Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Attn, DC Reasonoids: If You Care About Free Speech, Come to This Press Conference on Monday, April 21
If
you're in the Washington, D.C. area and care about free expression,
you'll want to witness this press conference:
Washington, D.C. (April 18, 2008) - The Bush administration's latest effort to trample the Constitution, limit freedom and control the minds of Americans comes in the form of an obscenity prosecution of legendary adult filmmaker John Stagliano. On Monday, Stagliano, an award-winning director and producer who owns Evil Angel, will be arraigned in federal court in Washington, D.C. on eight charges of distributing obscene material via interstate commerce and the Internet. Stagliano will make a statement and take questions on the steps of the E. Barrett Pettyman Courthouse, at 333 Constitution Avenue, at approximately 11:30 a.m.
"Evil Angel's films are completely legal. These movies are made by consenting adults, for consenting adults. We believe wholeheartedly in liberty, freedom of speech and the First Amendment and we look forward to defeating these baseless charges," said Karen Stagliano, John's wife and Evil Angel's publicist. "We will fight these charges every step of the way", added John Stagliano. "With the war in Iraq going so well, Osama bin Laden captured, the economy thriving, our public school system fixed, and our crumbling infrastructure completely repaired, the Bush administration's top priority seems to be harassing filmmakers and watching our movies."
Earlier this year, Evil Angel won 18 Adult Video News awards, the porn industry's Academy Awards. Stagliano won "Best Director" for the 4th time. Stagliano has won more Adult Video News Awards during his illustrious career than any other adult industry director.
For background information on this obscenity case, please visit the website http://www.defendourporn.com/.
Who:
John Stagliano
Owner, Evil Angel
Awarding-winning Director and Producer, Called a "pioneer" and the "father of gonzo"What: Statement and Media Q&A About Federal Obscenity Charges
When: Monday, April 21, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. Eastern
Where: The steps of the E. Barrett Pettyman Courthouse at 333 Constitution Avenue
Contact:
Karen Stagliano
Publicist, Evil Angel
karen@evilangel.com
Full disclosure: John Stagliano is a supporter of Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes the print and online editions of reason and reason.tv.
More on the Stagliano prosecution here.
reason on porn here.
|4.20.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Where are the Bush sycophants? What say the apologists, the lickspittles, the toadies who are always so eager to defend this adminstration? Are fuck flicks a imminent danger to the American way of life?
|4.20.08 @ 1:29PM|#
My boss is buying all the IT guys lunch at the Malibu Grill
around that time. I would go otherwise.
The stomach wins. Plus, I hear it is important to be social with
your cow-orkers every now and then. I don't really buy that, but I
am willing to go along with it
|4.20.08 @ 2:10PM|#
"Where are the Bush sycophants?..."
Hit & Run isn't the best place to look for them...I
hope.
...there was no one left to or|4.20.08 @ 2:10PM|#
Orking cows will be the next target of repression.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Breaking from tradition, I looked at the LA Times article and no
details on just what exactly is objectionable to the prosecution on
this one. Almost as much "detail" as this post.
As long as they are not going after Jim Weathers, as they say . .
.
Checking the other links to see what the issue is.
The event does sound like a good warmup for Lennin's
Birthday Earth Day.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 2:18PM|#
From Defend our Porn:
The movies in question are Storm Squirters 2 and Milk Nymphos.
Okay, there is a start of sorts. Anybody seen these and have any
idea why the feds would be in such a snit about them? As they say,
you can't judge porn by the sticky cover.
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 2:22PM|#
John is my employer, and I wish him all the best in this fight.
It's difficult to understand what the government's goal is, other
than
1. an election-year flexing of the same old tired anti-sex
muscles;
2. to shore up the lowest levels of the Republican base;
3. or, worst of all: to actually set a legal precedent.
Given the videos they've tagged as "obscene," if these ridiculous
charges were to somehow stick, believe me when I tell you that no
pornography would be safe from prosecution.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 2:37PM|#
J Sub, no Bush toadies here that I know of. Even those who
occasionally stick up for him aren't toadies.
Whatever you think about porn, it's legal, so WTF is this all
about?
This is selective prosecution to teach those uppity fargin'
libertarians and those depraved pornograpers a well deserved
lesson.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 2:40PM|#
From the
fed press release (the
first thing to come up on this google search, a portion of the
issue seems to be that nonsense about making some effort to keep
people under a certain age from viewing certain content.
one count of using an interactive computer service
to display an obscene movie trailer in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, in violation of
47 U.S.C. § 223 (d)
Rick H,
How about a quick review of the movies?
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 2:41PM|#
TWC,
Sounds like JsD is trying to invoke highnumber's latest character,
Neil.
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 2:51PM|#
Guy;
I'm not a lawyer, so I'll shut up about specifics until the case is
won... suffice to say that the defining themes of the three movies
in question are water enemas, milk enemas and female ejaculation.
Somebody over at the DOJ has a fluids fetish.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 2:54PM|#
I see LAPD helped out. Nice that asshole LAPD Head Cheese Bratton has solved the gang problems in LA and now has resources to devote to investigating Stagliano. [turns and spits]
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Ah, I found a summary, but it isn't from an independant source
:(
It does discuss some of the industrial hazards of filming milk
enema action for Milk Nymphos.
Summary:
Jay Sin's kinky, ass-centric style translates to some truly creamy videos for Buttman Magazine Choice - in his new "Milk Nymphos," girls picturesquely blast milk enemas out of their asses!
Jay: I first saw milk enemas on some Japanese Website, years ago. I think it's a great fetish. It's either a big turn-on, or it grosses people out. I love when she's just about to push out the milk, and her butthole puckers. Seeing the visual of milk shooting out of an ass is so ... wow!
So how does a director cast girls for such, well, exotic subject matter? Jay says, "Call agents and say, 'I need some of the nastiest girls you've got.' It narrows down the field when you tell the agent the girl has to take a milk enema in the face from another girl's ass. But some girls actually enjoy this, and that's what I love to see." He sees what he loves especially from nasty Annette Schwarz, adorable Lexi Love and Sophie Dee, who "loved squirting into Lexi's face, and taking it in the face."
What are some of the special challenges with shooting a milk enema scene? Jay: Number One, getting milk on the camera lens. Girls fall - it's slippery. Electrocution, with plugs lying around, bottles falling - liquid mixed with electricity is not a good combo. It's definitely a big mess, and it sucks cleaning up. Driving home from a scene after a whole day, the car smells like sour milk - but it gives me a hard-on. Also, making sure the girls are clean - it's gotta be pure milk, no "cookies and cream." Usually girls do a little previous squirting for me, to make sure. That gets my heart beating. (For) her first squirt ever, she doesn't know what's going to happen, and it squirts out like a rocket - wow, this is going to be fun.
Was Jay a big milk drinker as a kid? Jay: Big time. Still am. Now he gets to drink it from sources more interesting than a carton... Jay: It's a buffet now!
Jay on ass: It keeps my heart going. I think my heart's actually got an ass inside. I could have a headless woman with an ass, and I'd be happy.
A review of Storm Squirters 2 can be found here.
Quite brief, but it seems that the director plows the virgin ground
left unmolested by the original.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 3:01PM|#
Rick H,
Thanks for the input! Actually, I found some reviews (see previous
comment).
