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
John Stagliano on Censorship
Over at
The Los Angeles Times' Opinion section, adult
moviemaker and distributor John Stagliano—currently facing
federal obscenity charges that could put him in prison for
almost 40 years—is debating Pepperdine Law School's Barry McDonald
all week about free expression. Briefly, Stagliano is for it,
McDonald not so much. (Full disclosure: Stagliano is a
supporter of Reason Foundation, the
nonprofit that publishes this website.)
Here's a passage worth reading from Stagliano, auteur of the popular Buttman series and the award-winning Fashionistas:
Barry, your point is that people must be forced to not think things that you don't like, and for that you'd have me put in jail. Your comment that it "seems" to you that viewing images "to obtain sexual pleasure cannot be the healthiest way of experiencing sex" seems not a good enough reason to imprison me for 39 years. In fact, using a proper concept of morality based on individual rights, it is you and those who would put me in jail when I did not infringe on anyone's rights who are behaving immorally.
More here, today and the rest of the week.
Check out Stagliano's Defend Our Porn! website.
If you subscribe to the print edition of reason (only $19.97 for a year's worth of the mag ABC News' John Stossels says is "one sane voice fighting tons of nonsense"), look for a Q&A with Stagliano in the August/September double issue, now winging your way. And look for an extended interview soon at reason.tv, our video site featuring the Drew Carey Project.
If you don't subscribe, do so now! You'll receive 11 action-packed issues of the richly illustrated mag that the Village Voice says is "dictating the libertarian spin" and you'll help underwrite the expenses of publishing the print mag, reason online, and reason.tv.
J|7.1.08 @ 10:30AM|#
I don't know much about his work, but I imagine if I saw it I
might find it disgusting or offensive.
But that doesn't matter because I sure as hell am not going looking
for it. I would argue against laws for public display and rely on
private shunning of advertisements and the like, but this isn't
even that close to controversial.
|7.1.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Saget's an ass magnet, so that makes sense.
Read Warren Ellis' Crooked Little Vein Saturday. The
argument running through the book is that anything on-line can be
accessed by anyone, so if it's on-line, then it's mainstream. And
now that almost all former "perversions" are mainstream, then the
people who enjoy being a pervert for the sake of being a pervert
are forced to come up with an escalating series sexual outrages to
keep up, a sort of filth arms race.
The book itself is short and choppy, but enjoyable. Reads like a
Desolation Jones script he couldn't find anyone to draw,
though. A character gets his scrotum inflated with a quart of warm
saline solution against his will. Don't say you weren't warned.
|7.1.08 @ 10:44AM|#
I'm tired of this, "I find his work disgusting myself,
however...," shit.
Yeah. I'm not a porn consumer. But you know what? Stagliano is
absolutely right.
"It is you and those who would put me in jail...who are behaving
immorally."
A-fucking-men. It's time we stopped ceding those fuckers any claim
to the moral highground whatever.
God this crap makes me angry. Fuck, fuckety-fuck. Somebody hose me
down.
ed|7.1.08 @ 10:44AM|#
Village Voice says [reason] is "dictating the libertarian
spin"
"Spin" is a compliment now?
No, he doesn't look like Bob Saget.
|7.1.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Somebody hose me down.
Be careful, everybody. That sounds like entrapment on an obscenity
charge.
J|7.1.08 @ 10:49AM|#
I'm tired of this, "I find his work disgusting myself,
however...," shit.
Yeah. I'm not a porn consumer. But you know what? Stagliano is
absolutely right.
"It is you and those who would put me in jail...who are behaving
immorally."
A-fucking-men. It's time we stopped ceding those fuckers any claim
to the moral highground whatever.
Unless I misunderstand you, and you are talking about some other
"Ick, but..." continuation, you basically just did what you said
you are tired of.
Episiarch|7.1.08 @ 10:50AM|#
The argument running through the book is that anything
on-line can be accessed by anyone, so if it's on-line, then it's
mainstream.
Wouldn't this be an excellent argument in Stagliano's defense? That
what he does, by this definition being mainstream, is therefore not
"obscene"?
J|7.1.08 @ 10:51AM|#
I think it makes the point even more poignant to say that you find something disgusting, but will still protect it. I really have no idea what his work is, but my guess is I would actively dislike it, not just not be into it. But I still will do what I can to protect it.
|7.1.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Woohoo! Thanks, Epi.
And J, I'm just saying that the "standard libertarian disclaimer:"
"Porn is icky, Mmmkay? But...," "Drugs make you do stupid things,
Mmmmkay? But...," "Goat fucking is regarded as twisted in our
society, Mmmkay? But..." is becoming tiresome, given the
no-nonsense balls-out immorality of our opponents.
And yes, I do it, too.
|7.1.08 @ 10:59AM|#
I think this administration's war on porn is simply wrong. Not only do you thave the argument that noone is being forced to watch this and hurt, but I think it's safe to say that many people enjoy porn and find it part of a stimulating life. Letting people explore different things and lifestyles as long as no one is nonconsensually physically harmed is part of maximizing liberty (credit to On Liberty and J.S.M.).
|7.1.08 @ 11:01AM|#
(And by, "Yes, I do it, too." I was referring to the libertarian disclaimer, not goat-fucking.)
Episiarch|7.1.08 @ 11:03AM|#
And by, "Yes, I do it, too." I was referring to the
libertarian disclaimer, not goat-fucking.
Too late, pervert!
J|7.1.08 @ 11:06AM|#
Oh, I don't think he is immoral* at all, and I completely agree
that the people trying to punish him for it are acting
monstrously.
But much like I like to point out that I don't smoke (pot or
tobacco), barely drink, and pretty much only enjoy things that are
socially acceptable (except unhealthy food, sigh), I still fight
for those things. On H&R alot of people are probably similar
(to some of those positions), but in real life, I deal with
potheads that don't mind public smoking bans, porn lovers that
think doing drugs without hurting anyone is sick, and all sorts of
other people.
I guess it's sort of an appeal (unnecessary here, maybe) to those
that only work for more tangible personal interests rather than the
intangible freedoms.
the innominate one|7.1.08 @ 11:15AM|#
'...the mag ABC News' John Stossels says is "one sane voice
fighting tons of nonsense"...'
true about reason, but unfortunately, Stossel is a
contributor to the nonsense, ofttimes
|7.1.08 @ 11:16AM|#
look for a Q&A with Stagliano in the August/September
double issue
STOP CALLING IT A DOUBLE ISSUE
YOU LYING FRAUDULENT LOW LIFE THIEVING FUCKS
You're just taking vacation and not working for a month. So we
subscribers get boned every September because the Reason staff are
a bunch of lazy no-good shift abouts (except for Radley, He's harsh
*fist bump*)
|7.1.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Is there something about this guy's porn that differentiates him from other pornographers? Not that I think he should be charged either way but there must be a reason he is being charged while millions of other pornographers go free? Did he piss off the wrong people or what?
|7.1.08 @ 11:36AM|#
John Stagliano-currently facing federal obscenity charges
that could put him in prison for almost 40 years
He should have raped and dismembered a hooker. He'd be facing less
time that way.
Joe Smith|7.1.08 @ 11:52AM|#
This is stupid and an affront to liberty, but it is part of our puritan heritage.
Neu Mejican|7.1.08 @ 11:54AM|#
And J, I'm just saying that the "standard libertarian
disclaimer:" "Porn is icky, Mmmkay? But...," "Drugs make you do
stupid things, Mmmmkay? But...," "Goat fucking is regarded as
twisted in our society, Mmmkay? But..." is becoming tiresome, given
the no-nonsense balls-out immorality of our opponents.
Yes, this is a common way to frame a libertarian argument. I find
it less tiring than the more common
"Why are they trying to ban X? X is not harmful, X is not a
problem, X is really rainbows and kittens. They are lying about the
problems X creates just so they can control my life."
The acknowledgment that X is a problem, but that this
still doesn't justify a law against it is a much more
powerful argument.
J|7.1.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Is there something about this guy's porn that differentiates
him from other pornographers?
Probably just the usual anal, double penetration and ass to
mouth.
Episiarch|7.1.08 @ 12:07PM|#
The acknowledgment that X is a problem, but that this still
doesn't justify a law against it is a much more powerful
argument.
Porn is a problem?
|7.1.08 @ 12:14PM|#
From his website:
THE UNITED STATES VS JOHN STAGLIANO
CRIMINAL NUMBER: 08-093
CHARGE: OBSCENITY
ARRAINGED: 4/21/08
Wow, I never thought I would reach this status in the world. I want
to thanks the Justice Department for choosing me for this
prosecution, I shall endeavor to not disappoint them.
There is war in America, on the American people. It takes the form
of trying to kill pleasure. Perverse as this seems, the government,
acting on political pressure from organized forces of evil (real
evil, not Evil Empire, fun evil) in this country have made it their
mission to see to it that people do not enjoy themselves too much,
especially in sexual ways. This thing about ourselves, our
sexuality, is something to be proscribed and controlled.
It is a fundamental thing about living, do I go for things that are
expansive? That is, do I wish to extend my experience of this
world? Or do I seek a narrow range of life, a range that does not
include experimentation? They say this journey to enjoying your
sexuality will addict you, it will screw up your life. That is for
each of you to consider, but do you think someone should be able to
control you, to repress you?
I have been called by our country to defend the rights of those who
dare to love their lives here on earth, and I so love my life, and
my freedom. They are trying to take that precious freedom away from
me, and from you.
It is fitting that this issue is the one where I renew my own
artistic impressions of ass. I have the stills here from the three
scenes of my new release Buttman's Beautiful Brazilian Ass. I have
been away for awhile from making Buttman movies. The pictures in
this magazine have been from my other directors at the Evil Empire.
But I recently went to Brazil, to make a Buttman movie for the
first time in 3 years, just before I was indicted by the feds. So
as a tribute to all those who would take our ass art away I'm glad
I can present what I think is my best work, my new stuff, on a
journey back to what I love.
-John Stagliano
Neu Mejican|7.1.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Porn is a problem?
You would need to be more specific for me to respond...
Porn has the potential to be problematic in a number of ways, even
if the general idea is pretty benign.
I was, however, making a more general statement about how many
people frame their libertarian arguments. Far too frequently the
arguments are attempts to refute the existence of a problem rather
than to propose a better solution than the proposed solution. One
that preserves freedom, but addresses the concern that motivates
the law/ban.
J|7.1.08 @ 1:06PM|#
Just so you know, the previous J is not the J that has been
posting in this thread.
It's a bit annoying.
J|7.1.08 @ 1:10PM|#
I was, however, making a more general statement about how
many people frame their libertarian arguments. Far too frequently
the arguments are attempts to refute the existence of a problem
rather than to propose a better solution than the proposed
solution. One that preserves freedom, but addresses the concern
that motivates the law/ban.
I honestly don't think this applies to pornography, but I agree
with this to some extent. I also often feel like some problems are
not important enough for their to need a solution, or sometimes
that the problem is less negative (even in things more measurable
than freedom) than the current solution, but alot of the time
people pretend the lesser problem wouldn't exist at all.
|7.1.08 @ 1:32PM|#
So some government official might respond, "Neu Mexican's posts
have the potential to be problematic in a number of ways. Let's ban
the fucker, or, better yet, lock him up."
Then I, as a reasonable libertarian, would have to respond, "Yes,
Neu Mexican's posts are regarded as twisted by some significant
segment of society. Let us address that concern. Let us examine it
closely. Let us, even, admit that some of the things Neu Mexican
posts are, indeed a problem.
