The war against porn

Bikewer said:
Too much trouble, I presume...Perhaps the city wasn't paying him for mileage?

Another moment....Way back in '68, when I was in the police academy, we spent half a day looking at such seized material...This, the instructors told us with straight faces, was so that we could "recognize porn when we saw it...."
They had quite a collection.
Click to expand...

Makes me wonder about the supreme courts stash of obscenity so that they can know it when they see it.
 
geni said:
He combiened pushing the limits of what was legal with being a complete jerk. Not a good idea.
Click to expand...

While I'm not a scholar in this particular gentleman's work portfolio, it seems to me like punishing someone essentially for being a jerk was not how the rule of the law was supposed to work. In fact, we went with a clear rule of the law precisely because he had all tried the arbitrary ways of just letting the king and his men kick someone's door in for saying the wrong things, or people ending up before the inquisition just because they had made themselves unpopular with a couple of neighbours, and so on, and frankly it sucked. And if a law essentially exists only as an excuse to punish the jerks for _something_, then that law shouldn't exist at all.
 
Giggywig said:
Uhm yes it is. Just ask Max.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore
Click to expand...
Well Child Porn should be stopped at all costs in every country in the world. However sex acts between two consenting adults should never be censored. If you you don't want to see it don't look and if you don't want your internet surfing children to see porn use the proper contols options.
 
Sledge said:
How can anyone honestly justify a prosecution over this sort of material when child porn still exists?
Click to expand...

Interesting argument, as long as murderers are out there running lose we shouldn't arrest shop lifters?
 
HansMustermann said:
While I'm not a scholar in this particular gentleman's work portfolio, it seems to me like punishing someone essentially for being a jerk was not how the rule of the law was supposed to work.
Click to expand...

No the punishment is for a crime. Being a jerk just makes it harder to defend yourself in certian cases.

In fact, we went with a clear rule of the law precisely because he had all tried the arbitrary ways of just letting the king and his men kick someone's door in for saying the wrong things, or people ending up before the inquisition just because they had made themselves unpopular with a couple of neighbours, and so on, and frankly it sucked.
Click to expand...

Not so. Common law predates that stopping and we only got rid of equity law in the 1870s


And if a law essentially exists only as an excuse to punish the jerks for _something_, then that law shouldn't exist at all.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. The law has a rather different objective but even the ACLU will generaly look for a sympathetic defendant before taking up a test case.

Paul F. Little is not a sympathetic defendent and thus going to have a harder time winning any case.
 
geni said:
He combiened pushing the limits of what was legal with being a complete jerk. Not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Not according to the testimony of one of the actresses during the trial. According to her, the working conditions and treatment by him and the staff were exceptionally better than the average porn productions she was involved with.
 
elgarak said:
Not according to the testimony of one of the actresses during the trial. According to her, the working conditions and treatment by him and the staff were exceptionally better than the average porn productions she was involved with.
Click to expand...
Well considering how they are treated on camera, either he pays very well or treats them very well. Otherwise it's hard to explain how he finds actresses.
 
Puppycow said:
Female bodily fluids!
I guess that's the difference that makes it "obscene."
Click to expand...
I can't think of another reason that they would single out those two titles among the hundreds of others, so I think you might have something there. Otherwise, those are probably among their milder offerings. I almost have to laugh at what these groups complain about as "pornography" and "obscene". They've no idea what's really out there.
 
Except the "crime" in this case is as vague as the obscenity standards of whatever community wants to prosecute, even if you aren't actually filming there or have a shop there or anything. Just because someone from that community might actually access it or order it online or whatever.

And i mean literally, you have actual cases where some DA from Arizona is suing some producer from California for obscenity. In that particular case because apparently in that community seeing semen was obscene.

Or in Max Hardcore's case, he literally got charged with using a computer to transport obscene material. In other words, he had a web site.

It's laws that are so broad, and can _only_ be applied against jerks, that basically they are bad laws. There are thousands of porn web sites out there in the USA alone, and if you can find some community where even seeing semen is obscene (again, such a case was actually filled), basically almost every single porn site out there is breaking the law in that they use a computer to transport obscene material. But you only realistically stand at risk unless you're an unpopular jerk, basically.
 
Giggywig said:
Well considering how they are treated on camera, either he pays very well or treats them very well. Otherwise it's hard to explain how he finds actresses.
Click to expand...

Or he just has enough access to people trying to get into porn and pays well enough that he doesn't need a lot of repeat models to keep it up. There are a lot of sleazy employers who do not pay or treat their employees well, and yet have no real trouble finding employees.
 
Good point, I haven't checked to see if he gets any repeat employees or not. I just figured if I was going to work in that industry, I'd at least watch a couple of videos before signing on with somebody.
 
Bikewer said:
I can remember, back when the VCR hit the market and mom-pop video stores sprung up everywhere...Our two local prosecutors St. Louis and St. Louis county, started to out-bluenose each other by declaring war on these naughty people.
Effectively, they made it impossible to rent any sort of "X" rated material in the area.
(Of course, by simply crossing the county line or the river, you could get whatever you liked...)
Then the St. Louis prosecutor at the time was arrested (by St. Louis County!) for "soliciting prostitution". The subsequent investigation found he was paying for his liaisons with city money, and also had accumulated a very large personal collection of porn from the "seized" tapes his office had investigated...
Funny stuff.
Click to expand...

<derail>
We lived next door to the justice of the peace when I was a kid. Not only was it good for tips when a desperate couple needed witnesses at 2:00AM Sunday morning, but he had an always-ready cache of illegal fireworks to "destroy" a few miles outside the city limits. Good times.
</derail>
It was too far back for porn, though, and he ran a taunt ship outside the fireworks.
 
Bikewer said:
Then the St. Louis prosecutor at the time was arrested (by St. Louis County!) for "soliciting prostitution". The subsequent investigation found he was paying for his liaisons with city money, and also had accumulated a very large personal collection of porn from the "seized" tapes his office had investigated...
Funny stuff.
Click to expand...
Larry Johnson!
 
A few years ago a guy was arrested in Georgia for selling a comic book to a minor about Picasso that had a picture of Picasso's penis in it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/books/06gust.html

the comic book was sold at a street fair, the man selling it states he simply hadn't realized that this book with this picture was in the stack he was selling.

"Mr. Lee said in a statement that he was willing to apologize but argued that the book, which he had accidentally included in the giveaway, was neither harmful to children nor obscene. “This book is no more offensive than viewing the beautiful paintings of the Sistine Chapel,” he said, “or reading one of the best-selling books with stories of sex, lust and nudity known as the Bible.”"

here's the picture in question.

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/images/picassos_wang.jpg
 
Last edited:
I for one would like to see the same passion in these bigots, trying to ban a movie like "The Thing" or "Shivers" or "Evil Dead II" for obscenity.

Bottom line: Just because you find it obscene and it gives you the creeps, doesn't mean other people experience it the same way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom