Focus on the The Parables

I arrived to this website this morning quite alarmed at the replies my post received.

I have been told my writing is sometimes aggressive, and for this I asked that it be read carefully.

"The Parables of Porn" is what I named my post. I wrote it after reading an article on CommonDreams that irritated me with the First Amendment Rights dribble that is used to defend the individual right to pornography.

If I seem irritated in my post, it is precisely because I DO NOT WANT pornography to be ultimately censored or banned, as I am a longtime fan of it and have dabbled and played in and out of the adult entertainment industry, in several areas. I just get increasingly irritated at an industry dominated, supported, and defended by white men who are also responsible for the crude and increasingly dangerous material that is produced more and more every year.

If you want to keep a ship from sinking, you not only have to bail out the water but you have to throw the heavy cargo overboard.

It is hard not to listen to the opposing side and know and see exactly what they are railing against. I don't like to think that the same laws that allow me my Club Magazine subscription and my Vivid Video collection are the same ones that allow virtual-kiddie porn websites. I am also not going to deny the realities of porn addiction anymore than I will deny the realities of drug addiction. I am not going to pretend that a lot of pornography out there doesn't even attempt to hide its racist/misogynist/homophobic overtones.

So I railed against two typical men making a typical argument asking them to be careful, because these are the arguments the anti-pornography side can use, and pathetically, the only counterpoint I hear on the pro-porn side is, "Free speech, dude!"

the heavy cargo is this. Porn is what it is, and there are parallels you can make between hetero white male dominance and the objectified in the majority of porn out there fall into that "minority" group, and it is a weapon that can be wielded with stats, facts, and a "well-documented appetite."

I made a scathing list of the titles because there would be more diversity among porn buyers if the titles didn't seem to WANT TO discourage anybody other than straight white men from buying it.

The porn industry is notorious for its corruption like any other corporation. But major industries dealing in oil, pharmaceuticals, and steel are not going anywhere. An industry that defends itself under the First Amendment while walking the edge of illegality with sexual portrayals with racist/sexist/homophobic/pedophilia overtones, how long do you think that industry is going to last? For the few pornographers who carry those "time bombs", EVERYBODY WILL GO DOWN WITH THIS SHIP.

So yes, I am angry. I am very concerned, not just being a porn fan, but with an industry that (by going to far and getting too ugly in the past, say, ten years) will give enough rope to the other side to hang themselves with, and worse, our constitutional rights as well.

Our First Amendment was supposed to protect the speech and expression of parties who really had something to say: porn does not. I shudder to think our First Amendment will sink when porn does, and at the rate some really irresponsible individuals are going, make no mistake...

White men are the dominant force of pornography as sellers and as buyers. So instead of defending the production, packaging, and purchasing of porn, why don't you focus on recognizing why certain groups could find legitimate problems with it and make some changes. Furthermore, rather than sexually exploiting the "minority" group you'd had historical conflicts with, why don't they represent them in more dignified light? Allow more women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians to find porn on the shelves that doesn't insult or offend them.

Let's face it: a few white men have made porn very offensive and a lot of white men have supported it more than anyone else. As a few men influence the national speech agenda, recognize it is not going to be in anyone's favor whether you watch porn or not. Using the 1st Amendment to defend porn is stupid, when considering the parties porn was supposed to defend that were, yes, hunted down, rounded up, and shot to death. I know the "kings of sleaze" aren't going to be protected by federal troops when the ship suffers a direct hit...and they know it. So why don't the two gentlemen who wrote that piece know that? Why don't apparently, a lot of people who replied to my post?

Lose the First Amendment as a defense for porn, people.

As for the people in and around the industry, stop getting so huffy when anyone accuses the porn industry of the problems YOU KNOW it has, and YES, reflecting and possibly perpetuating the American cultural tensions. DON'T FEED THE LIONS with your pissing and moaning about "freedoms and liberties," as white men have done it before, to nationally destructive outcomes.

Again, they are well-documented...

It seems that many people object to any criticism or moral judgement of anything. "Don't like porn, don't criticize it, just don't watch it." I always found it similar to the anti-Union slogan - "If you don't like your job, don't try to change it, just get a new one."

Many people probably object to the "crude and increasingly dangerous material" - and criticism of it is guarenteed to get a hostile reaction, from people who don't want to hear criticism. You would think they would just "not listen to the criticism" :) And never forget, the industry has highly paid PR flunkies and corporate lawyers on their side.

It seemed as if you really tried to understand where I was coming from, unlike many other replies.

Porn in the '70's and '80's was fun, sexy, and entertaining. In the '90's, it began to take a nasty and explotative turn.

The white male perspective in regards to the "minority" group, among the few wealthy and powerful pornographers who maintain it, is reflected BRUTALLY in a lot of porn on the market now, polluting the industry and it needs to be weeded out so everybody across the board can enjoy it.

Unfortunately, the porn now is creating another microcosmic "elite" appetite at the expense of not only the "minority" group, but the majority of the American people.

I just get sick and tired of hearing people defend porn as it is, and not how it used to be, and until it gets back to just being about sex, and not about abuse of power and influence, well...

to bring attention to your OTHER long winded post?

give us a break.

you must really enjoy hearing yourself talk, or else you're trying to divide/distract the rest of the DUers.

I have always been puzzled by the lack of discussion on this and other boards, so riddled as it frequently is by replies amounting to three or four lines of retort.

Whether we agree with one another or not, I happen to be genuinely interested in hearing other people's voices, however long-winded so long as there are valid points to be drawn from it, to discuss, debate, and hopefully find resolutions that can close the sometimes great divides between viewpoints.

Where we discuss things?

Welcome to DU Shondradawson.

Unfortunately, there are many here who interpret any criticism of porn as an attack on free speech and a small move toward banning all of it. They don't get it. They never will.

You must be a sexless, repressed fundie if you don't absolutely embrace and adore modern porn in all its boring, unimaginative, violent glory!
:wtf:

When I first posted, I was trying to answer the incoming replies, scratching my head and wondering what exactly they were reading (or not reading, rather) that the replies veered so far off of I was trying to say and specifically, what I really didn't say.

What I find interesting is that Democratic Underground is a very apt name for this website, as it shows precisely how the democratic process defined by our Constitution is being buried as we speak.

Liberals can be just as staunchly conservative in their views as their most ardent right wing opponents. I know I can, myself, be guilty of it, and so I always try to see every aspect (no doubt pulling too many strings to stand on one point as you can see in my last two posts)so I can try to understand why, wherefore, and how it can be resolved.

Long threads of 3-4 insults, jibes, I just don't understand. I would think there would be perhaps, 3-5 general discussion points that people debated, really tried to consider the every point of view, and actually spoke to each other.

What is the point of asserting your rights to free speech and expression if one is so careless in regards to what and how, or if they refuse to listen and consider anyone else's right?

This should have been posted in your original thread.

I seriously don't get people who are uptight about people fucking on film.

question porn? If you don't like to read criticism of porn - DON'T READ IT

try to understand what the criticisms are and where they come from.

Republicans, Democrats, pro/anti choice all have their valid viewpoints.

The issue of pornography has its valid points on both sides, too.

Is why is it illegal to sell something I could give away for free?

I mean, if I go out to a bar, meet a girl, have a few drinks and go home and screw our brains out...that is perfectly legal (unless you're in some of the Red States). But, if I give her $20 for a "hummer", we both can be arrested.

I think that as long as man has been on this earth, there has been porn. I bet if you found an ancient cave, there may be pictures drawn on the wall of men and woman "getting jiggy with it". Of course it would only be in the inner-city section of the cave, or way out in the "burbs". But as long as there have been men and woman, there have been people that have wanted to see them have sex. Why do we get so hung up about it.

Here's another scenario. I'm making love to my wife, and someone films us through the window. If that gets copied and sold, should I be arrested?

when it comes to sex. Up until last year, it was illegal in some states for consenting adults to have "sodomy". When the Supreme Court struck those laws down, the right wing was FURIOUS! America has a very puritanical view of sex. I oppose laws against pornography(not involving children or animals), laws against sodomy, and laws against prostitution. I oppose all vice laws as well. This is supposed to be a free country, but we have a long way to go.

The ACLU has been pretty active against these types of laws. I think they won a case recently involving adult-oriented websites. www.aclu.org

Whenever any actions have been taken to "do something" about sexual/sexually explicit/adult/whatever-your-label materials, I can't think of any where the goal was to simply "brush it back" from perceived excess; the goal was to remove it entirely.

That does tend to fuel a certain "beat back any and all attacks" mentality.

stayed there, but as with everything it bleeds into other things in life. I detest watching most television with my children anymore, there is way too much sexual innuendo on tv now, you can even find examples on the childrens networks if you really watch what you're seeing.

I mean just looking at the news this morning about that model who got her pelvis broken during that tsunami, they were showing video of her with just a string bikini bottom laid barely covering her privates.

If all porn portrayed sex as a loving and caring activity - would men buy it? Well maybe they would because it would be their only choice.

Why choose violence and degradation? The production of testosterone, I suppose.

I don't expect to "get it".

But friend, your rationalization is ridiculous to say the least. You are essentially saying that in order to protect our first amendment rights, in the case of porn we must throw some of those self same rights overboard. Bad move, bad bad move.

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Note that part about not abridging free speech, that doesn't mean only speech that you like, or that you find offensive, that means ANY speech. My God, if you drop the First Amendment protection for porn, do you know what kind of precendent you will set? Covering up Justice Dept. nudes with a blue sheet will be the least of the measures that a fundy AG would take if he had the precedence in hand that you're talking about granting. It would be quite concievable that you could kiss many of the major pieces of artwork goodbye! Several of the classic works of literature would be gone! Film vaults would be purged of not just porn, but any film depicting a bare ankle! The list of crimes such an action you speak of would lead to is virtually endless.

I understand your concerns about porn, there is a large part of that industry that is unsavory, to say the least. But throwing it out the window, along with the First Amendment is not the answer. This country has withstood many ugly things in the name of the First Amendment, from the hate speech of the KKK to the calls for revolution during the '60s. I'm sure that we can deal with porn and the ugliness that it inflicts on our society. I absolutely certain that we cannot do without an intact, complete, no exceptions made First Amendment protection.

to free speech. Including not allowing obscenity.

It wouldn't be that difficult to draw a line. It's been done before and erotic art still flourished.

The only reason I expect it would be so difficult now is that the gov't is mostly influenced by money interests and the porn industry has become so huge. It's difficult to imagine our gov't doing anything that would hurt any large industry - no matter how bad it was for the environment or groups of people.

What concerns me is there have been greater outcries in regards to pornography getting uglier.

I know from experience that is pure hubris on the part of a few pornographers who cunningly trust they have their major buyers, white men, deeply addicted enough to not have to worry about being going out of business.

But taken out of business is entirely another matter. You're right: large money interests and the porn industry has become huge. But drugs in the '60's,'70's, and '80's had the same "hee,hee" attitude surrounding it, a tongue in the face of the fundamentalists, right before the establishment declared a war on it. Crack and heroin is what did it, though cocaine and marijuana were much more in demand.

So it seems with pornography...your basic porn film or magazine may be questionable in some people's eyes, but they are willing to overlook it, as with marijuana or cocaine at a party. When the industry turns it head as images depicting racism, misogyny, and homophobia, not to mention rape, torture, and pedophilia start filtering in, make no mistake, this is where the controversy is coming from and they have good, solid reasons for their outrage.

I fear pornography will sink and take the First Amendment with it.

Which is what allowed porn to really get going in the fifties and sixties.

It is called freedom of speech friend, and like many other freedoms we enjoy, you have to take the good with the bad, otherwise we end up losing all of our freedoms. Cherry picking which sector can speak freely and which can't isn't freedom of speech friend, its censorship, and that is a direct antithesis of our Constitution.

that obscenity laws used to be - and maybe still are to some extent based on community standards.

So you have some communities allowing strip clubs and have billboards advertising them and others do not.

Seems to me the internet - and it's lack of community standards is doing a lot to ramp up what would not have been tolerated previously.

As the original poster mentioned - porn in the 50's and 60's was fairly tame, comparatively. It's been since the internet that it seems that constraints (community standards) have been abolished.



On edit - community standards argument:

"More recently, the contemporary community standards construction was challenged in United States v. Thomas (44) on the ground that the on-line world had created a de facto national standard. The case involved a northern California couple who had been operating a computer bulletin board system which provided sexually explicit photographs. After providing access to an undercover United States Postal Inspector in Tennessee, they were indicted and convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1465 (45) for knowingly using a means of interstate commerce to transport obscene material. On appeal, the Thomases argued that the court below had improperly instructed the jury to apply the local community standards of Memphis rather than a new definition of community "based on the broad-ranging connections among people in cyberspace."(46) They argued that under the traditional conception of local standards, their inability to control access to their bulletin board materials would force them to censor their materials to the extent necessary to protect themselves from prosecution in the community with the most restrictive standards. This argument distinguished previously known forms of distribution which could be limited to certain geographic communities (such as magazines) from on-line distribution which is an everywhere-or-nowhere undertaking. As the Sixth Circuit observed, however, the facts did not present a situation where the defendant bulletin board operator had no control over the geographic areas in which his materials were distributed. (47) Accordingly, the court correctly held the Thomas’s conduct indistinguishable from the distribution of obscene materials through magazines or the mail. (48) Whether the same rule would be applied where an Internet content provider could not bar access to citizens of sensitive communities is a question that remains unanswered."

Yes, the legal above board stuff you saw in the fifties and sixties was quite tame, little more than cheescake. But the raunch in porn has been around since the Civil War. Many of the soldiers back then had access to the same cheesy girl on girl, girl on donkey, etc etc stuff that we've got access to today. And at least today, in a legal industry, there are some controls in place to prevent the worst of the transgressions and exploitation. If you criminalize porn again, you will simply allow those sort of exploitations you decry to flourish, with no checks or balances to curb them.

that obscenity is legal.

It may be that it is not enforced.



And I'm no connoisseur of things things - but I think society affects and is affected by what is allowed into the general consciousness of the population whether it is being sought or not. So whether it is "underground" or above ground - matters.


And I'm no youngster - but you seem to enjoy being condescending.

Which is what we're really talking about here friend. You decry the exploitation of the porn industry, yet fail to acknowledge that such exploitation would increase tenfold in you made porn illegal.

Answer me this, if obscenity, as you like to put it, is illegal, then do you honestly think that we would be able to purchase it off the rack in our local grocery store(state and local jurisdiction), or have it mailed to us through the auspices of the US government(federal jurisdiction)?

And you're correct, society is affected by what gets into our collective conciousness. So which would you rather have affecting our national psyche, depictions of couples having sex, or depcitions of terrible, sadistic forms of violence? That my friend is the real obscenity in our society, if you ask me. Yet under that rubric of the First Amendment, I will allow such depictions of violence to survive, and won't object to them. Can you say the same, or are you willing to throw the First Amendment out with the bathwater just so you don't have to think about porn?

to about porn is not that couples are depicted having sex. It is the depictions of violent, degrading sex that people are concerned about.

And like I said - I'm no connoisseur and am not interested in checking it out for myself (so I'm not off on a crusade or anything) but I believe there is an issue involved about what society should accept just like there is an issue involved in whether a society accepts racism or anything of that sort.

Just like people can make racist expressions - free speech rights and all - that does not make it socially OK.

I would like to see a similar thing with porn. If it is degrading to an individual and that translates to being degrading to a group of people - then people should say so. And so I am.

Just as it is the right of a racist to say degrading racist things, or a pornagrapher to print pornagraphy. It isn't socially acceptable, but the key point is that it IS legally acceptable. To protect the right you have to protest porn means that we have to protect the right of somebody to print it. Free speech is free speech, irregardless of whether or not it is socially acceptable.

"Possession of obscene materials is legal, but production and distribution is not."

As of Nov. 2004.

And also the law, and the First Amendment. If the distribution of pornography is illegal, how come one can get Playboy, Penthouse, or dozens of other porn rags sent to your house via the US Postal Service?

You're cherry picking and taking out of context bits and pieces of legal precendence to support your point, instead I suggest that you post the actual law, in it's entirety. Otherwise you're simply setting yourself up to get shot down.

Why is pornography available if it is illegal?


Many people believe material must be legal if it is available in their community such as at a store, on television or on the radio. This belief is false. The mere fact that the material is available does not mean it is legal, but law enforcement cannot seize suspected pornographic material without a court order.


The Law Enforcement and Prosecutors’ Point of View
Because pornography is based on a “community standard,” many prosecutors and law enforcement agencies do not investigate possible pornography issues unless they get a complaint. They interpret silence (the lack of complaints) as community approval. Complaints let them know that the citizens in the community are not happy with what is being distributed in their community.


A Citizens’ Point of View
On the other hand, citizens tend to believe that prosecutors and law enforcement know what most citizens find offensive and don’t think they should have to complain.


Additional Factors Adding to the Dilemma
Citizens tend to stay away from places selling material they find offensive. They don’t order the cable channels that may offend them. They don’t call the dial-a-porn numbers if they find this practice offensive. Because they are not accessing any of this material, they are not complaining about it even though they would be offended by it if they saw it. This creates an unfortunate dilemma that results in a lack of enforcement of pornography laws."


Citizen complaints are crucial for prosecutions to occur.


Does the First Amendment protect pornography?


No, it does not. Pornography – “obscenity” in many states - is not protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Although the Constitution protects freedom of speech, the Supreme Court of the United States has said the First Amendment has never been treated as an absolute. Some speech can be completely prohibited and some can be regulated.


In Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the court stated, “We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech.”

In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), the court stated “This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment.”

The Supreme Court has stated that the First Amendment does not protect consumer fraud, conspiracy, false advertising, sedition, incitement, perjury, bribery, libel, slander, child pornography, or distribution of pornography. For example, falsely shouting “fire” in a theater is not protected speech.

------

for more see:

http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/pornography/obscenpornlaws.htm

That you can get all of the porn you want mailed to you. And yeah, even though it is wrapped in plain brown paper, or black plastic, or whatever, the US Postal Service knows that it is porn, and gee, ships it anyways, even to Utah. And again, you can go to any street corner in Salt Lake City, and pick up all the porn you desire at the local 7-11.

Yes, there are laws in place to protect minors, both as consumenrs of porn and to prevent child pornography. There may be laws in differing states in regards to the particulars of how you may display, sell, or tax porn. But per se' porn is legal in all fifty states, and yes, it is protected by the First Amendment. You can set up all of the straw men you want, but that doesn't change that single basic fact. And here you are advocating censorship of it. And you still refuse to realize that if you censor that which you don't like, you are opening everything up for censorship. It is that plain, and that simple. If you wish to continue this misguided advocacy of censorship, fine, but I doubt that you will find many backers, both here and in the real world.

I would post

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)

in it's entirety but the site is crashing my machine. You can find a link on the Utah website. The Utah website will answer more of your questions if you really want answers.

Free speech is not absolute - if you read what I posted you might get that. You might also get that it is NOT a strawman argument - it's just one you don't wish don't wish to recognize.


Your argument would be like saying that smoking pot is legal because nobody gets arrested at rock concerts. That doesn't mean that they couldn't. Or like saying that the speed limit is really 75 when it is posted 65 just because they don't stop anyone until they are going 75...

-------------

You would like to make out like I am promoting censorship as if I am against your freedom or something. While I think you are promoting exploitation. Read this if you wish to consider an opposing liberal viewpoint:

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

An abridged version of this appeared in MS magazine, Spring 2004, pp. 54-58. The complete text was published as "Cruel to be hard: Men and pornography," in Sexual Assault Report, January/February 2004, pp. 33-34, 45-48

You wish to censor something in this country, and that is taking away freedom, mine, yours everybody's. What do you not understand about the phrase "Censorship is not a good thing" do you not understand? You start off censoring porn, next we go to "Catcher in the Rye" next we're having DU censored. Precedence is everything, and once it is established, it is mighty hard to overturn.

And the article you linked to is more of the same ol' same ol' Susan Brownmiller mode of thinking. Yes, porn can be exploittive, but it can also be non-exploitive, and you, Mr. Jensen, and Ms. Brownmiller refuse to recognize that fact.

Many of our rights and freedoms can and are used for exploitation, hell our entire capitalistic economy is exploitation when you get right down to it. Should we give up these freedoms, or rather evolve the people for whom these freedoms are meant. You obviously thing that we have a little too much freedom of speech. How sad that you hate our liberties so, for it is people like you who will take them away, of course for the good of the populace:eyes:

Instead of being a censor, why not try to get along in a society as our founding fathers designed it, with freedoms for all?

seems a lot like the argument to exploit people as slaves.

I know you don't see it that way. But that is how I see it.

The slaveowners were adamant about their freedom to own slaves, also.

One mans freedom is another persons misery - sometimes.



Society has taboos and "community standards" for a reason.


Pitcairn Island had pretty sucky standards as far as the women were concerned and most (all?) of them were raped. You let some people set the standards and that is what you get. Freedom - uncensored - for some - the powerful. And misery for others (esp, the women).

So half of the men were jailed - only because the British actually had standards - and enforced them.

Everyone does NOT have equal power and freedoms - that is why there are laws - and community standards. Otherwise we would be Pitcairn Island.

B. Obscenity Is Outside the Ambit of the First Amendment

The Supreme Court has offered more than one rationale for carving an obscenity exception out of the First Amendment. First, it is argued that a review of history demonstrates that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend for the freedom of expression to include protection of obscene material. (22) Second, obscene speech is of such slight social value in the marketplace of ideas that any interest the purveyors of obscenity may have is outweighed by the public interest in order and morality. (23) Finally, purveyors of obscenity should not be free to invade the sensitivities of unsuspecting citizens. (24)

Whatever the merit of these rationales, it is well settled that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is obscene. (25) Distinguishing between that speech which is obscene and that which is merely "indecent,"(26) however, has never been a simple matter. Under current obscenity law, it is not enough for a speaker to merely know what the allegedly obscene material contains in order to predict its legal status. A speaker must also consider 1) the community into which the material is being sent and 2) the age of those who might access the material.

http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/flwilks.htm

From the FCC

It is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene, profane or indecent programming. The prohibition is set forth at Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. § 1464). Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission the responsibility for administratively enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 1464. In doing so, the Commission may issue a warning, impose a monetary forfeiture or revoke a station license for the broadcast of obscene, profane or indecent material.

Obscene Broadcasts Prohibited at All Times

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/opi.html

I used to work in radio, during the time of the "seven dirty words". Couldn't say it, couldn't play the record if it contained them, nope nope. Guess what, it has changed and evolved. The FCC ruled many years ago that such words could be broadcast, which is one thing that really allowed rap and hip hop to take off during the eighties and ninties. Yes, some stations would bleep out stuff, but some wouldn't. Things were a lot looser then, sad to say under the Bushco regime, they're tightening back up, due to the moral "values" crowd.

But hey, that's all got to do with the airwaves, publicly broadcast stuff. We're talking porn here, you know, the stuff you view in the privacy of your own home, or with 150 of your most anonymous friends down at the local dirty movie theatre.

Nice try on the strawman friend.

"Note that part about not abridging free speech, that doesn't mean only speech that you like, or that you find offensive, that means ANY speech."

And in fact, people do not have free reign to broadcast any obscene thing they like. There are limits to free speech.

If you can show me that there is a law saying there are now no limits to what people cna create in porn outside of child pornography - I wouldn't be surprised - but I don't think the fact the first Amendment exists is an argument based on the FCC and all.

I didn't state that "the fact the first Amendment exists is an argument based on the FCC and all" at all, so stop trying to shove your words down my throat. What I was pointing out is that the definition of obsenity is an evolving one in this country, and I was using the FCC standards as an example.

Reading, its fundemental.

Yes - fine - community standards evolve,

You should try reading some of the things I've posted. Maybe it would help you get a clue.

I can be arrested any day of the week for selling a movie. What has changed is that they cannot ban a movie before it is released. There used to be film censorship boards in this country that decided if a movie was fit to be seen.

In Ohio, any movie with a depiction of sex can be used to charge the seller with "pandering obscenity". Note that you the buyer can own it legally as long as it does not contain underage performers.

...that the courts could be trusted to distinguish between "erotic art" and "obscenity"? That's where the problem always comes in.

Most of the high-profile cases that changed obscenity laws or caused a public fervor over the difference were over art or literature that someone considered obscene: Joyce, Miller, Nabokov, Ginsberg, Mapplethorpe....the list goes on and on.

I don't trust anyone under Ashcroft or Gonzalez with the power to make that distinction.

Let me be very clear about this. It is all about MONEY! Porn is a billions of dollars a year enterprise. Some of the most ardent pro-repuke businesses and contributors have a monetary interest in porn. I don't have search capability (cause I'm cheap), but there was a thread about that very subject a little while back.

You may find some actual caring politicians that are not yet "jaded", but you are also going to find a lot of them that will "hold their nose", take the money, and look the other way. Like with most repuke "values", it is all lip service. Abortion, Jesus, the Bible, the Ten Commandments, the war on Christmas, terrorism, family values, V-chip, welfare queens, trial lawyers, activist judges, the liberal media, porn, etc....are all a smoke-screen. They are all discussed and debated for one of two reasons. Either to keep repukes in power, or to frighten the American people so that they believe they are under attack and will elect our "moral protectors".

A good example is the gun lobby. Guns do a hell of a lot more damage to our society than watching porn, yet every attempt to produce sensible gun laws is shot down. Not because the politicians give a shit about guns, or the constitution, or the millions of people that are killed and maimed by guns, but because the money from the NRA keeps them in power.

I know that is rather cynical, but if the porn industry survives, it will be because they gave money to the "right" people.

and information about birth control and condoms were deemed obscence.

Who gets to draw the line?

I don't think my rationalization is ridiculous, though I do see you have made a good point in regards to protecting our First Amendment rights by throwing away some of those self-same rights.

However, in your last paragraph you also acknowledged a large part of the industry that is rather ugly and unsavory, to say the least. I listed the parties/movements in the past where some really humane, progressive, and revolutionary forms of speech and expression were practiced and gutted like fish, so when pornography in its current and yes, highly questionable forms goes cowering under the Constitution like a rat under a bag of arsenic, well...just be careful.

I just don't want my right to adult entertainment to be at everyone else's expense in terms of hindering people's rights to fair and equal representation, or harm to children.

Does that make sense to you?

And that is what we don't want happening to our country. I remember a case back in the seventies concerning the ACLU, the KKK, and the First Amendment. The left was all pissed at the ACLU for defending the right of KKK to march, but the ACLU's basic premise was that if government could deny a radical right wing group the freedom of speech, then it wouldn't be too terribly long before they would deny a left wing group the self same freedom. The same concept applies to porn, if the government is allowed to ban it, then how long before they start to ban other things?

And in regards to porn itself, do you really think that banning it will stop it? Has prohibition ever had the effect it originally intended? No, and this is evident from our own past when porn was illegal. It was still available, in all of it's nasty exploitative form, it just drove up prices, and drove the industry underground, out of sight of everyone. At least with porn legal, there is some protection from the the greater excesses of the industry.

In addition porn itself is evolving, and I just don't mean the technical and distribution end of things. As somebody noted in your other thread, there are a fair number of artists and producers putting out porn that is not the genre that you complain of, that doens't exploit or degrade people, and amazingly enough, people are woofing it up, including white males. This concept in the porn industry was unheard of twenty years ago, but the industry evolves and changes. Also, the one positive, though largely overlooked benefit of porn is that it drives communications and media industry. Though they won't state it plainly and out in the open, many of the computer/internet leaders acknowledge that we wouldn't have had nearly the same computer boom that we have today if porn wasn't driving it. In their quest to deliver product to the consumer, the porn industry came up with several of the compression, picture, streaming audio/video, and internet telephone innovations that we all depend on today. There are positive side effects of porn.

I still disagree with your position, and I hope that you rethink it in light of our conversation. I just can't get past the precedence of allowing free speech for some, yet denying it for others. We may not like it, but in order to live in a country that is supposedly as free as ours is, it is the price we have to pay for our freedoms.

Porn comes under the free speech privilege just as anything else. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not.

Your attack on the porn industry generally is unfounded. If some companies who run porn sites also run underage sites, then remember that mechanisms are in place to shut those sites down. You don't shut down the First Amendment to get to them.

Neither do you tell anyone else that the "new" porn is better than the "old" porn. Tastes differ. Deal with it. If you want to make an aesthetic point, start there. That's a separate argument and one worth exploring.

I agree with Walt and others who have questioned your post here. Jesus. Interact with ideas across the entire range and stop trying to reduce things to some manageable level.

I didn't tell anyone else that old porn is better than new porn as a personal taste, but in regards to the representation of the minority groups that it usually denies the slightest dignity and consideration.


"Tastes differ. Deal with it." is the same mentality that kept slavery in the South as opposed to the North, and that is exactly my point. If you have a taste for depraved treatment of other human beings, there are usually penalties for that, social and legal. But not in pornography, the reason being it is just fantasy, not reality. I am questioning the white male perspective as to whether it is memory...

Mechanisms put in place to shut those sites down is not my argument. The argument is some companies are running underage sites: sex is not illegal, but sex with minors is. What is the purpose of promoting illegal activity under pornography, which is a legal activity? Unless they don't care if it goes down with them, and what do you think there is no danger of them doing so?

Stop trying to reduce things to some manageable level? How do you suppose democracy, with its inevitable interaction with ideas across the entire range, could ever work?

-- your anti-porn position is ridiculous.

People have sex with whomever they have sex with, which includes people of different races. The kind of sex they have is none of anyone else's business. Racism pervades many human endeavors, but for some reason, you have chosen pornograhy to "expose" it.

If you don't trust white males because they may be racist and oppressive and depraved, I suggest you not have sex with any. But you're way off on your percentages. Any number of white males are none of the things you imply.

Any number of businesses have a problem with racist presentations. The "new" Aunt Jemima looks different than the "old" Aunt Jemima on the coffee cake boxes. If you want to deal with racism as a problem with capitalism, for instance, start there. Again, that's a separate point deserving separate consideration

Any number of people who view pornographic materials are NOT racists and are NOT oppressive to any sexual minority. Neither are they pedophiles, junkies, burglars, Presbyterians, or electricians. Your position is unpersuasive. It sounds moralistic and inapplicable to many people's lives. You're way off for a huge percentage of people.

I happen to know several Presbyterians who like porn!

Seriously, I agree with you. The thing that bothered me most was the old tired "white men use it to oppress" bit. I live and work in a fairly ethnically diverse area and you'll see as many black, asian and hispanic males renting porn as white men (actually, you may see more hispanics, but I'm guessing that's due to so many hispanic men living here without their families and working as day laborers. Porn would be a safe, cheap outlet for them.)

Perish the thought!

thanks -- : )

being Presbyterian I can tell you that if porn were purchased (or rented) it would only be after long, prayerful discussion in the appropriate subcommittee according to the Book of Order.

being Presbyterian I can tell you that if porn were purchased (or rented) it would only be after long, prayerful discussion in the appropriate subcommittee according to the Book of Order.

Now THAT is hot.

I never did it with an entire subcommittee before.

Is there a video I can order?

there's different subcommittes for each type of fetish I'm afraid.

about the old tired "white men use it to oppress" bit.

Where you live and work sounds like a good, diversified, and in America, most unusual place.

Please don't dismiss someone's arguments of oppression as long as there are collective groups in America who are still fighting for freedoms, liberties, and opportunities that they still don't have. And please don't ignore that white men have always had them, and used those very same freedoms, liberties, and opportunities to deny everybody else's.

I don't understand the concept of white guilt: there is no reason at all for white men to feel guilty about something what was done in the past. If there is guilt, it is because the effects of what was done is still reverberating in the present, and many of them stand there and point behind their backs instead of to their own faces, or their own minds. And please don't discredit the reflections of what could only be the white male perspective in pornography.

White men founded this country and white men run it. Why is it, that everytime a problem or conflict arises either from the past, the present, or about the future, white men sigh, roll their eyes, and get snippy when the "minority" group points at them and holds them responsible? I'm not being snide, I really would like to know...

The trend in this thread is against your basic premise that pornography should be censored, since you want it all censored just to be on the safe side.

It is also against your premise that all white males are cretinous, oppressive assholes. Any number happen not to be, and that puts your basic "racism" premise under serious strain.

Ford Motor Co. has held racist positions in its corporate history. Why is your post not about automobiles? You posted about porn and then laid all this other racist shit over it like a tablecloth.

No sale.

In fact, I can't find a single sustaining argument you are making that is fair and applicable to a majority of people. If your view is that dark, you might very seriously wish to reconsider why it's so dark.

I absolutely do not want all pornography censored, and I am very unclear as to where or how one found that in either of my posts.

Nor have I intimated that "all" white males were cretinous, oppressive assholes, though I concede there are countless examples to assert that opinion throughout the globe over the course of seven thousand years of civilization. But I digress...(sigh)

You also keep deceptively veering away from what I believe are rather clear points: you seem not to want to understand my argument at all for fear of implication or guilt by association. That is not my intention, not at all.

Consider this: I love boxing. Many people do. Two men in the ring fight each other consentually and under rules and regulations of the sport. Imagine those two boxers suddenly insulting and attacking the spectators and in particular, the most vulnerable people in the crowd. Boxing becomes banned because of a growing number of complaints and cases filed, for the gross and dangerous irresponsiblity of a few.

This is what I see happening in adult entertainment industry. Freedoms and liberties do not come without responsibility, or shouldn't. I don't want my freedoms and liberties snatched from me because a few people want to be irresponsible to the point of real indignities, injustices, and cruelties against everybody else. My white male argument is an example that such irresponsibility with dominating perspectives and their destructive influence has been made before and is glaringly reflected in the porn industry. If the industry does not take more responsibility for what it is willing to protect and defend within its own walls, and allows a few rotten apples to write their tastes on them, the industry as a whole will be made to answer, and may very well fall.

-- started swinging at fans. But in that instance the fans included people egging them on and taunting them. A very poor performance all around.

Your boxing analogy is bizarre. So far as I know that sort of thing happens in statistical isolation, or near it. Rare if ever. If it happened tomorrow night, should boxing be banned?

Your original post has failed to convince and you aren't able to respond to basic tenets of objection.

As I say, no sale.

I see women making great strides in the porn industry, using it as a way to empowerment. This is not to say that we dominate YET, but we produce a lot of it, act in a lot of it, and even consume a lot of it. I don't have time to search for the numbers, but I read somewhere that over half of all porn is bought by women. I agree that there is more we can do to make porn less sexist and exploitative, and yes for every woman-produced porno there is a Bang Bus type piece of shit, but instead of shaving off 1st amendment protections, I think it is far better for women to work from inside the industry for change.

"Possession of obscene materials is legal, but production and distribution is not.

<snip>

The Zicari case represents a renewed effort by the Justice Department to combat what it sees as the proliferation of extremely hard-core and violent pornography.

Buchanan has said the government all but abandoned its policing efforts in the 1990s, and in the meantime the industry has mushroomed and become increasingly accepted as part of American culture.

Zicari and Romano aren't the only defendants being pursued. In Texas, federal prosecutors in June indicted a former Dallas police officer and his wife on charges of selling rape videos online.

And in West Virginia, a couple pleaded guilty this year to mailing videos depicting sexually explicit scenes that included defecation and urination."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04307/405268.stm

----------------------

To hear some people you would think the case was closed (about pornography in general) - that people are out there making whatever they want.... no discussion.....

Thank you for giving my posts and replies a fair consideration.

I am asking you to read #48, I believe and tell me what you think.

Overall, I do not believe my argument is as far-fetched as it is being made out to be.

I think I have some valid points to make in regards to the corruption in pornography, its social/cultural ramifications, and the threat it poses to our 1st Amendment rights.

Thank you for trying to understand where I am coming from and where I am going with this.

I can see where some are uncomfortable with the "white" male aspect of your argument. I'm sure porn knows no color.

On the other hand - there is the "white" male power/money phenomena in this country - so it's not like it's nothing.


I guess it could be like boxing.

I think part of the problem is that there are no rules. Like the case mentioned in Pittsburgh - people are always trying to push the envelope of what they can get away with. And they even manage to get some advertising for themselves.

Of course many do not want rules - or think they don't. At least until it affects them somehow.

I don't think there is threat that porn will go away. I think the best hope is that people do not see it as great fun to see others be raped and such. I really hate having such images in my head. That is why I'll never choose to watch this stuff.

oral and anal fixations, etc.

West Virgina is a shock, just means the actors were probably related, too.

Teletubbies.

...and have dabbled and played in and out of the adult entertainment industry, in several areas."

Could you be more specific? Maybe titles and such?

Thanks in advance.

the damn porn movie is too loud

because my livelyhood is staked on it.

And yes, porn has become more violent. So have mainstream movies and TV.

But who do you want to decide for us what is OK for all? Am I supposed to police the 1700 movies in my back room to make sure that a hand doesn't touch someones neck for 2 seconds? Sorry, my wife and I only watch porn 3-4 times a month.

My wife likes to watch BDSM porn. She wants to see girls get spanked and such. Should that be illegal? BDSM movies don't even have any sex in them, for the most part.

If a rape scene is illegal in a porno, should it be illegal in a mainstream movie?

I am a discount movie retailer, and so I don't order by title. I do end up not putting a few on the shelves based on the box cover(choking,scat and blood mostly)butI do order alot of the harder videos (devils films for example) because that is what the customers want. I carry vivid, wicked, Adam & Eve too, but with the exception of the 4hr comps, most customers don't want to watch a bad movie with sex scences, they want 4 hrs of wall to wall sex. And they want to see wild sex.

I didn't get into this business to sell movies. My wife and I got into it to sell toys, and to do something that brings some excitement into people's lives. But movies are 50% of my business. I could not survive with them.

I don't want the government to decide what I can and can not sell. I don't like Rob Black's movies but I sure as hell hope he wins his court case because that will decide if the industry survives.

This is a free speech issue. It is also about the right to privacy, and the freedom to chose your own sexual practices. Do you think your vivd movies and club mag would be ok if Jerry Falwell got to decide what is obscene or not? It is also a commerce issue. How can it be legal to own something when it is illegal for me to sell it?