So, are you suggesting that this is some new niche in porn and the
feds are trying to stomp it out before it gets around too much? For
some reason female ejaculation and enema porn does not sound all
that unique or new. Color me sheltered.
SIV|4.20.08 @ 3:03PM|#
Ironic that none of the films Stagliano actually made are part
of the indictment.
I certainly wouldn't defend Bush's Justice Dept for prosecuting
this case but you can't leave "Team Blue" out of this either.Or are
they attempting to repeal Federal obscenity laws?
How are "their" judicial appointees on trial and appeal of
obscenity cases? Have the feminists weighed in on this?
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 3:03PM|#
TWC,
Maybe the "gang problems" are tied into this? Ever been mugged by a
milk enema or vaginal shooting woman? It is not a pretty encounter,
for most.
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Guy: No, you're correct that these acts aren't new or unique in porn. That's why I'm mystified by this whole case.
Bob Goodman|4.20.08 @ 3:21PM|#
It's easy to forget how good we have it in the USA. It was just
a few decades ago that "smut", while widely consumed, was
understood to be illegal to purvey in most jurisdictions, its
"peddlers" understanding that going to jail occasionally was a
normal cost of doing business. The last generation to consider that
the normal state of affairs (albeit desirable to only some of them)
has not passed from life.
Then following that there was a short interval during which there
was still a risk of confiscation and/or prosecution for porn, but
educational materials were understood to be exempt, so
"educational" materials were often an excuse for porn, which
actually made it more available to kids than it might be today.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Rick H,
So, his name (or that of his firm) was just pulled out of a hole
for a random porn prosecution?
If there is something else going on then that is a whole different
wrong, by the US Attorneys, and they should be charging him with
the actual offense they percieve him to have done, along with any
other law-twisting they might be doing in this case.
From that list of particulars that you made in your first comment
on this thread, it sounds like plenty of other people would be
higher on the political criminals list than your friend.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Bob Goodman,
If those movie reviews (scroll up) were not educational, I don't
know what is :)
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Pukey and/or icky do not equal illegal
Otherwise, half the people walking around would be in jail for
being Ugly After Dark.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 3:35PM|#
...random porn prosecution?
Like I said, two birds with one stone. Nail the Big Porn Kahuna and
teach those uppity libertarians a lesson.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 3:41PM|#
TWC,
Like I said, two birds with one stone. Nail the Big Porn Kahuna
and teach those uppity libertarians a lesson.
I thought we were taught our lesson when Rosa Parks
Brooke Oberwetter was arrested for five hours?
Episiarch|4.20.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Sounds like JsD is trying to invoke highnumber's latest
character, Neil.
Did highnumber actually admit to this or are you just guessing,
Guy?
The Republicans like to go after porn producers every once in a
while. It allows them to pretend to give a shit for the small
portion of their base who actually get the vapors over porn
still.
Of course, it means that whoever they decide to pick on (Stagliano,
in this case) will have to spend a bunch of money defending
themselves and could even go to jail.
All to pander to a few Krazy Kristians (and possibly Muslims) who
think sex is bad, bad, bad.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Did highnumber actually admit to this or are you just
guessing, Guy?
Just my guess, since just about everybody else had their turn.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Episiarch,
Yea, good thing the attacks on the erotic entertainment industry
only come from one direction. They don't have to worry about any
extreme feminists or anything.
|4.20.08 @ 4:35PM|#
From the fed press release (the first thing to come up on
this google search, a portion of the issue seems to be that
nonsense about making some effort to keep people under a certain
age from viewing certain content.
one count of using an interactive computer service
to display an obscene movie trailer in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, in violation of
47 U.S.C. § 223 (d)
The evil defendent placed porn on the internet? Where a teenager
who really wanted to view porn could find it? Stop the presses!!!
Did he forget to install the "click here if you are over 18"
box?
From a DOJ press
release
The Obscenity Prosecution Task Force investigates and
prosecutes the producers and distributors of hardcore pornography
that meets the test for obscenity, as defined by the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Task Force prosecutors work in coordination with the FBI, the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the
Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs
Enforcement Office, and other federal and local law enforcement
partners.
Do you feel safer knowing this?
|4.20.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Say what you want about her, but Janet Reno thought there were more important things for the Justice Department to fret over.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 4:45PM|#
JsD,
The evil defendent placed porn on the internet? Where a
teenager who really wanted to view porn could find it? Stop the
presses!!! Did he forget to install the "click here if you are over
18" box?
Are you adding your disbelief at the DoJ nonsense or just using
different words for what I said?
Yea, good old Church burning Janet Reno, at least she did it for
the children. Yes, she was so concerned with much more important
things that nothing like this happened when she was in
charge!
Kevin B. O\'Reilly|4.20.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Trailers:
Storm Squirters 2:
http://www.evilangel.com/page.php?node=item&item_id=1886
Milk Nymphos:
http://www.evilangel.com/page.php?node=item&item_id=1943
Episiarch|4.20.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Say what you want about her, but Janet Reno thought there
were more important things for the Justice Department to fret
over.
Yes, like burning people to death.
|4.20.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Guy, just adding my disbelief. Porn on the internet Oh no!
On Ms. Reno, I'm not a fan by any means, but she didn't use our
money to tilt at the porn windmills. I'm honest about somebody's
record even when I despise them.
MK2|4.20.08 @ 4:58PM|#
"We will fight these charges every step of the way", added John
Stagliano. "With the war in Iraq going so well, Osama bin Laden
captured, the economy thriving, our public school system fixed, and
our crumbling infrastructure completely repaired, the Bush
administration's top priority seems to be harassing filmmakers and
watching our movies."
Ha, another whining liberal who expects the government to fix
everything.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 5:06PM|#
JsD,
So, she just wasted money on the things you don't like rather than
porn? Just making sure we are clear on this :)
I do not have the DoJ stats while she was in charge, so I do not
know if it is factually true that no porn cases went forward under
her and I am not remembering exactly what "porn-protection"
legeslation was proposed by the Clinton Administration at the time.
My first reaction to a claim that any AG in my lifetime never-ever
had a prosecution like this under them would be not to "buy it"
until I looked it up a little more.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 5:10PM|#
MK2,
Yea, I am with you. I prefer that the Justace Department stay out
of the schools, let the military chase UBL and fight the fight in
Iraq and leave the economy alone too.
They really should be prosecuting the real criminals and leaving
the adult porn folks alone, but it sounds like that issue is a
little farther down the list for the suspect, in this case.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 5:11PM|#
kevin,
Okay, I should have had a question mark in there. I am loyal to the
Bondage Cafe, so this other stuff that people like is amazing to
me, but I don't get all icked out about it.
|4.20.08 @ 5:19PM|#
@guy montag:
Yes, bondage porn is the one thing we can all enjoy. Fun
for the whole family.
ABC|4.20.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Gotta say that a porn director has delivered one of the most
eloquent explanations of the dangers of the tyranny of the majority
vis a vis rights.
Check out the website and the quote. Not being sarky; it's a very
good explanation of the individual against the demos.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 5:24PM|#
J sub D,
Um, bud, you might want to use a few more qualifiers and back off
blanket statements. The word except
comes to mind, especially when cheering a promoter of someone who
liked to cast the
net wide enough to catch just about anybody, as is common with
folks in her line of work.
Dirty Frank|4.20.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Yes, like burning people to death.
Hey, if I have to choose between losing my porn or burning a few
kids, gimme Janet with a gas can and a lighter any day. There's no
shortage of kids and, really, it's not all that hard to make more
of 'em. But if porn is outlawed there's no going back. Oh sure, you
can fight to change the laws but that isn't going to give someone
back all those lost years of enjoying a wide variety of sublimely
sick perversions not typically encountered, nor easily duplicated,
in the home.
I would support, however, some reasonable warning label requirement
on the ass-squirting videos such as: "These are trained
professionals. Kids, DO NOT attempt this at home without proper
adult supervision" or some such.
|4.20.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Guy, My orignal post was -
Say what you want about her, but Janet Reno thought there were more important things for the Justice Department to fret over.
I make a true statement, easily backed up, and you jump on me
because of events unrelated to the topic at hand.
From a
Frontline intervoiew with a dedicated porn warrior.
The difference was that Janet Reno just did not like doing
obscenity cases. She wouldn't prosecute obscenity violations when
she was the prosecutor in Florida, and she didn't like doing it at
the Justice Department. It's not that she's a bad person or
anything; it's just that she didn't like doing it. Maybe she never
saw it, or it wasn't properly presented. They still said that the
Justice Department's units could do more extreme materials or
organized crime people. But the idea that had started when the
first President Bush was president -- we would enforce the federal
law against everyone who was violating it -- that sort of stopped.
...
You may have noted that the thread is about obscenity prosecutions,
not BATF raids, not Elian Gonzalez, but obscenity
prosecutions.
Pull up your pants. You're douchebaggery is showing.
Dello|4.20.08 @ 5:53PM|#
So, when I do a remake of "A Clockwork Orange" in film school, instead of the Karovie(sp) Milk Bar, I'll have...
Dello|4.20.08 @ 5:55PM|#
"...girls picturesquely blast milk enemas out of their
asses!"
There's a coffee shop I'll avoid.
|4.20.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Say what you will about him, but at least Hitler never tried to squelch free speech that offended minority religious groups.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 6:03PM|#
So, when I do a remake of "A Clockwork Orange" in film
school, instead of the Karovie(sp) Milk Bar, I'll
have...
Perhaps a juice bar? Stay away from tomato.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Oh, Chris Potter, now J sub D has properly taken us to task that it does not matter how many children Ms. Reno killed, she was not as bad as the current DoJ boss or president. Pointing out that Hitler is "better" than them too is just piling on.
|4.20.08 @ 6:08PM|#
So is this a different guy from the one with the simulated rape
and murder porn (eg, US soldiers beheading OBL and raping a female
soldier, Christ coming down from the cross to rape an angel, etc),
who was lionized in the print Reason a couple of years ago
as a hero of free expression?
Not that I think it should be illegal, but I'd choose my
standard-bearers more carefully...
|4.20.08 @ 6:10PM|#
Guy, my sacasm-detector-detector is on the fritz, so I'll clarify that my Hitler statement was tongue-in-cheek (not in an A2M way either).
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 6:14PM|#
CP,
Forgot about that one (and similar stuff). I wonder if they are
being secretly prosecuted or if Rick H. is correct and staying away
from liquids is the safe haven?
Dirty Frank,
I would support, however, some reasonable warning label
requirement on the ass-squirting videos such as: "These are trained
professionals. Kids, DO NOT attempt this at home without proper
adult supervision" or some such.
If they use gasoline ethenol with Reno supervision . .
.
|4.20.08 @ 6:15PM|#
Not that I think it should be illegal, but I'd choose my
standard-bearers more carefully...
Defending free speech invariably get you defending odious people.
The DOJ is not prosecuting Up With People.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 6:18PM|#
CP,
I was using a bit of that too.
JsD,
Thanks for informing us what this thread is about and glad for you
to join in. However, you made a blanket and completely
undefenseable statement, unless your defense is that we can only
comment on amything Janet Reno did in cases identical to this in a
sophomoric attempt to "win" a discussion.
Love the juvenile name-calling flourish at the end too!
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 6:21PM|#
Defending free speech invariably get you defending odious
people. The DOJ is not prosecuting Up With People.
Now, go back and read what he wrote, unless you are in
argument-spray-mode or something today.
He was talking about the people Reason chooses as standard
bearers, not a hint of who deserves to be prosecuted.
|4.20.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Oh, Chris Potter, now J sub D has properly taken us to task
that it does not matter how many children Ms. Reno killed, she was
not as bad as the current DoJ boss or president. Pointing out that
Hitler is "better" than them too is just piling on.
Quote me, you ignorant buffoon. You do know how to do that, don't
you? I'll stand by comments that pointed out the Clinton team
wasn't gung ho about porn prosecution, the Bush team is. Your
comment refencing Waco is not only off topic, it's a non
sequitor.
Unfortunately, that's Guy Montag, resident H&R dumbass.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 6:35PM|#
Oh, maybe someone was impersonating you? Here is yet another
quote:
J sub D | April 20, 2008, 4:38pm | #
Say what you want about her, but Janet Reno thought there were more
important things for the Justice Department to fret
over.
Now, a few of us immediatly remembered the "more important things"
that Ms. Reno fretted over.
Responding to people pointing out that your statement is not true,
for several reasons, and giving you several factual examples is
certainly not the work of sycophants, but the mouth
frothing, name calling, keyboard beating tantrums of yours could
point in that direction.
Might want to stop looking in that mirror when you type. All of
your descriptors of me keep matching up with your writings.
Have a nice weekend!
|4.20.08 @ 6:49PM|#
I think the problem may be that the milk in question did not meet FDA guidelines...
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 6:50PM|#
re: any potential janet reno b-b-but clinton-ism
Futhermore from the same link (published in Feb, 2002):
"The 1987-1992 prosecutions were in truth the only period of
sustained federal obscenity prosecution in history -- that is,
those years were the exception, not the rule."
Clinton did sign CDA(Communications Decency Act) and COPA (Child
On-line Protection Act) but only after larger majorities in the
Republican-controlled house and senate passed it. The link also
alludes to that the Reno justice department didn't not vigorously
enforce either of these, and may have fact hand delivered the test
cases that would be best for the Supreme Court to strike these
down.
All that said, I'm sorta in agreement with kevin @ 3:00 pm. I was
unfortunately eating Chip's Ahoy (w/ milk) when I read Montag's
2:55 summary.
|4.20.08 @ 7:02PM|#
J sub D,
Also, keep in mind that you explicitly asked us to say what we want
about Janet Reno...careful what you ask for! ;-)
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 7:06PM|#
Guy,
J sub D is correct when he states that when in power, the Democrats
do not typically target porn producers/distributors on "obscenity"
grounds, especially when compared to the other side. I understand
that many conservatives and libertarians don't like to admit this,
as it conflicts with both the pro-G.O.P. narratives and the "both
parties are scum" meme.
Is there plenty of bipartisan support for the Drug War? Yes.
Against videogames, steroids, gambling, immigration, prostitution?
Sure. Are the Dems worse on many issues of freedom and/or
economics? Of course. But let's face it - squirting videos are just
not a big motivator for the Democratic rank-and-file. On this
issue, all politicians are not the same.
The two major parties occasionally utilise different methods to
fuck with different segments of the citizenry. It's not partisan to
say so.
Also earlier you said
They don't have to worry about any extreme feminists or
anything.
...which I took to be sarcastic. The fact is, we pornographers
don't have to worry about "extreme feminists," because
they have (thankfully) next-to-no political muscle in this country
- except when they ally themselves with the religious right, who
have lots.
|4.20.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Clinton did sign CDA(Communications Decency Act) and COPA
(Child On-line Protection Act) but only after larger majorities in
the Republican-controlled house and senate passed it.
Does that mean Bush is absolved from responsibility for the Patriot
Act and the War in Iraq since large majorities passed those as
well?
|4.20.08 @ 7:15PM|#
Rick H,
My statement about Hitler not policing speech that may be offensive
to religious minorities is also correct. That doesn't make it any
less ludicrous.
|4.20.08 @ 7:25PM|#
"...girls picturesquely blast milk enemas out of their
asses!"
Also known as "cow-orking"
|4.20.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Also, keep in mind that you explicitly asked us to say what
we want about Janet Reno...careful what you ask for! ;-)
Touche. Still, as much as I despise the Dems, minus guns and
dinero, they are far better on civil liberties than the GOP.
Fritz|4.20.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Maybe the Bush administration is extending an olive branch to its Islamic antagonists?
Bingo|4.20.08 @ 7:59PM|#
Yeah because if they stop a US studio from making those sorts of movies they will just disappear from the internet completely right???
Metal Messiah|4.20.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Best of luck to John Stagliano and Evil Angel.
Obscenity laws are particularly odious affronts to free speech
because there is no set standard, and anything offensive is a
potential prosecution and conviction. You really have no idea if
what you've produced is "obscene" until you've been
convicted.
These are very serious charges Stagliano is facing. If convicted,
he could spend the rest of his life in prison and have his company
seized by the government.
The DOJ has already succeeded in shutting down e-tailer Fivestardvd
last year, who were financially ruined defending themselves against
federal obscenity charges. The owners of the Fivestardvd and the
producer of the DVDs in question (JM Productions) had the charges
dropped during the course of the trial, but the jury found the
retail company guilty on one of four obscenity counts.
Bingo|4.20.08 @ 8:07PM|#
It's almost getting to the point where its easier to open your business outside of the States if you own a company that provides purely digital content and services. The rumblings about the internet tax moratorium expiring would be enough to make me start looking elsewhere.
Assistant Village Idiot|4.20.08 @ 8:26PM|#
I think you need to change your name to Speculation magazine:
coughing up our favorite narrative before we've got the facts. Or
maybe Emote magazine.
The number of folks in this comment section who have baldly stated
that this is about a movie being too pornographic to be sold and
speculating why government officials are so hung up is stunning for
a site called Reason. A few folks linked to a bit of the actual
information, but subsequent commenters just rolled past that.
"Well, I don't know anything about it, but what is probably
happening is..." "Yeah, you're right, it's the prudes hating sex
again..."
I can understand thinking that. I can understand suspecting that.
But how on God's green earth do you type that up and hit "Submit
Comment" without actually trying to know something? You reason like
liberals, dammit.
|4.20.08 @ 8:28PM|#
To those who care (that would seem to be none of you) there are
real laws at stake, and real issues to decide. One issue is whether
the defendant made legally sufficient efforts to determine that his
customers were eligible to receive his materials. The other is
whether laws written before the internet can be applied to internet
distribution. The outcomes might very well change how this industry
does business, or else signal to Congress that new laws are needed
to draw lines where old laws can no longer be applied.
45 seconds of research is all it takes. Well, that and you have to
care.
Lingster|4.20.08 @ 8:32PM|#
So none of you rocket scientists have actually managed to figure out why Stagliano is being singled out? Hint: it's the "U.S. Postal Inspection Service" part that's relevant. A lot of porn producers have stopped using the USPS for shipping, to avoid federal obscenity charges, but Stagliano apparently continued to use the Post Office for delivery.
SIV|4.20.08 @ 8:40PM|#
"Yeah, you're right, it's the prudes hating sex
again..."
My uninformed libertarian take is that it is a Federal Bureaucracy
trying to exercise power and control people.Nature of the beast.
Doescanyone think they would drop the case just because of a regime
change in the executive branch?
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 8:42PM|#
I think you need to change your name to Speculation
magazine
...
Or maybe Emote magazine.
...
stunning for a site called Reason.
...
You reason like liberals
Drink four times.
|4.20.08 @ 8:42PM|#
"Fashionistas" lost a lot of money; and earlier this year
Stagliano closed the show to focus on his day job.
Yeah, I saw that show. There was a reason why that show lost a lot
of money and it's a damn good thing John kept his day job.
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 8:45PM|#
So none of you rocket scientists have actually managed to
figure out why Stagliano is being singled out? Hint: it's the "U.S.
Postal Inspection Service" part that's relevant.
Clearly you have it all figured out.
Metal Messiah|4.20.08 @ 8:47PM|#
"A lot of porn producers have stopped using the USPS for
shipping, to avoid federal obscenity charges"
It doesn't matter whether the material was shipped by the USPS or a
private company. The law states that transporting obscene materials
by a common carrier is illegal. Makes no difference if they were
shipped by the post office, UPS, FedEx, carrier pigeon, or horny
toad.
What happens is that a federal agent will order some porn, have it
shipped across state lines (traditionally to some uptight, podunk
place where it would be easy to pack the jury with bible-thumpers),
and then file charges against whoever shipped the material.
|4.20.08 @ 8:49PM|#
I'm a "Bush sycophant," as one commenter so lovingly puts it, or
a Bush supporter anyway, and oppose this prosecution as a violation
of the First Amendment, as fundamentally unfair (because the
federal criminal statutes against obscenity are vague), and as a
waste of federal resources.
That being said, it's not as if what the defendant is producing
isn't utterly worthless crap. We protect crap on the outer boundary
of the First Amendment for the same kind of reason that we grant
trails to criminal defendants who we know to a certainty are
guilty: some form of a slippery slope argument.
If we grant the power of the censor to criminally punish the
distribution of worthless crap, he will, soon enough, punish
valuable materials. If we summarily shoot killers who we know to be
guilty, than an executioner will, soon enough, kill the
innocent.
But lets not let some freak wrap himself in the American flag in
the manner of Larry Flynt. The First Amendment's basic purpose was
to protect political speech, not to celebrate jerk-off
material.
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 9:01PM|#
[hiccup]
[burp]
Sorry, that was from reading AVI's 8:26; I had to chug the rest of
my beer.
Clinton did sign CDA(Communications Decency Act) and COPA (Child On-line Protection Act) but only after larger majorities in the Republican-controlled house and senate passed it.
Does that mean Bush is absolved from responsibility for the Patriot Act and the War in Iraq since large majorities passed those as well?
There is a difference between a Republican-Majority Congress
passing legislation that the Executive tepidly signs, and a
Republican-Majority congress passing legislation that the Executive
heartily endorses and has actively sought out.
