Pornographer sentenced to nearly four years in prison

Can you name his offense please?

 

They are plagiarists. They took material and put it into their own works in attempts to pass it off as their own without acknowledging the original source. I'm not implying anything.

It's well known that Thomas Jefferson took published material and stuffed it into the American Constitution like a Thanksgiving turkey.

What does it matter what time they lived in? That has nothing to do with it - ask any historian - Jefferson used material that was not his own to formulate a civil code of behaviour. Yeah, it's like taking Shakespeare, Marlow, Petrarch and putting their works into the Constitution and then making assertions about the rights and privileges of a particular people. It's the same thing. Hell, Jefferson could have plagiarised exerts from the Bible (which he did) to incorporate into a legally binding document.

Not like we can go back and charge him an offense on it. But who says that I'm advocating we do just that anyway?

The point I was originally making since you attempted to de-rail it is this: Few people realize that the groundwork contained within the American Constitution was not very revolutionary or new whatsoever, in fact, it is rooted in a totally different time like you mentioned where it made assumptions about human nature and the purposes of forming societal governments that were based on published work and ideological thinking from that time period.

It's a piece of work that was plagiarised from various other works, almost word for word in a few instances.

 

LOL, wasn't that the title to 1 of his movies ?

 

Sure. Child pornography, distribution of obscenities, failure to keep records and proper documentation of his sexually explicit material, prostitution, and he was sentenced for 10 counts of obscenity, just to name a few.

 

Why are you claiming to watch his material?

 

Honestly, no way could i have gone through 8 1/2 hours of that, my hats off to the jurors, they earned their $40.


Here's a link to his conviction.

 

Hey True....where does child porn come into this case...?

 

He has been charged with violating child pornography laws in a seperate case in 1998.

 

He was charged with violating child pornography laws because he had an 18 year old in one of his videos say to the camera "I'm 12 years old" and then proceeded to act out his sexual rape fantasy tale. At the time that he was charged, there was no official law outlawing that kind of selling of sexually explicit material as there was no ruling that regulated that kind of thing, so his charges were dropped. But later on, there was a code created within the framework of sexually explicit material laws in the USA that established a new regulation that forbade anyone to 'act like they were having sex with a minor' so to speak and sell it as pornography.

Thanks to him, people can no longer pretend to be a minor in porn films, basically.

Which is a law that we all seem to agree with nowadays and we find it unacceptable and unthinkable to go back on and allow children to be depicted as being raped on film, as being sexually desirable or whatever sick and twisted values we can dream of children going through.

So yeah, he did do something that is illegal now that wasn't in the past, but he evaded the charge because that law wasn't clearly established at the time.

Basically, he was exploiting children on film before it was ever illegal to do it. Which I consider to be a poor reason to get off the hook.

Just because something isn't law, doesn't make it right to do. And that's basically this dude's motto.

 

lol, I didn't know that. That's pretty messed up.

 

Yeah, I know. It makes me sick to think what porn today would be like if we let people say "I'm 7 years old" in porn films and shit. I mean, just because you pay someone to be degraded on film for sexual gratification and profit, doesn't mean that means it's okay and normal to protect somebody's right to do that.

Pornography nowadays is targeting a certain demographic and the styles of pornography and niche 'kink' groups are predominantly focused on the pleasures of men.

How many sick fucks out there are getting ideas that it is socially acceptable to act out their sexual behaviours based on the pornography industry that specifically targets them?

How many 11 year olds are wearing thongs today when a decade ago it was an undergarment worn for the most part by strippers?

There are some things in this world that are considered socially acceptable because of the influence the pornography industry that most people would agree that it really should not be so rampant and widespread throughout our culture.

 

I agree. It is rather disgusting. It's not just pornography, though.
Basically all of television.......some movies, certain genres of music
I guess you could consider this all pornography too.
makes me sick...I grew up surrounded by this shit and it just drove me insane.

 

the combination of media-run society and the economic crisis will ultimately turn this country into a crime-ridden wasteland far worse than the one it currently is.

It's pretty scary to think that my daughter might have to grow up in a world where rape porn isn't any less acceptable in society than standard hardcore porn is today.

Losers who can't get sex watch the most porn. People who rape can't get sex. Add it up.

 

Last I knew, rape wasn't about sex...

 

It's not. But im sure in most cases the rapist who targets a random victim doesn't have a girlfriend.

I'm not limiting my statement to just these individuals either. Who knows what goes through a person's mind to carry out the act of rape. It could be any variety of reasons, but lack of sex in theory could definitely lead to the poor judgment of a socially inept person.

Rape isn't limited to violence either, the definition of rape is an individual engaging in sexual activity with another non-consenting individual.

If someone who has never had sex before is obsessed with these fantasy rape films, they might not understand sex and look at rape as a way to get what they want because they cannot attract the opposite sex. Probably as a result of their personality, seeing as they are watching fantasy rape films and such.

 

I see no evidence that he filmed or had sex with anyone under the age of 18, I may be wrong.

That being said I also believe that all the actors and actress's he had in his films were all of sound mind and body when they agreed to star in his films.

“The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind” Mark Godwin

Then again...

“In Cyberspace, the First Amendment is a local ordinance.” John Perry Barlow

If you don't like his films don't watch them?

Maybe it is as simple as that.

 

Unfortunately, it is not.

There is an argument whether or not the rights of others are affected as the result of his films being distributed to the general public.

 

Did they agree to be in the film?

From what I can tell the answer is yes.

Did they know what they would be asked to do?

From what I can tell the answer is yes.

Fuck maybe we should put Larry Flint back on trial.

 

have you even been paying attention to the arguments in this thread?

and by the way, Larry Flynt didn't make videos portraying the rape of underage girls.

 

And if he did?

These "under aged" girls are all of LEGAL AGE.

Lolita (1955) is a novel by Vladimir Nabokov, first written in English and published in 1955 in Paris, later translated by the author into Russian and published in 1958 in New York. The book is both internationally famous for its innovative style and infamous for its controversial subject: the narrator and protagonist, Humbert Humbert, becoming obsessed with a 12-year-old girl named Dolores Haze.

After its publication, Lolita attained a classic status, becoming one of the best known and most controversial examples of 20th century literature. The name "Lolita" has entered pop culture to describe a sexually precocious young girl. The novel has been adapted to film twice, once in 1962 by Stanley Kubrick starring James Mason as Humbert Humbert, with Sue Lyon as Lolita, and again in 1997 by Adrian Lyne, starring Jeremy Irons as Humbert Humbert, and Dominique Swain as Lolita.

Time Magazine included the novel in its TIME 100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005

Get the fire ready cause we have ALOT of books and films to burn if you get your way.