In Defense of Extreme Pornography

Why Janet Romano and Rob Zicari have no business being in federal prison.

In late September, as a controversial movie director spent the first week of her year-long sentence at FCI Waseca, a federal prison in Minnesota, Harvey Weinstein didn’t bother to circulate a petition demanding her release. Debra Winger didn’t issue a statement protesting the director’s incarceration and anticipating her next masterwork. Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation, didn’t publicly wonder why the government had spent the last seven years trying to put the director in jail.

Maybe Janet Romano should have drugged and sodomized a 13-year-old. Or, at the very least, had better cinematic taste. Unlike Roman Polanski, Romano has never won an Oscar for Best Picture. In fact, the 31-year-old porn auteur, 
whose credits as a director include Pain and Suffering, I Love to Hurt You, Cannibalism, and Sexual Intrusive Dysfunctional Society 2, has never even won an AVN Award for Most Outrageous Sex Scene.

Still, you’d think many of the creative types rallying around Polanski would be equally sympathetic to Romano’s plight. Essentially, she’s in prison for rape, too—as is her husband, Rob Zicari. But as Whoopi Goldberg might have put it, 
the rape that landed them in the slammer wasn’t actually rape-rape. It wasn’t even ‘70s-style-libertine rape. Instead, it was movie rape, a scene enacted by consenting adults.

Zicari and Romano, known in the porn industry as Rob Black and Lizzy Borden, were the primary figures behind Extreme Associates, a production company, which, along with a few others, began pushing the boundaries of what the mainstream adult video industry depicted in the late 1990s.

Of course, it wasn’t just porn that was growing more extreme in those days—all pop culture was. It was the heyday of Marilyn Manson and Eminem, South Park, professional wrestling, Jackass, Fear Factor, World’s Wildest Police Videos, Girls Gone Wild, Tom Green, and most of all, the Internet, where websites like Rotten.com and Stileproject.com were assembling vast visual libraries of any taboo or depravity that could be digitized: gruesome crime and accident scene photos, animal snuff, people disfigured by bizarre medical conditions.

Along with everyone from NBC executives to computer nerds living in their parents’ basements, Zicari and Romano simply jumped into the fray. Hollywood slasher films chopped nubile teens into pieces, so why couldn’t they simulate similar antics in their own efforts? Hollywood reality shows featured contestants eating pig rectums for money, so why couldn’t they engage in their own gross-out stunts?

In their videos, female performers (and the occasional male one) were slapped, spat on, and verbally degraded. Rapes and murders were depicted. Vomit was vomited, then consumed again along with other bodily fluids. And of course there was explicit hardcore sex. Had Zicari and Romano stuck to just rape and murder, with some R-rated nudity to complement artful scenes of mutilation and dismemberment, as Hollywood does in movies like Hostel and House of 1000 Corpses, they could’ve avoided a lot of trouble. Likewise, had they focused on hardcore sex and kept the violence and puke out of it.

By mixing these various elements, however, they earned a 10-count indictment on obscenity charges in 2003. In the eyes of many in the adult industry, they’d brought this trouble on themselves. A year earlier, a PBS Frontline documentary on porn included shots of Romano filming simulated rapes and murders that the members of the Frontline crew found so disturbing they fled the set. At a time when anti-porn organizations were increasingly pressuring the Bush Administration to resume obscenity prosecutions against the adult porn industry—which had fallen by the wayside during President Clinton’s years in office—this was not exactly the kind of PR effort that mainstream adult companies like Vivid Entertainment and Wicked Pictures wanted to put out there. Nor was Zicari’s combative rhetoric appreciated. “We've got tons of stuff they technically could arrest us for,” Zicari told Frontline. “I'm not out there saying I want to be the test case. But I will be the test case. I would welcome that.”

In 2004, when I interviewed Zicari for a Reason article on the federal government’s newly energized campaign against the porn industry, he remained defiant. “This is the World Series, and they're the Boston Red Sox,” he exclaimed. “They're getting a chance that they haven't had in 9 billion years, and if they blow this, they can never come back. Because where can you go after a jury says there's nothing wrong with these movies? How do you go after a movie involving a husband and wife and the guy's wearing a condom? How do you get someone to go after that, when you couldn't even prosecute a tape where the guy comes in the girl's mouth, and then he fucking stabs her? This is their one shot, and they fucking know it.”

In January 2005, it seemed as if the federal prosecutors had whiffed—U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster dismissed the charges against Romano and Zicari, ruling that federal obscenity laws were unconstitutional because they violated one’s “right to sexual privacy, which encompasses a right to possess and view sexually explicit material in the privacy of one’s own home.” Later that year, however, an appeals court reversed this controversial ruling, and the government resumed its case against the couple.

As the case dragged on, it attracted less and less attention, ultimately becoming the the judicial equivalent of the celebrity who you thought died years ago but is actually quite extant. And while the federal government never really ramped up its crusade against the porn industry enough to satisfy the anti-smut forces or terrify Playboy subscribers, it did continue to intensify its efforts. In 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales expanded the government’s anti-obscenity efforts by creating the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, which, he explained, would be staffed with the DOJ’s “best and brightest” prosecutors.

In 2008, those prosecutors won a victory against Paul Little, aka Max Hardcore, convicting him on 10 counts of violating federal obscenity laws, a verdict that led to a 46-month prison sentence. Earlier this year in March, just a few weeks before their own case was scheduled to go before a jury, Zicari and Romano accepted a plea bargain when the government offered to reduce its case against them to a single count of conspiracy to distribute obscene material.

“We felt like they had the best chance to get the least amount of time if they pled,” says Jennifer Kinsley, an attorney at Sirkin Pinales & Schwartz, the law firm that represented Zicari and Romano throughout their seven-year legal battle. “Financially, this case really destroyed them. People became afraid to do business with them on the production side and the distribution side.” Their business no longer exists. Neither one has produced or directed a video since 2005. “They went from living in a very nice house that they owned to sharing a small apartment with a roommate.”

Now, they’re in prison, Romano at FCI Waseca in Minnesota, and Zicari at FCI La Tuna in Texas. According to Kinsley, Zicari was supposed to serve his sentence at FCI La Tuna’s minimum-security satellite facility, but he mistakenly reported to its primary facility 30 miles away. Instead of transferring him to the satellite facility, however, prison officials kept there. “But then they ended up putting him in solitary confinement [for nearly a month] because that was the only space they had available,” Kinsley says.

Granted, hardcore pornographers don’t make for the most sympathetic victims, even when they’re financially strapped and thrown in the hole simply 
for poor navigation skills.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    How on earth can anybody accuse John Waters of bad taste?

  • dennis||

    What the fuckity shiteating jizz slurping vaginal mucus ingesting FUCK! This is one area where I thought maybe just maybe President Obama (hallowed be his name) would actually be an improvement on the last jackass. To enact, enforce, or even support laws like these is a moral abomination and there is no fate too severe for the bastards behind this outrage. Fuck them, I hope they are homeless, hopeless, and hairless by 3 PM.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    You left out His middle name. He might be of more help when the actresses are veiled.

  • Boston||

    The case was going on (possibly ended)before the election so I don't think his Barackness has anything to do with this. I don't think there have been any new obscenity cases so at least you have that going for you (I didn’t RFTA). Nice Dirty Work quote though.

  • dennis||

    You were also one of the eight people in the United States to see that film? Did you happen to catch "Screwed" as well? As to Obama, he is morally obligated to pardon these victims.

  • Boston||

    he is morally obligated to pardon these victims.

    Oh no doubt. Though the same can be said for a LOT of people.

  • Boston||

    Screwed no. I did see Beer League though. I liked it, which might not make me the best arbiter of taste.

  • dennis||

    Screwed was awesome. Norm McDonald, Dave Chapelle, Danny Devito, Sherman Helmsley, and Laine Stritch.

  • Robert||

    Is that the same Screwed I saw? The one about Al Goldstein?

  • ||

    If you had RTFA, you would have seen this: According to Jennifer Kinsley, the Task Force isn’t just continuing old cases that began in the Bush era, it’s also actively seeking out new ones. “Someone was asking me the other day why this is still happening,” she says. “I think the reason is that Brent Ward is still there. Had he been asked to resign, I don’t think these cases would still be going on. But basically the Obama Administration has left the previous decision-makers in their offices.”

    So, yes, Obama is responsible for anything that happens on his watch, unless it happens over his veto or his strenous attempts to fire the responsible person.

    Which isn't the case here.

  • Boston||

    Okay. Like I said, he seems to be on the hook for not pardoning this person. As he is on the hook for not pardoning tons of people that a victims of consensual crimes. On the

    isn’t just continuing old cases that began in the Bush era

    I’m unaware of any others, though I could be mistaken. And

    it’s also actively seeking out new ones. “Someone was asking me the other day why this is still happening,” she says. “I think the reason is that Brent Ward is still there. Had he been asked to resign, I don’t think these cases would still be going on.

    This seems to me to be pure conjecture.

  • ||

    If Obama doesn't intend to prosecute obscenity anymore, then why hasn't he disbanded the task force?

    "We don't intend to prosecute pornographers, we just, ummmm, are paying a bunch of our best and brightest lawyers to work on an anti-porn task force charged with prosecuting porn."

  • Boston||

    My uneducated guess, dismantling it would cause to much bad PR for it to be worth it. You may be right. We will see.

  • LarryA||

    If Obama doesn't intend to prosecute obscenity anymore, then why hasn't he disbanded the task force?

    It would set a terrible precedent: That government agencies can be disbanded.

  • ||

    I'd assume he could redirect the task force to go after Fox News.

  • Br'er Rabbit||

    Currently, the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force is led by Alberto Gonzales appointee Brent Ward, a man who once led a crusade in Utah to get nude art-class models to wear bikinis. According to Jennifer Kinsley, the Task Force isn’t just continuing old cases that began in the Bush era, it’s also actively seeking out new ones. “Someone was asking me the other day why this is still happening,” she says. “I think the reason is that Brent Ward is still there. Had he been asked to resign, I don’t think these cases would still be going on. But basically the Obama Administration has left the previous decision-makers in their offices.”

    Well here's one job Obama "saved".

  • Xeones||

    Yo, SugarFree, you gonna bless us with some links or what?

  • ||

    NutraSweet is out of town today. Unless he decides to grace you with his presence from his iPhone, you get Jack Shit.

  • ||

    What, he's out of the Internet? Where is he, Mars?

  • JB||

    Especially retarded considering there is mounting evidence that porn is good for society:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....22028.html

  • John Tagliaferro||

    Especially when that mounting is from behind during double penetration.

  • Kroneborge||

    hmm, I don't know. I guess the question is whether there is EVER any types of work that are so far beyond the pale that they could be illegal.

    I'm kind of torn here, because I really don't like the government censoring stuff like this, but then again, shouldn't there be limits?

    Course I'm probably not as libertarian as some here, lol.

  • dennis||

    As long as the creation of the piece doesn't violate someone's rights (like a real rape film, or a snuff film, or something like that) no, there should be no limits.

  • Hanyou||

    I agree so much with this. And I'm a fairly conservative Christian in my personal life who hates pornography and doesn't think anything good really can come of it.

    What consenting adults choose to portray is beyond the pale. No limits. Waver from that and you sacrifice the basic principle of liberty that allows all people to freely speak. That I want no part of this industry is no excuse for throwing law-abiding citizens, or citizens who choose to disobey stupid laws, in prison.

    But let me add something: films of real rape, and snuff films (hypothetical or not) really do violate victims' rights. One major obstacle to me considering myself a libertarian is that I've seen so many libertarians advocate basically legalizing videos of real rape because the videos themselves "have no natural rights." But distribution of such videos should be illegal. Rape itself so fundamentally violates a person's rights that allowing a detailed video of that to be freely distributed is absolutely wrong.

    It's a very easy line to draw. It's unfortunate that some libertarians do not. I am glad you do.

  • Gabe||

    No. There should be no legal limits as to what two consenting adults do to each other. It's your body, it's your natural right.

  • ||

    Precisely, consent is the key word. And natural right is the key phrase.

  • ||

    No, it is not legal or a "natural right" for me to ask you to kill me and for you to subsequently agree to do so.

  • BakedPenguin||

    There's an easy limit: don't stick something you don't want to watch in your DVD player.

  • IceTrey||

    Well how do I know if I want to watch it if I don't watch it?

  • The Mossy Spaniard||

    Forgive me for exploiting an awful pun, but does anyone else see the humor in the fact that an article about porn was written by a guy with the surname "Beato?"

  • Ratko||

    Only if Devo is playing in the background. Whip it! Whip it good!

  • ||

    Granted, hardcore pornographers don’t make for the most sympathetic victims

    I don't grant that. The fact that so many people see no distinction between "ew" and "they should be in jail" is what is really sickening.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Why was homosexuality illegal until the 1970's or so (depending on the location)?

  • zoltan||

    Or 1996 if I remember the year correctly.

  • ||

    That is one damned fine article. I nominate it for the next Best of Reason compilation.

  • Boston||

    Its good. Though i dont think this is necessarily substantiatied.

    Currently, the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force is led by Alberto Gonzales appointee Brent Ward, a man who once led a crusade in Utah to get nude art-class models to wear bikinis. According to Jennifer Kinsley, the Task Force isn’t just continuing old cases that began in the Bush era, it’s also actively seeking out new ones. “Someone was asking me the other day why this is still happening,” she says. “I think the reason is that Brent Ward is still there. Had he been asked to resign, I don’t think these cases would still be going on. But basically the Obama Administration has left the previous decision-makers in their offices.”
  • John Tagliaferro||

    New tactic to get that link to work? :)

  • ||

    Now if only prostitution was made legal...

  • John Tagliaferro||

    It is legal, if you get the proper license and subject yourself to property division at the whim of a judge during the divorce.

  • ||

    Certain forms of prostitution ARE legal (marriage, having a mistress, getting sex essentially in exchange for a dinner and a movie), others are essentially tolerated albeit technically legal (see escorts in the phone books, or adult services in Craigslist), a few forms of it are vigorously enforced.

  • ||

    should read "albeit technically ILLEGAL"

  • Mad Max||

    Marriage is a subcategory of prostitution? That's certainly a bold and transgressive assertion, but is it actually true?

    How do you define prostitution?

  • ||

    Marriage can be a form of prostitution, if one of the partners enters into it with the primary intention of getting money or other material wealth in exchange for sex.

    Not saying that it usually is a form of prostitution -- my bad for trying for brevity over accuracy.

  • John Tagliaferro||

    And when the state gets involved, the sex can be withdrawn but the party still gets a windfall (in most States).

  • Mad Max||

    I see what you're saying, but at the rick of nitpicking, the difference in degree strikes me as a difference in kind.

    One might just as well say that married couples are in the hospitality industry if one spouse provides room and board to each other.

    Or you could say that a marital household is actually a restaurant if one spouse prepares meals for the other.

    If being a hotelier or restauranteur were as transgressive as being a john/prostitute, I bet those comparisons would catch on, too.

  • Mad Max||

    at the risk

  • Tiny Tim||

    Would you agree that there are marriages where you have a rich man marrying a younger woman only due to her looks a presumably the sex that they have? In these cases then it would be closer to a form of prostitution.

    If you had a situation where the only significant reason that a man married a woman was for her cooking and the only significant reason that she married him was for his money then you could essentially say that they have an odd private chef arrangement.

    If you strip the religious connotations from marriage it becomes just another business contract.

  • pistoffnick||

    I once heard a clever business plan. This guy wanted to start a video studio where you, the customer, could make your own porn. You hire your choice of "freelance actress", you hire his set and video camera, and you star in your own movie.

    As you walk out the door, he hands you your video tape.

  • Space Fiend||

    This exists, at least in some form. I think couples making their own porn is more common than freelance starlets, who would be really expensive.

