Ah, the porn-viewing public that patronizes that chain of stores only has 995 other titles to satisfy their prurient needs. Oh, the horror, the horror!
On a more serious note, in regards to that film of distinction Forced Entry , the Borden/Black homage to Richard Ramirez, even these filmmakers seemed to have self-limited themselves. For example, the Ramirez crime #13 described in this site was the killing of a father by gunshot, followed by the sodomization of his wife and son. Now, wouldn't this be groundbreaking, to have murder, heterosexual rape and homosexual rape in a straight porno film - think of the possibilities! Surely there is a market for such a product, there must be fans out there that would get off to this.
And that's part of the issue here - there are people out there that are fascinated with serial killers - just do a google search on Richard Ramirez and you'll find lots of sites to visit, some even in Polish and Chinese. Apparently there is a world-wide demand for information about him and his cohorts. So, should someone in the porn industry be making films that feed into this demand?
It says now on the Extreme website that Black and Borden are planning a follow-up to Forced Entry . I'm wondering, will it be the Ted Bundy Chronicles, or an anthology on Charles Manson?
Before Ted Bundy's execution, there were a great many women who sent letters to him in prison, professing their love for him and wanting to marry him (despite their full knowledge of the fact that he was a serial killer of young women). Further, violent crimes that are highly publicized sometimes lead to copycat crimes. Does this mean that the news media never should report such crimes (or more aptly, that the government should step in and attempt to ban such coverage)?
What's the bigger threat to society in terms of the potential to incite violent crimes, Forced Entry, a porn movie that will probably be seen by no more than a few thousand people at the most , or ultraviolent movies like Natural Born Killers which are seen be millions of people? Remember the Columbine High School massacre? Well, there is no evidence that the two teenage boys who did it were inspired by porn, but there is evidence that they were influenced by ultraviolent mainstream Hollywood movies such as Natural Born Killers and The Matrix:
It would make more sense to me if someone takes a stand against all movies that portray acts of violence (mainstream Hollywood movies and porn movies alike), but when he/she speaks out against it only when these themes occur in porn movies, to me, that betrays a prejudice against porn per se. And that I find particularly ironic if such a person considers him- or herself a porn fan.
Pontus Maximus wrote:Violence in movies comes in all forms and serves different functions depending on context and presentation. Sexual violence (as opposed to "rough sex") is very "specific", and even more specific when presented in the context of jack-off material. I don't see any reason why someone could not single it out for personal disapprobation and ethical scorn, while at the same time remaining a porn-lover. I do and I am.
Context is everything. Sometimes context includes a large measure of hypocrascy, and sometimes it is the very essense of art. In either case it context *always* include the frame of reference of the viewer. There are plenty of people who would fine the porn you love, as well as the people who make it and watch it, worthy of "disapprobation and ethical scorn".
The fact that I am free to make it and you are free to watch it, in spite of their objections, lies at the heart of a free society. So does their right voice their objection, as long as it's done without the support of the state. Disapprobation and ethical scorn are one thing, legal sanction is quite another. T.C.
I have repeatedly stated throughout this thread, though not in those exact same words, the sentiments that Tony expresses in the above quote. Thus, where it counts the most, you and I, Bob, are of like mind on the salient points. The rest is just splitting hairs as far as I'm concerned.
Pontus Maximus wrote:No, I'm not implying that. I don't give any credence to causal arguments of that sort. (In fact, I find them insulting to human dignity.) My point is not political; it has to do with aesthetic meaning and with moral sensibility.
"Violence" in film can't all be lumped together any more than "sex" in film can be. In reference to mainstream films, violence in a Sam Peckinpah film like "The Wild Bunch" has a different purpose and meaning than in Tobe Hooper's "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre". A graphic depiction of sexual violence, where the filmmaker's intention is to arouse "erotic sympathy" in the viewer, has a different ethical status than a graphic depiction where the filmmaker's intention is to arouse "moral outrage". These are just quick examples to illustrate my point.
and
Well, I'm not sure. For me, the political issues are easy and secondary, however important they are. What I (should) have the right to do is a much more limited question, for me, than what I should do.
and
It may be beside your main point but, as I've noted, it's not hair-splitting for me.
We can debate here at ADT in this thread, back and forth until the cows come home, points about "aesthetic meaning and with moral sensibility," about "violence" vis-a-vis porn movies and mainstream Hollywood movies, about "the filmmaker's intention," about differences in perceived "ethical status," and on and on.
Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden are faced with up to 50-year prison sentences and multi-million dollar fines for making porn movies that John Ashcroft finds obscene and has decided to prosecute them for. Where you stand on the issue of whether or not a jury should convict is the central issue. Recall that you previously posted this:
That's what I meant about us being of like mind on the salient points (unless you have since changed your opinion on what you stated in the above quote).
First, violence in regards to the Columbine massacre - The two perpetrators were fascinated with Adolf Hitler and the German music group Rammstein, whose videos are pretty dark, and feature people being slapped, and held against their will. But the lead singer of Rammstein has said that his group has been influenced by Quentin Tarantino movies, so we're right back to American movie violence. I don't think his movies are just unmidigated exercises in gore and blood; they deserve to be seen in mainstream theaters.
The real tragedy of the Columbine incident was that the police had been told that the two boys were making threats about blowing up people with bombs, but the threats weren't taken seriously.
Now, onto violent sexual crimes in porn films (and I don't mean rough sex films, a different genre). In a previous post a while back on this thread, someone mentioned the mainstream movie The Accused , about the gang rape of a woman in a bar. I watched this movie again on one of my cable movie channels last week, and I timed the actual rape scene from start to finish. It lasted 7 minutes, out of a 110 min film. The rest of the movie was about the legal difficulties surrounding the case, the actual trial, the victim's injuries, the plea bargaining, the viewpoints of various people who witnessed the crime, etc.
Now, does anyone know what proportion of Forced Entry deals with the explicit depictions of rape/murder, versus the consequences of those acts? I would gather that most of this opus focuses on the depictions, and there is little or no portrayal of the consequences. In the words of Rob Black on ABC's Nightline, his film is meant to show the horrors of rape. But that's the issue here; it only shows the horrors, without much context to put them in perspective. And let's face it, his film is for those individuals who get off sexually on watching such acts; it's not meant for raising people's awareness of sex crimes.
So there is a world of difference between The Accused and Forced Entry ; saying that one has either to be against both or for both is begging the question.
Pontus Maximus wrote:You and I agree on this issue. I think our country's obscenity laws are an obscenity. My post in response to Blondie's sets forth my political stance with regard to freedom of expression; I don't foresee any change in that stance, ever. As Walter Burns noted in a related thread, the law's proper sphere of regulation is the pro-filmic reality -- that is to say, "real life" rather than the "representation of life". Or, to put it another way, the law should be confined to governing action; it should not attempt to govern thought.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that certain exercises of expression aren't, in themselves, evil. I do. I just believe that it's improper to address such ills, as I may judge them, through political means. Instead, it's a spiritual battle -- but nonetheless important for all that.
Let's put aside Adolf Hitler, Columbine, Quentin Tarantino movies, The Accused, and cut to the chase.
Is it your opinion that the jury should convict Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden on one or more points of John Ashcroft's federal indictment against them? If so, on which point or points? Specifically, for which movie or movies? And specifically on what basis, using the nebulous "community standards" test for determining obscenity? And how do you define obscenity? (when even lawyers and judges can't agree on what that term means)? And why should your definition of obscenity have more weight than mine (even if you happen to be sitting on a jury)? And why should a jury in Pennsylvania be given the authority to decide what I can or cannot watch (especially considering that I don't even live in Pennsylvania and no one, except for members of the jury, is forced to watch what said jury might convict on)?
Here's the point that, no matter how many times that it's repeated, some people just refuse to either grasp or accept it: if you agree that other people should be allowed to decide what you can and cannot watch, then you will be in no position to complain when other people ban the things (books, movies, etc.) that you like to read/watch and find acceptable.
I'm noticing that we're just going around and around debating ancillary issues, but really missing the main one.
Let's draw a line in the sand: do you think that Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden should be convicted for obscenity, yes or no?"
And don't get side-tracked on subordinate issues like how vile or misogynistic you personally find Extreme Associates movies, the distinction between porn movies and mainstream Hollywood movies, how loathsome of a character Rob Zicari is, that Rob Zicari brought this all on himself, etc. Just answer the "draw a line in the sand" question, please, so that we can all be perfectly clear on where we all stand.
My answer: Both Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden should be acquitted.
And we agree on all that you've stated above, Bob. Again, you've presented further evidence that we agree on what I feel are the salient points. True, we don't agree on all the nuances, but so what?
I want to expand on what Bob wrote in the above quote. He makes a supremely important distinction that I think is lost on some of the people who have posted in this thread.
