Quote:
Originally posted by LadyMischief
Although I agree that it would not be in this businesses interests to have Bush in office, the couple in question are a couple of fucking morons. They should have looked into the legality of portraying rape, as all that's required to take a court case from victory to instant loss for anyone in the biz is when shit like that is involved. Pornography falls under first amendment laws. The portrayal of brutalization and violence of women, even if it is NOT real, DOES NOT. If they had done a little research, they would have found this out and could have avoided the whole thing.
In the finished product, it's what's intended to be portrayed that is what is judged, NOT if it was real or not. Even if any blood was fake blood, the rape was fake, and the parties were willing, if it looks like rape, they will assume it is rape regardless.
Absolutely stupid.
|
Sorry LM but aparently you do not understand the first amendment. This is about judging based on so called "community standards," and not true free speech.
It is designed to protect speech we do not like.
If "The portrayal of brutalization and violence of women" does not fall under the first amendment if only acted out then there goes films, books, and rap music ;)
I do not advocate portraying rape in porn, and would not do business with a company that does. However I do advocate your right to view consenting adults doing whatever they wish as long as it's all fake.