  • Syd Henderson||

    Zach and Miri in real life?

  • Kilo||

    Fuck. That was totally my idea. Fuck.

  • ||

    "I got a thing about chickens"

  • ||

    I got a thing for Epiphany Proudfoot.

  • ||

  • Warty||

    I must admit that I find very little about vomit arousing.

  • Khemlock||

    Just because it's not your fetish doesn't mean some people don't find it arousing. I, in fact, am aroused by vomit sometimes. And I get annoyed because when I watch something like Max Hardcore, that's what it looks like when I have sex. Why can't I buy porn of things I actually engage in? It's annoying.

  • zoltan||

    Just because Warty said he doesn't find vomit arousing doesn't mean he thinks everyone else doesn't find it arousing.

  • ||

    Forgive me for exploiting an awful pun

    This is fucking Hit and Run. No need to apologize. Douchebag.

  • ||

    It's later than you think.

  • anarch||

    coverage was scant
  • T||

    Nice catch, anarch.

  • ||

    This is exactly why you libertarians will never get more than 5% of any vote, anywhere at anytime. Your support of legalized narcotics and anything-goes porn precludes you from leading any organization. Virtually every serial killer and rapist has confessed that porn aided him in entering a life of depravity. Good luck with your status as permanent fringe kooks libos.

  • Kilo||

    Wow, a serial killer offering an unpopular element of society as a scapegoat for his actions? No fucking way.

    Don't you get tired of ripping on people defending the ideology of the Founders of this country?

  • Tiny Tim||

    Libertarians might never get the vote, but important strides have been made in personal liberties like this. The legal embodiment of Christian values is certainly being pushed back, though there are now a new set of risks from an expanding security apparatus.

  • zoltan||

    And what of the millions of men and women of watch porn and don't commit rape and murder? Nay, who actually have decent sexual and personal relationships?

  • monolith||

    Blogsniper is right.
    There was no rape or murder before the invention of the camera.

  • Desmond Ravenstone||

    A bit of irony on this case...

    Before the Feds went after them, Extreme Associates, they were hardly ever known. Their share of the porn market was small, and the film in question ("Forced Entry") did not sell all that well. Not to mention that it got a horrible review from the AVN newsletter; when porn producers critize you for having a bad script and low production values, you know you've made trash.

    Soon after they were charged with obscenity, and the media publicized it, "Forced Entry" became their number one seller. People were buying it online just to see what the fuss was about -- or as their version of flipping W's administration the bird.

    So here the gov't is trying to get rid of extreme porn, and they wind up giving it free publicity and motivation to buy it. So now there are more copies of "Forced Entry" out there than if the Feds had left Romano and Zicari in obscurity.

  • Ratko||

    If I have a sense of decency it made itself known to me when I glanced at this article's title and misread it as:

    In Defense of Extreme Pornography
    ...Janet Reno and Rob Zicari...

    Makes me wonder how Hollywood would react to Janet Reno drugging then sodomizing a 76 year old Roman Polanski.

  • ||

    Having been an actress for Extreme I can say "good riddance to bad rubbish". I have no pity! My friends Naudia Childs killed herself after a Extreme shoot from the emotional damage.

    I was a legal porn actress but I agreed to some acts not others for one price. That IS rape no matter what what industry we are in.

    Oh and they would bounce checks - paying you nothing! Enjoy prison - couldn't have happened to "nicer" people - lol!

  • Tiny Tim||

    If the issue is that you agreed to one set of acts for one price and they tried to get different acts from you it may not be rape. If the only disagreement between you is the price that they will pay you for the acts I would argue that it is more of a standard business/contractual dispute than it is a rape.

  • zoltan||

    So someone killed themselves after emotional damage from a consensual act? Hey I know people who've killed themselves after their boyfriend or girlfriend broke up with them! Let's sue them too!

    And no, it is not rape when you agree to get paid to do some acts but not others and then still do the acts you don't want to do. If you don't want to do them, DON'T DO THEM AND DON'T GET PAID.