Sometimes I get the impression that just because I argue vehemently against government censorship, that some people think that I am actually endorsing or promoting the offensive, misogynistic materials produced by Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden. Not true (and I have made this clear in previous posts in this thread). In a sense, I can be likened to a defense attorney in a court of law arguing on behalf of my clients charged with distributing obscene materials, while personally despising the very materials that they are being prosecuted for.
Bob mentioned "a spiritual battle." The irony is that, based on some of Bob's many wonderful posts and threads, I have surmised that I am much more of a religious person than is he. I do believe in God (as a Personal Being, and not as some "thing"). Notice that not even God continuously intervenes in the affairs of mankind to suppress and censor things in the world that He finds objectionable. Rather, God deals with people in terms of their hearts.
Do you think Rob and Lizzy's movies are vile, misogynistic crap? Fine, if you feel compelled to, seek to persuade people to voluntarily not watch their movies and to not patronize Extreme Associates in any way. Write letters to (or e-mail) Rob and Lizzy informing them of your stance on the movies that they produce. Tell them what your personal likes and dislikes are regarding porn movies. If you are religious, you might consider praying that God will prevail on the hearts of Rob and Lizzy to change their evil ways. But while you're at it, realize that, according to the Bible, we're all sinners (and so rather than being so quick to wax judgmental, you might consider using a different tact).
However, don't be so quick to take the stance that it's okay for the government to ban materials merely because you personally find them offensive. Always keep in mind the important distinction that Bob made.
Well I have been trying to keep up to date on this subject. After reading all the posts I came up with an off the wall idea, why don't we make our own Bill.
We could call it:
The Terrorist Prevention Act
In order to preserve our national freedom and increase the funding on the War on Terrorism, We The People of the United States of America after careful review do hereby repeal the following laws which we feel are obsolete,
(list here, I don't have my notes with me sorry, but basically all of the federal obscenity laws)
Pontus Maximus has asked: do you think that Rob Zicari and Lizzy Borden should be convicted for obscenity, yes or no?"
I think you are asking two questions here.
1st question: Should Black/Borden have been indicted on Federal obscenity charges? I think that this was inevitable; even Black in his Frontline interview thought that he and his work could end up as a test case, given the controversial nature of his films and his penchant for notoriety. But I will let his lawyer Mr. Sirkin opine on this matter, as he stated in a recent AVN.com article here the following: …Sirkin was adamant about the harm that can accrue to adult companies from opening up to the press. "I think that the industry people need to be sensible in the sense of, everybody wants to be on television, they want their 15 minutes of fame, but they need to remember that fame doesn't just go unnoticed," Sirkin pointed out. "I'm convinced that it's not necessarily just the criticism of the government; I think it's the spin-offs of a company that Frontline decided to do." "My advice to people is, keep your business quiet," Sirkin continued. "You just say you're in the entertainment industry and you stop the soapbox and you don't start bragging. And you don't trust the news media from the standpoint that you think that they're going to do some wonderful story on you, because they're not going to do it. Everybody that gets out there and starts boasting is subjecting themselves to being challenged by the government….”
2nd question: Would I convict Black/Borden if I were on the jury? I would first listen to both sides of the case, as any reasonable juror would be legally obligated to do. I would have to set aside my own personal bias as to what I consider offensive or not, as the jurors will be instructed by the judge. I understand Mr. Sirkin is very good at these types of defenses and about the more arcane issues surrounding free speech. And I would sincerely want to hear from both Black and Borden what sort of message, if any, they were trying to get across in their films.
I am also aware that the government is going to mount a strong case as well, given that the DOJ lawyers are at the top of the prosecutorial food chain here in our country. It is not like this case will be tried by some brand new assistant D.A. down at the county courthouse.
I think that the issues of offensiveness and community standards will be central to the case – in that these films are only seen in private homes, not in theaters. I suspect what this case will ultimately generate is a new definition of community standards that is more relevant to our society today. So, would I vote yes or no for conviction? I could only answer that after hearing both sides of the case and viewing the 5 films.
