Inclined to agree.... tho if it did come to presenting a defense to a jury, it's pretty hard to anticipate the outcome when you could be talking about the "views" of a couple of jurers who, whether we like it or not, can have their own prejudices :)

But sure - think there could be a reasonable defense. This is one (or two) areas, unlike the "extreme" element, where the adult industry would need to stand up and be counted.

Why should CP not be legal?
There are people who are obsessed with it and aparrently derive a great deal of pleasure from it.
Who are you to say it should not be legal.

By the same token there are people who derive a great deal of pleasure by killing people. ie serial killers.
Who are you to say it should not be legal.


.

Didn´t get the difference, huh?

There are victims in the first case described above and there aren´t in the other. That´s makes the difference.

It´s not a question of liking something, but it´s a matter of somebody getting violated by another persons action. As long as there are no such violations, it´s just a matter of morals born in the middle ages.

I think I found your Bible Beater Fundamentalist Evangelical Jesus Joseph and Mary Apostolic: :1orglaugh

:offtopic (Just a little bit off topic, but it's in the same park)

Watch out guys she is sneaking up behind you and she is a woman scorned by a husband who enjoyed sex with anyone but her. :1orglaugh

How do you think she feels about Internet Porn? What do you think Hillary and her administration will do, if she got in office, to Internet Porn that is nothing but normal one on one guy girl sex? :Oh crap


Hillary Clinton for 2008? This should scare the tar out of all internet users
Its sounds like a bad joke, but what does Hillary Clinton and China have in common? Seems that Hillary Clinton and China may have similar outlooks on regulation when it pertains to the internet. Today, China set new regulations on internet news and ?widening a campaign of controls it has imposed on other Web sites, such as discussion groups?. (hmm could this affect GFY?)

The state bans the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest,? the official Xinhua news agency said in announcing the new rules, which took effect immediately. The news agency did not detail the rules, but said Internet news sites must ?be directed toward serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests.? Established news media needed permission to run a news Web site, it said. New operators had to register themselves with government information offices.

So the Chinese government is going to ensure that the internet maintain national, public interests and not have anything that they deem against national security? I know what everyone is saying, this is China, what do you expect? Not so fast my friends, as The Drudge Report reminds us it was only seven short years ago that Hillary Clinton said the following that she would like us all in the internet world to forget:

?we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with? the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.

?We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ? Without any kind of editing function or gate keeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?? she said.

Does some one maybe think that Hillary Clinton may need to inform us just how she does think about today?s ?freedom of speech? on the internet? She continues on to say in her 1998 interview:

?I don?t have any clue about what we?re going to do legally, regulatory, technologically ? I don?t have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I?m a big pro-balance person. That?s why I love the founders ? checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be ? political, economic, technological ?out of balance, you?ve got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people?s rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information ? ?

Accountable power? Oppression of people?s rights? Manipulation of information? What is she referring to government abuse of one?s freedom of speech by limiting or regulating the internet? No, she is referring to internet users. I think Hillary Clinton has a lot of answering to do to all that use the internet to see if she hasn?t got a clue over the last six years. This interview took place in 1998 during her husband?s sex scandal and she has the audacity to speak of manipulation of information? The internet and free speech must just be another right wing conspiracy. Wonder how the Daily Kos feels about that? Left or right, freedom of speech is just that. Hillary, keep your hands off out internet.

But the current administration does not convict you, they only arrest you. A jury will decide if you go to jail or not.

I don't give a shit if they want to wipe out all porn or not. I just want to feel confident that I can defend what I am doing and it will not disgust all of the people on the jury.

Your comments that they are coming for all porn is correct, whether we fight them on the hardcore extreme stuff or not. So your thinking that if we don't go out and defend it all they will come for more and more 100% WRONG. They will come for more regardless, so why fight them and likely lose on the hardcore extreme stuff. Why not fall back to what we all know is accepted by the public (fuck the administration) and fight the battles we know we can win. I think more damage is done in the eyes of the public by us saying we support the extreme hardcore stuff, that 99% of them do not like. If we lose those cases I think it also gives the DOJ more ammunition to go further.

