New Federal Obscenity Prosecution

[gaybucks_chip]

well anal sex WAS illegal a few years ago

We have moved passed that, but must maintain our position to avoid being subserviant to straight society again in the future.

Actually not. There are still a number of states where anal sex is illegal in the privacy of one's own home, with a consenting partner. The Supremes ruled on the issue in Georgia, but there are other states with statutes that haven't been tested.

I've come to really respect and understand the viewpoint that Chad is putting forth. While a fair number of the people here might find certain depictions to be distasteful, even disgusting, we have to recognize that freedom of expression is a very precious right that has stayed pretty much unabridged over the last 225 years. The right wing losers and that bozo we have in the White House would love nothing more than to reverse that 225 year trend and control speech and expression... even more than they already have... and that's a scary thought.

It's easy to start by restricting something a lot of people can agree is offensive... but it's a very slippery slope.

I think by now most everyone who's read my postings knows that I generally dislike content that's potentially harmful to the models that are involved in producing it, I don't particularly like content that could be considered degrading or humiliating to the models that are involved in it, and I'm also uncomfortable with content that sends an unhealthy message (whatever that is.)

But my dislike or discomfort is far less important than the protection of the liberties that Americans enjoy -- at least until the loser Republicans take them away -- and so I will defend the right of any content producer to produce content that's offensive to me, simply because we cannot allow our precious freedom of expression to be limited or eroded by a bunch of right-wing losers (or anyone else, for that matter.)

[Squirt]

I thought the supreme court struck down all consentual sodomy laws :toff:

Actually not. There are still a number of states where anal sex is illegal in the privacy of one's own home, with a consenting partner. The Supremes ruled on the issue in Georgia, but there are other states with statutes that haven't been tested.

I've come to really respect and understand the viewpoint that Chad is putting forth. While a fair number of the people here might find certain depictions to be distasteful, even disgusting, we have to recognize that freedom of expression is a very precious right that has stayed pretty much unabridged over the last 225 years. The right wing losers and that bozo we have in the White House would love nothing more than to reverse that 225 year trend and control speech and expression... even more than they already have... and that's a scary thought.

It's easy to start by restricting something a lot of people can agree is offensive... but it's a very slippery slope.

I think by now most everyone who's read my postings knows that I generally dislike content that's potentially harmful to the models that are involved in producing it, I don't particularly like content that could be considered degrading or humiliating to the models that are involved in it, and I'm also uncomfortable with content that sends an unhealthy message (whatever that is.)

But my dislike or discomfort is far less important than the protection of the liberties that Americans enjoy -- at least until the loser Republicans take them away -- and so I will defend the right of any content producer to produce content that's offensive to me, simply because we cannot allow our precious freedom of expression to be limited or eroded by a bunch of right-wing losers (or anyone else, for that matter.)

[maxpower]

I thought the supreme court struck down all consentual sodomy laws :toff:

Ya but some state law still have not been changed is what he is saying, if the states try to prosecute someone for it I am sure it will get struck down eventually but I sure hope I am not the one that has to wait for the supreme court too get around to do it. :goatse:

[Squirt]

Ya but some state law still have not been changed is what he is saying, if the states try to prosecute someone for it I am sure it will get struck down eventually but I sure hope I am not the one that has to wait for the supreme court too get around to do it. :goatse:

Tell me what states it's not legal in. I'll be happy to have Max film there and proudly declare the name of the state on the boxcover of the video as "Gay sodomy proudly filmed in ______ ) Cum on Max.... you have lots of free time and are local to the U.S. :corncob:

[tombarr]

Well said Chad! My feelings exactly.

Justified? Depictions of conscious, informed adults engaging in consensual activities, those activities themselves that are not illegal, being the grounds to imprison someone is _justified_??

It is certainly legal to fist a willing partner all night long but if you film that legal activity it somehow should become a crime worthy of going to PRISON???????? And you call that JUSTIFIED?????

When is it NOT justified? When the porn is something that stimulates at least 51% of the population??

If someone draws the line at scat and piss, who is to say that the line shouldn't be drawn a little narrower, maybe at group sex? How about 3 somes? If shitting on someone is just too distasteful to defend, shouldn't cumming on the face be bad too? If 13 men ejaculating on 1 woman is bad, is 10 OK? How about just 5? If you can't support 5, how about just 2 men? Maybe one man cumming on the face of a woman is bad, but is it OK if men ejaculate on other men? Maybe we should just not support cumming on the face at all.