This is the problem with this case, it isn't just against Rob Black and Lizzy Borden, it's against our freedom of speech. This isn't a new fight, nor is it confined to the adult industry. Tipper Gore went up against the music industry trying to get 'obscene' albums banned. Several groups attempted to get Grand Theft Auto, a video game, banned. This fight goes back as far as I can remember. The problem is they are now targeting more extreme cases in hopes to win because that opens the chance to go after something less extreme. I'm going to be honest, I haven't seen the movies in question, nor do I particularly want to after what has been said about them. I also think that Rob Black asked for this to happen, which makes me care very little about what happens to him. Whether or not he should have restrained himself is a mute point now though, as he has been called and the cards are being put down on the table. The problem is, what happens to him will affect this industry, and possibly in the years to come, other industries as well. That I do care about. Adult movies are not forced on anyone. Rob didn't go into anyone's house, tie them down and put in one of his movies and force them to watch them. He may be guilty of bad taste, but that's all that I think he should be found guilty of. This doesn't mean that I am advocating the productions of movies like his. The problem with free speech is that you have to side with material that you may not personally like, to protect the material that you do. Because, if Rob is found guilty, where does it stop? Does it stop with adult movies like his? Does it stop with all adult movies? Does it go on to include mainstream movies with rape like 'Death Wish' and 'Deliverance'? Does it go on to include other violent movies like horror films and action films? Does it continue on into the video game, music and book industries? This is what people need to think about. What exactly is truly on trial here and what the actual ramifications are from the verdict.Each indictment may be a case-by-case basis, but each case that is won makes it easier to fight another one.
So in short, I don't like what Rob Black makes, I don't advocate what Rob Black makes, but I hope he wins so they don't go after what I like next.
I admit there is complexity to my posts because I honestly do not see this as a black and white issue, i.e. either the DOJ is going to totally outlaw all pornography, or anyone should be able to make any film they want, as long as there is someone out there who is willing to pay for it. There are a lot of grey areas to this whole situation. I am neither for the prosecution nor the defense; I do believe they should both have their day in court on this particular case only .
As for my post about US Senators - I have sent emails to 12 senators expressing my concern about the DOJ spending a lot of time and money on a widespread crackdown on pornography, when those resources are needed to fight terrorism, organized crime, child pornography, identity theft, etc. The attorney General and the DOJ are answerable to Congress about how they spend the taxpayers' money, but Congress won't even bother to ask these questions if they never hear from taxpayers about this pornography crackdown.
I sincerely wonder how many senators have heard from people who read the ADT message board.? What do people from the porn industry think if fans can’t even be bothered to send a couple of emails to Congress? Likewise, how did readers vote in the last presidential election? Did they even vote? (Myself, I have always voted Democratic). And individual votes do make a difference; the last election went to the Republicans based on a few hundred votes in Florida. The federal government that we have didn't just spring out of thin air. If you don't like the policies of a government official, do something about it. But bemoaning endlessly here on ADT about censorship and freedom of speech won't change anything.
This issue is very interesting to me, I myself have contacted 5 senators, no response yet. As for the political arena goes, I am damned if I do and damned if I don't vote. I make a decent living off of the "adult industry", but when it comes to politics I don't like either Democrats or Republicans. It seems that both parties are extremists to the left or right. People in general are just too lazy to give a shit, I was one of them until my own interests became an issue. There is a possibility that I might lose my job over this case. The funny thing is I don't have anything to do with Extreme Associates, but I work for a porn company. I thought we lived in a free country that upheld a persons right to free speech, but there are a lot of people who hate pornography in general and the fact is they vote. Who wants to be labeled as a pervert? Because thats what happens when you stand up for what you believe in. Now these Senators have my name and address, are they going to be busting down my door trying to catch me doing something obsene? Are they going to add me to a list of suspected terrorists because I watch Porn, and somehow somewhere there are terrorists making porn and whoever buys it is supporting terrorism. This country we live in is getting absolutely crazy, hell they are just dumb ass movies. But if the government can convict on the grounds of interstate transportation of obscene materials via the internet may god help us all. There won't be a single US internet porn company safe.
The article below, taken from Gene Ross's site, is at the top echelon of articles covering the Zicari-Borden federal indictment case. It provides some good information that you're probably not currently aware of:
It may be dirty but is it legal?
Joe Bob Briggs writes on Capitol Hill Blue: Ever since 1973, when the silly phrase "community standards" was coined by the Supreme Court, any attempt to rein in pornography has pretty much been dashed on the shoals of legal ambiguity and the American tendency to shrug our collective shoulders at words like "obscenity."