As an aside, in your analogy the 'profiles in courage' award
granted to Clinton for the CDA/COPA is given to those Democrats who
voted for the original patriot act (all of them except Feingold
against, and Landrieu not voting) - or more charitably the all but
11 of
them whom voted for the 2005 reauth. (not enitirely sure if
that link goes to the correct vote)
More generally, "I have never been proud of the AG's in my adult
lifetime," but put the order of odiousness from least to most
as:
Reno -> Barr -----> Ashcroft ---------------
------------------------------------------> Gonzalez
(I'm giving Mukaskey a NOB at this point)
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 9:07PM|#
Doescanyone think they would drop the case just because of a
regime change in the executive branch?
Yes, see J sub D's and my links above from the PBS(!) frontline
special entitled 'Porn in America'
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 9:08PM|#
Doescanyone think they would drop the case just because of a
regime change in the executive branch?
I think that a regime change in the Executive branch would most
certainly decrease by a substantial margin the likelihood of this
happening to another porn company for roughly another four
years.
No use trying to pretend this isn't a G.O.P.® brand turd in the
punchbowl.
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 9:16PM|#
After looking at it again the video may not be entirely work-safe, but if you haven't been fired yet from reading the a thread that contains the url defendourporn.com, much less the descriptions above in the comment thread, you're probably going to be OK.
|4.20.08 @ 9:22PM|#
Right. Hillary would switch the prosecutorial focus over to
those other social scourges: gun owners, pro-life protestors, gold
bugs, and violent video game manufacturers.
As long as it's not your ox being gored, eh Rick?
Metal Messiah|4.20.08 @ 9:24PM|#
"I think that a regime change in the Executive branch would most
certainly decrease by a substantial margin the likelihood of this
happening to another porn company for roughly another four
years.
No use trying to pretend this isn't a G.O.P.® brand turd in the
punchbowl."
Yeah, it's unlikely that a new regime (whether it's McCain,
Clinton, or Obama) would outright drop any federal indictments.
They (or their prosecutors) might let them drop to a lesser
priority, but, as far as I know, outright dropping federal charges
(whether they're obscenity, or anything else) like that generally
isn't done.
Obscenity charges are a matter of political/prosecutorial
discretion. You're only going to see the federal government pursue
them if it's part of an agenda.
On some level, these charges are being leveled against Stagliano
(and Rob Black and Max Hardcore) in order to gain favor with the
religious right, but I think the primary motivation is that there
are people in power right now who are true believers. They
seriously think they have a mandate from God to take America back
from the smut peddlers, weirdos, heathens, and homosexuals.
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 9:29PM|#
I'm not a Democrat, Chris. Not even part of your beloved
two-party system.
Try to stay on topic.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 9:35PM|#
After looking at it again the video may not be entirely
work-safe...
Swear to God?
|4.20.08 @ 9:37PM|#
I actually find it hard to believe that the President is at all involved in this, let alone as a "latest effort to trample the Constitution, limit freedom and control the minds of Americans". That sort of hyperbole is aimed more at mindless porn nuts than thinking people.
Mad Max|4.20.08 @ 9:41PM|#
The *Reason* people are certainly hard-core free-speech people,
but I notice a difference in approach as between Geert Wilders and
his Islam-bashing movie, on the one hand, and this Stagliano guy
and *his* movies.
Moynihan's article defending Wilders' right to free expression
would never be confused with an endorsement of Wilders' views.
Moynihan calls Wilders a "marginal politician" and a "boor,"
indicating some sympathy with the impulse to purge Wilders from
decent society. But Moynihan keeps returning to the whole
freedom-for-the-thought-we-hate thing.
With Stagliano, the theme isn't "freedom for the thought we hate,"
but "why are the feds persecuting this innocent artist and generous
donor?" I don't get the feeling that Stagliano's movies come under
the heading of "the thought we hate," not around *Reason,*
anyway.
With Wilders, it's "your views suck, but we defend your right to
them." With Stagliano, it's "you're a critically-acclaimed director
and we support your noble struggle against repression!" See the
difference in tone?
If you wanted porn to be legal (and free from harassment in
marginal cases) on the grounds that legalized porn is part of the
price we pay for freedom, I'd listen with interest to your
argument. If you're indicate that you're defending these films
because you see nothing wrong with them, then you're going to have
a more difficult row to hoe.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 9:41PM|#
First they came for the milk enema ass squirting
babes...
Which really isn't speech at all, but we have to take what we can
get, so if the technicality based legal system calls it first
amendment, well, then, there you go.
Which reminds me of my absolute pet peeve about legality Americana,
technicality. Swings both ways and today [trumpet fanfare] a
technicality is being used to prosecute Stagliano.
Why is it that if you pay a chick to do you, it's a crime but if
you pay the same chick to do you and your buddy films it, and then
sells it to lonely guys, it's, ah, free speech?
Rick H.|4.20.08 @ 9:47PM|#
If you're indicate that you're defending these films because
you see nothing wrong with them, then you're going to have a more
difficult row to hoe.
I'm defending these films because I see nothing wrong with
them.
No, that was easy.
Mad Max|4.20.08 @ 9:52PM|#
TWC,
"Why is it that if you pay a chick to do you, it's a crime but if
you pay the same chick to do you and your buddy films it, and then
sells it to lonely guys, it's, ah, free speech?"
You're obviously a Philistine.
As am I, obviously, because, unlike Rick H., I *am* offended at a
movie where "girls picturesquely blast milk enemas out of their
asses!" and where one of the *artistes* involved in the production
says: "Driving home from a scene after a whole day, the car smells
like sour milk - but it gives me a hard-on."
To paraphrase Potter Stewart, I may not be able to *define* what's
offensive, gross and disgusting, but I know it when I see it.
If you're going to defend the right to make such movies, you'll
need to do better than, "gosh, *I* don't find it offensive!"
|4.20.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Mad Max, right on.
From the title of the post, the message is that if you care about
free speech you must care what this purveyor of filth has to say.
Just because I support free speech doesn't mean I want to be within
earshot of it.
Mad Max|4.20.08 @ 9:54PM|#
"'It narrows down the field when you tell the agent the girl has
to take a milk enema in the face from another girl's ass. But some
girls actually enjoy this, and that's what I love to see.' He sees
what he loves especially from nasty Annette Schwarz, adorable Lexi
Love and Sophie Dee, who 'loved squirting into Lexi's face, and
taking it in the face.'"
I bet Shakespeare had these sorts of casting problems all the time.
Oh, the trials and tribulations of a true artist!
Metal Messiah|4.20.08 @ 9:54PM|#
"If you're indicate that you're defending these films because
you see nothing wrong with them, then you're going to have a more
difficult row to hoe."
So what is wrong with consenting adults performing consenual acts,
filming those acts, and allowing other consenting adults to view
them?
It's not like pornographers are neo-Nazis (or insert your own
extremist group here) who would seek to strip others of their
liberties. In which case, it could truly be a case defending "the
thought we hate."
Why should anyone HATE the movies Stagliano produces and
distributes? Simply because they involve sex acts? As long nobody
is being forced to perform in the movies, or being forced to watch
them (ala A Clockwork Orange?), then there's no legitimate reason
for any libertarian to hate them.
It would appear that Stagliano is nothing more than a garden
variety capitalist. He pays people to create a product that other
people are willing to pay for. Why the hate?
|4.20.08 @ 9:56PM|#
I'm defending these films because I see nothing wrong with
them.
