looking for into / research that counters anti-porn laws | groups | arguments - GoFuckYourself.com

LouFromHell · 07-13-2007, 09:34 AM

Working on a side project putting some info online to rebuttal some of the MIM bullshit regarding constitutionality and social effects of pornography.

Arguments I already have include:

interpretation and application of the 1st amendment
the failure of the 3 presidential commissions dispatched to prove porn has adverse affects on society.
identification and irrelevancy of antiquated laws used in obscenity prosecutions
dissection of the words "victim" and "addition"
adult webmasters support of parental resources
hypocrisy of religious groups pertaining to protection of their own interests

Looking for any more creditable information to support either the above or new arguments that can be made. Also any links, etc for a suggested reading page. Thanks in advance for any help.

DaddyHalbucks · 07-13-2007, 09:56 AM

Porn is now a part of mainstream culture: paris hilton, pam anderson, janet jackson, girls next door, girls gone wild. You can order porn in the Marriott and at home via satellite or cable TV.

Obscenity is vague and unconstitutional in that it is undefined what constitutes a violation, and the standard is arbitrary and capricious.

Obscenity is prosecuted unevenly and for political purposes, which undermines its authority.

The connection between porn --and violence against women or children --is unproven.

Sex is accepted by doctors as medically healthy.

maxsweet · 07-13-2007, 10:16 AM

We went to court here in Canada a few years ago to defend our BDSM and watersports content against obscenity.

Our lawyer used expert witnesses on issues of pornography and mental health as well as exhaustively demonstrating the pervasiveness of this kind of material in modern society in general.

You may be interested in reading the judge's decision:

Sweet Entertainment Legal Verdict

lyno · 07-13-2007, 11:05 AM

Not sure... are you looking for stuff like that?

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_ar...y_rape_jp.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/p...kutchinsky.pdf
http://www.marciapally.com/Pages/sxsn.html

LouFromHell · 07-13-2007, 01:54 PM

Thanks for all replies thus far. The medical / professional research is primarily what I am looking for to support the arguments presented.

I am pretty up on the constitutionality aspect ... I became an expert after being federally indicted in 2003 for obscenity related charges. But there is a lack of published medical research supporting the notion that pornography doesn't contribute to the "unraveling of the moral fabric of society" or whatever they said I was responsible for. And it?s not because it isn?t there ... it?s just not politically correct to sign your name to anything that so many consider to be tabu. Especially after seeing what it did to the attorney general's career who suggested otherwise.

Thanks again for the info ... any more input on the topic is welcome.

07-13-2007, 09:34 AM	#1
LouFromHell Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 11	looking for into / research that counters anti-porn laws \| groups \| arguments Working on a side project putting some info online to rebuttal some of the MIM bullshit regarding constitutionality and social effects of pornography. Arguments I already have include: interpretation and application of the 1st amendment the failure of the 3 presidential commissions dispatched to prove porn has adverse affects on society. identification and irrelevancy of antiquated laws used in obscenity prosecutions dissection of the words "victim" and "addition" adult webmasters support of parental resources hypocrisy of religious groups pertaining to protection of their own interests Looking for any more creditable information to support either the above or new arguments that can be made. Also any links, etc for a suggested reading page. Thanks in advance for any help.

07-13-2007, 09:56 AM	#2
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	Porn is now a part of mainstream culture: paris hilton, pam anderson, janet jackson, girls next door, girls gone wild. You can order porn in the Marriott and at home via satellite or cable TV. Obscenity is vague and unconstitutional in that it is undefined what constitutes a violation, and the standard is arbitrary and capricious. Obscenity is prosecuted unevenly and for political purposes, which undermines its authority. The connection between porn --and violence against women or children --is unproven. Sex is accepted by doctors as medically healthy. __________________ Boner Money

07-13-2007, 10:16 AM	#3
maxsweet Confirmed User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Vangroovy Posts: 310	We went to court here in Canada a few years ago to defend our BDSM and watersports content against obscenity. Our lawyer used expert witnesses on issues of pornography and mental health as well as exhaustively demonstrating the pervasiveness of this kind of material in modern society in general. You may be interested in reading the judge's decision: Sweet Entertainment Legal Verdict __________________ Sweet Money - 9 Years worth of EXTREME EXCLUSIVE CONTENT Sweet Erotica - Your ONLY source for Pissing and Fisting Video Feeds

07-13-2007, 11:05 AM	#4
lyno Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Location: On my way to Sirius1 Posts: 474	Not sure... are you looking for stuff like that? http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_ar...y_rape_jp.html http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/p...kutchinsky.pdf http://www.marciapally.com/Pages/sxsn.html

07-13-2007, 01:54 PM	#5
LouFromHell Registered User Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 11	Thanks for all replies thus far. The medical / professional research is primarily what I am looking for to support the arguments presented. I am pretty up on the constitutionality aspect ... I became an expert after being federally indicted in 2003 for obscenity related charges. But there is a lack of published medical research supporting the notion that pornography doesn't contribute to the "unraveling of the moral fabric of society" or whatever they said I was responsible for. And it?s not because it isn?t there ... it?s just not politically correct to sign your name to anything that so many consider to be tabu. Especially after seeing what it did to the attorney general's career who suggested otherwise. Thanks again for the info ... any more input on the topic is welcome.