There was a famous federal sting operation called MIPORN that zeroed in on the movie "Deep Throat," but their real target was not the film itself but the Mafia, which pretty much controlled the porn markets until the video revolution made it impossible for any one organization to dominate. If they'd stopped at sleazy Italian guys with Cosa Nostra connections--and they did nail quite a few of them--the "community standards" test might have stuck. But an overzealous Memphis prosecutor went after writers, directors, actors and the owners of little mom- and-pop theaters, and when these cases came up for trial, jurors were just not willing to sentence Harry Reems--to use the most famous example--to hard time for what they saw as the crime of moonlighting while naked.
The result was that these cases tended to legalize "Deep Throat." Time after time it was ruled acceptable by community standards. And if "Deep Throat"--one of the most inept, unappealing and amateurish films ever made, even by porn standards--if "Deep Throat" had a smidgen of "artistic value," then everything did. The floodgates were open.
Today, as we're constantly reminded, porn has gone mainstream. There are 10,000 American porn films churned out each year, most of them emanating from the San Fernando Valley. John Ashcroft has decided he doesn't like that. He's decided to do something about it. And I actually think that he's chosen the right films for his test case. We're finally going to find out whether "obscenity" exists or whether society has moved beyond it entirely.
When the case against Lizzie Borden and Rob Black was filed in Pittsburgh, a collective shudder coursed through the adult entertainment industry. Borden and Black, a husband and wife whose real names are Janet Romano and Robert Zicari, have set themselves up in the capitals of porn--offices in North Hollywood, residence in Northridge, warehouse studio in Van Nuys- -but they're actually outsiders within the industry, and their express purpose is to find taboos and exploit them. Not the taboos of society--the taboos of the porn industry. (And yes, they exist.) Whatever the huge porn factories refuse to do, Borden and Black thrive on. It's a niche business for fetishists- -most of their films involve subject matter that I can't even describe here--but it's lucrative enough to sell 20,000 copies of their most famous release, and Exhibit A for Ashcroft, a film called "Forced Entry."
"Forced Entry" came to the attention of the Justice Department when it was featured in a documentary on the PBS "Frontline" show that aired February 7, 2002. PBS was allowed by director Lizzie Borden to bring its cameras to Van Nuys and shoot while a rape scene was being filmed. The scene was so extreme that the producers and crew walked out, providing the most dramatic moment on "Frontline." (They actually filmed themselves walking out.)
To go after the producers, Ashcroft chose U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan of Pittsburgh, who had already been praised by her boss for her work on child exploitation and obscenity while she chaired his Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys. The sting, if you can even call it that, was simple. They worked with the LAPD Obscenities Squad to find out what the target company's most revolting titles were, then used an undercover credit card to order five films from Postal Inspection Service addresses in Pittsburgh and Ingomar, Pennsylvania. By sending the films through the U.S. mail, the alleged crime was committed. The same credit card was used to order a membership on a website owned by the producers, so that the most shocking material could be downloaded and the case could also test the legality of Internet porn services.
Result: a 10-count indictment that could result in 50 years each in prison, $2.5 million each in personal fines, and $5 million in fines to their company. The principal count involves a conspiracy charge, which seems to be Ashcroft's message to adult film distributors: "Forget the slap-on-the-hand penalties for obscenity itself, we're going to go for hard time, and we're going to bankrupt your company." In announcing the indictment, prosecutor Buchanan made a veiled reference to Janet Reno, saying that lax enforcement in the nineties "has led to a proliferation of obscenity."
So what's at stake here? Possibly a great deal. Likely turning points:
1) Can a fictional filmed image be legally prohibited? "Forced Entry" is about forcible rape. And even though it was consensual forcible rape--actress Veronica Kane has made it clear that she was willing to be beaten and violated for the sake of the film--it's something that almost everyone would say is obscene. (People who believe that nothing is obscene don't count. If there's a law defining obscenity, then legally it already exists.)
2) Is there such a thing as "community standards"? Since everyone watches the same national news, has access to the same internet materials, and consumes the same popular culture, it's very difficult to say that the community standards of, say, Saginaw are any different from those of New York. In fact, Saginaw probably has more cable channels. Pittsburgh is the perfect venue, I think, because it's a major American city in the heartland, and presumably will have jurors from all points on the compass.
3) Is filmed intercourse in and of itself obscene? The case won't directly decide this issue, because all of the nine tapes and digital downloads chosen for prosecution go well beyond intercourse. So what's being decided is whether the context of a scene can make intercourse obscene. If certain things are said or done, if the act is more or less demeaning, does that somehow elevate it to the level of obscenity?
4) Is the simple act of deciding to go into the pornography business a criminal conspiracy? This is where I think Ashcroft's case is weakest. This company is a two-person shop, and the two people are married. If a conspiracy indictment holds up in this case, then every girlfriend of a drug dealer could presumably go down for 50 years.
5) Is obscenity forbidden on the Internet, even when the communication is a private one between a willing adult buyer and a willing seller? The implications are that every racy phone conversation is subject to criminal review. Again, I think the case here is weak. Six of the counts involve material downloaded from an adults-only pay site. That's about as private as the Internet gets.
And finally:
6) What are the implications for "mainstream" porn?
The community-standards formula doesn't apply for 99 percent of the pornography sold, because the numbers don't lie. If this many millions of Americans want it, then the community is, at best, conflicted about it. It's not only welcomed, it's welcomed into the home itself--unlike "Deep Throat," which required a visit to a skanky theater in the low-rent district.
This is why the porn moguls of Los Angeles are upset by the choice of these defendants. Filing against your run-of-the-mill "Debbie Does Dallas"-type film would have had the predictable results of the seventies: a jury convicts, an appeals court overturns. Filing against Lizzie Borden and Rob Black almost guarantees a jury will be appalled, if not physically sick. It's as though Ashcroft wants to start with something easy, so as to say, "Okay, well, at least admit that this is obscene. We'll talk about the rest later."
It's risky, though, for the Justice Department. If "Forced Entry" ends up being declared legal, they might as well pack up their briefcases on all future cases. Once again, America will have said, "We have more important things to do."
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Sep 16 2003 : 8:58AM
There won't be many US internet companies safe either. How about ISPs? Will they be prosecuted for distributing obscenity? Phone companies whose lines it goes over? Hell, let's take down UPS, Fedex and the US Post Office - they all knowingly distribute pornography.
This isn't just about porn. Tommy Chong is going to jail for distributing bongs - really, he's going to jail for making movies about smoking pot.
You're very welcome, Lindi. I thought that was a fine article (one of the best, if not the best, on the subject that I've read so far).
The posts of Steph and Flash sent chills down my spine. This truly is much bigger than just porn. This is really about the threat of Big Brother gradually taking complete control of our lives.
I hate to say it, but I told you so! I told people in this thread that the federal crackdown on porn would have happened even if there had never been an Extreme Associates or a Rob Black or a Lizzy Borden. I told people in this thread that the government never intended to limit its crackdown on just the most vile, misogynistic porn crap produced by Zicari-Borden. Yet, some people think that I was just being alarmist or overreacting. Well, DreamWeaver just posted an article that proves conclusively what I've been saying all along. Here are some quick excerpts (all from said article):What sparked the government's current crackdown on porn probably more than any other single factor: porn spam e-mail:Then why not just outlaw the use of spam e-mails to advertise/market porn with, rather than cracking down on porn itself? I agree 100% that e-mail spam has gotten completely out of hand, but the government needs to reign in all types of spam, not just spam with pornographic content. However, it was likely porn e-mail spam, more than anything else, that led to this:And get this:By that analogy, companies like Vivid, VCA, Wicked would be the "good" pornographers, while Evil Angel, Red Light District Video, Platinum X Pictures, Zero Tolerance, etc., would be the "bad" pornographers, and Extreme Associates, Mayhem Pictures (featuring Skeeter Kerkove), Max Hardcore, etc., would be the worst of the bad. However, at any time, all of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are subject to prosecution (possibly including exorbitant attorney fees, heavy fines, and stiff prison sentences).
I was going through the archives and came upon this thread again. Wow, there are a lot of good arguments on all sides of this issue. I had forgotten about some of them.
What we should definitely NOT forget about is how this case affects the future of the biz, and how important it is that we do all we can to insure that Ashcroft and Co. are out of a job come November.
Tom, I couldn’t agree more. Are there any political watch groups that inform the public about how local officials around the country vote and effect the adult industry? We need to vote for our freedoms locally and nationally.
From what I understand, the case is in a sort of holding pattern. The judge asked for additional briefing on the internet clips. It's possible the court is awaiting the outcome of the COPA case from the Supreme Court. Rob's attorney Lou Sirkin thinks there is a likelihood that the seven internet clip counts could be tossed out.
Sirkin also believes the case won't go to trial until after the November election, and if Bush is defeated, it's entirely possible the whole case could "go away." The imminent threat of multiple prosecutions in the adult industry would also not happen if Kerry gets elected.
People, it's very important that the right-wing siege on personal freedom end in November. Bush must go! If he is elected, it could signal the death of the industry. Ashcroft and his army will descend on this biz like a plague of locusts. Don't think for a minute it won't happen.
Lisa, as far as watch groups go, the Free Speech Coalition could be a source of info, but check out some of the anti-porn groups for information as well. They tend to crow about their "victories."
The best way to stop the lynching of the adult biz is to start at the top. That means voting Bush OUT.
I re-ask my question in different way. In light of what you have said above, do you believe "we" (workers and supporters of the adult industry)should focus our efforts only on the presidential election or should we look at our state and federal congress representatives too?
And is there a score card on elected officials relative to the adult video industry?
Lisa
Sorry we were cross posting. I'll check them out. Thank You.
How about this... I AGREE with Tom Byron 100% for once. Anyone who loves personal freedoms, not just porn, needs to dismiss the current administration. Tom's plea that everybody vote and do their part to get out the vote could not be more timely, whether you're Extreme or Vivid. We must stand united. For the record: my belief that Rob was foolhardy to release the movies that got indicted should in no way be interpreted to suggest that I wish to limit his right to express himself.
As one of the smaller companies in the business, we often find it frustrating that we (large and small companies- hard and soft) don’t encourage more political activism to our viewers. I’m not sure that most casual viewers of porn really understand how fanatical this administration is. Like Chris Mann said this is about all freedom.
Although people don’t liked to be preached too, I would love it if all of our companies would voluntary run a 15-30 second ad directly stating just what is at state. You larger guys reach more people, but it effects us all. Is there any chance that a direct appeal to the viewers could be organized?
Personally, no one defends Rob Black because no one REALLY believes porn will go down with the ship on an indictment.
There will be no eradication of porn. It's too prevelant. It's simulated in mainstream magazines. It's used for ratings on major networks. It has large corporate dollars behind it.
Rob Black gets no love because no one could bring themselves to like him as a person. He had too many personal issues.
Porn is not going anywhere. There's a 50 pct chance that Ashcroft is out of office in 7 months anyway.
Let's suppose a worse case scenario: Rob gets indicted (I think they will settle on the courthouse steps like other trials). He gets 2 years and a fine (out in 4 months). Seven big other companies are indicted. But the govt is in a hurry because the election gets closer...the seven companies turn over, pay fines, edit their content in the future. THAT'S AS BAD AS IT GETS, and you know what? Other companies will charge in to fill the gaps, companies so small the govt doesn't want to bother with them. Or that do internet only distribution. And hey, what about them dam Euro's. THEY won't be touched....
Don't you see? ASTOGM will never go away, it will always be there. Porn fans need not worry.
The heads of companies might take a "defend free speech" tack, but they don't care about free speech or your rights. They just want to make money. If they are out (a 1000 - 1 shot, let's face it) then others will step in.
[Link]
JV33 Deactivated User
14 Posts 3/04
Posted - Mar 17 2004 : 8:55PM
When did The Porn Pool become a political forum? Your demands are a huge turnoff and I will avoid your product at Evolution Erotica and anything else your name may be associated with. I'm proud to say I've never paid one cent to watch anything you have been a part of. I wish no success to Tom Byron.
^^^^^ Tom is a good guy and is just voicing his views(which many here all believe in). Just like you just voiced yours. There really isn't a need to get you underwear all bunched up. He never made a direct personally assault on you. Why do you think it's okay to do it to him? You need to be more constructive if you want to get YOUR point across.
[Link]
JV33 Deactivated User
14 Posts 3/04
Posted - Mar 17 2004 : 9:53PM
Tom Byron was telling people what to do. I let him know what I have done and will continue to do: I won't support a product of his.
sorry bro, but thats just ignorance. all tom was saying was that if you believe in the freedom to view what you choose in your own home, then vote out the people who wish to take away that right.... among many others. he was not making a personal attack, but making a statement, an important statement, in a thread about a crimninal trial that exists (in many ways) to serve as a political issue and appease the religious zealots. you however DID make a personal attack on Tom, and it seems your issue is a personal one and not based on Toms product, considering that if you have never watched a movie with Tom Byron you do not watch much porn, and have also missed out on many great flicks from his work in the eighties, to his work in features like Indigo Delta for Wicked in the nineties, to his films for Elegant, Extreme, and now Evolution. You seem more out to attck him then get any real point across....
The sad truth is that neither the Democrats or the Republicans give a damn about the constitution. The recent Broadcast indecency act was passed OVERWHELMINGLY by the house - an incredible example of bipartisan cooperation on censorship.
We MIGHT get less heat from a Kerry administration but the bottom line is that this country is doomed so long as each and every election ends up being a choice between the lessor of two evils.
Sadly, the Libertarian party appears to be on it's last legs. It's a shame because they are the only ones who truly respect the concept of freedom.
i gotta agree with you to a degree Quaze, it definitely IS a choice of the lesser of two evils. right now the "religious element" has too much control over washington in general. i do believe that without Bush and Ashcroft our business will become less of a target, but the issue will not go away until one way or another we get solidified laws that prove our constitutional rights to make and watch porn. .... Jesse Ventura is talking about a 2008 run... how about it :)
[Link]
JV33 Deactivated User
14 Posts 3/04
Posted - Mar 18 2004 : 12:19AM
I disagree.I didn't say I have never watched a movie with Tom Byron. I've never paid to see anything he has been involved with nor will I ever with what I've found out about him. He wants to watch what he wants to watch, then he tells me what to do.
it would be nice, but we need to abolish the electoral collage before that can logically happen... that or get more third parties in congressional seats. i myself am a green. i would love to see Jesse run, mostly because his stance on many issues is taken from a logical point of view, and truly he is one of the few third party candidates who could actually garner the needed votes. i would back him 110% and when i heard him putting out feeder lines sunday, i was overjoyed by the concept. we can only hope, but this year we can only vote for Kerry and try to slow the bleeding until we can get the country into the trauma ward.
Voting for any third party candidates are a complete waste of time & taking votes directly from either the Democrat or the Republican running for President. It's a shame but true as Perot, Nader, Buchanan, & others had some great ideas & resolutions to the issues at hand. I see it being only a two-party, traditional race for the White House for decades to come. Democrat or Republican
No one's going to take your porn away folks.
Porn shops will always be a stone throw away & you'll be able to buy & swap XXX DVDs online like you do now.
I would be more worried about local communities' obscenity standards & State level laws & regulations regarding this matter.
------------------------------------------------------ Don’t be too sure, this administration has a nasty habit of disregarding personal rights and privacy. I think we are still underestimating the dedication this administration and it’s extreme right-wing supporters have with regard to reshaping American (and the world) to fit their idea of values….. and porn does not fit in that world. ------------------------------------------------------- SyberScott wrote:
I would be more worried about local communities' obscenity standards & State level laws & regulations regarding this matter.
----------------------------------------------------------- On this point I do agree. That’s why I asked Tom if he know of any group that keep a political score card of local and state officials (even District Attorney’s) with reference to our industry. I still get the sense that people still don’t recognize the potential danger that exist on all levels of government when it comes to losing our rights. We may all have our opinions about individual producers or studios but we need to realize more that ever “Porn Is Political” and so is our freedom.
Why ever don't you think we should discuss legal issues and politics, when they have a bearing on the porn industry, and on an important court case? Since you are a new poster, you are probably unaware that there have been numerous posts on this discussion board about the upcoming election, and no one else, if I recall, has ever objected to these. Myself, I even started a thread about six months ago, telling people how to contact their US senators, to comment on this court case and any other issue dealing with pornography. No one minded.
I'll borrow a page from a certain poster, when he admonished someone who didn't care for the DAP thread that ran recently: If you see that the title to a thread has the word "indictment" in the title, you can be certain that it will have something to do with a legal matter, and very little to do with say, gaping, or double penetrations, or gagging blowjobs, or whatever. If you don't care to read about this court case, skip the thread.
Tom Byron was just reminding people to vote; he wasn't ordering anyone to vote, or to buy his DVD's.
A little aside: my local PBS station recently ran a repeat of their Frontline program, that had a few minutes about the Forced Entry film. Nothing really surprised me (I had previously read the transcript to the program on their website), but seeing Michael Stefano hitting and being rough with an actress was kind of too much for me. I'm used to seeing him in his PXP movies, where he's so decent and low key, and in all of these I don't recall ever seeing him slap a woman's face, or push her around, or call her obscenities. For some reason, this really bothered me.
Another aside: I don't understand how someone like JV33 who has just started posting on ADT this month has the nerve to decide what is and isn't appropriate content for this message board. It's posters like this that sort of annoy me, and there seem to be more of them now than six months ago.