That POV puts you in a tiny, tiny minority in this country, to say
the least. Like it or not, that's not a winning argument.
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 9:57PM|#
After looking at it again the video may not be entirely
work-safe...
Swear to God?
They say 'dick' so if you work for the Naval Observatory, the
VPOTUS may come by your desk thinking you're talking to him.
And there's a still of a WoW-rendered naked guy - without any
kibbles and bits showing, but only because they're blocked by a
cow. So people may look at you funny for a while if that see this
over your shoulder - esp if it's Anne-Marie from the marketing dept
whom you were thinking of asking out this week.
Les|4.20.08 @ 9:59PM|#
It would appear that Stagliano is nothing more than a garden
variety capitalist. He pays people to create a product that other
people are willing to pay for. Why the hate?
Because he has the gall to make a product that makes some people
uncomfortable.
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 10:01PM|#
I'm thinking "Ho's That Row" is from a completely different line of producers (dorysluts.com?)
|4.20.08 @ 10:02PM|#
Metal Messiah,
Ah, you've discovered the cosmo/paleo divide.
Paleotarians see no justification for making such movies illegal,
but at the same time do consider them to be immoral and disgusting,
and the purveyors of them deserving of contempt and disdain.
You know, the way America operated before the lefties and righties
alike decided that everything immoral should be illegal and vice
versa.
JB|4.20.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Everyone should start calling the Justice Department alleging
various members of the Justice Department have obscene material on
their home computers. Anyone who works for the Justice Department
is obscene so it should be a slam dunk.
Maybe Osama is hiding in a porn movie?
|4.20.08 @ 10:05PM|#
I hope you cosmos don't ever look askance at such popular, profit-making content-producers such as Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, etc. I mean, they're succeeding in the free market, what reason would you have to disdain them?
Assistant Village Idiot|4.20.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Sycophant and lingster - thanks for doing the research. Funny
you came up with a similar impression to mine, while the bloviators
are untouched.
Wow, calling me wrong and stupid, guys. That's reasoning for you.
Euclid would be so proud.
You might hearken back to this when you start wondering why all
those sheeple just don't get your brand of libertarianism and you
can't figure out why.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.20.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Just to be clear, In a free society, consenting adult porn
should not be illegal.
I also understand why some folks might find these films
objectionable. Fine. I find a lot of things objectionable. Starting
with White Zin.
And I hate jetskiis (PWC's). Got kill marks like little Japanese
Zeroes on the bow of the boat. If I weren't a libertarian I'd lobby
to have the bastards banned from every lake in the land. But I
digress.
Logically, porn isn't speech. But like hooking and drugs, in a free
society, it's not my business. Nor yours.
Lastly, Stagliano is a sharp guy and there is no questioning his
classical liberal bona fides. His arguments are not selectively
opportunistic with an eye toward preventing his particular ox from
being gored.
I wish him well and it pisses me off to no end that he's being
prosecuted, even though I ain't buying either of those videos.
Mad Max|4.20.08 @ 10:09PM|#
"It's not like pornographers are neo-Nazis (or insert your own
extremist group here) who would seek to strip others of their
liberties. In which case, it could truly be a case defending 'the
thought we hate.'"
The characters in porno don't say "down with the NIOFF principle"
(or maybe they do - how would I know? But let's assume they don't),
so there's no direct incitement to anti-libertarian action.
Neverthess, the message conveyed, if believed, would be highly
dangerous to liberty. More illicit sex means more illegitimate kids
(more demands for govt benefits for these - disproportionately poor
- children); more dysfunctional relationships, adultery, STDs,
jealousy leading to murder.
I know that there will be immediate replies of, "it's ridiculous to
assume people will take those messages to heart! It won't have that
effect at all!" Maybe so. But the rants of the neo-nazis don't seem
to have any effect, either, yet Metal Messiah thinks it's OK to
hate Nazis, anyway, because of their evil message. Likewise with
the porn people.
(Not hating the pornographeres, but hating their *deeds*).
Les|4.20.08 @ 10:12PM|#
I hope you cosmos don't ever look askance at such popular,
profit-making content-producers such as Bill O'Reilly, Rush
Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, etc. I mean, they're succeeding in the
free market, what reason would you have to disdain them?
I think it's reasonable to have disdain for known liars and bigots
and hypocrites (without wanting to ban their speech, regardless of
how dishonest or bigoted it is), but I don't know why I should have
disdain for people who simply have different sexual tastes than I
do and share those tastes with like-minded adults.
Virgil|4.20.08 @ 10:13PM|#
"You might hearken back to this when you start wondering why all
those sheeple just don't get your brand of libertarianism and you
can't figure out why."
Good lord, and you're calling other people bloviators?!? You might
hearken back to the amazingly condescending, smarmy tone of your
first post when you start wondering why no one considers you worth
responding to despite how terribly important and insightful your
comment was, you self-absorbed, pompous douchebag.
Brandybuck|4.20.08 @ 10:14PM|#
The level of odiousness of a political party all depends on what
you consider to be the important freedoms in your life. Republicans
tend to be against civil liberties much more than the Democrats.
And Democrats tend to be against economic liberties more than the
Republicans. Democrats tilt far to the authoritarian side when it
comes to copyrights, anti-trust, regulations, capital gains, rent
control, gun ownership, etc. Of course the Republicans are not
perfect in this regard, but neither are the Dems angelic when it
comes to free speech (hint: rap lyrics).
I won't excuse tyranny just because the tyrant lets me watch porn.
I guess that makes me a bad cosmotarian, because I'm not planning
on voting for Obama either.
Mad Max|4.20.08 @ 10:16PM|#
"Ah, you've discovered the cosmo/paleo divide."
Yes, I think we've hit one of the fault lines.
Incidentally, I'm not fully comfortable with "cosmotarians" -
sounds too much like "cosmopolites," or alternatively like a reader
of *Cosmo.*
I would go with my man Frank Meyer, who used the term "libertines."
Sounds about right.
|4.20.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Bingo nailed it. With the internet, the Feds haven't got a ice cube's chance in hell of preventing the distribution of this kind of material. Love it or hate it, the genie's out of the bottle. Thank you DOJ for wasting money on a fool's errand.
Metal Messiah|4.20.08 @ 10:19PM|#
"I hope you cosmos don't ever look askance at such popular,
profit-making content-producers such as Bill O'Reilly, Rush
Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, etc. I mean, they're succeeding in the
free market, what reason would you have to disdain them?"
When were these gentlemen indicted on federal obscenity charges? I
must have missed that.
Nobody has to like the content anyone produces, and is free to
disdain anyone they please. Attempting to put them in prison for
offending my sensibilities takes it to a whole new level, no?
Limbaugh, Robertson, and O'Reilly are protected by the same First
Amendment that should be protecting Stagliano. If some
tree-hugging, pinko was attempting to put some talk radio hack in
prison for polluting the public airwaves with his insipid drivel, I
would be defending him just as vehemently as I am defending
Stagliano.
And I'd rather watch Belladonna shoot milk out of her ass than
watch Rush Limbaugh eat a chocolate bar on a hot summer day.
|4.20.08 @ 10:19PM|#
Les,
So, it boils down to a matter of taste -- you're offended by Bill
O'Reilly, and I'm offended by milk enemas. Just don't act like
you're superior because your tastes are different from mine.
