U.S. renews pornography prosecution

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
The US Attorney General has filed a case against a company called Extreme Associates, alleging that the materials they produce are obscene. 'Obscenity' as defined by the courts in America, means that a work appeals to a prurient interest, that the material depicts sexual activity in a patently offensive way, and that the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. People on both sides of the issue have seen this coming since Ashcroft was appointed Attorney General, and they also agree that this is an effort by the US administration to re-focus government attention on pornographers after Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, declined to pursue pornography cases in favor of focusing more intensely on child pornographers.

The questions for the ILX collective:
How do you feel about this return to prosecuting pornography?
What do you think the effect will be on you as a person and you as a citizen? (obv put yourself in a yank's shoes if you're not American, and/or relate your country's attitude toward pornography.)

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 28 August 2003 00:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Additional information: Here is a review of a movie from Extreme Associates called Forced Entry, which I believe is named in the lawsuit and has certainly been the focus of controversy before. (Link not exactly work-safe due to a few risque banner ads, but text content is safe.)

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 28 August 2003 00:11 (twenty-one years ago)

PBS story on porn in America, specifically the 'Cambria list,' a sort of self-imposed list of guidelines for pornographers. Extreme does not follow this list.

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 28 August 2003 00:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Old news, Ashcroft was starting this stuff almost as soon as he was appointed.

Its all compeltely useless, since the internet is the main porn provider nowadays and people have access to far sicker foreign produced porno.

fletrejet, Thursday, 28 August 2003 00:32 (twenty-one years ago)

No black men-white women themes? Why not?

Sean (Sean), Thursday, 28 August 2003 00:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Jack Horner wept

Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Thursday, 28 August 2003 00:54 (twenty-one years ago)

"purient"

Do I need to explain my thoughts or is it obvious enough?

Natola (Scaredy Cat), Thursday, 28 August 2003 00:56 (twenty-one years ago)

I guess it might not be, cuz I forgot an "r".... but, what I mean to say is "lascivous.... do I need to explain my thoughs or is it obvious enough... and also, did I misspell lascivous, too?"

Natola (Scaredy Cat), Thursday, 28 August 2003 01:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Now that I have looked at the cambria list, its very silly. Maybe 75% of current porn has one of the things mentions. A list of things that will usually guarantee a obscenity conviction in a some jerkwater juridiction: fisting, scat, beast, rape, bondage.

fletrejet, Thursday, 28 August 2003 01:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Jerkwater is the new name of my one-man design firm. On the website, I will refer to "our work" and what "we" can do for you, too!

Natola (Scaredy Cat), Thursday, 28 August 2003 01:04 (twenty-one years ago)

It's really, really stupid. For one thing, it's illegal, not to make or sell it, but to mail the stuff across state lines (that was how they set up their "sting" - by ordering the tapes in the mail from Pittsburgh). They're also trying to get on the Internet - I think that's part of the Extreme Associates case - because it would be illegal to send the stuff over the phone lines.

I'm opposed to chasing after porn, I'm opposed to these stupid made-up distinctions between legal and illegal smut - Seymour Butts was indicted over a lesbian fisting scene - but the Four Finger Club series is fine? But more than anything I'm opposed to blowing money on Extreme Associates that could be spent on fighting child porn or white slavery. They're pleasing one constituency, but they're not stopping crime.

Chris Dahlen (Chris Dahlen), Thursday, 28 August 2003 03:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Blah blah blah blah consenting adults blah blah blah.

oops (Oops), Thursday, 28 August 2003 03:05 (twenty-one years ago)

This is really bad for the Bush administration, given all the Republicans who will be pissed off by being blocked off from their favorite websites.

donut bitch (donut), Thursday, 28 August 2003 05:50 (twenty-one years ago)

"In 1967, Congress established and funded a National Commission on Pornography. Its report, published in 1970, found that it was not pornography, but the puritanical attitudes toward pornography that cause problems in America. The report said the problems stemmed "from the inability or reluctance of people in our society to be open and direct in dealing with sexual matters." In surveys, the commission found that only 2 percent of Americans thought sexually explicit material was a significant social problem. The report recommended that all legislation interfering with the right of adults to read, obtain, or view explicit sexual material be repealed. "

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/307.htm

Girolamo Savonarola, Thursday, 28 August 2003 06:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course the current Administration wants to reverse the tide of licentiousness, an atmosphere of hedonism detracts from the militarisation of the US empire and its world-domination project. On the positive side, here's another niche market for the Canadians to step into, or force their way into, whatever

dave q, Thursday, 28 August 2003 08:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Canada: Amsterdam writ large.

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 2 September 2003 01:37 (twenty-one years ago)

an atmosphere of hedonism detracts from the militarisation of the US empire and its world-domination project.

how so?

donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 2 September 2003 02:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I think they need to get to work prosecuting some millionares. It isn't like anyone from Enron, World Com, etc. have gone to jail for their wrong doings.

Whew...I was getting idealistic for a second and forgot this is the US.

Isn't it interesting that Fox on one hand puts together a news channel with a big right wing slant and also puts a new show on the air with a central character being a porno king. I think they know what their audience wants.

"an atmosphere of hedonism detracts from the militarisation of the US empire and its world-domination project.
how so?"

As Ashcroft would say if he came into ILX, it is hard to look and speak serious with some metal tit behind your head. Remember he dropped a few grand of US funds to get him a curtain so that statue of justice with her mammary hanging out wouldn't make him so nervous when trying drop some science.

earlnash, Tuesday, 2 September 2003 03:41 (twenty-one years ago)

seven months pass...
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obscenity06apr06,0,3004361.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 00:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography

As opposed to everyone else, who either does it for free or pays for the privilege.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 00:48 (twenty-one years ago)

This bit is interesting, though:

In 2001, though, one interesting case emerged from St. Charles County, Mo., the heart of Ashcroft's conservative Missouri base. First Amendment lawyer Cambria defended a video store there against state charges that it was renting two obscene videotapes that depicted group sex, anal sex and sex with objects.

Cambria won, convincing a jury of 12 women, all between the ages of 40 and 60, that the tapes had educational value and helped reduce inhibitions. They reached the verdict in less than three hours.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 00:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Not safe for work, but click below to check out recent E.A.-affiliated porn limit-pushing -

http://gagfactor.com/samples/miasia/gagpreview-miasia-mpeg.mpg

http://tour.pissmops.com/main.htm


God forbid you'd ever have to witness firsthand any of the media you're politicizing, even if you are in the right, eh? FUCK LIZZY BORDEN.

LC, Wednesday, 7 April 2004 02:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Click the first link, it's spectactular.

LC, Wednesday, 7 April 2004 02:19 (twenty-one years ago)

who are you directing that 'god forbid' comment to?

teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 09:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Minneapolis actually had a Dworkin/Mackinnon anti-porn law on the books for a day, until the mayor chucked it out as un-Constitutional. At the time my uncle was running Minneapolis Vice and went so far as to say that just about any obscenity charge was unenforceable, so it was far better to concentrate on busting pimps and pornlords for tax evasion.

suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 10:28 (twenty-one years ago)

"If a man is considered guilty for what goes on in his mind then give me the electric chair for all my future crimes, sho I'm guilty!"

the queen formally known as G, Wednesday, 7 April 2004 11:16 (twenty-one years ago)

Larry Flynt as first-admendment crusader still makes me giggle. you gotta wonder what he'd do or fund, if he was pushed far enough by the gub-ment. The bullfrog has enough capital and werewithal to pull something off. Not being stupid helps...

Kingfish Balzac (Kingfish), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry teeny if that sounded baiting and I definitely wasn't singling anyone out. I don't like censorship but I have a problem with Lizzy and E.A. and I'd be glad to see them go down. I don't really have any ideals so to me it doesn't matter how. Pissmops gets me hard sometimes though - the sheer casualness of the degradation works for me.

LC, Wednesday, 7 April 2004 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

no, I was honestly asking for a clarification because I didn't understand what you were getting at at all.

teeny (teeny), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Nice to see Ashcroft back to beating his favourite drum, the War on Terrorjism!

How can he bear to stand bare in front of the bathroom mirror? Perhaps he doesn't have one. Perhaps he sleeps fully clothed. No protection against noctural emissions, though.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i am thinking of this, and this guys stuff is not v. nice...it offends me w. its casual misogyny, and i think that it is deeply exploitive.

so i am conflicted, i am a free speech crusader, i believe in the free dissemantion of information, but this makes my stomach crawl...maybe this is where casual nimby free speechers get off the caresoul and hard core fighters get on ?

anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

You don't have to like it to believe that it shouldn't be prosecuted, Anthony. God knows, if they prosecuted everything I found aesthetically distasteful there wouldn't be much left.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Who is Lizzy Borden?

Baked Bean Teeth (Baked Bean Teeth), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

The Gov is probably wasting time and money on this stuff,
but ideologically it doesn't bother me much.
Since when were images of people fucking "speech" ?
I thought it was just a tool for masturbation.

zootsuit (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

just to clarify, I mean "speech" as in "free speech"

zootsuit (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Lizzy Borden was a woman who may have killed her family with a large axe, hence the nursey rhyme:

lizzie borden had an axe
gave her father forty whacks
when she saw what she had done
she gave her father forty one

as for momus, there is a difference b/w aesthically upsetting (and there would be v. few things left standing if it was just that...) and politically offensive.

i think that this guy hates women and seeks their destruction, but not before degrading them first, thats not something that i can get behind...but i hate censorship and i wouldnt advocate that @ all.

xpost

and it is free spech, people fucking is political, and artistic and important and as vital as speech as any other film/painting/sculpture.

(thot: how do i differ from helms, if i find mapplethorpe problematic b/c of his implied racism and helms finds cocks dirty)

anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:16 (twenty-one years ago)

hmm, to sum up, you're full of shit.
penthouse pictorials (which are really tame, I know, but this
is just for the argument) are only political OUTSIDE the
issue, inherently they are not political at all.
in other words, porn is only a political issue when the people who
sell them try are persecuted, which they see as unfair and
try to raise hell.

zootsuit (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:20 (twenty-one years ago)

and to immediately and unreservedly put porn (which is 99%
purely commercial masturbation-aids) in the category of
art is a real insult to filmmakers, sculptors, and painters
everywhere.

zootsuit (Squirrel_Police), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)

darrensLCoq, are those links worksafe?

gygax! (gygax!), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:22 (twenty-one years ago)

HELL no.

PS Vig where are you living now? Hope you're keeping well.

LC, Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:25 (twenty-one years ago)

why ?
whats art and whats porn ?

anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Does that mean I'm not allowed to jerk off to Whistler's Mother anymore?

J (Jay), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:43 (twenty-one years ago)

or on, for that matter?

Kingfish Balzac (Kingfish), Wednesday, 7 April 2004 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.