Extreme: you shall get what's advertized

[Guest]

Extracted from "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser

* * * * *
In August, 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced the first major obscenity prosecution unrelated to child porngraphy in almost a decade. Ashcroft called the indictment of Robert Zicari (also known as Rob Black) and Janet Romano (also known as Lizzy Borden) - "an important step in the Department of Justice's strategy for attacking the proliferation of adult obscenity." Postal inspectors in Pennsylvania had ordered videos over the Internet from Extreme Associates, which later shopped the tapes across state lines from its headquarters in North Hollywood. Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. Attorney in the Western District of Pennsylvania, descrived Extreme Associates' products as "some of the most vile, offensive, and degrading material that is avairable on the Internet."

Forced Entry, the most contraversal video seized by the government, was directed by Lizzy Borden. It is a slasher film that mixes violence with hard-core sex. On the Extreme Associates Web site, the ad copy for Forced Entry promises "Homicidal Rapists and Serial Killers as well as the poor, lost sluts they kidnap, torture, rape, and kill!" Lizzy Borden thinks that her films - which have depicted cannibalism, urine, feces, blood, vomit, and multiple rape, along with hard-core sex - are little different in spirit from such popular entertainments as Jackass and the music of Eminem. "The funny thing about my business is I don't force it on anybody," says her husband. "The only people that are going to forced to watch my movies are the twelve people that sit in that jury." If convicted, the couple face up to fifty years in prison.
* * * * *

There you go, kids. Go look for the movies. Sounds like the pornographers could use more money for lawyers' fees.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Extracted from "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser

* * * * *
Ashcroft called the indictment of Robert Zicari (also known as Rob Black) and Janet Romano (also known as Lizzy Borden) - "an important step in the Department of Justice's strategy for attacking the proliferation of adult obscenity."

Adult obscenity? You mean things like the Vice President telling senator Leahy to go fuck himself?

---dr.M.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Obscene as opposed to indecent. That's the line drawn by the courts back in the 70's. Indecent is protected speech, obscenity is not. Where you draw the line between the two is now where the test cases will fall. It seems likely the Government chose this particular movie set because it seems likely that most people will find it obscene.

Should that be the case, you can expect the Asscroft lead DOJ to begin more prosecutions, slowly working their way towards more main stream smut until they are checked by courts ruling that what they are attacking now is just indecent and not obscene.

-Colly

 

[cantdog]

Gore's censorship history, and especially Tipper's was pretty darn abysmal.

Holier-than-moi people make me tired.

But in the end, it depends how many Scalias sit on the Big Bench...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Gore's censorship history, and especially Tipper's was pretty darn abysmal.

Holier-than-moi people make me tired.

But in the end, it depends how many Scalias sit on the Big Bench...

Scalia, Renquist & Thomas will vote to ban any free speech that isn't religious in nature. Beyer is almost as bad. I do not know about the rest of you, but I feel kinda nervous with only O'connor & Kennedy as swing votes.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

Should that be the case, you can expect the Asscroft lead DOJ to begin more prosecutions, slowly working their way towards more main stream smut until they are checked by courts ruling that what they are attacking now is just indecent and not obscene.

-Colly

...Although the Justice Department says that fifty obscenity investigations are now being conducted, a real war on the industry will begin, not with the indictment of fringe characters, but with obscenity charges filled against the top executive at Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, Liberty Media, Time Warner, and DirectTV. It seems highly unlikely that such a war will be launched - or could it be won.

Extracted from "Reefer Madness" by Eric Schlosser

CV says: no one's fucked except Paris!

 

[Guest]

Mr. Ashcroft!!!

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=109732

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Yup...

Didn't they pull this censorship shit in the 90s with video games, in the 80s with metal, in the 50s and 60s with rock music, in the 50s with Playboy, in the 20s with swimsuits, in the 20s with Prohibition, in the early 1800s with the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc.?

Damnitt, I think that if these busybody homeowner-commission, living in proxy, Christ suckers stop trying to force their putrescence on the public at large they shrivel into a ball and die. At least that's the only way I can see it, because I sure as hell don't see any Literotican authors, pornographers, or musicians deliberately going into these asshole's homes and forcing them to look at and listen to their work.

You know how there are those letter writers who blame teenager trends for everything from falling house prices to global warming. This is Stage 2 of that disease.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... didn't they pull this censorship shit in the 90s with video games, in the 80s with metal, in the 50s and 60s with rock music, in the 50s with Playboy, in the 20s with swimsuits, in the 20s with Prohibition...