Might we, sir, come to some resolution other than throwing his ass
in the can? Is there, your honor, perhaps a better way than sending
him to the gulag? Might we, oh most wise one, find an opportunity
here to learn and grow that doesn't involve shipping Neu Mexican to
the farthest reaches of the Arctic tundra and letting the polar
bears have their way with him? I don't refute the existance of a
problem, but I propose that we grapple with this important issue in
a way that, perhaps, preserves freedom."
Ahh. Yes. That's so satisfying I'm going to have to light up a
cig.
|7.1.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Did he piss off the wrong people or what?
I think he pissed on the wrong people.
(Rimshot)
Ska|7.1.08 @ 2:02PM|#
Anyone else think he looks like Bob Saget? At least in that
picture
More like Saul Rubinek - the Lee Donowitz character in True
Romance.
|7.1.08 @ 2:10PM|#
(Rimshot)
I'm pretty sure that's the sort of thing that got Stagliano in
trouble in the first place.
|7.1.08 @ 2:10PM|#
I would never package my libertarian pitch with a condemnation
of how "immoral" porn is- because it's not.
But that's just me. For me, libertarianism is a rational, objective
philosophy in the way Objectivism claimed to be but never was. And
there is absolutely nothing immoral or shameful about human
sexuality. You want nothing to do with it? Fine, that's your
business. But even conceding that an act between two consenting
adults can be objectively immoral (which is what these
people hear when you condemn it, even if you meant under your own
subjective morality rather than the objective morality of
non-aggression, self-ownership, etc.*) gives them too much. No one
is in a position to pass unsolicited moral judgment on events to
which they are not a party (though of course they have every right
to be an ass and do so).
|7.1.08 @ 2:16PM|#
Bob Saget is far more obscene than John Stagliano. Don't believe me? Add The Aristocrats to your Netflix list, find Bob Saget in the special features section and watch that first.
dhex|7.1.08 @ 2:58PM|#
And there is absolutely nothing immoral or shameful about
human sexuality.
i fall far more on the libertine side of whatever the great big
venn diagram of libertarian is, but this statement is silly.
rape is immoral, for starters.
Neu Mejican|7.1.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Citizen Nothing,
There are certainly times when the most valid argument is, indeed,
that no problem exists, therefore no solution is warranted.
If you waste that argument on cases where a well recognized problem
exists, it loses its utility for the valid cases. C.F., the global
warming debate, the war on drugs, etc...
Metal Messiah|7.1.08 @ 11:28PM|#
Is there something about this guy's porn that differentiates
him from other pornographers? Not that I think he should be charged
either way but there must be a reason he is being charged while
millions of other pornographers go free? Did he piss off the wrong
people or what?
Stagliano's company, Evil Angel, releases what is called gonzo porn
(ie, it's straight sex without plot or acting), with a lot of
fetish-oriented material.
He's being prosecuted for a squirting movie (female ejaculation),
an enema movie(where women take milk enemas and expel it), and a
trailer for Belladonna's Fetish Fanatic that is available on their
website.
The government's porn prosecutions have so far gone after people
like Max Hardcore and Rob Black, who produce material that tends to
be violent.
The movies Stagliano is being prosecuted over are not, to my
knowledge, particularly violent or more extreme than material being
produced by other professional pornographers.
It may also be worth noting that people like Max Hardcore and Rob
Black are generally despised within the industry, while Stagliano
is one of the most highly respected by his peers.
The government is just moving down the food chain, going for the
easy targets like Max and Rob first.
As far as pissing off the wrong people, he's producing pornography
in a fundamentalist christian police state. That's all it
takes.
There is a definite agenda at play here:
www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/
|7.2.08 @ 7:34AM|#
Ska,
Thank you. I could not remember the actor's name, but I was
thinking the same thing.
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