    Let's all remember, guys, they didn't go into porn 'cause of their brains.

  • ||

    @TinyTim & Zoltan:
    It sounds like you're saying that somehow (perhaps by definition or by nature), porn actors cannot be raped? That no matter what is done to them, if it happens on the set, it's perfectly legal?
    That's... problematic.

    Please clarify.
    How did Jackie lose her legal right to bodily autonomy?
    Did she, by consenting to certain specific acts, consent to any and all acts? If you consent to, say, being penetrated in one orifice, but are then penetrated in another (by force, surprise, drugging, extortion, whatever— they are all popular methods of coercion in the porn industry*), how is that not rape? Is the loophole unique to the sex industry, or does it apply to employers/contractors in all sectors? Let's say you work for an architect. You've agreed to draw up his designs in exchange for a certain salary. One day he comes in and decides he won't be needing any drawings; instead, he'll be kicking you in the face. And he informs you of this change in your job description by... kicking you in the face. That's assault, is it not? Or would you just call that a contract "dispute"? Or just say, "well if you didn't wanna, you shouldn'ta!" (Zoltan: I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that's... not how rape works.)

    ______
    *And that, ultimately, is the point that I think Jackie was trying to make: porn isn't always as consensual as you'd like to think. I'm talking run-of-the-mill mainstream porn. Let's face it, thinking about it wilts your boner. So mostly, people just tell themselves it's all been made mostly ethically, nobody's strung out or underage, everyone's well paid and 100% willing, et cetera, et cetera. Unfortunately, it just ain't so. (I almost— almost!— wish I'd never seen behind the curtain. But it's always better to know. It's half the battle, or whatever...)

  • ||

    Thank you Jackie...I was about to ask if any FEMALES actually post to this site.

  • Jonathan||

    I'm sure this is an unpopular opinion here, but who cares? First, there's really no way that these legal attacks will ever make their way to mom-and-pop, meat-and-potatoes porn. Second, extreme porn presents an observable, tangible threat to society: it legitimizes violence and abuse against women. Yes, I know, men are sometimes the object of humiliation as well, but when that's the case, there isn't thousands of years' worth of degradation and gender-bias behind it. But when a viewer watches a woman being degraded and abused, and GETS OFF ON IT, that creates a very dangerous result.

    In essence, extreme porn crosses the line in the same way that exhorting others to commit violence does: you may not commit the actual crime, but you make it probable and likely.

  • zoltan||

    Blah, blah, blah and Bill O'Reilly makes people kill abortion doctors. Why don't you and Moms of America destroy the video game companies that allow me to kill lots of people in extremely violent fashion. Since it's, you know, creating a very dangerous result.

  • ||

    Whatever the porn makers did aside, the best line in this article is that the Obama Administration has left decision makers in place. Look around the country he still hasn't replaced something like a third the US Attorneys. The chief federal law enforcement officer in the states. 23 of them just got approved last month. I remember some campaign slogan about change. Vaguely now.

  • ||

    This article underscores my problem with Libertarianism as an absolute ideology vs. politics (policy implementation). Roman Polanski is what he is ... a pathetic felon who will finally be held accountable for his confessed actions. As for the pervert porn kings I can't find a sliver of acceptance for what they do to make a "living". Whether it be a Holleywood Slasher movie or "consenting" rape porn, the coupling of sexual desire with overt force & violence should not be tolerated on any level if we as a people want to promote a peaceful community. To make an intellectual argument over the justification of slavery type violence is fine ... to promote it as a cause to celebrate is every bit disgusting as rationalizing Roman Polanski perversion. Two wrongs are just that - wrongs. As for the Obama bashing .... where's the beef? We have a level headed father of two young girls, who happens to be Constitutionally oriented (well versed having taught Constitutional law at the college level) ... who is embarking on much needed reforms. If it were I giving the Justice Department policy priorities .... prosecuting violent crime and those who celebrate it would be at the top of my list.