Mad Max|4.20.08 @ 10:20PM|#
"I won't excuse tyranny just because the tyrant lets me watch
porn."
In Soviet Russia, porn watches you!
Seriously, Aldous Huxley's *Brave New World* involved a tyrannical
regime which encouraged its subjects to use drugs and watch porno -
keep 'em distracted from thoughts of rebellion.
|4.20.08 @ 10:23PM|#
Metal Messiah,
Your post I was responding to didn't merely say that libertarians
should oppose prosecuting pornographers, it said that libertarians
shouldn't even think ill of them. You're asking me to accept the
contrapositive of the right/left POV that "everything immoral is
illegal", that is, "everything legal is moral". Given human nature,
that idea is just as deleterious to liberty in practice as its
contrapositive.
Mad Max|4.20.08 @ 10:23PM|#
"When were these gentlemen indicted on federal obscenity
charges? I must have missed that."
There *were* the Democratic bills to reinstate the Fairness
Doctrine. These bills were called "Flush Rush" bills because of the
anticipated effect on Limbaugh's program - forcing stations to
balance out Limbaugh's opinions with conflicting views would have
involved such administrative expense as to pressure stations to
drop Rush to steer clear of the hassle.
The bills never passed (thought only Pres. Reagan's veto stopped a
predecessor bill from becoming law in the late 1980s) - but it was
a serious effort.
|4.20.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Mad Max,
I prefer "cosmotarian", because it's more precisely defined as "one
who believes any act not harming another should be legal and is
moral." The word "libertine" refers to someone who acts as if
they're not bound by any moral code beyond not harming
others...it's a slightly different concept, as a libertine may
still support laws against their own behaviors, and a cosmotarian
may not engage in all the activities they consider moral.
Les|4.20.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Chris,
I hope I'd never act superior to anyone. I'm just trying to
understand how sex acts between consenting adults can be considered
"immoral" and worthy of disdain.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 10:35PM|#
Touche. Still, as much as I despise the Dems
ROFLMAO AGAIN! The hits just keep coming!
Whomever said that the problem is probably not using the USPS
sounded good.
I am still trying to find out what the legal problem is with the
DVD distribution. Secondly, I am still trying to find out
(bureaucratically sp?) why this guy was picked out.
Those of you who can read, already know that I have no problem with
his distributing the videos through whatever means he distributed
them, no matter what the content. Others, as you can read, may be
confused on that point.
So, when can we have a Janet Reno baby burning thread so J sub D
can express himself in an adult manner?
|4.20.08 @ 10:36PM|#
Les,
A Christian would state that sex was designed for specific
purposes, and this is not one of them. Now, you may disagree with
this, but can you not just accept that some people believe so, and
yet are not the enemies you make them out to be?
I mean, I definitely can't understand how someone could consider
drinking milk enemas to be sexually arousing, regardless of the
moral status, but I can accept that for whatever reason there are
such people.
Mad Max|4.20.08 @ 10:38PM|#
As far as censorship of Pat Robertson, there was the threat of
losing tax-exempt status for his nonprofits because of endorsing
political candidates.
Why is there a law to revoke a nonprofit's tax exemption if it
endorses or opposes a candidate for office? It goes back to Lyndon
Johnson (D-Tex) getting criticized by a nonprofit in his home
state. So he retaliated with this law, which has been on the books
ever since. Johnson and his ilk don't see tax exemption as an issue
of whether the public interest required an exemption or not. From
his viewpoint, tax exemption is a favor bestowed on grateful
subjects by their lords and masters in Congress, and don't dare
criticize those bountiful masters.
|4.20.08 @ 10:39PM|#
Guy,
I hate to jeopardize the fact that we're getting along on this
thread, but when it comes to unnecessarily killing innocent people,
the Clinton administration is pretty far behind *ahem* another
presidency I could mention...
|4.20.08 @ 10:42PM|#
Uh...tax exemption IS a favor granted by Congress. In my libertopian tax system, I wouldn't allow tax exemptions to any charities or churches. That smacks of social engineering.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 10:43PM|#
Chris,
So, it boils down to a matter of taste -- you're offended by
Bill O'Reilly, and I'm offended by milk enemas. Just don't act like
you're superior because your tastes are different from
mine.
He may think differently if he would shake off his chains of
'morality' and taste some assmilk.
prefer "cosmotarian", because it's more precisely defined as
"one who believes any act not harming another should be legal and
is moral."
Well, I never heard that definition. I thought it was the
Libertatians who advocated all of the freedoms that Libertarians
and libertarians advocate, but chose to live in places where those
freedoms could not be exercised so that they could go to fancy
coctail parties with Tim Russert and Ezera Klein.
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 10:46PM|#
Am I the only one who is utterly failing to grok AVI's point,
other than he is ready for a promotion?
"I won't excuse tyranny just because the tyrant lets me watch
porn."
And with the timbre of this thread, it's surprisingly difficult for
me not to drop the first 'y' in that sentence.
Metal Messiah|4.20.08 @ 10:47PM|#
"Flush Rush" -- I always found it ironic that that bill came
from the same people who pushed low-flow toilets on us. You ain't
gonna fat boy down in anything but one of those old numbers that
would suck down a sack of potatoes.
And, I suspect the standard libertarian response to the "flush
rush" bill would be that that's what you get when you let the
government regulate the content of the "public" airwaves.
But, say that Limbaugh's views on women, gays, and minorities
offend me just as greatly -- if not moreso -- as the content of
Stagliano's movies may offend others. Does that mean I have as much
right to see Limbaugh in prison as others apparently have to see
Stagliano put into prison?
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 10:47PM|#
Chris,
I hate to jeopardize the fact that we're getting along on this
thread, but when it comes to unnecessarily killing innocent people,
the Clinton administration is pretty far behind *ahem* another
presidency I could mention...
Fine with me if we disagree on the use of military force and on how
it is done. It is just a disagreement to me.
BTW, I have been of your mind on your last tax mention since back
when I voted Dem all of the time.
|4.20.08 @ 10:49PM|#
Of course, the word means whatever people think it means, so there's no point arguing about it. The definition I gave is the best I can come up with given the ways I've used it and seen it used.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 10:51PM|#
And, I suspect the standard libertarian response to the
"flush rush" bill would be that that's what you get when you let
the government regulate the content of the "public"
airwaves.
That is my view. I am a free market guy and I tend to resist the
Marxist/Lennist verbage for non-Socialist economic stuff too.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 10:54PM|#
Chris,
When I refer to my Cosmotarian tendancies, I am usually talking
about having Martinis with the reasonoids in DC and lighting smokes
with fiat money.
But that's just me, and Ron Bailey if you substitute Martinis for
incredibly Scotch. For him there should be the term "peak
Scotch".
|4.20.08 @ 10:56PM|#
Metal Messiah,
Mad Max, you, I, and pretty much everyone else here agrees that
this guy shouldn't be prosecuted.
The disagreement is over whether a libertarian must admire, or at
least not harbor contempt toward, this guy. So, the issue is not
whether you think Rush should be prosecuted, but whether you think
libertarians can't think ill of him, since you've stated before
that libertarians can't think ill of someone blasting 2% into
women's recta.
