was an article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune about the case; the article was mentioned on C-SPAN's morning news show (I watch way too much C-SPAN).

story here

[Link]

Proud member of the church of Tina.

[Link]

So, if Ashcroft loses this case, that just means he has to work that much harder to win the next one.

[Link]

If you read the indictment/warrent, the surveillance of Extreme Associates by the Los Angeles police began the week after the broadcast of the Frontline program, in February of 2002. It looks like the Justice Department would not have started this particular probe of this particular company except for the fact of Mr. Black's outstanding appearence on national TV. So I would agree, he brought a lot of this on himself.

[Link]

Arguing that some of these women who subject themselves to incredibly disgusting and degrading behavior aren't victims of abusive personalities is out of touch with reality. Why the hell would someone like Kristy Myst do the scenes she does if she didn't have some kind of mental problem?

Just as the government polices corporations for inappropriate behavior, they should also be able to freely police the pornography industry when it goes too far.

All the "little boy blue's" who worry about the porn industry being harmed by the loss of a case like Rob Black's need to remember that there are vintage porn clips from when the camera was first invented. Prior to that, there is plenty of pornographic art and literature even old than that.

Pornography will always be around until the world ends. Even the pornography industry doesn't have carte blanche to treat people whatever way they please even if the money is right.

C'mon now, would you also argue that the corporations should be able to treat their employee's anyway they please as long as they agree to the treatment no matter the reason? Should we get rid of labor laws and just hope that corporations interested in profit treat employees well out of the kindness of their heart's?

Alot of the pornographers on this board and the posters are disgusting perverts, and yeah, I know, because I like the same kind of anals, Dp, gangbang shit alot of other people like.

I just don't delude myself into believing that it is healthy or proper sexual conduct. I certainly wouldn't want my daughter's or any female family members ending up as one of your subjects as much as I enjoy watching the product. I'm a hypocrite, but I'd rather be a huge hypocrite than ever see one of my female family members on film being dp'ed or double analed.

The basic gist I am getting at is that the porn industries needs someone to rein them in just like any other industry when they go overboard like Rob Black has done. I think the government is pretty kind to the pornography industry overall and lets them get away with alot of shit. I know when I was younger the porn was nowhere near as hard as it is now, and the new era of pornography is really pushing the limits on acceptable ways to treat women, consenting or not.

Edited by - Blue Sword on 8/24/2003 2:18:22 PM

Edited by - Blue Sword on 8/25/2003 12:56:44 AM

[Link]

Rob Black is not the enemy here. John Ashcroft is.

We can do this "he asked for it" crap all day, but the fact is he is indicted , and the AG has stated that this is just the beginning. The industry and the viewers of adult entertainment need to get behind the guy, as well as the Hollywood community. The government has NO business telling me what I can view in the privacy of my own home!

I wonder if some of you remember the last federal porn prosecutions. The material there was by today's standards
pretty tame, certainly not containing the DAP's, A2M,A2OGM,etc. that are so prevalent in the more popular
fare today. We in the industry provide what our viewing public asks for. They tell us with their dollars.

The fact is, the Christian Wrong doesn't differentiate what
adult material they want to eliminate. They'll go after
whatever's there. They are well-funded, highly motivated
and dangerous. Kinda like the Viet Cong. Sometimes you gotta take the fight to em, and napalm those fuckers!

The good news is there's more of us than there are of them.

They are very vocal and united in their cause, and we need
to be also.

So let's get together and fight this repressive minority!

[Link]

The correct spelling is "gist."

[Link]

Now I know that this does not have anything to do with the Extreme indictment but it is comforting that there are other free speech organizations challenging John Ashcroft.

[Link]

John Ashcroft is indeed not my friend.

I wrote that in effect John Ashcroft is your friend. That's not the same thing as calling him your friend.

I realize that a great many people find any kind of porn repugnant but whose deluding who? We're talking about so called porn that even 99.7% of the porn community finds repugnant not just general population. You don't get it all.

I think you're deluding yourself if you think that the porn industry would be safe from prosecution if it didn't include 'circus act' porn.

As far as the covering of statues and who he intends to prosecute is totally not the point.

I didn't say that it was THE point, however it does speak to the sensibilities that John Ashcroft has regarding sex. If he's that sensitive about just nudity, then that implies that he would seek to prosecute even pornographers who make the kind of porn that you find acceptable.

