Pornographer sentenced to nearly four years in prison

Beyond what this particular case is about, obscenity laws can and have been applied to written books of fiction, spoken word, and other creative venues, where there is no one else involved in the process of creating the work. Look at the stand up comedian, Lenny Bruce. He was arrested several times for obscenity and spent time in jail for doing on stage spoken word comedy. He wasn't exploiting anyone or anything. James Joyce's book "Ulysses" was deemed obscene and banned for over a decade. It has been since been rated by numerous critics as one of the most important works of fiction in the 20th century. If you think something won't suit your personal tastes, don't read it, watch it or listen to it. Its absolutely hypocritical for a country that claims to be free to persecute people that freely express themselves, just because that don't like what they are saying.

 

Fuck the first amendment, if it's been protecting scum bags like this guy, so be it.

 

Female degredation and sex is a job. Right. Living in a fantasy world, much?

I know that some people have kinks, I'm quite aware of that. I questions whether you support Man-boy love associations and favour priests molesting youngsters, even if the youngsters give consent.

Honestly, there are legitimate boundaries for things like this that ensure a wave of utility and structure among a ordered society. This is implicit when we decide that we want to run a society - some things are obscene and should not be tolerated.

You were harping Free Speech awhile back, now you're saying it's "nature" to degrade and humiliate other people because it brings them pleasure. Does this train of thought apply with all other people in a position of power? Say, like a politician?

Don't be dafted.

 

Are the obscenity laws centered around selling? I really don’t know the answer, but to me, that would be the key difference between this case being a question of free speech or not.

Suppose a couple engaged in the very same acts, but no money was exchanged, and they broadcast it to other like minded people to watch via a webcam. All were willing adults, no money was exchanged. I say, it is none of government’s business. The community of people watching obviously believe it is acceptable.

Add money to the equation, and in my mind, the argument is no longer one of free speech and expression, but more of “I have a right to make money any way I want.” Errr, no you don’t.

Your thoughts?

 

"I questions whether you support Man-boy love associations and favour priests molesting youngsters, even if the youngsters give consent."

What? No, I don't condone that obviously. If you have read what I wrote without being so emotional, then you would know that I exclude minors and anything that isn't consensual. Do you not understand consent?

Yes, we live in a society. What's your point? Society is vast and complex, and not everyone is going to agree on right and wrong, which is precisely what freedom is; is to protect peoples own right to pursue what they wish to pursue, with certain barriers as you suggest. But where do we draw that line exactly, without hindering peoples rights? I think what I suggested would protect both the right to choose and to protect people from harm.

"You were harping Free Speech awhile back, now you're saying it's "nature" to degrade and humiliate other people because it brings them pleasure. Does this train of thought apply with all other people in a position of power? Say, like a politician?"

It doesn't seem like you understand the concept of consent and pleasure. The people that are being humiliated are enjoying themselves. I don't know why that's so hard to understand...

If someone goes to a porn audition, hears: "Ok, you'll be pee'd on in this video, do you accept that?" If the answer is 'yes', and they go through with it... at any point in time while filming if they are unwilling to do what is needed of them, they can stop and go home.

"Don't be dafted."

Your analogy is 'dafted'. It doesn't make any sense. People don't gain any pleasure from corrupt politicians. That's a tangent that is so derailed that it isn't even worth explaining why they don't connect.

Sexual pleasure versus political corruption

Freedom speech/Freedom of choice versus Not allowing these freedoms because those videos make you uncomfortable.

You aren't being reasonable.

 

"Add money to the equation, and in my mind, the argument is no longer one of free speech and expression, but more of “I have a right to make money any way I want.” Errr, no you don’t."

You raise a good point, but as long as it isn't somehow destructive or evil, then yes, people should have that right. People have the choice to choose whether or not they would like to get pee'd on for money. Maybe that's not exactly the best way to support oneself (lol), but if they're fine with it, then what exactly is the issue?

There are many craptastic jobs out there that many would consider degrading. Many of these jobs can bring about depression and suicide (Depending on the individuals interpretation). Tedious jobs that make the individual feel like nothing more than a machine. In a way, you can say that many of us are getting pissed on for money ;-)

Overall, I think we all went on too many tangents. I don't like the fact that porno is getting dirtier and dirtier, pushing the boundaries so far as to make men desensitized, which requires men to look for something to top that - I understand the social implications of this, really I do - I don't exactly know where the limit should be placed, but I don't think jailing people that have done what was required of them for years, only to shock the jurors into finding him guilty as the right thing to do. There are other ways to deal with this issue other than just jailing everyone out of the clear blue.

