|
Being against what he did and being against the way he was prosecuted are not contradictory positions. Obscenity law is a bad joke.
He was convicted in court of breaking a rule that is literaly defined by courts as 'we know it when we see it.' The only actress who testified said she was treated well, was over 18 at the time and fully consented. Nothing shown at the trial was in violation of any rule of law.
If you believe someone is doing something wrong you MUST either find an existing law they have specifically broken or put a new specific law in place preventing them from doing something again.
What people are against... and what society should never be allowed to do.. is jailing a man who is innocent of breaking any actual written laws. How much you dislike someone or what they did does not change the fact that they are innocent until proven guilty of violating an actual written law.
They could have tried to prosecute him for hate crimes, for some form of nonconsensual sexual assault, for 2257 violations, or for any other crime... If they had proof and witnesses and could make a strong enough case to convict him. They chose not to... either because they had no proof or because they thought it would just be easier to use the broken obscenity standard which requires no proof and completely lacks the specificity that all other Constitutional and criminal law depends upon. That is as wrong and MUCH more dangerous to
people living in the United State than anything a porn producer could ever have done to erode the rights of others.
The government shit on the face of ordinary people by relying on bogus obscenity standards... and most of this industry sat idly by like cameramen just doing their job.
|