The point is Rob Black has given him the material to actually win a case. You think if he went after Vivid he would actually win a case? They may not stop at the porn I find objectionable but I also realize what's a winnable case.

First of all, not even lawyers can all agree on what constitutes a 'winnable case.' Therefore, you don't know what's a winnable case. I don't know what a winnable case is either, but I never claimed to. The point is that John Ashcroft and the Bush Administration are going after the porn industry. They were planning to do this before they even heard of Rob Black and Extreme Associates. They would still be doing it even if there never was a Rob Black and Extreme Associates. Therefore, IMO, for the porn industry to vilify and attack Rob Black is counterproductive. Prior to the Federal indictment against EA, the porn industry and and porn fans in general were already dealing with Rob Black and Extreme Associates in the most effective ways: by shunning them and rejecting their products. AVN was refusing to let them advertise, an increasing number of porn talent were refusing to work for them, and porn fans en masse were refusing to purchase or rent their movies. No one needed the Government to step in and try to shut them down. Market forces were already shutting them down.

I also realize that this crap makes it far easier to go after something that wouldn't normally be gone after and for that I do blame Rob, not John.

Okay, right there, you're contradicting yourself. Here's what you wrote in a previous post:

"Let Rob hang himself. If you're not doing the same type of thing I truly don't see you having anything to worry about. Shoot the stuff like Rob does and you only have yourself to blame."

Therefore, by your reasoning, Rob Black's 'crap' wouldn't make it easier to go after something that wouldn't normally be gone after. By your reasoning, only pornographers who produce the kind of 'crap' that he does would have anything to worry about. And because you personally don't like that type of 'crap' anyway, then why would you blame Rob Black for anything? You should be praising him for allowing himself to be used as a tool for the Government to rid the porn industry of the type of 'circus act' porn that you said you hate.

One more thing, I say where I would draw the line and I'm attacked for it and called John's friend etc...

I didn't 'attack' you, I merely rebutted some of the things that you said. It's called a debate. There was nothing that I wrote in my previous post that was personal against you. I rebutted some of your points, I didn't attack you.

However, you then go on to say,"Yes, there needs to be some limits placed on pornography." Uh, O.K. explain this to me. When I say where I think the line should be you go off on me, but then you turn aroiund and basically agree with me there should be a line.

So what you're doing is trying to put me in a "Catch-22." If I argue that there should be literally no limits whatsoever, then you'd be all over me for advocating that child porn, beastiality, and snuff movies should be allowed. But if I say that limits should be placed on those things, then you accuse me of being inconsistent. Heads you win, tails I lose, right?

Just cause I don't agree where that line should be with you suddenly I'm John Ashcroft jr.

Show me where I called you John Ashcroft jr. And don't say that I stated that he was your friend, because I didn't. And even if I had, that wouldn't have been the same thing as calling you John Ashcroft jr.

Who says you then should know where that line is?

Because in the United States of America, child porn, bestiality, and snuff movies are all illegal. It isn't just where I draw the line, it's where the line has already been drawn.

I mean my snuff ananlogy was there to make just that point. According to the defense many raincoaters here have posted that as long as it's two consenting adults then there should be no limits.

Then child porn and bestiality wouldn't apply, because they don't meet the "consenting adults" standard. The snuff movie example wouldn't apply, because murder is against the law. Hence, your argument is without foundation.

Why then according to you should snuff films be banned. If the person consents what's the problem? You can't play both sides of this. Raincoaters give me the consenting adults argument then not defend that and say that's over the line.

See above. I would add that double anal, for example, is not against the law, but murder (including suicide) is. Incidentally, if by the term 'raincoater' you mean a person who likes the 'circus act' porn that you described in your initial post in this thread, then I'm not a raincoater.

By the way, I initially was simply giving my right to free speech and give my opinion. You've said,
"And now let's do the predictable thing and fight amongst ourselves while the Government plots the destruction of the porn industry." I never attacked anyone one here. Just giving my opinion.

Just because you have the right to express your opinion doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't also be free to rebut some of the points that you make (which is merely allowing them the freedom to express their opinion about your opinion). I never tried to restrict your freedom of expression here. I merely rebutted some of the points that you made (again, it's called a debate).

If anything you've been the one stirring things up with me, Quasar and whoever doesn't fall into line with whatever you say. When you say fight amongst ourselves look in the mirror.

Me stirring things up? I think not. And I disagree with you that engaging in a debate is synonymous with fighting amongst ourselves. You made some points in your initial post in this thread. I merely made counterpoints to some of the things that you wrote (just as, in this post, I'm rebutting some of your points in your second post). Why shouldn't I be free to do this without being accused of "stirring things up" or trying to deprive people of freedom of expression? Here's what I consider "stirring things up:"

Mike Quasar: "No disrespect to Tommy but Rob Black can go fuck himself."

Voyeur32: "No offense but fuck Rob Black and this proliferation of circus act porn."

Don't try to tell me that anything I've written is comparable to the above two statements. I think what actually happened is that you became flustered and overly defensive merely because I rebutted some of your points that I disagreed with without getting at all personal with you.

It's not like I'm Steve Hirsch making these statements so why act like my attitude will bring the whole industry down.

I didn't act like your "attitude will bring the whole industry down." That's you being overly defensive.

I hate our it's never our fault society. Someone take personal responsibility for once. Bottom line is Rob brought this on himself.

I don't know where you got that. I never said that Rob Black didn't bring his troubles upon himself. I am aware of what he said on the Frontline special on porn (essentially daring the Government to prosecute him). I am aware that he never should have agreed to be featured on that special in the first place. Yes, he is responsible for egging the Government on to prosecute him. However, my point is that the Government was going to go after porn anyway, regardless of whether or not Rob Black and Extreme Associates ever existed.

Proud member of the church of Tina.

Pontus

Edited by - Pontus Maximus on 8/25/2003 3:29:36 AM

[Link]

Rob and Lizzy's arraignment is Wednesday. They will both plead NOT guilty.

[Link]

Rob Black is a joke, but -- honestly now -- how can anyone watch any of those purportedly "obscene" titles and take any of it seriously? They are so lame. I can;t even get a woody watching them, so they don't qualify as porn, more like bad trash filmmaking from some sub-John Waters school of gross out bad taste.

I fully support anyone's right to make really shitty movies, full of dirty words and simulated anything, and even actual sex, and in a healthier country not only would you not even see these things, if you did no one would notice or care because they had better things to occupy their time. Rob Black and John Ashcroft are merely symptoms of a society whose values have been horrifically skewed.

They are both wasting their time. But it is their time to waste. I'm just sorry tax dollars are being wasted when people need to eat.

What bullshit times we live in. I hope this nonsense gets thrown out of court.

[Link]

I don't know how this affects the price of tea in China; however, I heard from a well-connected friend that there is "substantial" preparation for seven more "major" indictments of studios, including one "gay" studio, in the works at DOJ. My friend thinks that there is a plan to blitz the porn industry based on how the initial phases of the Black/Borden indictment/trial go. S/he thinks the timing may be keyed to the next election, specifically to appeal to the right-wing contingent and to eclipse possible bad economic data and/or continuing problems in the middle east in the media.

Regardless of any political motivation, this effort appears to be real. I do not have specific information as to which studios or on any of the material on which these possible indictments might be based. Nor do I have any knowledge as to the jurisdictions in which these indictments might be filed.

~ GaySatyr

[Link]

With everybody basically not giving a rat's ass (at least as far as closing ranks and fighting what Ashcroft is about to do), let's see how far the Government can go in prosecuting the porn business. Maybe Evil Angel, Red Light District Video, DVSX, Zero Tolerance, Platinum X Pictures, and others will all fall like dominoes before all is said and done. Maybe the Government will find a way to tie in the RICO statutes and seize all of the assets of those companies. Maybe some of the studio heads are going to be spending some time in prison. (Hey, don't underestimate President Bush; look at how many terrorists he's rounded up and how much of their assets he's had frozen.) But who cares, right? Some say that only the Rob Blacks and Max Hardcores have anything to worry about.

Pontus

[Link]

Ron

[Link]

Hell, I woulnd't even want to be the guy having to decide what level of sexual depravity is acceptable. Imagine that fucking job.

Pornographer, "So having the girl puke and then eat it, while having her ass stuffed by two cocks is not ok?"

Government lawyer, "No. That's over the line."

Pornographer, "Two cocks in her ass is fine, right?"

Government lawyer, "Yes, that's acc...legal."

Pornographer, "Ok, thanks for the clarification."

Some people in the porn industry have gone mad as far as I am concerned. I walk into a porn store and am just amazed at the pictures on the boxes. I'm wondering what's the next natural step. Pedophilia? Bestiality?

It be nice if people would police themselves, but they don't. Others, usually the government, eventually have to step in when someone goes overboard.

Fuck Rob Black. As a viewer of Pornography, I'd like to see the sick films his company produces go bye bye. Now, if they were trying to hammer Jules Jordan or Buttman, then I would be unhappy.

The guys who make porn into some kind of Circus Freak show. I be happy to see them get censored.

[Link]

Yes, it's true that there are more people who view pornography (at least occasionally) than there are on the religious right. But the latter are well organized and politically motivated, and are established within an existing political party. Even if a leader in the Democratic Party were pro-pornography, would they even publicly stand up for Rob Black and his "body of work"? It would be political suicide.

By the way, does anyone know if the ACLU has taken a stance on this case? There is nothing on their website about it, although they often deal with censorship issues and free speech. Their current president, Nadine Strossen, has been publicly pro-pornography in the past.

[Link]

Darth-Morpheous
adultdetective.com

[Link]

You don't seem to understand that they are not going to stop with Rob Black. If they manage to put Rob Black behind bars, that won't be the end of it.
Your favorites, Stagliano and Jules Jordan will probably be next, same with RLD, and other high profile companies.
Just because you don't like seeing a girl take two cocks up the ass, doesn't mean it isn't okay, ever thought that the girl may actually enjoy it? Other people like to watch this stuff, otherwise it wouldn't be made.
In the end, it's just people fucking, why do you care so much about what sex acts are in the movies you don't even watch.
Watch what you like and leave the rest on the shelf.
You're just as bad as the people trying to put Rob Black behind bars, just becuase you/they don't like it, nobody else should be able to view it, give me a break.

[Link]

The question presented to the jury is a test of whether they find the item to be obscene. Not whether the producer has a right to film it and distribute it and fans can purchase/watch it.

On a different note, I wonder how the jury voting works in obscenity case? Do they have to simply reach a majority to hand over a conviction or does it have to be unanimous?

[Link]

Remember, Ashcroft is the idiot who hid Lady Justice with drapery because he couldn't abide her exposed breast appearing in his press conferences. (see: An Open Letter to John Ashcroft - Claire Braz-Valentine)

~ GaySatyr

Edited by - GaySatyr on 8/25/2003 2:43:03 PM

[Link]

As I suspected, the DOJ has some longterm plans, Darth., this is not likely to just die down after the initial trial of Rob Black. What will be significant is not just the initial outcome of the trial, but any appeals to this decision. If this goes all the way to the Supreme Court, it could take several years to get a ruling on what would now meet the definition of obscene.

And I agree with you, there are millions of people who watch porn. But they are not organized into any sort of political entity, and do not wield any political influence as a group . Perhaps someone should start a "Americans for Porn" political action committee? But herein lies the problem - most porn consumers want to enjoy their consumption in complete privacy; I know, I'm one of them. That's one of the beauties of Internet Porn, and Pay-Per-View Porn, and Video-On-Demand Porn; you don't even have to leave your house to satify your needs, and nobody knows your'e doing it. To join a PAC dedicated to porn comes close to announcing you're a consumer, publically.

Probably the next best thing a porn fan could do is vote Democratic in the next year's presidential election, which would result in the naming of a new Attorney General, who would hopefully back down from obscenity prosecutions. How many times I have heard men make fun of Janet Reno, but don't you all miss her now!

[Link]

Rob winning or losing this case only speaks to whether or not the government can bring the same titles to trial in the same jurisdiction again. The idea that "Rob better win this case or else the government is emboldened, etc." argument is simply without merit. I also strongly disagree with Tommy (and Rob's) assertion that the government views all porn the same. If that were the case, they wouldn't have chosen this material as opposed to a much "softer&quotof titles.

If this case goes to trial and reaches the jury deliberation stage, it will be a costly defense to mount. As for the idea that someone other than Extreme should put up money, I ask: why? Defending this loser case won't help the industry in any fashion. Contributing to this defense suggests a patent endorsement of this product, which many of us do not endorse. As Quaze stated: "I don't make videos featuring rape and puke, (etc.)"

When this case started, I too felt that a real defense needed to be made for the sake of the industry, but upon reflection, I have changed my view on that. For one thing, Extreme was greedy and lazy: the only way they could brand themselves was to produce virtually indefensible material because they lacked the originality to do what other successful companies do: make good porn that doesn't rely exclusively on shock value for it's appeal and marketability. They knew what they were doing. Why should I spend 10 cents to defend material I would never produce? Why should I help fund a defense that was intentionally caused by their own twisted need for notoriety? Time to pay the piper! Would Rob have written a check to help defend me if the shoe were on the other foot?

Many people have thrown the name Larry Flynt around as if he were some precursor to this case, yet Larry has always funded his own defense. Ironically, every speech I hear from Larry these days, includes the admonition not to be stupid in producing material that is not defendable. There's something to be said for not making BAD precedents.

This material is not only dangerous to Extreme Associates directly, but the appearance on Frontline was the sort of bad P.R. that the industry does not need. While I don't believe the government sees all porn as being the same, many voters probably do, and now we all get stroked with the same brush.

I recognize that as a producer in this business I am taking a certain risk, but I don't flagrantly do the scorched earth campaign that marked Rob's unfortunate tenure in our midst.

Tom's analogy about Rob not being the enemy is fallacious. Rob may not be the enemy, but he is their unwitting tool. To paraphrase him: he is their best mark.

For the record, I spoke to both Tom and Rob after the warrant was served and I spoke to many others who reminded me of the many things that they did while here. They are not 1st Amendment Freedom Fighters, whether they prevail or not. They are loose canons and nothing more.

Again, I pray the powers that be do NOT view us all the same, because, as someone in this thread said earlier, we are not.

Christian Mann
Video Team

[Link]

The standard of proof in criminal matters is always the highest. Even though this is an obscenity charge, versus something like a violent crime, the possible penalites are gigantic. Federal crimes in general have harsh sentencing guidelines. This is one reason why so many plea to something much less. Very few cases go to trial -- less than 10%.

-- Snowman

[Link]

Porn will just keep getting harder and harder, just like it has been for sometime. Sure, the government will occasionally get involved, but they won't be able to shut down the porn industry anymore than they can stop people from smoking and drinking. Porn is like alcohol or tobacco, it is firmly entrenched in American society.

[Link]

Eh. I don't know.

[Link]

Thanks.

_______________________________

"The greatest argument for the existence of God,
is the beauty of the female form."

[Link]

Don't be deluded into thinking this is just Ashcroft or a small minority of religious zealots either. As you can see from this thread, even other pornographers and longtime porn supporters and are fed up, and I can assure you we're just the tip of the iceburg. Kudos to those who have spoken out, because as usual, anyone who does is attacked as being 'anti-porn' when nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not going to support the right to produce porn "no matter how offensive it may be" and I don't know many reasonable people who would.

[Link]

TONIGHT'S FOCUS: The movies are truly offensive. But there's clearly a market for them. And now Attorney General Ashcroft is beginning an obscenity prosecution, the first major one in about a decade. But with the Internet, VCRs and DVDs, the whole environment is different. What are community standards these days?

---------------------------------------------------------------

It used to be something of a right of passage for young men. Going off to a dingy theater to see an X-rated movie for the first time. But the theaters were generally pretty disgusting, and I don't know anyone who didn't walk out after that experience feeling like they needed a shower. But things have changed. The Internet has brought porn, however you want to define it, into the privacy of the home. Porn actually helped drive the VHS/VCR revolution in the 80s, and it's doing the same thing for the Internet. For the most part, pornography websites are among the most profitable.

Now the legal yardstick has always been community standards. And those standards vary dramatically around the country. What might be greeted with a blasé yawn in one community might generate shock and outrage in another. But if there really is no public display anymore, if all of the viewing takes place at home, is "community standards" realistic any more? But community standards certainly play a role in determining where these prosecutions will be conducted. A jury in a rural area may view these films far differently than one in a big city. Now John Ashcroft's Justice Department has filed charges against a movie production company based in California, but the prosecution is to take place in Pennsylvania. Going after the pornography industry has been on his agenda for a while, but the attacks on 9/11 delayed it. The Justice Department has now decided to go forward.

And in this first case, they chose an easy target. The films made by this company are not what might be considered "mainstream porn." They are violent and offensive, featuring scenes of rape, violence, and murder. It's going to be very hard to defend them. But what about the First Amendment? It really exists to protect the fringes, under the belief that once you start to whittle away at freedom of speech, once you weaken that protection, how or where do you stop? And as the movie producers point out, scenes similar to what they do show up in our movie theaters and on our television screens all the time. Where do you draw the lines? Or do you draw any lines at all?

After the snickering, after the jokes and all, there is a very serious issue here, one that in the end, affects all of us, whether you have ever viewed an X-rated movie or not. But go into any major hotel and you can order one up on the cable system and pay for it with your credit card and the hotels even say the movie title won't appear on your bill. Porn is mainstream, whether anyone likes it or not. It's a multi-billion dollar industry, involving some of the biggest corporations in this country. ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper will introduce you to the U.S. Attorney in charge of the prosecution, and the movie producers. Ted will anchor, and yes, we've had a tough time editing all this so we can actually show it on network television.

Leory Sievers and the Nightline Staff
ABCNEWS Washington bureau

[Link]

Proud member of the church of Tina.

[Link]

Chris...I hate to say it...but me, you, and everyone else out here ARE INDEED lumped into the same pile of morally repugnant gutter trash that Rob Black is considered the epitome of...at least in the eyes of the average juror, and certainly in the eyes of Prosecutor Mary Beth Buchanan and that asshole John Ashcroft. The same way we look at the Christian Right wing as being one unified entity with one narrow-minded agenda, they see us as one disgusting group of smut mongers who all earn a paycheck from the same source. As untrue as both those points may be, it is a reality we all must live with, so stop trying to separate yourself from the pack...the white, upper-middle class Republican soccer moms are not buying it, and neither is the Attorney General.

As for the relative safety of those "softer" companies, who would have never had any "heat" brought on them were it not for Extreme's antics...not so. That safety net will be woven with the fabric of the Extreme case outcome. If Extreme loses...we all lose...because the stage will be set for the Government to further intrude into our rights as producers and America's rights as viewers. Think it won't happen that way? Think again...we're talking about an AG who spent 8 grand on a curtain to cover the exposed breasts of a STATUE! And not just any statue, but "The Spirit of Justice" staute herself! Don't you find it ironic that this prick threw a sheet over the very symbol of justice that he is supposed to be a representative of!? If he finds the statue of justice so offensive that it must be shrouded, how do you think he feels about Vivid's latest release? Still think the softer comapnies would have been safe if it were not for Rob Black and Extreme? The softer companies, as should all of us, be GLAD that Rob is taking this fight on the chin, and not cowering when facing a possible 50 years. If Christian Mann had been indicted, the plea bargain would have been settled already, he'd be starting to serve his time, and the next porn company in line would have been raided. And belive me, we are ALL on that list to be indicted...The War on Porn has begun, in lieu of any other winable war for this pathetic administartion and all of it's miserable failures. Extreme is just the easiest target. If Extreme loses, we'll all be easy targets.

I'm not asking anyone to side with Rob Black and endorse his work...but if you don't defend the industry as whole, you'll be sorely, sorely sorry you didn't do something to help cut this government bullshit off at the quick. You may hate Extreme and everything they have done, but you NEED them to win this case...and I think that's what most industry insiders are having the hardest time accepting.

- graciously,
guy capo

[Link]

I also was pleasantly surprised at Paul Fishbien's comments re: Extreme Associates. He had the chance to totally bury them and chose not to do so.

[Link]

What the issue really is, in my view, is governmental censorship. You have taken the position that that's okay as long as it pertains to porn that you despise (for example, the circus act porn put out by Rob Black and Extreme Associates). My point is that you will be singing a different tune if the Government decides to censor the type of porn that you love and find acceptable. Yet, why would you then cry foul if you've already given the Government your approval to make those types of decisions for you? When you say, "Fuck Rob Black," symbolicly you are giving the Government your approval to make those types of decisions for you.

You have written that you like to see anal in porn. Well, there are many porn fans (yes, porn fans ) who find anal sex obscene. Therefore, they would have no problem if the Government censored anal sex from porn movies. If that were to happen, what would be your likely response? You would probably complain that the Government has "gone too far." Well, why should your own personal likes and dislikes be the determinant of what constitutes "going too far" or "acceptable porn?" Why should you be the issue?

Puking, choking, simulated rapes, desecration of religious symbols, etc., occur in mainstream Hollywood movies very frequently. In the Exorcist, Linda Blair's character shoved a crucifix in her vagina while shouting obscenities (that same movie included peeing and lots of puking). The movie Boys Don't Cry graphically (though not explicitly) shows a woman being brutally raped and subsequently shot and stabbed to death. In the television movie, The Burning Bed, Farrah Fawcett's character gets savagely humiliated and beaten several times throughout the movie by her husband. In the movie Sacrilege, there is a scene that shows a nun eating a bowl of a man's feces. Papillon includes a shocking scene involving a leper. But because none of these movies include explicit sex , few people (if any) want the Government to ban them. If you don't like some of the acts depicted in the aforementioned movies, you can always make the decision not to watch them. Who needs the Government to make that decision for you?

Rob Black and Extreme Associates put out porn that even some of the most jaded of porn fans would find obscene. So, why can't the porn fans decide whether or not they will watch those movies? Why should the Government make that decision? If you find their movies obscene, no one is forcing you (or anyone else) to rent or buy them. If you take the position that it's okay for the Government to prosecute them, drive them out of business, fine, and imprison them merely because they produce porn that you personally find obscene, then you will be in no position to object if and when the Government does the exact same things to pornographers who produce porn that you personally find acceptable. Why should you be the measure of all things? Why should your own personal likes and dislikes matter vis a vis governmental censorship?

I wish people would get this through their heads: Bush and Ashcroft hate any and all porn and ideally would like to ban all of it. If our form of Government were different and Bush/Ashcroft had absolute power (and with the ways and means to enforce it), beyond all doubt they would drive the entire U.S. porn business out of existence. We all know that they don't have such power (and ways and means) and could never do that. However, it never ceases to amaze me how so many people are perfectly cool with governmental censorship as long as it pertains to things that they personally find objectionable.

Bottom line: who should have the right to decide if porn is obscene (or too extreme or too over-the-top), the Government or the people? If any individual finds something obscene, then why can't he/she just not watch it? If you object to the very existence of such porn and for that reason alone want it banned, then keep in mind that a great many other people feel that exact same way about any and all porn. Why, then, should what you want be more important than what they want? What makes you so special? Realize that the only time a person is forced to watch porn that he/she might find obscene is when sitting on a jury. Pretty ironic, don't you think, Blue Sword?

Go ahead and keep railing against Rob Black (and those of his ilk) if that makes you happy. What you seem completely unable to grasp is that I personally hate the "over-the-top" porn that Rob Black and company put out as much as you do (I find much of it anti -erotic). However, the crucial difference between us is that I realize that my own personal likes and dislikes are not supposed to be the determinant of what constitutes 'acceptable' porn in the eyes of the law. Sure, Rob Black cranked out a lot of 'offensive' smut, sure he baited the Government into prosecuting him, sure he is anything but a hero. However, none of those things mean that the Government has the Constitutional right to ban his products when they involve sex acts (and other acts) between consenting adults, and none of those acts are against the law.

Pontus

Edited by - Pontus Maximus on 8/28/2003 5:48:25 AM

[Link]

"A California couple pleaded not guilty to obscenity charges..."

I think the Government miscalculated. When they were planning their whole prosecutorial campaign against the porn industry, I think they expected Black/Borden to quickly roll over and plea bargain, figuring that they were too small of a company with too limited financial resources to take on the Government (plus, I think they fully expected Black/Borden to immediately cave in because of the stiff penalties involved in this case). Had Black/Borden plea bargained, that would have made it that much easier for the Government to continue with it's plan to go after other pornographers. I'm not suggesting that Black/Borden are heroes. However, their decision to plead not guilty does demonstrate that they are willing to stand up for what they believe are their Constitutional rights.

"...pornographic movies that depict murder, rape and other violent acts against women."

Consider all of the non-pornographic materials (mainstream Hollywood movies, television movies/shows, books, etc.) that do the same thing, yet aren't even issues when it comes to government censorship.

"While the movies themselves are not illegal..."

Yet, the Government still seeks to ban materials, the free expression of which, are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

One final point. According to Tom Byron, Lizzy Borden is not a co-owner of Extreme Associates, yet she was indicted. Whereas, Tom Byron is (or was) a co-owner of EA, yet he was not indicted. Tom, himself, has said that he has no idea why Borden was indicted, and why he wasn't.

Pontus

[Link]

This is a war, and it's not new. Clinton didn't want to fight it and he didn't have to - the rightwingers weren't his constituents, after all. Bush does, and his AG is a willing tool. While I appreciate that many of you want to help Extreme in their case, if you want to win the war you need to get out of the trenches and start thinking strategically. The industry doesn't need a victory in a PA court, it either needs a victory in the Supreme Court or it needs one in Congress. If you choose to fight in the courts, then Extreme is just a skirmish. You can win it, but you haven't settled anything, so I hope you're looking ahead to what comes after.

[Link]

Pontus

[Link]