 

Most of those girls you see in porn, let alone the ones performing with max hardcore, were sexually abused as children. They don't get pleasure from it, i haven't studied the psychology of them, but I've heard enough to know that they do it for other, more twisted reasons, not pleasure. BTW, I don't think it's as simple as a woman saying no and going home, if it's one chick on a set with a bunch of fucked up horny guys, the pressure (and yeah, I don't care if you think pressure is a weak excuse) can force her to stay, they're almost too scared to say no.

It's easy to take a step back and say 'well they signed up for it, they can't complain', we all know life and circumstance is a little more complicated than that.

 

"Most of those girls you see in porn, let alone the ones performing with max hardcore, were sexually abused as children"

How do you know this?

You bring up another good point, but I am saying that it's a complicated issue. You really can't tell what's what. What I do know is, Ron Jeremies business makes sure of these things. They have enough experience to know what's what. They get a good 'feel' of where the women are at mentally. They interview them, spend time with them to see if they're ok with it. There are very sleezy, unprofessional groups, and I don't think maxhardcore was one of them.

The only thing sleezy about them was what was present in the videos, but that's eye of the beholder for the most part. Overall, ya, I dunno ... it's complicated

 

Uh... Did he even commit any crimes? Just because some people may find it sick and disgusting doesn't make it illegal. If the porn stars were under aged than yeah, that's illegal, but if it was all consent etc. than I don't see the crime.

 

And by the way 'jamaican_youth', there are people who do find pleasure in being peed on and being severely dominated!

 

I couldn’t agree more, once you ask “Do you have a right to make money any way possible?” you can’t help but think, is selling porn morally worse than say, manufacturing and selling cigarettes? Is it as simple as being an easier case to show a jury? After all, it is all VISIBLE, clearly an act by one person on another, and people can get their heads around that much easier.

It’s a very strange society we have.

 

It's interesting too that virtually the entire porn industry is male-owned. The argument that "she is doing it because she agreed to it" who be a lot stronger if the woman owned the company. But that is not the case here.

 

in my opinion you've made some extreme generalizations here, and even ignoring that, come off as extremely naive and ignorant (like, "i'm really spoiled and lack tons of life experience because my parents have kept me locked up in their palace all my life) about all sorts of issues. and generalizations are by their very nature false.

 

It is definitely a tricky question as to what is considered "obscene". On one hand you can say that it is not hurting anybody, and the acts are voluntary, and that if you don't want to watch it then don't. On the other hand you can ask, do we really need to degrade our societies morality by allowing anything and everything? Is it not enough to just watch a casual sexual act? Is it really necessary to offer the most rancid and vile acts just to fulfill the desires of people who probably have psychological problems. If I need to watch people pissing, shitting, and puking on each other and then eating it just to get hard, and then have to watch a girl get her ass kicked and raped before I orgasm, is that normal? I don't know. Ask yourself, by allowing this stuff to be available, is it in any way improving any aspect of our lives? I do think that we need to uphold some kind of moral values in this world. Where we draw the line is the question.​

Anyways... this is the Frontline show I was referring to earlier in this thread. I did not realize that they streamed full programs. I think everybody who commented here needs to watch it. It is interesting, and will probably answer some of the questions that some here had.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/

Another interesting debate is the future of virtual and animated porn. I read an article on this a while back about animated child pornography videos and their legality. Technically there are no children being hurt or abused, but does that mean it is acceptable? Should there be laws in place to prevent the production of these videos that feed a pedophiles obsession which could lead to them taking it to the next level? Another interesting debate.​

 

LOL @ emotional. I have a penis.

I understand consent, but do you understand sexual exploitation? People can be exploited while giving implicit or explicit consent. Duh.

 

I still don't don't understand who was harmed in the making and distribution of his films. It's not like the man was broadcasting in times square, you need a valid credit card to even view the material I'm guessing (how else does he profit). So the "actors" are doing this of their own free will, and so are the people viewing it. Where is the harm done to the city of tampa?

 

no. thats bs.

 

Exactly, obviously female employees and independent contractors lack the ability to think for themselves when signing their name on the dotted line. silly exploited women. Doing things to and with men and/or each other for money that you don't like, just silly....

its disgusting, but i dont see what right anyone of you or the judge and jury have to judge these people.

Funny how sodomy laws get struck down and people cheer, but a guy goes to prison cause and his emploees make disgustin porn and its understandable cause of "the line" he crossed. give me a break.

When something more tangible than "deceny" is harmed let me know...

 

.....................................................................................................

I don't get the feeling that our first amendment is threatened by putting this creep on ice for three years.

In Florida, you get jail for 25 plants in an indoor grow.

 

Can't argue with that, Florida is wack.