As a first admendment attorney i know you want to protect everything. As a business person I want to weight my options and make a wise business decission.

Does anyone remember the Brazillian promotion his extreme content/dvd site here on GFY???

The reason I remember the site is because I had never seen a content site selling so many extreme titles. It was a massive amount of extreme fetish covering everthing listed in the court documents. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same guy. I usually bookmark every content site I come across, but I was so discussted by the screenshots alone I was quickly looking for the Back button....and that's saying something! :throwup

Sure some might think kissing is obscene, but thankfully there are a lot more then 1 person on the jury. I only need 1 juror to say, Hey I don't think anal sex is obscene.

I wouldn't feel confident that i could get 1 person on a jury to say that about some of this extreme hardcore stuff.

I know alot of sexually open people , I know a shit load of dommes pro and not.I cant name one person who does scat play as part of there sex life. Can anyone here name anyone they know? I think extreme stuff like scat sells because no one does it and its so over the top people want to see. Also I might add scat play is very dangerous, thats why we are taught to wash our hands after taking a crap.Also just because there is a market for it doesnt mean its right to do. I bet there is a market for chopping up models after fucking them bet it would sell good that doesnt mean we should do it. Im sorry I dont buy into its all porn so we have to buy into it on some level and defend it. Bullshit.

you know I love and respect you a great but you dont know what your talking about. You took a speech and took it way out of context because some rightwing pundit told you so. You voted for this poor excuse for a president, I would just be quietly embrassed if I was you .

As i am reading more and more post.... one thing you people need to understand.

The public or the vast majority of them do not buy into the " consenting adults" argument that so many of you are pointing out here as " your defense" to what should be illegal or not.

What you think is illegal or not DOES NOT MEAN SHIT.

What you you personally like or not DOES NOT MEAN SHIT.

While you may think that anyone who can give consent should be legal no matter what they do even if it is shit on each other, then piss in her mouth, hold her down and abuse her, etc... THE PUBLIC will likely find that obscene not matter if the participants consented or not.

If you want to change the laws then start a campaign to make " Consenting adults - anything goes" into law. Until then you better be more concerned about what the public thinks is obscene and not trying to argue here why you think anything consenting adults do should be ok.... your are giving yourself a false sense of security and possibly a rude wake up call.

Like there really was a choice.

I'd hate to break it to you but ketchup boy wasn't any better

You can die from having unprotected sex but porn shows that all the time.

Don't get me wrong, I don't promote these things (though cumshots sometimes) and they gross me out. I am not even arguing that you aren't likely to get convicted for doing it. I just don't think it should be illegal even if I find it gross.

I don't argree there either. There would be no 12 "random" people. I am not an attorney but there is such a thing as voir dire correct? I am sure from a jury pool a good attorney in any location can manage to get one person on the jury who repersents what an average person in the US feels about sexual activities. Even if you are in rural Pennsylvania.

BULLSHIT. maybe 50 years ago. I am sure some americans, ESPECIALLY the religious ones would find it offensive, but not the average american.

And so what if some did. I don't need to convince all of the jurors, I just need to feel confident that 1 will not find it obscene. Which in the case of anal sex I don't think you will find 12 for 12 people saying it is obscene in any part of the US.

I love you too baby and this is what makes us great because we can disagree and still be friends. So with that said I will repeat the first part of my little speech:

Watch out guys she is sneaking up behind you and she is a woman scorned by a husband who enjoyed sex with anyone but her.

How do you think she feels about Internet Porn? What do you think Hillary and her administration will do, if she got in office, to Internet Porn that is nothing more than guy/girl sex?

Please believe this woman DOES NOT LIKE PORN. She is one of those left wing nut jobs who think porn degrades women because ?us? women are too stupid to think for ourselves and make decisions to enjoy sex. Although they love the fuck out of abortion to the point they hand out shirts to women who have them. Abortion will never be illegal, just like porn will never be illegal.