If piss is considered an obscene bodily fluid, why not semen? Is spitting as bad as pissing? I find one more distasteful than the other, but can I support the right to depict one and not the other ? Couldn't we feel a lot better about ourselves if we only supported the rights of producers to depict wholesome one man - one woman sex within the bonds of marriage, in the missionary position, in the dark, under covers, and with the intention to create a child?

Could we hold our heads higher if we didn't defend the right of consenting adults to engage in activities that they, as individuals, enjoy but we find distasteful? Should the 1st Amendment have a Blue Ribbon Committee to decide what sexual acts between grown ups are fit for publication? Who gets to decide what is worthy of support under the banner of free expression?

I have seen material that made my stomach churn but apparently turns some people on. The content involved only adults who were not under the influence of any drugs, who were voluntarily engaging in the activities and that they found pleasure not just in performing the act but they found pleasure in doing it for the camera. I won't ever pay money to see such content but I solidly support the rights of those that produce it and those that purchase it for their own enjoyment in the privacy of their own homes.

I support the rights of consenting adults to engage in activities they find stimulating. I support the rights of consenting adults to watch the depictions of other consenting adults engaging in activities _they_ find stimulating.

I do not believe that children can give consent. I believe that we must have a bright blue line to define children, otherwise we would get caught up in a messy, subjective and error-ridden "maturity test" I am happy with that bright blue line drawn at a person's 18th birthday.

I do not believe that animals can give consent.

I believe that consent must be made only by a sober, conscious adult. Fantasies that involve forcible sex, bondage or rape between consenting adults are just that --fantasies. I do not judge the worthiness of the fantasies of others. I only require that those involved have given, and not revoked, their consent.

This is my opinion. I do not care if anyone supports my right to hold this opinion, and I will listen to the opinions of others. I hope my opinion is not too distasteful to earn the protection of the First Amendment.


~Chad Belville
Phoenix, Arizona

[chadknowslaw]

Ya but some state law still have not been changed is what he is saying, if the states try to prosecute someone for it I am sure it will get struck down eventually but I sure hope I am not the one that has to wait for the supreme court too get around to do it. :goatse:

Sodomy laws may still be on the books of some states but those laws are essentially unenforceable. I believe the great and progressive state of Alabama finally was able to remove its Jim Crow laws in the year 2000, a not insignificant time after the US Supreme Court rulings of the 1960's that struck them down.

Virginia is still kicking and screaming with its sodomy law but so far they have not been successful. I can proudly say that my state of Arizona legislatively removed its sodomy law on its own a few years before the Lawrence case, but unfortunately there are still red neck trashy states that cannot let go of wanting to punish people for having sex.

[chadknowslaw]

Ya I did look it up, if JO/Cumming on someone is now going to be illegally we are all in deep shit, what’s going to be next, cuzz you know if you give them any ground all they are going to do is go after the next thing they have on some list, until NO porn is legal at all.

Max, you are correct. This is EXACTLY the problem with making judgements on the worthiness of content. If we as members of the adult industry do not support all forms of consensual adult expression, the fundamentalists will work to pick us off slowly by starting on the fringe. It is easy to attack the fringe porn and those producers have very little support from even within their own industry.

If you sit back and say "Oh shit that is disgusting! They DESERVE to go to jail for putting out that crap!" I can go down to the Bible Beater Fundamentalist Evangelical Jesus Joseph and Mary APostolic Church and drag 10 people away from praising jesus to look at YOUR content and I guarantee I can get some of them to say "Oh my goodness that is disgusting! They DESERVE to go to jail for putting out that filth!"

And NOW the "they" in the sentence is no longer the hard core fetish producer but YOU and YOU really wish there could be a few others standing up for you.

I do not draw the line at what I find disgusting. I draw the line at protecting people from other people and I do not believe in protecting people from themselves. If 100 people want to get together and have a fisting, scat, piss, puking, bondage bukkake vidoe taped party then more power to them. I only draw the line when there is not continual, sober, informed consent from each and every person involved.

[chadknowslaw]

"First they came for the communists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then, they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Martin Niemöller, a pastor in Germany before and during World War II

[chadknowslaw]

I respect the words and meaning behind Martin Niemöller's original words. I re-wrote a little so it becomes clear how the principles that applied in Nazi Germany are being applied to us today.


"First they came for the scat producers, but I didn't speak up because I didn't produce scat videos. Then they came for the pissing producers, but I didn't speak up because I didn't make piss videos. Then they came for the bukkake producers, but I didn't speak up because I didn't produce bukkake videos. Then they came for the gay porn producers, but I didn't speak up because I didn't produce gay porn. Then, they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."