Actually, in 1926 it was a short story about a prostitute who was more of a mensch than the good people of the town where she plied her trade, titled "Hatrack" and in the 1940's it was Vargas illustrations of scantily clad women, in Esquire.

Just a brief description of the Hatrack Affair:

Judge Learned Hand of the Second Circuit Court was one of three judges who decided the "Hatrack" affair. This originated with a refusal of services by the United States Post Office under authority of the Comstock Law, on the grounds that the April, 1926 issue of H. L. Mencken's magazine the American Mercury was obscene.

The then current definition of obscenity (known as the Hicklin rule) focused on a work's harmful effect on susceptible people. In other words, the Hicklin rule would ban material about sex which didn’t turn on any normal person, but which some pervert might find arousing.

This Hicklin standard seemed to Judge Hand to be an impossible test which would include medical works and nearly all fiction which described love in any other than denatured language It was, in his opinion, an impossible standard to apply.

Rather, Judge Hand wished to evaluate an allegedly obscene work based on its effect on normal readers. Under this standard, Hand thought that neither the "Hatrack" story or any part of the American Mercury was obscene.

The Second Circuit Court eventually got rid of the Hicklin rule and interpreted federal obscenity laws in such a way that alleged obscenity must be evaluated from the standpoint of a normal person, not the standpoint of a pervert.

The United States Supreme Court mentioned these Second Circuit decisions favorably when it started deciding key obscenity cases in 1957. In 1973, the Supreme Court gave a definition of obscenity that would be binding on both the state and federal governments; hereafter, any government that adopted a stricter definition would be in violation of the First Amendment.


Anyone interested in a complete and authoritative account of the Hatrick Affair, can find one HERE in Issue #1 of GLOSS.

 

[Guest]

Vargas

http://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=315197&page=submissions

Homer Vargas: funniest, most prolific Lit author to date.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Esquire v. Walker
The Postmaster General opposes "The Magazine for Men"

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/images/varga_girl_as_waac.jpg



Postal officials objected to all the pictures and some of the verses in the 1943 Varga girl calendar, which appeared in the January issue.

Each month's Esquire also featured one of the gauzily draped Varga girls, named for their creator, Peruvian artist Alberto Vargas. These illustrations, too, were geared to GI readers, and many reflected wartime themes. Censors objected to the December calendar page showing a Varga girl donning a WAAC uniform, but they okayed Phil Stack's verse:

"A Merry Christmas to you all!
I'm off to join the WAACs,
And serve the country that I love
Until the Axis cracks!"

 

[Svenskaflicka]

As with all regulations, you have to analyse the situation before you perform any form of action.

I'm against censoring normal porn, which just shows two adults enjoying their sexuality. I would respect people's lust for a little kinky porn, since there's hardly any harm in two actors wrestling in mud, licking chocolate off each other, or even engaging in a little roleplaying. And even though non-consent is an awful thing in real life, I think it's up to each and everyone if they want to pretend to rape each other as a phantasy and a role playing game. As long as both parties agree on how much violence and force may be used, so that no-one will suffer for real.

But when it comes to real, pure violence - people being tortured and murdered on film - then I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere. True, you may choose if you want to see this or not, but I think that by allowing these films to exist, the demand will never cease, and a lot of people will loose their lives ina terrible manner in order to amuse some sickos. Torture - and we're not talking mild spanking here, but real maffia-approved, blood-gushing, war-crime type of TORTURE - and murder, is unacceptable, and I don't see why there should be an exception just so that some weirdos may produce "art".

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I have to agree with you Svenska, there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
There will be a demand for such things if some kind of deterrent isn't issued.
It may not solve it immediatly, but it may slow it down. No one would like to know that someone they love could be a victim of such acts and then know it exists on film.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

I will go father than Svenskaflicka, using some of her description . . . when it comes to real, pure violence . . . the demand will never cease, and a lot of people will lose their lives . . . to amuse some sickos . . . maffia-approved, blood-gushing . . . I don't see why there should be an exception just so that some weirdos may produce [substitute for "arts"] "sports."

Professional Boxing is one of the least defensible of sports still permitted. Even to its know mob involvement.