My main point being is this is not a left or right thing it's an individual thing. There are going to be people on both sides that hate it and people on both sides that don't mind it. Pick your battles and vote the right way. I am just warning everyone about Hillary. Mark my words, if that woman gets in office porn will suffer. But porn will never go away. They will never take porn off the net. They didn't like the magazines and videos at one time, some probably still don't, but they are not going anywhere just like Internet Porn is not going anywhere. :thumbsup

but what about the people who did not ask to see this content but yet they got 20 spam mails saying " you won" as the subject and they open it and its a picture of someone shitting on someone. Or doing a search in a SE for "free stuff" and getting search results for a scat site with a free 3 day pass. Or going to a regular porn site and having 5 pop ups coming up when you exit showing scat content on it.

Sure in a perfect world, if consenting adults order videos from other consenting adult to watch in their home, that would be fine. But you know it doesn't work that way.

That made me laugh out loud! Thank you for that one! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I agree with you, she is truly the scariest person on the political scene.
She has however, little to no chance of winning the election if she runs.

The radical left has thrown her overboard becase shes not radical enough, meanwhile shes straddling the middle trying to be a centrist.
Its not going to work.

There is a "white area" "light grey" " grey" "dark grey" and " black". Everyone here knows basically where the content they work with falls into. With each area there is a risk, as you move more into the grey and black area your risk of being arested go up and your chance of being convicted go up.

I look at this as a business. There is a small risk that i will be arrested for the content i work with, but i recognize the chance is there. But i do feel confident that since i am in the not so grey area, there is a very very small chance that I would be convicted.

There are 3 types of people, well 4 people here who want to defend the extreme stuff. The people with the " fuck the govt attitude" lol you know who you are. The people who this is a lifestyle to them and like any lifestyle don't mess with any part of it and tell me how i should live etc... The people who already make money off of these extreme hardcore acts and do not want to stop making money from it. Lastly there are the attornies who want to defend everything and have many of the same opinions of the other 3 types of people. BUT unlike everyone else, what will the attorny lose if he loses the case.

exactly.

everyone loves democracy as long as the results are favorable to them or they agree fully with them. the second they don't agree... its a "conspiracy" by "the man"

you dont have to agree or like it. there is a process to change it. its been in place for 300 years. its worked quite well. its the same political process that others, concerned about their views and opinions that they are actively exploiting against those who are doing nothing but complaining, pointing fingers and talking trash about idiotic political driven conspiracies against them.
:2 cents:

True! True! I feel she has no chance of winning. But I know she loves N.O.W. a radical left group, and they love her. They also hate this stuff:

http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/offensiveads.html

So if they hate that imagine what they think about a girl actually having sex?

Read the shit under the pictures. They see it as women being weak so therefore that is the way it is they made up our minds. BULLSHIT, I see woman in power. Just because a woman is sexy and acting sexy or having sex doesn't mean she lower than a man. I just don't get it. In one hand they want women to be empowered but on the other if women are at all sexual they are weaker than men. Shit, 90% of the men I know turn to puddy in the presence of a hot woman. We are the prettier sex we can't help that, but we can use that. Granted you need more than looks to get through life but there is nothing wrong with using ALL our natural born talents. Men do.

I am telling you people these are the groups to watch out for. They do not believe women can be sexy and smart. I believe there are tons of hot smart chicks out there and that is one deadly/powerful combination. Oh My God these people piss me off. They are SOOOOO closed minded to the fact that they demean women by thinking a woman is too stupid to know what she is doing.

AHHH okay I am done with this subject because it pisses me off too much and I?m done with this thread. Continue on with fear of Internet Porn slowly being banned period........*cough* never *cough*???..and only by one group of people.

BTW here are the positive ads :1orglaugh

http://loveyourbody.nowfoundation.org/positiveads.html

Can anyone say BRAIN WASHING.....................my God men have sexier ads and it's no biggie.

They are so weak. Oh I just can't stand them. Okay now I am really done. :thumbsup

Very interesting. Although I'd be surprised if shes had sex with a man, Bill or any other man in quite a few years.
I know its rumor but theres alway at least a bit of truth to a rumor.

Speaking of N.O.W. have got to be some of the ugliest women ever.
Molly Yard, Eleanor Smeal and Hillary I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.
Makes my skin crawl to think about it.

.http://www.picturehost.com/d/5222-1/...on_bobbit.jpeg

.

Not true .... Fisting is legal in Canada.

idiot kid ....

idiot - i knew that
kid - in your moms basement

What are you a 12 yr old?

God... this thread has deteriorated to the usual US political bullshit... :disgust

There may be elements of "political" in the issue of obscenity but more a matter of what a jury will accept - not some drivel over US party politics.

you deserve an award for that post

They all ran scared from Acacia(except a really small group) ,they are going to fight the government lol

People here already know my views so I shall not again rehash them. Seems to be a pretty clear line between pornographers and advertisers that love to label themselves as because it sounds cool.

Allow me to ask a simple question since everyone is so hung up on scat. I will grab a very close niche when you think about it, that many here do promote in some way. Here is the question. Will you keep the same attitude when they hit ass to mouth content?

Fat chance :winkwink: :thumbsup

Half of em would be pissing their frilly panties and talking their mouths off if the FBI knocked on their door - forget the court case. Hell.. they ain't lived or qualified to be in adult till they defended a few obscenity cases :winkwink:

Just bringing this off of the bottom of page 3.

I think atm shouldnt be done also its dangerous for performers.

Dangers aside, legal moral stand point please.

Almost all content can be dangerous to performers, even girl girl oral.

glad their asses got locked up.

Child porn is an easy test -- was one of the performers under 18 at the time the image was taken? That is a simple yes or no question. If the answer is "Yes" then the material is child porn and is contraband. CP is illegal to make, sell, or possess. CP has a victim too -- the child model. This is an objective test and easy to understand. CP is not legal at any level.

Obscene material is different. The producer and distributor can be convicted but the individual that has it in his home cannot. It is legal to possess obscene material.

What is obscene is not an easy test. Hell, we don't even have a static answer key for that test! Is it obscene? We have to take 12 people [after voir dire as earlier mentioned] and then present the material to them and then those people must deliberate to decide if what they saw was so horrible and offensive that the producer should be put into prison for making it. Since this test is so subjective, it turns on the _opinions_ of the jurors. And that makes it unfair in my mind. I would probably give up my stance if obscenity was clearly defined in the law, for example, if depictions of human defecation and ingestion of fecal matter are defined by law to be obscene. That is a bright line that would probably bring the vast majority [probably over 99%] of webmasters and pornographers to the truce table. However, right now what is obscene is defined by "community standards" -- whatever THOSE are. The DOJ likes to pick conservative jurisdictions to file their cases, knowing that the "community standards" in rural Pennsylvania are different from the community standards of urban Los Angeles. Then rural Pennsylvania community standards are applied to a product that is sold all over the US, to all kinds of communities, yet the standards of a community the producer never even visited are applied to his work. I find that patently unfair!

Could we get a jury to decide if your bathwater is too cold to bathe in ? If there was a federal law that mandated bathwater in commercial baths must be of sufficient temperature to bathe, then deciding if J's BathHouse broke the law would be a subjective test. Maybe a jury in Alaska would think that bathwater that is 28F saltwater [just like the water where the Titanic sank ]is not too cold to bathe in but the jury from Miami would be shocked when you had them slip into that icy cold tub. You can get different results from different juries, and thus that subjective test is not fair and does not apply to everyone evenly. If the law is that bathwater in a commercial bath must be at least 75F then the question is presented as "Was John Doe's bathwater at J's BathHouse below the limit of 75F?" That is an objective test and John knows for sure his bathwater is colder than the mandated standard, even if his customers are members of the Polar Bear Club and want it that cold. Then John is clearly breaking the law and deserves punishment that fits the crime.

I don't believe in "anything goes" because I don't believe those under 18, animals or dead bodies can give consent. I do believe that consensual activities among sober adults that is filmed and sold to adults that _want_ to see it [unwanted spam is _not_ going to consenting adults] should not carry a prison sentence.

I personally do not take on criminal defense cases simply because my heart is not in it. I spent too much time as an elected prosecutor to sit at the other table and put forth an argument that my client did not do something when I know damn well they fucked up. I won't try to bullshit anyone that I would want to represent a defendant in one of these cases -- I may take some shit for this but honestly I want someone else to fight that battle.

Juries are funny entities. I have seated a lot of juries, and even after studying their responses to a written questionniare and then questioning each potential juror individually, there can be surprises. Plus, that one holdout that you may have can end up caving in when the other 11 jurors pressure him into voting to convict. It can be that simple -- 11 jurors think the defendant is guilty, the 12th is convinced that the defendant is not guilty, but after 10 hours of deliberations that 12th juror decides to give up and vote to convict so they can all go home. Maybe the defendant gets lucky and gets me as the 12th juror and I convince the other 11 to vote not guilty!
But it could also end up in a hung jury and the whole trial starts over. The defendant then is faced with more damn attorney fees to go through another trial or throw in the towel and take a plea agreement.

I am hoping that the current obscenity cases go all the way and we get a new more usuable definition of obscenity. The 1973 Miller Test using community standards just does not work in the internet world. It may have been appropriate in 1973 when porn was sold only in bricks and mortar stores or shown in theaters, and we knew what communities were reasonably safe to sell in and which were a prison sentence waiting to happen. Now that the entire internet world is the community and the most conservative community standards can be applied to any content, that test is no longer reasonable.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I need to highlight this.

The example I gave was a mother taking a picture of her child playing in the bathtub and being charged with CP when the person developing the pictures called police. They were not for distribution. They were for her child's photo album.

There is QUITE a difference between THAT and CP. If THAT can be classed as CP, then I'm sorry, that's not an easy test at all. Even if it IS easy to define simply because they're under 18, that doesn't make it right.

I'm sure I've got a couple of pictures of my children in the bathtub too. Are you saying that my wife and I should be charged with possession of CP, or did you run through and simplify that part, then move on to the obscenity issue because that was the issue at hand? That's fine, but I'd like some clarification on that.

Agree Chad - juries can go *anywhere* - swayed by some irrelevant minor utterance or miss the point of the evidence. It's very hard to say what a jury is thinking and looks can be deceptive - I've had, eg two elderly ladies and a guy who looked like he wanted to see a death sentence come up after an obscenity trial when they returned not guilty verdicts and apologized for the hassle/stress caused by the prosecuting agency. Very strange that people felt the need to do this - but sure appreciated speaking with them and hearing their real thoughts.

Would not have any experience to offer an opinion, but often thought a long and/or complex trial could be better served without a jury and perhaps three judges hearing the evidence.

Totally agree on "community standards" - the net never was so small it could take account of community standards :thumbsup

Anyone warped enough to claim the common baby-in-the-bathtub images are CP, need a few sessions with a shrink. They are sick.

But... hate to say it, there is another side to this and one which does not need to be overlooked. Law enforcement come across some very strange conduct by parents - and sadly this is not uncommon and can be a issue where a law officer with some experience of this field may matter. Forget CP - thats often an offense after the horse has bolted - the real issue is child abuse.

Despite that, can give a good example which happened recently. A friend in law enforcement who happens to be very familiar with situations in the last para wanted to show me pics of her niece (6 months old). Fine - just upload them to a server and I'll pull them down. But - nope :winkwink: And so all the reasons why not emerged - basically along the lines of "even normal pics of children" are a source for weirdos and she never wanted to be the person responsible for having her niece plastered all over the net. This judgement was made thru experience of dealing with the worst of net conduct - sadly that is a reality tho most of us will never know of.

It's very weird that personal websites with images of families can now be thrown into the pot for misuse by others.