  • zoltan||

    You seem new here. There's a difference between defending something you don't like (re: Voltaire) and promoting something you like. Find anywhere in this article where Beato promotes fake violence against the subjects of these films. Of course, your definition of level-headed is pretty pathetic if you think spending billions on killing more brown people overseas (not to mention our own brown and other colors people), keeping Guantanamo open, failing to curb police/drug violence, forcing more government into private industry, etc. is level headed. But I digress...the mac.com at the end of your name reveals all.

  • 1st Amendment||

    This is a travesty of justice. I love the angle of the article that compares the support a rapist received versus the support a director and actor received for their respective actions.

    The government sucks.

  • ||

    The solution is trivial.

    Add a new category to the film rating system, for extremely offensive, tasteless and gross material.

  • the_bantam||

    Wonderful how state and fed govt can play morals whenever they want to.

  • ||

    this article sucks. just like the porn movies. really, if there was any journalistic excellence, maybe a 3 year old could do better by doing a spell and grammar check.

  • ||

    Anybody see the first DeathWish movie. Now this may be comparatively low on the scale but still...did you see DeathWish II...again this maybe comparatively low on the scale but still...has any legal abiding person put in office by the American people ever have an issue with sex...again this may be comparatively low on the scale but...

  • ||

    Pornography is not protected under the First Amendment. There is no "freedom of speech" for pornography.

  • ||

    Should porn be allowed to depict sex with children as long as the actual performers are adults and no children are actually involved? The depiction of crimes like rape and murder for the purpose of sexual stimulation falls into exactly the same category as depiction of sex with children. I like porn, but I think that depiction of such crimes in porn should be illegal.

  • Debra||

    Oh,I like porn you say but what about the rest of us,I mean porn is good,normal,and just for a few good ol' boys drinkin a beer watchin it.But why,why not go back to where you are hiding watching it away from the rest of us that are trying to raise normal families ,normal successful children and have Thanksgiving and Christmas's without worring little Timmys,looking at Elmo online and a flash of porno comes popping up,can you please stop OMG.Keep porno in your own home with your wife or girlfriend~or all your buddies watching as a friendly guy bonding kinda thing
    porno is not normal,and it does go further with child porno,then before you know it your looking with that crazy eye @ your dog Spot,or the neighbors herd of sheep.What next,I mean just look at what porn is doing to our values and lives.Open your eyes to real life effects,of what it is doing to intamicy,relationships.90% of famlies do not approve of Porn.Porn watchers should be asshambed,unless your proud enough to watch it with grandma,on christmas.

  • Paul||

    Isn't this already legal because of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ?

  • ||

    this prosecution is close to thought crime.

    same as msnbc perverted justice where no minors are ever harmed.

  • Debra||

    All of us housewives are about sick of all the porn and I love setting down with my husband and children to watch a normal show on normal TV and see some woman half naked or her chest about ready to fall out of her shirt and seductive dresssing to allure all her guy actors not to mention all the male viewers.I love how that makes me and my children feel dirty and makes my husband uncomfortable.Why do we have to deal with porn @ all,please make porn for the back street bars as well as in the darkness ,with the drug dealers and drunkers.Please dont make porn,everyday porn for famlies,yippee

  • Like a Vice||

    Double standard. I hate to say this, but this is just the way things are in modern society, you can't be the black sheep and think that things will go for the better. Polanski was well dressed, had well known friends, gave interviews on national tv.

  • ||

    Jackie, Naudia Childs never committed suicide after working for Extreme. Emotional damage my ass. Choice. It was your choice to work for them. If you didn't like it you should have left. The door was not locked!!

  • shane bugbee||

    thank you so much for such a great article.

    I worked for rob for a bit - he's a solid freedom fighter.

    The real problem - larry flint - he set the tone when he attacked rob and publicly stated that he should be prosecuted.

    the gov - their always gonna play unfair but when some of the porn industry turned it's back on rob they fucked themselves as well as the rest of the ilk who like to create/express without boundaries.

    larry flynt's reason - greed and insecurity... shame he's not brought to task for his trader ways.

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • Air Jordan Ol School||

    That's cool!

  • قبلة الوداع||

    thank u

  • دردشه عراقية||

    Thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement