If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
one of the largest american porn companies charged with obscenity
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.xbiz.com/news/all/92236
the company is evil angel
checked this page for dodgy links, there is none - anyway, consensual acts filmed between 2 women have been used as evidence for indictment against the man who runs the company, who could face £500k fine per offence and 5years in jail per offence
what's your take on it
the company is evil angel
checked this page for dodgy links, there is none - anyway, consensual acts filmed between 2 women have been used as evidence for indictment against the man who runs the company, who could face £500k fine per offence and 5years in jail per offence
what's your take on it
0
Comments
however, entirely consensual acts
should 'squirting' be illegal to do in someone's home, if not, why is videos of sex allowed to be bought/traded as long as the performers are over 18 and consenting, but not a squirting video?
No, people should be allowed to do whatever they like in the privacy of their homes. These are entirely consensual acts which have been put into the public sphere to be sold though, so they come under the remit of government, and it's down to the government to regulate them as it sees fit.
Also, are you sure they're being prosecuted specifically because of the type of porn? :yuck: It seems to be because it's porn which they've transported across states for sale, and because it could have been seen by somebody under 18.
Why? Surely the only stuff the government should regulate is the filming and distribution of non-consensual acts, such as paedophilia and rape? If the people filming consent, and presumably the people watching consent (who watches an entire porno by accident?), what's the problem?
As for obscenity laws. Well, the very fact that they exist is a joke, but that's another matter.
buying porn is legal in america federally anyway, following something 2257 which requires lots of record keeping of ages, dates of filming etc and allowed under the 1st amendment.
Obscenity is illegal to film, and the filming of porn isn't legal in lots of states, so the main 2 are new york and california
yes the films done for it have been noted and it appears they're trying to get films with squirting and milk enemas(both provokes a ewww from me personally) classified as illegal as obscene
the amount of films released legitimately last year with squirting was probably in the hundreds or low thousands, by law abiding companies
Should the state intervene in things where there is no 'victim' but it is obscene (who defines that? I don't know). I think that's the question that lies at the crux of it.
It's obscene.
should they be able to do it in private?
Sure, which is why the US govt doesn't bother the people who do.
Hermione as in Harry Potter?
so if they film it and show another couple who like doing it is that okay?
Yea, I think there was a post on here years ago. It was after the first film I think based on the actress when she was what, 12?
creepy..
There's no law against that.
turn it into selling a video to people who are interested in it then....
what makes that illegal as you said should happen
interesting news: i was reading the news section of the US porn industries overall website, won't post link cause of rest of content, but one of the charges is that in distributing a trailer via their website, they're providing porn to under 18s which is against the law - this is a legally very contentious issue apparantly due to what constitutes allowing an under 18 to view porn is like a "do not enter if you are under 18 or will be breaking the law in your country/state" or a credit card check or what
another random fact, in the USA, obscene speech isn't covered by the 1st amendment due to some court ruling in the 30s, which is government uses to cover it's backs on censorship
The obscenity crosses over into the public sphere which the government regulates. If you don't agree with your representative in government who thinks it's obscene and should be illegal, then you vote in somebody who shares your point of view.
Democracy gives you no right to ban something which has no adverse effects on a third party, just because you don't like it. You don't like it, you don't watch it. Case fucking closed. Hell, if 51% of us voted to ban black people from public transport, would that be acceptable democracy in action?
Beatility
Buggery
Scat
Etc etc. Some things are legal and illegal depending on country. So I see no reason for this. After all, its for Adults, who watch it by choice. The actors are consensual, so there is no grounds for this case.
Sigh.
Come off it, comparing a ban on porn to banning 'black people from public transport' is a gross conflation of two completely different things - and you know it.
But on your point about democracy: you're right to say that it doesn't give you the right 'to ban something which has no adverse effects on a third party' ? like a black person using public transport. To some, obviously, porn does have an adverse effect on the people watching it, as well as those making it, and society as a whole - which is why they don't like it. You simply don't agree with that view, so vote for a politician who holds your view or become one yourself.
No conclusive evidence whatsoever, therefore no case to ban it. The fact that something has a negative impact on the consenting parties involved is no reason to ban it (we wouldn't be allowed to do much if they banned everything that harmed the customer). The case for the banning of pornography comes entirely from people who want to inflict their religious views on everyone else. It is an entirely religiously-based opposition, and therefore is unconstitutional. As such, I expect we will see a legal case in America that will show this eventually, and there will be no need for a vote.
And my example was merely to reflect that just because the majority of people vote for something, doesn't make it legal or right. Perhaps a more comparable example was the sodemy laws that were repealed in America in 2003 (by a court in exactly the same way as before). That was a law that applied to everyone (except for a couple of states, which had a discriminatory law that only applied to gay people, and one state who had a discriminatory law that only applied to people who weren't married), but by its very nature, was the will of the majority being inflicted on the minority in a matter they had no business involving themselves in.
Isn't there a strong feminist argument, as well, in that pornography degrades women?
Me - I've watched a fair few porn films in my younger days, so think most of its harmless,
I'm quite happy for simulated snuff, rape and child abuse to be banned. There's very seldom going to be conclusive proof for anything involve the human brain and what can impact on it, but I think there's enough circumstantial evidence that in some cases the extreme stuff does lead to people going further and I'm afraid I think women's right to avoid being raped and/or murdered should trump someone's right to watch whatever they want.
There is such a thing as an off button. Much more useful than using the law to regulate what someone else wants to watch...
Is there really? I think there's a hell of a lot of circumstantial "evidence" that such things coincide with the decrease in the overall numbers of the crimes that you mention. The only circumstantial evidence that violent porn can lead people to be violent towards women is that serial rapists are occasionally found with vast quantities of rape porn. Now I'm no expert here, but I imagine that if rape's your thing, that's the type of porn that you are likely to go for. That is no evidence that the porn actually drove the person to act out certain acts. Since there's no evidence that porn influences reality negatively, and the statistical evidence suggests the opposite, it is wrong to restrict access to such material to consenting adults. Hell, plenty of people have seeked professional help after viewing child pornography. Who know how far they would've gone before seeking help without it? (Not endorsing child porn btw, just demonstrating that the same could apply to other pornography that depicts criminal acts).