Printable View
What: Bondage Webmaster is convicted of "forced labor" and "sex trafficking" for his sadistic sexual encounters with one of his so-called slaves.
When: U.S. District Judge Allyne Ross rules on May 17.
Outcome: Conviction remains intact.
Full Story: http://news.com.com/Police+Blotter+B...3-6185920.html
I dont mean to be an ass, or offend anyone, but middle aged women, should never be the judge on pornography cases.
That guys attorney should have requested to change venues and get a male judge, it seems like more and more female judges are putting down harsher sentences when it comes to anything even remotely related to 'pornography' and im pretty sure a big part of the reason are all those focus groups proclaiming that the women appearing in pornographic content are somehow 'abused' or scarred for life.
Regards,
Lee
This has less to do with the judge and everything to do with the jury.
Reading the article, the activities the two were engaged in were, by almost anyone's standards, pretty intense/severe (burning someone all over their body with a lit cigarette? I'm sorry, but that's fucked up, no matter how you slice it. Both of them need psychological help.)
Now... it does appear that the woman did consent to those activities, but in my book, if a guy is going to do that sort of shit, and then post it to the internet he ought to know that he's out on the edge, and that if anything goes wrong (a former model complains, for example), he's probably going to go down, because he's going to have a hard time convincing a jury composed of Aunt Ethel and her ilk that what he was doing was reasonable in the first place.
This isn't a free speech issue, in my book, it's an issue of asking a jury to determine reasonable behavior in a civilized society. The jury rightfully looked at whether there was consent on the part of the victim/slave, and apparently determined, hopefully based on the facts, that there was not.
Now... one can certainly argue that he had a release, there are the letters and emails in which the woman agreed to the actions, but I could probably also argue that the woman may not have been in a mental state to be able to give consent, in which case, the consent she gave would have been meaningless. Once again, if you're doing that sort of thing that's out on the edge, you have to assume the risks that go along with it, because you're going to have a hard time getting a jury to see your side.
It actually doesnt, not in the case of the appeal, the judge firmly made that decision all by herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Regards,
Lee
But... respectfully disagreeing with you, the appeal was based on the argument that the conviction on *sex trafficking* wasn't appropriate.
The judge wasn't ruling on whether or not the conduct was appropriate or offensive; the appellate ruling was based simply on whether or not the arguments the defendant made as to why the sex trafficking law didn't apply.
Although the entire reasoning isn't provided, I can infer from what was stated that the arguments the defendant's attorney made simply weren't convincing to the judge. I don't think it really went to whether or not the judge agreed or disagreed with porn, but to the technical arguments that were being made in an attempt to set aside the conviction.
Dude stuffed a wiffle ball in her mouth and tried to sew her mouth shut with a surgical needle. WHOA!
Isn't a wiffle ball a little bigger in diameter that a real baseball?
"Marcus was found guilty of sex trafficking and forced labor but not guilty of distributing obscene materials."
If the jury didn't consider his content to be obscene, then they were obviously liberal and willing to judge this case by the facts and not just ethics. If he was found guilty of anything, then he probably deserved it.