Just a night or two ago I heard some announcer describing the mounting tension between Olympic gymnastic athletes. “Fifteen competitors, with a lifetime of practise, now with the only time in four years have one night to either win their chance to represent their country, or lose for another four years, possibly forever. It all comes down to one night, one competition, one performance, whether they will be the only winner, or just another also ran. The tension is mounting amongst this group of twelve to seventeen-year-old girls gathered here to compete . . . ”

If I could have reached him in the TV set, I would have kicked him in the balls so hard only dogs could hear his patter. Putting that kind of pressure on youngsters is another form of abuse, and the way he was stressing the delightful anxiety, relishing their torment . . .

I turned the set off.

It has soured me on the whole idea of the Olympics.

 

[Guest]

_______________________________________________


I'm staying this side. You guys suck.

This side is much more fun.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Hurrah
for
OUR SIDE!

 

[ABSTRUSE]

BAHahahahhahahahahaha!

 

[Guest]

Oh, no!

Now I'm on the wrong side!

 

[Guest]

Oh, no! Now I'm on the wrong side!

So just get on top or under it.

semi-helpfully, Perdita

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Oh, no!

Now I'm on the wrong side!

Nah, you're just a little bit on the dark side, you monkey!

 

[Guest]

What! is with the monkeys? They show up in every thread.

Perdita

 

[ABSTRUSE]

What! is with the monkeys? They show up in every thread.

Perdita

They follow the lice.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Here are some defintions from case law that is now used to determine if something is obscene or not.

4. Since obscenity is not protected, constitutional guaranties were not violated in these cases merely because, under the trial judges' instructions to the juries, convictions could be had without proof either that the obscene material would perceptibly create a clear and present danger of antisocial conduct, or probably would induce its recipients to such conduct. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 . Pp. 485-490.

(a) Sex and obscenity are not synonymous. Obscene material is material which deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest - i. e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. P. 487.

(b) It is vital that the standards for judging obscenity safeguard the protection of freedom of speech and press for material which does not treat sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest. Pp. 487-488.

(c) The standard for judging obscenity, adequate to withstand the charge of constitutional infirmity, is whether, to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest. Pp. 488-489.

(d) In these cases, both trial courts sufficiently followed the proper standard and used the proper definition of obscenity. Pp. 489-490.

2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 24-25.

3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. Pp. 24-25.

4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." Pp. 30-34.

The courts in general have applied the protections of Free speech & expression in line with the puritent interest and the standards of the community. Within those bounds, there is also room for application of artistic merit and or literary/scientific value.

Thus, a scientific study which included sworn statements from victims of forcible rape could be published with no fear of censure, as case studies are valuable to the scientific community.

A movie or book, in which forcible rape occurs as a neccessary part of the plot, for example Clint Eastwoods Dirty harry movie Sudden Impact, where the main character is taking revenge on her rapists, would also have nothing to fear, even if the depiction were graphic. As the movie constitutes artistic expression and the rape scene isn't gratuitous, but a neccessary part of the story.

A porno movie or mag or book that includes rape scenes is protected usually, because it is understood by those watching that the movie is fictional and the AVERAGE person would not find such to be an incitement to commit rape.

An actual movie of someone being raped or a how to guide which included information on choosing victims & what to have in a rape kit on the other hand, would not be protected.

As with anything governed by case law, there is a large gray area where the interpretation of the judges is the major issue. In such cases, a very conservative judge might decide something is obscene where a liberal jusge might find it merely indecent.

If Asscroft & the Bush administration plan an assault on pornography, they will most likely begin their crusade with Pornography that falls in the gray areas. A lot of BDSM falls in that area. Corporal punishment fetish movies, bondage fetish movies, scatalogical fetish movies and your harder core S&M flicks would be thier most logical test cases. Remember, the application of the law is what effect such movies would have on the AVERAGE member of the community.

This will not be an all out atack on porn, you won't see Hugh Heffner or Guccione or even Larry Flynt on the stand, not at first anyway. It will be nobody, mom & pop, fly by night outfits that cater to the ragged edge of pornsters first. They will pick the absolute worst, those with as little redeeming value as they can find, with the intent of slowly building a body of case law that holds such material obscene. Only after they have a good body of case law, will they begin to try and expand the definition of what constitutes obscene.

-Colly

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Colly? I see you're feeling better, you've decided to post some little things.

 

[angela146]

Scalia, Renquist & Thomas will vote to ban any free speech that isn't religious in nature.

Actually, Scalia is also a vote in favor of free "political" speech. He, for example, wrote the opinion that struck down the flag burning law. (Flag burning, in his view, was protected political speech).

So, if you can somehow structure your erotic material in a political vein, you might get him on board.

Also, Thomas usually votes with Scalia, so Scalia effectively has two votes on the court.