The problem is that you can´t define the term "obcene". Obscene is what some people call obscene. And that´s why it´s a problem of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only exists if everybody can express himself and not only in the way a majority part of a society likes it.

good stuff.

Please give me the citation of the law that states that scat, pissing or fisting is illegal.

I already know where the obscenity statutes are, and I know the "Miller Test" that applies "community standards" to determine if a depiction is obscene, but I have not come across a law that specifically prohibits these performances. The definition of obscenity itself is vague and does not prohibit specific activities such as scat.

My point is that the definition of "obscenity" is a moving standard. You never really know if you cross the line because you cannot know where the damn line is in the first place!
I believe that the only fair and constitutional place to put that line is at consensual activities between sober willing adults. Then, other adults that knowingly want to purchase the video and watch it in their own home, that is still consensual. It harms no one.
I am not advocating playing "Toilet Man 6" on the DVD system of an SUV as it is driven past the elementary school. I advocate the rights of adults to do adult activities in private.

Ya hit the nail on the head Tony - stupidity by a minority provides the "food" to attack other areas. Would any prosecutor love to pull out the one scat or pissing video and highlight that with a jury instead of the other 5000 videos with oral sex activity?

Not sure if it applies in the US, but there can also be a "deliberate oversight" in cases in some countries where eg.. blowjob content can get wound in with more extreme content and then the lot becomes "illegal" - dangerous territory.

Actually in the US we do have the right to possess otherwise obscene materials at home. That has not lead to what I think is the obvious conclusion that producing obscene material is constitutionally protected.

Shit, vomit and pissing all involve willing adults = consensual activities.

Rape and CP are not consensual because rape by definition is not consensual and children cannot give consent.

Oh stop now if you are a lawyer you know what Im talking about. What are you his lawyer getting us ready for the donation drive lol.

Basically there have been certain standards for years - scat, pissing, torture, child porn, rape etc are clear-cut candidates for "obscenity". Anyone in the adult biz knows this from previous trials.

Sure, the flip side of the arguement can be vague - who defines what is obscene? Serveral law agencies give guidelines, some don't, and it's a matter for a jury to decide.

Only my :2 cents: - it's a matter of judgement and same as any print media editor would do in balancing his editorial content. Publishing a web site in the adult entertainment business has similarities - you either stand by what you publish and are willing to stand up court and defend this, or you are in the wrong business.

:thumbsup

No, I am not his lawyer, I am not associated with his lawyer and I don't practice criminal defense. I don't even know the guy. I am just frustrated with this goddam fundamentalist attitude in the US that wants to impose its moral views of what is right and wrong on the rest of the world.

I would bet if obscenity was clearly defined none of the vague bullshit. People would still produce those things under the I can do whatever I want excuse, that is the battle cry in net porn.

being against scat is not fundamentalist lol Do you know 5 people that practice scat in their own sex lives, I dont know one and I know a ton of perverts lol .

For some people you are already in it son.

Continental Europe is very relaxed on bukkake/pissing and fisting. Nor is it overly bothered by the scat either. So just to clarify its more of a US hang up.

And a friend of mine had the pleasure of lunch with Veronica Moser when she was over in London. A charming and delightful lady if somewhat open in conversation about her 'specialities' as it were. She is based in Germany and you can ring her up and pop round. All advertised openly! She would last 5 minutes in the US and most people on here would have her executed.

Not my cup of tea but live and let live I say. Shame you Americans do not have a more tolerant outlook.

OK... Assuming you are a lawyer if the nick is to be a guide...

What the hell has the "right to possess" got to do with "obscene publication"??

I'd go further and argue you have no right to possess in some instances - example: what laws apply where law enforcement seize child porn content from personally owned computers? (sorry - not familiar with US law in this instance).

Hmmm -- actually I don't know anybody into scat. At least not that I know of~

I have tell you on some things Germany has much tougher porn laws than the US.

Child porn is not the same as "obscenity" and there is no right to possess child porn.

HOWEVER, the US Supremes did rule that adults can constitutionally possess otherwise obscene materials in their own homes. I just don't know the citation off hand~

The trouble is that even though they found a right to POSSESS obscene materials in the privacy of the home, they did not come to the conclusion that someone has to PRODUCE it first and that action should be protected also.




I am a lawyer in good standing in Iowa and Arizona. You might run into me in Amsterdam this week at the Webmaster Access show~

I also find those content types and several others to be extremely gross and something I would not touch. Regardless of what my personal morals are though regarding the subject matter, as it was stated it is all between consensual adults and viewed by adults who want that subject matter. Therefore despite my thoughts it should be defended by us all.

I find all of these types of cases a very slippery slope. We should draw the line very simply ourselves. Consenting adults performing, consenting adults viewing; should always equal non obscene. Do not give them the leverage to polarize us on two sides, otherwise soon it will be something a bit tamer and the process will start over again. This time just a bit easier.

Many of us have seen what the lawyers have stated as the taboo lists. Besides what is being targeted now, they also listed homosexual material and many other areas of content that a good majority of us use. So where are you going to draw the line of defense at?

Oh and in regards to fisting, it did get found non obscene once in the past. Just look up and check into the Mapplethorpe case.

If you do not wish to be lumped into the same such categories by these moral crusaders because you find them sick as well, it it to late. You are already scum and pornographers (or at least advertisers of it) and they want to rid the world of you.

Taking a step back away from the issue it would be easy to say that teenish content looks wrong and caters to the wrong individuals. That bareback content promotes an unhealthy lifestyle and encourages such behavior. That group sex is akin to rape and it demeans women. That reality style content misleads the viewers into thinking that public sex is ok, and that it encourages the youth of America to think it is all accepted and normal expectations of women. The list could go on and on.

Remember that these moral crusaders are so mentally constipated that they are even against a swear word from appearing in a documentary aired on television. They do not care who is viewing what, and who likes what. If they dislike it, they want it gone for everyone. They desire to make the choices for you and what you should and should not watch, despite what your personal views happen to be and what you think is acceptable. Once you allow them to start policing morals and thoughts, you have given up your rights of self choice.

When it comes to freedom of expression, it is never about the majority and should always be about the minority. Even if it is just to adults; one who desires to rub poo and his chest and another who wishes to watch him do it.

Then tell me

Adult verification to view adult websites. Probably the strictest in the world.

That´s a good point and I agree with it, but only if the question is: "should the guy have known what not to do right now?"

What I tried to express was the following:

1st: there are good reasons to forbid cp, because it´s not likely that children will agree in sexual acts. Similar reasons apply for rape and so on.

2nd: there are no reasons to forbid what you summed up under the term "obscenity". So I may ask if it´s just right to condemn those sexual acts or - and that´s what I think about it - is it just a randomly choosen part to start with and other restrictions will follow. And the most important thing is who will tell what obscenity is?

Thank you counselor :)

Generally speaking this may be true, but there are differences between legal content and access to adult material.

Adult content is legal as long as it is not cp and violent (e.g. forced sexual acts like rape.) So pissing, scat and so on aren´t a legal problem. The german problem is that distributing adult content - especially online - is allwed only if there is no way for underaged people to get access.

So there are different adult verification systems in germany which pretty much all force a surfer to get his first access to an adult site by mail - yes, by regular mail.

The postman has to verify the customers age and that´s why you can´t sell adult entertainment sites online well. Some major companies like beathe Uhse have moved their online projects to The Netherlands for this reason.

Got ya!:thumbsup

So someone elected to make a difference between CP and "obscenity" at some point? (Sorry - deverting into US law)

Sure.. can see personal protections for whatever content privately held by individuals - this seems fairly common in most western countries.

Well... tho I'm in the adult biz and in a way speaking against it - can see why a court would not give rights to publish content which people may have a desire to have in their homes.

That would open the possibility of *any* content being published - porn, racist etc and, presumably the rights to "thrust it down throats" since it's "legal". Don't think that horse would run :)

are you serious?

would you move to brazil and start shooting and selling porn without at least aquainting yourself with the law, learning where the boundaries are and knowing what you can and cannot do?

would ANY attorney in the US or ANYONE ELSE for that matter say "yeah, its fine to sell this shit from florida and ship it from state to state?" Get fucking real.

jesus fucking christ people! this stuff is ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE in the Western World and beyond.

E-V-E-R-Y--F-U-C-K-I-N-G--W-H-E-R-E

its not like he was a poor immigrant doctor, trying to start a new life by opening a business selling ice cream cones on the streets of Orlando and might do 40 years for not having one of 10 licenses or permits.

quite frankly, i think that anyone stupid enough to argue "i didn't know" when doing the shit he was doing should be removed from the gene pool anyway.
:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Problem is nobody knows.

Obscenity is the US is one of the few laws that you do not know if you have possibly broken until twelve people tell you so.

If I kill someone, accidently or on purpose I still know I killed someone and the laws are clear either way. If I film that person, I have no idea if it is obscene or not until twelve other people tell me so.

Yes, I am serious about it. Maybe I didn´t find the right words, maybe you didn´t read my post.

I didn´t want to claim that he can excuse himself by "I didn´t know the law.".

Of course you have to make sure that you are compliant with the law of the country you are working in.

What I tried to say is maybe that stuff is forbidden in the US because "they"
call it obscene. But is it really OK to call it obscene?

And you are wrong, those stuff isn´t forbidden in all western societies. It´s pretty much a US stand alone. Only Switzerland doesn´t allow pissing content, most other European countries do.

Thank you, that´s what I tried to say. I should go to another English seminar...

Well said. :thumbsup

Sure.. the defendant is entitled to know what he's doing is "illegal". In this case it smells like there is no doubt he knew he was violating US law, but see your point. Back to a definition of obscenity?

Truth is as we prob know, it's not easy to define "obscenity" and prob the only way is to classify areas which may be subject to prosecution. Several countries do this already - tho these can only be interpreted as guidelines - nothing more. Back to the personal judgement to publish - ie are you willing to stand up in court with a vigorous defense and solid foundations as to why the material is not obscene?

Totally agree on your point 1

On point 2... Have to admit, I'm swayed by personal opinions - call me a narrow-minded warped ass :) I just think it's very hard to justify "publishing" content with excrement and vomit spewing up and if anything could be "obscene", this has got to be it :1orglaugh If someone is willing to pay money to watch this stuff - that money is better spent on a shrink.

What is obscene RIGHT NOW?? There is not one person that can tell me what is obscene. Scat, vomit, and other things considered "extreme" are on a variable list of things we are "pretty sure" would be FOUND to be extreme but there is no definition of extreme. We are operating under a standard to define "obscenity" that not even the Justices of the US Supreme Court could define! Justice Powell said that he would "know obscenity when he saw it" Thank you very much Mr. Supreme Court Justice. May I bring all of my client's content by your office so you can tell us if it is obscene or not? 'Cause otherwise we are just kind of guessing here.

So the state of Obscenity Law in the US today is not a nice clean list of what is bad and what is now. Obscenity is whatever a jury of 12 people chosen from any jurisdiction the DOJ chooses decides is obscene. And those jurors don't have any real guidelines to decide, which makes the law so unfair.

Plus we are in a situation where it is legal to possess a scat video in the privacy of the home but we are unsure how to get that legal material there. As I said before, we can legally possess materials that are considered obscene [not to be confused with child pornography] but the law is unsettled for producers that want to meet that market.

WOW, lots of authoritarians on GFY. :ugone2far

Ah the 'write to the customer to verify age bit' - or some such nonsense

Which is why they are all hosted in the Netherlands I guess!

..mind you once you have verifed your age you can watch Ms Moser doing her stuff to your hearts content! And more importantly Ms Moser can go on doing and avertising her stuff to her hearts content as well

OK, that´s why I think this obscenity term is a problem itself.

You don´t like scat? OK, I don´t like it, too. But freedom of speech only exists if both - you and me - let those do scat who like it.

I don´t like swallowing cum. So will it be obscene?

I agree if guidelines would exist, everything would be much easier. But why are there no guidelines? Maybe the authorities are much happier without them because it leaves a risk?

That is a great quote - but remember, historically speaking, the real "first" the Nazi's went after were the pornographers and the gays.

Especially gay, Jewish, communist pornographers. German homes are still required to have a furnace in the basement for them. *Tosses some more in the oven.*

And they claimed they would do it for "youth protection".

Cp, forced sex = Illegal
Piss, vomit, scat = not illegal until it is filmed and distributed.

There is a huge difference. While I do not support any of the above and find all of those acts highly disgusting I don't think anyone should be put in jail for the second set. The first set is another story and I think if found guilty they should be put to death or at least incarcerated for life.

Think about this for a minute.

If I were to show someone a pictures of a man dressed like Hitler fucking a black woman with a big smile on his face while giving a big thumbs up, I think many people would agree that it is in bad taste, obscene and just plain wrong (myself included). Now tell me the illegal act that is taking place in that picture.

There is a huge difference in what is obscene and what is harming someone. You should not be able to legislate bad taste.

Fisting... exactly how is that obcene? You can stick 4 fingers in your twat and your ok but if that thumb slips in you goto jail for 5 years. Give me a fucking break. The only reason fisting is even watched at all by the government is because it's a VERY standard act in a lot of Gay couples sexual practices and the government knows that they can control the mindless sheep in our country by drumming up anything that is unknown to them or outside their narrow field of vision, and in doing so can draw focus away from other actually important issues like healthcare and our kids dieing in a fucked up war. You can drop a bomb on someone but you can't paint the word FUCK on the plane that drops that bomb cause it would be obcence. That's the fucked up world we live in. Shitting and pissing vomit, well, I tend to agree that's crossing a line, but if it's between 2 consenting adults and not affecting you then why should you give a fuck.

I have also noticed ALL arrests that I can located due to obcenity all have one thing in common, Video tape sales. I still have not found a case where someone has been busted for having a website without actual hard copy sales of video tape, if someone has been arrested then I would like to see a link.

Lets all be good little sheep and worry about some how some legal concenting hole is being fucked and not worry about the actual state of our nation and the huge spiraling shithole of governmental deceit that has taken over our country.

bukkake, pissing and fisting is legal in EU

Sure.. obscenity is rarely defined as being X act or whatever. It is very hard to define and hence the jury. Sadly, that is part of the course for being in the adult business - always has been.

Some countries have tried to define it - eg.. "that which has a tendency to corrupt and deprave" (na.. don't laugh). In many ways, that can be a good definition for the adult biz - who can judge what will corrupt or deprave others??

OK.. Anecdote... Done the usual adult defenses over the years. Times move and along with them the standards for obscenity. It was not that long ago we were sitting in court discussing a well-endowed girl featured in a pathetic movie. Believe me - according to the prosecution her tits were obscene.

It came the time in the hearing to see the actual evidence (the movie)... the court windows were blocked out and the movie was run. First holdup was the judge could not get a good view - so the screen was adjusted :)

They started running the movie in the darkened court room - all that were heard from the jury area and where counsel were seated - "Oh.. nice tits!", "She's got a great pair of tits!" :1orglaugh The judge did not approve of these comments - but, who knows, may have enjoyed the show.

That case was more funny than anything and involved, in part, defense counsel (his Dad was a well-known comedy entertainer) reading works of "artisitic merit" from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales and with gusto explaining how the miller's wife stuck her ass out of the window and had a poker stuffed up. There were no convictions.

Swallowing cum would be obscene, and the producer sent to PRISON, if 12 people chosen at random all agreed that it was obscene. Those 12 people have no guidelines or direction to decide if it is obscene or not, just their own gut feelings. Damn, I do not like the idea of that. Anything can be obscene under the regime we live under right now. As I said earlier, in 1950 it would not be hard to get 12 people to determine that eating pussy was obscene but right now most of us now don't see anything obscene about it at all! That moving line is what keeps free expression limited to what the majority thinks is acceptable at the time, and free expression should not be limited to freedom to express what the majority wishes. Free expression protects the minority, not the majority.