Pornographer sentenced to nearly four years in prison

I wasn't suggesting reporting what individual people are looking at. I was suggesting taking note of what the collection of ip's from a particular area are spending time looking at to determine what the community standard for obscenity REALLY is. Obscenity laws don't spell out what is obscene and what isn't, they merely state that obscenity is illegal. The supreme court has found that "evolving community standards" determine exactly what that means, so that begs the question: how do we determine a community's standards?

My argument holds that people won't admit their own standards in public, so why not look at the record to determine what that standard is? I'm pointing out hypocrisy, not advocating a surveillance state.

The federal preëmption you are referring to does not work the way you think it does. Your local community is not required by law to enforce federal statutes, and your community is free to set its own laws, at the local and state level. Decriminalizing pot in your state or town would not shield you from the FBI, but it would likely allow you to grow pot for your own consumption without fear of arrest. That is, unless the fed decides it doesn't like you.

While we're at it, I'm sick of people misusing the word "fascist". Fascism is a specific political philosophy that does not apply to all totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. If we are ever going to be politically effective we need to educate ourselves so we don't sound clueless.

 

Isn't paying someone money for sex illegal in the USA?

I just think justice should be served. If you guys complain that he got jail time for selling material that involved paying someone to perform sexual acts and sexually exploitative/vile acts for profit - then why not for the good of society charge him for violating prostitution laws as well?

Like I said, he got off easy. He should have been charged for several counts of prostitution.

 

This isn't about his right to choose or an adult's right to choose what they do with themselves. It's about selling material that is both obscenely grotesque and inhumane like peeing on a dog, or barfing on a child for sexual pleasure and then selling it to the masses and making it cheaper than a pint of ice cream or as downloadable as Paris Hilton.

It's not bettering our culture or society by making profit off of this, and I see no moral or ethical sense in allowing people to profit off of sexual exploitation.

 

And I'm not a prude, I'm not religious, I don't want to stomp on people and their so-called rights to be free, and I don't want to send us all to the Gulag. I believe in the idea of the rule of law and think that the role of having a law system is to protect and defend the very fibers and social structures that make us better people, better humans, and a better community and its goal is to promote a society that is reflective of a better order than chaos and sexual deviances.

 

In the US, like in Canada, it is illegal in many municipalities to solicit prostitution, but not all. Nevada is the big exception. Brothels are legal there.

It is not illegal in any US municipality I know of to pay two people to have sex with each other, or do anything else that is other wise legal on film, simulated or otherwise. You are paying to film the scene. They are called actors. That's not even the issue here.

C'mon, man, look it up before you post stupid things. If you were right, all pornography would be illegal except amateur porn. Now THAT would suck. I hate amateur porn.

And please don't conflate this issue with child pornography, which clearly involves a victim. The state has a legitimate interest in the case of child porn, or any other form of abuse. Children and animals cannot consent to sex.

 

You don't prefer the real thing, eh? For shame.

 

lol, i'm married dude. sex is a very occasional thing after the first couple of years.

99% of fertile males masturbate. 1% lie about it.

 

And I was suggesting that you don't need to reinvent the wheel to determine what a community has for standards. You vote on it. There is no easy way or scientific way. It’s messy, and slow and sometimes wildly inaccurate. Last I checked, an alternative like collating data on what citizens are doing to determine what the law should be was a really, really bad idea.

I don't think the basic problem is hypocrisy, I think it is voter apathy. Remember the “Moral Majority” and how they were able to vote in so many politicians? Were they the majority? No. But they were the politically active majority, from school boards to the White House. They joined together, and voted. You can theorize what a community should have for standards all day long but in the end, it’s the people who actually take part in the political process who pass the laws. They might be absolutely clueless and not know the proper definition of everything but they know the answer is to work within the system that exists.

 

so what would that look like, a vote on community standards. The sex survey?

You go to the polls, and there is the referendum. It asks you if it's ok to sell media depicting every sex act imaginable? Then, if you come up with a new one, it's not covered? ok, I can agree to that.

C'mon, it's not feasible, and you are confusing law with interpretation of the law. The law simply bans the selling of indecent material. it's up to the court to decide what the community's standard for decency actually is. Now, how do you propose a court of law can determine what that standard is, assuming we are not going to vote on every conceivable sex act?

Not that a community vote would apply to this case, by the way, because that would be ex post facto prosecution. Although it is conceivable that the community could vote on a standard and wind up setting the guy free.

The strategy I pointed out is not my own idea. Actually, I believe I heard about it when I first heard about this case, and it was a rejected by the court. Basically, the community is making a claim about its standards, and the defence has evidence that casts doubt on the veracity of the claim. Anybody have more info?

 

Um, no.

I think something like "Should the definition of obscene material be limited only to child porn" would do the trick. It's not rocket science.

 

I will agree with certain limits, I don't like abuse, barfing on people, peeing or taking a dump on people, or anything that involves children. I will give you those limits, other than that though it should be an adults right to choose, Obviously there are certain limits to everything in life.

 

I can't find any example in history, where being less free, in the realm of artistic and personal expression, that has made a people, culture or country, any better.

 

I can. Swastika laws in Germany, Marquis De Sade, Voltaire, Rousseau, Marx, Van Gogh, etc.

 

I think another good question is, is it normal to require extreme sexual acts to be turned on? If someone needs to watch shit eating, mock rape, bukkake, a woman getting punished by a horse cock, etc.. in order to get excited, is it for the better of society to encourage these obsessions by allowing those acts to be filmed and marketed? I don't know.

One would think that we would be better off not allowing some of these extreme acts, for the good of society, for the good of the sick fucks that need to watch this stuff, and for the good of the actors or actresses that may have psycological problems that participate in these acts.

This is definitely a tough issue, and one that has more of an affect on people that most forms of "art".

 

Ok, but that is aimed at political speech rather then artistic, specifically the banning of a political party by the occupation forces, when they lost the war. I disagree with that too. It does not take into account that the swastika is an ancient symbol used across the globe in various cultures, many in a positive religious context. Related link to a news article of European Hindu's opposition - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3353662,00.html

I'm not sure those persons have to do with this.


Not sure why Wackyiraqi thinks that any person watching one of those type movies is doing it for sexual turn-on reasons or actually does the things in them, themselves. It is just a movie, it can just be entertainment, something novel to look at. I don't know about you, but if I watch a horror movie, it doesn't make me want to go become a serial killer.

 

.

 

i don't think his videos are any more obsene than letting people watch comedy central just to see a cartoon with a talking turd in it or to watch sarah silverman act like she's humping a dog. or to see adam sandler and rob schneider make movies with multiple scenes having to do with beastiality or bathroom functions.

 

i don't get it. i read the whole article twice and i still don't see how this guy can be sent to jail for four years. okay so puking and pissing sex is gross, but so what? you don't have to watch it if you don't like it. wow. we really are headed back to the 50's, god help us. surely he will appeal this.

 

Hey wacky, what kind of porn do you watch?

 

Now is when we vow never to elect wackyiraqi to any state position.