its not "more complicated"

there are clear legal lines and clear risks. you can't simulate killing someone in a porn film (snuff films), you can't fuck a dog.. you can't simulate rape.

and its worth pointing out that its not the prosecutor the federal court system, superior court or existing case law making any distinctions between whats ok and what isn't... its a bunch of moronic, anti social, dysfunctional idiots on a porn forum doing it.

only a true fucking idiot would risk his life, property and freedom for a few joins a day, knowing that he has a really good chance of finding himself having to spend $100,000 - $500,000 USD or more, a decade or more in jail, while being forced to stand up and make the argument in a court... to a community and group of 12 jurors that already think he's a scumbag, that there is a distinguishable difference between sleep assault type sites and a site depicting violent rape of a girl.

the fact that people even think it makes sense to squabble over the semantics when the risks and comparisons between the two content types are painfully obvious, shows to totally retarded people in this biz are.

There are legal lines, but laws are not superior to fantasy. You do not distribute porn in China - because it's illegal. You do not create simulated sleeping fetish/rape in states/countries where it's illegal. If you do, yes, then it's a risk. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not illegal everywhere. Simulations. Even fucking a dog, is also still legal some places. :)

The arguments - the moral discussion - is still there. So what are you saying? That showing dick/pussy, makes the acting (with consent) different from a Hollywood movie (which is often X times more extreme)? Are porn movies bad influence, compared to Hollywood movies and all the shit shown on TV? What's the difference, really - why should porn movies be discriminated?

IMO, no acting should be illegal as long it's adults who give, and are able to give, the consent. And as long you do not force others to watch - and make a statement for the retards who can't figure out it's not real...

You are right dirty dane for the most part. Where we have issue is that since our freedom of speech is not 100% protected in this business and not all speech is protected. The igovernment has placed restrictions on our industry as a whole, which in ways restricts our freedom of speech. Knowing that and then dealing with the other main issue we all have to deal with which is that we do not know if we have broken any law by making a film until a jury tells us so. That applies no where else in criminal law that I can think of. Most everyone else has clear lines. This side or act is legal, this side or act is not. Being a drug dealer is more clear than being a pornographer.

What about sites like http://www.chloroformedgirls.com/home.html

?

I have never been comfortable with them and not promoted them for that reason. Though, I can see why others wouldn't perhaps agree. To me, they have just been too close to a vibe where somebody's drink has been spiked or something similar.