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 10:57PM|#
For the internet lawyers, (like me) I found this which seems to contain most of the federal obscenity laws. Of interest, which has not been mentioned, is that based on the press release linked above @2:40, they are also pursuing a forfeiture action, albiet a criminal one provided by the code, not the civil ones which seems to be the more problematic.
|4.20.08 @ 11:03PM|#
Oh, here's the 2004 article I alluded to before about the prosecution of an even sicker pornographer, Robert Zicari of Extreme Associates. Though at least the writer didn't go out of his way to paint Zicari as a great American hero in that piece.
boston|4.20.08 @ 11:04PM|#
I can buy disgusting, but immoral? Milk enemas are immoral? are regular ones? or just ones that are done for sexual pleasure. Also i think there might be a difference between quasi-"hate speech" and porn that one might or might not like. Also fun fact squirting is banned in the UK, they consider it urine.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 11:04PM|#
Kolohe,
Allow me to go on record, yet again, as being against property
forfeiture, unless is is in the course of making restitution. Yes,
that is still in complete disagreement with the public law you
found.
That said, and no longer directed toward anybody, if the ladies
were using buttermilk it could open a whole new variety of
assbread.
I had a hacker buddy, Knarph, who hooked up with was
dating a former pro-Domme, who had one of her subjects make . .
.
Sorry, that one is too gross even for me to write here.
Guy Montag|4.20.08 @ 11:06PM|#
Also fun fact squirting is banned in the UK, they consider
it urine.
Prudish freaks!
|4.20.08 @ 11:14PM|#
Also fun fact squirting is banned in the UK, they consider
it urine.
That is odd. By that logic, semen is urine as well.
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 11:14PM|#
Even more troubling is this excerpt from 1461 (Mailing obscene
or crime-inciting matter)
Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, ...
Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.
Seems to me they've outlawed mailing anything that discusses in any
way Mifepristone.
|4.20.08 @ 11:20PM|#
Usually girls do a little previous squirting for me, to make
sure. That gets my heart beating. (For) her first squirt ever, she
doesn't know what's going to happen, and it squirts out like a
rocket - wow, this is going to be fun.
Jay on ass: It keeps my heart going. I think my heart's
actually got an ass inside. I could have a headless woman with an
ass, and I'd be happy.
I don't see how anyone could consider this to be an immoral
man!
boston|4.20.08 @ 11:23PM|#
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/femejac.htm
However, on May 2001, a video entitled British Cum Queens
(initially submitted as Squirt Queens), was finally passed with a
R18 certificate having been cut by six minutes and 12 seconds
because the ejaculation of fluid by female performers as a sexual
response was deemed to be urolagnia, banned in accordance with the
Obscene Publications Act 1959.
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 11:23PM|#
One
more:
§ 1468. Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television
(a) Whoever knowingly utters any obscene language or distributes any obscene matter by means of cable television or subscription services on television, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or by a fine in accordance with this title, or both.
How the fuck is HBO still on the air?
Kolohe|4.20.08 @ 11:30PM|#
Jay on ass: It keeps my heart going. I think my heart's
actually got an ass inside. I could have a headless woman with an
ass, and I'd be happy.
I don't see how anyone could consider this to be an immoral
man!
else he's just a marine who took this a little
too close to heart.
Boston|4.20.08 @ 11:35PM|#
CP,
Jay Sin, the person you quoted is not the one being prosecuted, or
at least from what I can infer. The person that reason is talking
about is John Stagliano the owner of Evil Angel. Whether he shares
these sentiments about milk enemas is uncertain.
Bingo|4.20.08 @ 11:53PM|#
Everyone who is whining about this needs to disconnect their
internet immediately and go back to consuming the
government-sanctioned propaganda streams. The internet guarantees
nearly universal and anonymous free speech, in all forms. That
means that along with all those wonderful political and
philosophical discussions we have there will also be a ton of
disgusting and vile shit.
Deal with it, freedom doesn't mean utopia.
Guy Montag|4.21.08 @ 12:22AM|#
Bingo,
Are you new here? Where do you find anybody objecting about the
content?
Les|4.21.08 @ 12:46AM|#
Chris,
Now, you may disagree with this, but can you not just accept
that some people believe so, and yet are not the enemies you make
them out to be?
I don't think I've made them out to be enemies. Where have I done
that?
Bingo|4.21.08 @ 1:26AM|#
Whoops! Sorry Guy, in my inebriated state, I thought I saw some paleo's being prudes. In any case, I've drank enough to make an ass of myself but not quite enough to become incoherent. The situation shall be remedied :)
|4.21.08 @ 4:20AM|#
I don't think I have ever met a person that has not viewed porn-
AND enjoyed it. All the guys I grew up with certainly did and most
us us watched it with our girlfriends and wives. Maybe not everyone
would admit it, oh well. Anyway my point was I honestly think the
Moral Majority Conservatives ( I dare not call them libertarians of
any stripe) in this thread are in fact in the majority. Most of the
people I know who consume porn are/were pretty religious and clean
cut people, FWIW.
So yeah ( surprise)I join the libertarians who don't see anything
wrong with porn. Sorry to all the conservative nutjobs who think
they are in the majority when it's just the same loud group of
obnoxious assholes ( like the Brent Bozell TV shit).
|4.21.08 @ 4:21AM|#
Well, sometimes I just cant type at 4am.. wrot majority when I meant minority, among other things.
Fluffy|4.21.08 @ 9:11AM|#
I'm a little late to the party, but the whole Janet Reno dispute
seems to be a misreading of the original sentence that prompted
it.
I don't see anything that said that Reno was BETTER than the
current AG. It only says that her priorities were less
trivial.
So it's entirely consistent with that statement for Reno to have
fucked up and killed lots of people and to have been a shitty AG
and bad person overall - as long as her fuckups occurred in the
context of laws that are generally regarded as "more
serious".
Personally, I think the gun laws that triggered the whole Waco
incident should not exist. That creates a problem for me, because
on the one hand I'd like to say that the gun laws still seem
inherently "more serious" to me than the porn laws - but in a very
real way that's completely irrational, because all laws I don't
support are technically equally unimportant and their enforcement
is equally unimportant. But somehow that doesn't seem correct,
because I would require a prosecutor who focused on enforcing the
gun laws a more serious person than one who focused on enforcing
the porn laws, for reasons it's hard for me to articulate.
Guy Montag|4.21.08 @ 10:07AM|#
Whoops! Sorry Guy, in my inebriated state, I thought I saw
some paleo's being prudes. In any case, I've drank enough to make
an ass of myself but not quite enough to become incoherent. The
situation shall be remedied :)
I wish I could have joined you, but I needed a nap before work
:(
Keep up the good fight!
|4.21.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Reminds me of those long ago commercials:
milk - it does a body good (yeah - keeps you regular)
with those milk mustaches (ooouuu)
|4.21.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Janet Reno only made a small clerical mistake. It is understadnable that any public servant could make a error at some time. Who among us is perfect? This in no way releases any of you money grubbers from owing her your eternal gratitude for stoically helping protect you from terrorism for 8 years.
|4.21.08 @ 6:24PM|#
"Where are the Bush sycophants?"
"Milk Nymphos" puts PETA squarely in Bush's corner ...
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245