Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Aug 29 2003 : 11:25AM
Hardware is right. Please write your representatives. Please write the Department of Justice who claimed on Nightline that they were representing the will of the people. Let them know they are not. Let them know the limited resources of The Child Exploitation and Obscenity division of the DoJ should be used toward investigating child pornography. Here is their website - please do not create a clickable link here: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/index.html
As soon as case crosses state lines (even if it is just a phone call that crosses those state lines), a case is automatically under federal jurisdiction. It doesn't matter if it is a local crime or not.
When I was on a Federal Grand Jury a couple of years ago, we heard a case about corrumtion by a NYC councilman. Because there were phone calls to and from his bagman's home in New Jersey, it became a federal crime.
That's why you will never see a federal obscenity prosecution in California (unless the case is against an Internet site or an out of state e-tailer.
I think one of the big things here is "community standard". The last time the subject was visited, adult films were shown in public. In that case, "community" means the town or area the adult theater was located in. I would say that if the movies were sold in an adult bookstore open to the public, "community standards" would still apply. In this case, where it's internet related, the "community" is reduced to the room or building where the movies originate and the address where the items are shipped to, namely that person's house. I don't think anybody can claim that they thought they were going to be getting the latest Benji movie as Extreme is very clear with their marketing that they're going to be pushing limits with their movies in areas that make many people uncomfortable.
Well, yes and no. There have been plenty of obscenity prosecutions based on shipping videos across state lines. Remember the Meese Commission in the 80s? Also, in this very thread Christian Mann recounts his Federal obscenity persecution in 1990.
The difference today is that the Supreme Court has ruled that people have a basic right to privacy and what they do in the privacy of their own homes should not be legislated by the government. It's because of this there is a glimmer of hope to shoot down the community standards test.
I'm actually a little surprised that Ashcroft would be willing to assume such a huge risk like this based on the Texas sodomy ruling. He should have waited until a more conservative Court was installed. This prosecution has the potential to completely backfire on him and the administration. The more I learn about the Extreme case the more I see it's 100% politically motivated. As much as I don't care for Rob Black I wouldn't mind seeing Rob Zicari have some influence on Bush losing the next election.
There have been numerous posts here in which people have been wondering why Western PA for this case, and why was Lizzy Borden included in the indictment.
As a native Pennsylvanian who has lived in or near the state for 90% of my life, I’ve got some thoughts about the former question. Penna., after Florida, has the highest proportion of elderly people per capita, compared to other states, due to young people leaving for job or educational opportunities. So the potential jury pool could be somewhat more conservative than other states on the East Coast.
Why Western Penna.? It is one of 13 Federal districts (out of 93) that has a lead attorney who is a woman. To the general public (though not the porn viewing public) this will look good, to see a woman fighting for public morality.
Now, since community standards will be at issue here, the jury will have to reflect the general community, so it will have to be around 50% female. It can’t be skewed too much towards one gender or the other, because that won’t be representative enough.
And what if I were an “average” woman from Western PA, sitting on the jury for this case (and I’m not that average, because I like porn). I’m going to see Mary Beth Buchanan sitting at the prosecutor’s table, looking elegant in her tailored suits and with her professional demeanor. At the defense table will be Lizzy Borden, who may or may not take the stand in her defense. But I bet anything the prosecution will enter as evidence the following statements from the Frontline program, made by Ms. Borden in her interview for the show:
Frontline: So what is this scene ( from Forced Entry) going to have in it that's controversial? Borden: A girl being kidnapped, being forced to have sex against her will, being degraded. Being called "a cunt, a whore, a slut, a piece of shit." Then being butchered at the end, and spit on. She's being degraded.
Frontline: And whose idea is this? Borden: Mine
Later in interview: Frontline: Now, you know this woman actress. What's her name? Borden: She's one of my best friends (Veronica Caine).
Frontline: And you're about to put her through-- Borden: Hell.
Frontline: Why? Borden: She knows me. She's my best friend. I know she can take it. She's a good actress. And I can abuse somebody that I know, but I can't abuse somebody that I don't know. So it's like, I know that I can hit her harder. ... She's not prissy. So she would put a good scene out for me. And at the end I give her a hug, I take her out to dinner, and we go shopping. Frontline: Is she going to take a beating, a real beating? Borden: Yeah. She's really going to get hit. She likes it. It's good. Sometimes, it makes you more horny when you're getting hit. It makes you more, like, more tingly down in your genital area. You should try it. You should hit your wife a little bit.
So Ms. Borden admitted the film was her idea, that she intended to abuse the actress, and then she suggested to the interviewer that he hit his wife (though just a little). How well does anyone think this is going to go over with a jury, especially the female members on it? I think they’re going to be shocked out of their minds not just by the film, but by the statements above. Jurors are likely to be tolerant of the fact that men like porn, and that men direct most porn, and that a man could direct a violent porn film. However, expecting jurors to be equally tolerant of a woman making a film like this, and saying the above statements in public, is a big stretch of the imagination.
I don’t mean to be too negative, but Mr. Sirkin, the defense attorney, has his work cut out for him.
I don't see the grounds for entering the Frontline interview into evidence, unless either Rob or Lizzie stated that the material in question was obscene.
I think Rob stated something to the effect of 'I make a lot of stuff they could arrest me for.' However, I don't specifically remember him saying his movies were obscene.
Actually, I think that, if the statements about Veronica Caine liking what was going on are true, and Veronica Caine is willing to testify, the above quotes from Frontline could actually help Rob & Lizzie. My guess would be that, if the government were to use the excerpt that Renee quoted, they would probably stop the quote before the: "Frontline: Is she going to take a beating, a real beating?" question.
O.K. So I'm no lawyer.(perish the thought!) BUT, correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't the BUSINESS have benefit of precedent when someone WINS a case on obscenity?I'm not bitter. I like Russ and Stevie, too. We've both made money for each other. I'm only bitter at those who are bringing this prosecution.
It does frustrate me, however, when the industry "elders" are so quick to judge and be willing to throw Rob and Co. under the bus, while proclaiming some kind of moral superiority in that "I would never produce such movies"
While the cartoonish, pseudo-rape themes of Forced Entry (have you actually SEEN it?) may be troubling to these self- styled guardians of decency who make the world safe for boring porn, may I remind you that VCA distributed a highly lauded four part mini-series with INCEST as the theme?(Taboo American Style, anyone?) Not to mention several Dark Bros. titles intended to shock and disgust, loaded with offensive racial stereotypes, including one that actually had a KKK gangbang? How quickly we forget. But that's Russ Hampshire the First Amendment hero.
You talk about bringing heat on the industry and raising the ire of anti-porn forces. When Stevie goes on TV and in business magazines crowing about 100 million dollar Playboy deals, going public and how pornography has integrated itself into the "mainstream", isn't it possible that anti-porn zealots who are worried about the proliferation and easy access of porn might concentrate more on that aspect than some loudmouth character on PBS? But that's O.K. because Stevie can "pay his own tab."
Christian, I like you too. I just think we should not be so quick to judge without looking in our own backyard. This isn't a fight between Extreme and the business. It SHOULD be a fight between the (united) business and the oppressive government.
A point well taken. If the government tries to enter the interview as evidence, they'll have to enter the whole document, not just the parts that justify their position. And the defense can argue back about the relevance of the interview to the question of Forced Entry being obscene or not. It will untimately be up to the judge to decide if public statements made by Black or Borden about their work are admissible or not.
To the best of my knowledge, Forced Entry is available only on VHS, so you're going to have to dust off the old VCR!
You have a good weekend, too. I will spend mine slaving away in the editing bay putting together my latest opus for Evolution Erotica entitled Black Up That White Ass Available soon from evolutionerotica.com (Sorry, had to get in a plug somewhere!)
I've heard (read) several people express the opinion that the movie that will cause the defense the most trouble is Lizzy Borden's Forced Entry. I think the whole situation will actually play better with female jurors that Lizzy is a woman, rather than a man. This completely removes the "battle of the sexes" aspect. I would think that female jurors wouldn't feel nearly as threatened by another female as they would by a male.
I know the issue is obscenity, but the prosecution is undoubtedly counting on the strong violent theme of Forced Entry to influence the jury to convict on it (without the violent rape theme, presumably it's just another run-of-the-mill porn movie). That being the case, I think it helps a lot that Lizzy and Veronica Caine were (are) best friends and that Veronica not only freely consented to give her best friend the most realistic scene possible, but that she (Veronica) might have actually derived sexual gratification from the rough treatment and fantasy of the scene. Then, too, if Sirkin calls Veronica to testify that Lizzy did, in fact, hug her after the scene, take her out to dinner, and then go shopping with her, that would demonstrate that Veronica was completely alright after the scene (mentally, emotionally, physically). I would think that all of this would possibly play well with all the jurors (male and female) and make them less likely to convict.
Furthermore, if it's permissible, I think Sirkin will mention that violent rape themes have occurred many times in mainstream Hollywood movies. He might also mention that Hollywood actors occasionally do their own stunt work, and are sometimes pretty roughed up owing to their commitment to create the most realistic scene possible (I would mention, as an example, the fact that Keanu Reeves literally took a beating when filming some of his fight scenes for the Matrix movies--to the extent that he had to frequently soak his entire body in a tub of ice water). Then I would say that the only difference between Veronica and those other actors is that Veronica is a porn star.
I dunno. I just don't see someone renting "Silent Night, Deadly Night" with a Astroglide... and whacking off to violent imagery is different than rooting for Michael Myers...
I'll try and clarify my statements further. The potential female jurors are going to be a mix of people, be they Democrats or Republicans, housewives or career women, upper middle class or working class. It pains me to say this, but I am willing to bet that they will all have strong negative views of women who are openly sexually adventurous, especially a woman like Lizzie Borden who is out on the fringes with her stated viewpoints on violent, degrading sex. And even she has called what she does degrading.
Go and read the discussion area of the PBS Frontline website for the porn documentary, and you'll see numerous posts of people expressing negative views on Ms. Borden and her film, while there are no negative comments on Danni Ashe. For more perspective, read the posts on this message board here about Mason's films, from women who watch porn (not from women who are involved in the porn industry; their viewpoints would be valid to this discussion if the jury were to be made up of porn insiders, but it is not).
Now if Ms. Borden decides to take the stand and can intelligently articulate what is redeeming about her artistic vision, she may have a chance at converting some of the jurors to her point of view. But I think it is going to be an uphill battle, and she is going to have to do a better job than she did on the Frontline show.
Well, I sure hope Extreme remembered to pay Ms. Caine. A dinner and a hug are fine, but a paycheck is a lot more meaningful, especially if you are counting on positive testimony at a trial. And I believe the government has Extreme's financial records, so they can confirm whether payment for the scene was ever made in a timely fashion.
Yes, Renee, I understand your position better now. I hope Sirkin is as good a lawyer as he is reputed to be.Yes, EA did cultivate a certain, shall we say, 'reputation.' (Sorry, Tom.)
You know, for a Dutchman as myself this whole indictment thing is a joke, I mean we have directors here who make movies that would make Rob Black look like a fucking boyscout and it's not a big deal here in Holland because the freedom of speech is one of the most important and respected rights we have here.
[Edit: I deleted a post above so I removed the quoted reference to that post - Drew]
It is rather amusing that the amount of violent content and sexual implications in mainstream movies are much more disturbing than anything I've ever seen in an adult film, but as soon as someone shows the actual sex acts rather than implying them the material is considered obscene by some lunatic in a powerful position. What I find even more disturbing is then some fanatic tries to shove his or her morals down my throat when I pay his or her paycheck.
Exactly my sentiments, Eagle Spirit. Take a mainstream movie like "The Exorcist" - which is widely regarded as the best horror movie ever made. One of its most shocking and disturbing scenes is when the 12 year old girl plunges a crucifix into her bloody vagina, all the while screaming for Jesus to fuck her. Obviously that infamous scene is highly controversial but wouldn't it also considered obscene? Not to mention illegal for portraying a child in a sexual preformance. The producers didn't film that scene for people to get off but I'm sure more than a few pedophiles have been turned on by it since its release in 1973. And what of movies like the "Lolita" remake and "American Beauty" (which actually won Best Picture of 1999) in which middle-aged men lust after underage girls and feature highly erotic scenes exploring their sexual depravity? I'm sure Ashcroft & Co. already have movies like this and similar genres in their sights but what is next on their agenda?
Talk about a very disturbing film that if I remember correctly Linda Blair was nominated for an acadamy award. I think I was 12 or 11 when I went to see it at a drive in with my parents. I closed my eyes for half of the film and begged my parents to take me home. I've never scene the whole film and I don't think I ever will.
Here's a brief excerpt from an AVN article, dated August 27, 2003. In that article, H. Louis Sirkin reveals some of the legal strategies he plans to use in defending his clients, Rob Black and Lizzy Borden (by the way, it really is correctly spelled Lizzy and not Lizzie, as a visit to Extreme Associates' website makes clear):Pontus
I was wondering when someone would mention 'Lolita'. Actually, there were a lot of controversies associated with both the book by Vladimir Nabokov, and the movie made in 1997 by Adrien Lynne.
First off - the book: Nabokov had been an accomplished novelist and poet for 35 years when he published the book in 1959. It took him 5 years to write (and rewrite), and then another 4 years to find a US publisher, because noone wanted to touch a book that was about a middle-aged man fixated on a 13 year-old girl. It was actually first published in England, where there were some kind of legal problems, though I can't remember the exact nature of them. It was only after the book received good reviews in the New York press that the it finally got published here.
And what a book - it has some of the finest prose ever published in the English language. The opening paragraph itself is worthy of a Nobel prize. During a scene in which the main character is just sitting on a couch next to Lolita, the author gives one of the most beautific descriptions of a man having an orgasm that's ever appeared in print. And Nabokov was very proud of the fact that the book did not contain one word of profanity.
But lest you think this is some happy-go-lucky tale of a older guy who gets to fuck a young girl, it's not. Nabokov clearly shows the man obsessing endlessly about the girl, and has him acknowleging the fact that he knows he is ruining her life as he pursues and catches her, then loses her to another man. The end of the story has the main character feeling nothing but a mixture of remorse and sadness over the whole situation. This isn't exactly something that you see in a lot of teen-themed porn films.
Now the 1997 movie: There was a lot of controversy because an actual 15 year old was cast to play Lolita, and she definately looks 13 years old in the film. In the one nude scene, they used a body double, and the scene is shot in a darkened room, so you can't really see a lot of what's going on. The movie faithfully follows the events in the book, and again focuses on all the difficulties of the situation as described in it.
When the film first came out, no American distributor would pick it up. Finally, the Showtime TV channel broadcast it late at night, and after this it got a theatrical release. It's available on video now, because I rented it from my local Blockbusters.
I think one reason that the book, and the movie would not be found obscene is that they both show a lot of artistic merit, like the Miller obscenity law allows.
Thanx for your great response Renee, but let's not forget that the "Lolita" remake and similar movies are highly sexually stimulating to those perverts interested in such depictions while still considered to have artistic merit - and thats where the problem lies: one person's art is another's obscenity.
Here is what would make all the difference. If Adrien Lynn had decided to cast an 18-year old woman (who looked years younger than her biological age) to play Lolita, and had included explicit sex in the movie so that it would have been classified as a porn movie, but everything else about the movie was the same (all of the artistic merit still present), and that movie was being sold by Extreme Associates, for example, then for sure it would be one of the movies that John Ashcroft would be targeting as obscene.
The point is that the U.S.A. is very hung up about sex, far more so than, say, some countries in Europe. Consider this exchange that took place on ABC's Good Morning America between U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, the woman prosecuting the Extreme Associates case, and Charles Gibson:
Consider all of the Hollywood "B" movies with essentially no artistic merit whatsoever that freely (and excessively) exploit sex and violence, but the producers of said movies never seem to get prosecuted under obscenity laws. All else being equal, it is the inclusion of explicit sex in a movie that will most likely (not always, but most likely ) lead to the producer of the movie being prosecuted. Hollywood movie producers can get away with just about anything as long as the sex is simulated.
Pontus, you are right about the US being very uptight when it comes to sexual matters. You and I might consider a certain movie, book, or painting to be an artistic work of merit while others like Ashcroft might find it obscene and completely offensive, so whose opinion is more important? All I know is that if Extreme loses this case it will open the floodgates to similar prosecutions and needless waste of taxpayer dollars.
After all the "Fuck Rob Black" and "Extreme had it coming" bullshit that's been spewing from various sources, it's really refreshing to see that some people are FINALLY starting to get it!
Hopefully, everyone will realize that this case impacts more on the potential loss of ALL our freedoms, rather than whether or not Rob's an asshole.
Have to admit, I didn't read aproximately 11 pages of it. (Personal problem, anything over 3 lines I lose focus & doze off.)
I have no doubt everyone contributed great, intelligent, truthful information.
But, personally, I don't see the alarm for going ballistic. (One if by land, two if by sea, alert against freedom...)
Okay, Mr. Black mailed questionable material into a jurisdiction not acceptable(?). How does that affect anyone else that doesn't mail their adult-oriented product into a prohibited jurisdiction?
* Sure, this current administration has it's collective head up it's ass, but - how long will it exist?
A deficit approaching the trillion mark - proposed budget cuts in the airline security and amtrack train budget (that I recall reading). The current economy & energy blackout which will be billed to "yours truly."
Need I mention Iraq - an expense which changes every day?
Bottom line - where will the money$$$ come from to investigate & prosecute a continued war against porn?
I think this is only a matter of ignorance on the part of the public. Extreme isn't a producer in the eye of a large number of people. If & when "the man" targets/prosecutes a more popular figure - questions & outrage will increase dramatically.
You would think that at this moment, Rob Zicari (aka Rob Black) would be running scared, toning down his smut content, or even folding up his tent and quitting porn altogether. Not so.
On the Extreme Associates website, Rob has been aggressively promoting and/or attempting to sell the very movies mentioned in the federal indictment ("all proceeds going directly to the Extreme Associates Legal Defense Fund!" the website exclaims).
Not only that, his August 29, 2003 announcement mentions that "starting December 17th, we will be relaunching a brand new Extreme" (called Extreme 8.0 ) and "just a big shout out if you thought Forced Entry was controversial, you haven't seen anything yet" (presumably Rob is referring to his upcoming movie called Rage ). In his August 28 entry, Rob states "And I definitely want to thank Mary Beth Buchanan and the powers that be because according to our webmaster we had over 113,000 hits on our website last night." Perhaps, Rob, but at the expense of a federal indictment!
When Extreme Associates recalls a good number of their dvd's becuase of there defects, then maybe I'd consider making a donation, until that happens they get jack shit from me.
My personal concern has alot more to do with the well-being of the women involved in porn. I would like to see the government step in and set some standards for the industry, maybe bring about the creation of an industry board for monitoring standards in porn.
IMO, porn producers are seeing how hard they can get, aka "how much they can abuse the women involved in porn." I think this kind of pissing contest is vile though I imagine it is fueled by demand for product.
I also tend to keep up with the porn news. Judging from the variety of news I have read, the porn industry sounds like an industry rife with dysfunction. I have no clue why I find this so surprising, but I do.
For some reason, I thought the industry was mostly made up of people who simply enjoyed sex. It seems to be made up of more than a few folks who enjoy abusing women, doing drugs, exploiting women in need of cash, exploiting Eurogirls (alot of them Eastern European which worries me given the talk of strange sex slavery in those countries) and some folks who enjoy healthy sex. I have no idea in what percentage.
As a long-time avid porn addict (if I were just a fan I would have quit watching awhile ago), I still don't mind seeing the industry reigned in a bit. More than a few porn producers are way over the edge in their abuse of women, and I'm tired of liberals touting the "victim" bullshit when big business screws over "blue collar Joe", while championing supposedly "victimless" pornography while some of these companies are paying women to do incredibly humiliating sex acts. If that's not exploitation, I don't know what is.
To the government, pornography is often an ignored industry because it is not mainstream, and the harder stuff never will be. That means the sex entertainers aren't particularly well-looked after, and for a legal industry, porn is probably about as laissez-fair capitalistic as it gets save for when the tax man wants his money. Maybe a few of these law suits will get some of the harder porn producers to reign in their bullshit.
On a side note:
I am really surprised Chris Mann was indicted. I can't even imagine what porn Video Team has produced that would fall within the obscenity laws. I wonder if that was the reason Video Team went from a fairly hardcore company to a quasi-Vivid company in terms of quality, hardcore porn.
It was obvious for a while now that something like this was going to happen."For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction",Isaac Newton (approximately).If you disturb an equilibrium,you get consequences,the question in social terms is whether the cause is worthwhile.Given that porn already has about as much freedom of expression as it needs,the emphasis ought to be on holding that line,which has broad popular support,rather than provoking new,unnecessary and frankly unjustifiable conflict,the current reaction to which was quite predictable.Larry Flint himself said that it is a bad idea to try to defend an indefensible position or words to that effect on the Frontline program,which being the fighter he is will probably not stop him from chipping in to this "cause",but if one guy goes overboard,as most would seem to agree he (RB)has,then he has to bear the consequences like a man,and not expect people who have no desire to follow where he led to support him,and not to be stampeded into a panic about a threat to their own liberties,which they can defend on ground of their own choosing and on their own terms.Some of the stuff he did sounds utterly appalling,by any reasonable standards,and there is a certain line which ought not to be crossed,full stop.Anything that entices gratification at the depiction of violence towards women (or children,animals or even men for that matter),particularly of a sexual nature,is just not on,and imagine the nightmare if by some legal quirk this became permissible.The world is not short of seriously bad motherfuckers who would love to be able to make a buck off the "free" exercise of their criminal perversions at the expense of others,and porn as an industry and as a concept needs to be as far from that sort of thing as it can.The issue of whether the so-called Christian right would like to ban all porn is a seperate one,probably quite a few of them are secret fans anyway,and to get one guy who has gone too far is a lot different from smashing a whole established industry with widespread support.In practical reality it is probably a token gesture anyway,so that they can say they have done something to control the ungodly scourge,and frankly,without approving of their position generally,which is in some ways LESS Christian than those in porn,if porn will not regulate itself,then it is 100% guaranteed the government will step in and do it in its own sweet way.Counselling would probably be a more appropriate penalty than time,for people who are obviously unable to distinguish what is (generally) acceptable from what is definitely sick but have still not done anybody direct harm,but the fact remains that in moral terms let alone taste some of the contested content is indefensible except by the abuse of principles which,whilst a bit fuzzy at the edges,will necessarily become more harshly interpreted if sufficient provocation is offered.
And therein lies the problem. There is no clearly defined line. Lacking one, why shouldn't we use John Ashcroft's, who apparently finds all porn utterly appalling?
And that is one of the many reasons that I'm a Hardware fan. He can express better in three sentences what it would have taken me three long paragraphs to express.
Actually there is a pretty clear line,the one I mentioned,about not turning even simulations of violence that is unacceptable in real life into whack-off material,let alone the real thing.Comparisons with entertainment-value vs. morality of simulated violence in mainstream cinema are not really relevant in a field whose basic purpose is facilitation of sexual gratification or at least stimulation of one sort or another.Simulated violence can serve a legitimate dramatic purpose in some contexts,the business end of a porn film is not such a context.And as for the claim that real-life crimes with real life victims were used as the framework for porn settings,and the real life perpetrator of the crime lauded into the bargain,if true,it is only a pretty twisted fuck who could see any virtue in that(by which I do not imply that any participants in this dicussion are so minded). And as for the question as to why not use Ashcroft's standard,well if you are so minded go right ahead,it's a free world in theory,but I think we are all agreed we can do better than that without too much trouble,and without being unable to draw the line where there can be no argument at the end of the day that it ought to be drawn,i.e. right about where the vast majority of porn practitioners do without any problems,otherwise the logic of the argument will justify even real violence(and worse)in porn,so long as there is the facade of "consent",and that would be a much murkier line to police.
Sigh. My point isn't "I love Extreme," or even, "I hate Extreme but must protect it." Fuck Extreme, OK. The point is that, given the current state of law, the idea that a 'good fuck flick' is protected by law is just wishful thinking. I guarantee you that I can find 12 people who will find it every bit as obscene as any misogynistic crap Extreme ever produced. So whoever the 'we' is you're referring to, if you really want to protect your porn then I suggest you do something more concrete about it than condemning Extreme for pissing in the punch bowl.
I went into a local porn store today and got into a conversation with the manager about Extreme Associates. He told me that his entire chain of stores (they operate several stores in each of a couple of different states), pulled from their shelves all five of the EA movies that are a part of the Federal indictment. No one forced them to do it. They did it out of fear of government prosecution. Hence, in this instance, Ashcroft is, in effect, arbitrarily drawing the line, without even the benefit of a conviction in a court of law.
Line-drawing is an exercise of power. The million dollar question is, "Who will constitute the relevant 'WE' ". The only 'WE' that I'd empower with regard to the regulation of my own viewing choices is composed of me, myself, and I. Who would you like to decide for you, besides yourself?
Blondie and I will sequester ourselves in a tropical paradise or mountain top retreat (as mood suits) with an unlimitted supply of Doritos and Eros Bodyglide. Questionalbe material will be submited for our review. All decissions will be final.
This is what is meant by the term "chilling effect" that many lawyers use to protect a first amendment right. Before the era of privacy rights, such as those touted in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy case, this (chilling effect) was the best defense going: namely that a law is so broad that people will be scared to engage in (presumably) protected speech. It causes the suppresion of more speech beyond what is proscribed, i.e. we censor more than just actual obscenity.
It remains to be seen if the privacy rights angle will be effective in First Amendment cases. I am still in shock that the current Supreme Court affirmed any such right in Lawrence. Strict constructionists such as Scalia and Rehnquist will be quick to point out that there is no constitutional right to privacy, implied or otherwise. I defy anyone here to scour through the Constitution, Amendments and all, and find such a reference.
Paul Fishbein raised an interesting point in noting that the community standards prong as written in Miller v. California is inpractible in the era of private bedroom watching which did not exist in the 1973 era of Pussycat Theaters. I also think the internet broadening of a "worldwide community" will eventually make that prong of the Miller test obsolete. Of course whose test case will be granted certiori with the Supremes? Probably not USA v. Extreme, in my (very limited) opinion.
In answer to the other post about my indictment from way back when: we were indicted on counts involving 8 different movies, of which only two were Video Team: "Shaved Sinners" and "Monday Night Ball". Both of those were cleared as NOT being obscene. The other 6 titles were titles produced by other studios being sold by Video Team the one-stop distributor.
My response was to only distribute my own titles and to stay clear of things that I thought were hot button depictions: specifically violence mixed with sex. This wasn't difficult for me because I personally don't care to make that: I just don't think it's a turn on. My movies, contrary to what has been posted, actually depict some very hardcore, nasty sex.
Kennedy's opinion was based on our intrinsic right to liberty (and the free expression of our basic sexual natural as a fundemental expression of that liberty), not privacy.
Neither liberty nor privacy is explicitly guarenteed in the Constituion or Bill of Rights, but then that's the genuius of the Ninth Amendment, isn't it? Gotta love those Founding Fathers!
Below is a well-written, perceptive article by a mainstream journalist (Dan Kennedy of The Boston Phoenix) that covers a lot of important ground about John Ashcroft's case against Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden. For those people who normally skip reading posts that are more than a couple of paragraphs, I recommend that you make an exception with this article and read it from start to finish.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Sep 13 2003 : 8:57AM
Unlike most of the Gonzo porn, which are without a story, societal statement, or specific philosophical expression, the Ass Clowns video seems to have a clear theme and societal statement. By having a rape scene by terrorists and then a rescue by the good guys, the theme is good versus evil; this should be protected under the first amendment. Having a female masturbate with a religious symbol is clearly anti-religious, but blatantly anti-religious utterances also merit freedom of speech protection. Yes, the themes may not appeal to the main stream but the point of freedom of speech is, precisely, the protection of speech, which does not appeal to the main stream. With Gonzo porn, it might be possible to make the case that there are no other expressions or speech that need protection. With the examples cited, there is clearly political, societal, or (anti-)religious speech, and that should automatically kick in freedom of speech protection.
Just so, RonK, which is why I noted earlier that the feds may have made a mistake in choosing Extreme as their first victim. Nevertheless, the fact remains that makers of pornography have no legal bedrock from which to support their enterprise. We can talk about triggers and lines, but these are all in the minds of individuals, not in any code of law. That being the case, I remain confused how anybody can think 'their' porn is safe. Bear in mind that businessmen aren't in business to spend their time and money in the courtroom, so your porn is at risk even if the feds don't directly attack it. Furthermore, I'd like to suggest that what we may enjoy in the anonymity of the web or the privacy of our homes isn't necessarily something we'll admit to in front of 11 other jurors, so I take the 'ubiquity of porn' argument with a grain of salt.
Tom Byron @ AEBN
Posted - Aug 29 2003 : 11:25AM
