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
[e-mail]

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 information here.

More on the Stagliano prosecution here.

reason on porn here.

Comments

J sub D | April 20, 2008, 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?

mk | April 20, 2008, 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

CharlesWT | April 20, 2008, 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 ork for me | April 20, 2008, 2:10pm | #

Orking cows will be the next target of repression.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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. | April 20, 2008, 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.

P Brooks | April 20, 2008, 2:34pm | #

It's the legacy, stoopid!

The Wine Commonsewer | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 2:41pm | #

TWC,

Sounds like JsD is trying to invoke highnumber's latest character, Neil.

Rick H. | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

kevin | April 20, 2008, 3:00pm | #

well, gonna puke now.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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. | April 20, 2008, 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.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 3:10pm | #

kevin,

Pukey and/or icky do not equal illegal.

Bob Goodman | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 3:23pm | #

Bob Goodman,

If those movie reviews (scroll up) were not educational, I don't know what is :)

The Wine Commonsewer | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 3:35pm | #

Tru dat, TWC.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

J sub D | April 20, 2008, 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?

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.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

J sub D | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

kevin | April 20, 2008, 5:08pm | #

@guy montag:

I never said it should be illegal. Just that it is icky.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

kevin | April 20, 2008, 5:19pm | #

@guy montag:

Yes, bondage porn is the one thing we can all enjoy. Fun for the whole family.

ABC | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 5:26pm | #

J sub D,

Where are the Bush sycophants?

Oh, the irony!

Dirty Frank | April 20, 2008, 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.

J sub D | April 20, 2008, 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.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 5:47pm | #

JsD,

ROFLMAO

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 5:51pm | #

Kyle Busch wins the Mexico City race in his Dodge Charger.

Dello | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 5:55pm | #

"...girls picturesquely blast milk enemas out of their asses!"

There's a coffee shop I'll avoid.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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...

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 . . .

J sub D | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

J sub D | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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!

Jeff P | April 20, 2008, 6:49pm | #

I think the problem may be that the milk in question did not meet FDA guidelines...

Kolohe | April 20, 2008, 6:50pm | #

re: any potential janet reno b-b-but clinton-ism

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he and his attorney general, Janet Reno, had little interest in devoting attention and resources to new obscenity prosecutions (which declined dramatically during the first few years of the Clinton administration) ...
"[Clinton] appointed Janet Reno as his attorney general," says Mark Kernes, an editor at the trade publication Adult Video News. "And she did not think that persecuting people who want to watch adult material in the privacy of their own homes should be a law enforcement priority."

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.

Kolohe | April 20, 2008, 6:53pm | #

I now see my previous post was already well covered territory.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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. | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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?

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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.

mk | April 20, 2008, 7:25pm | #

"...girls picturesquely blast milk enemas out of their asses!"

Also known as "cow-orking"

J sub D | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 7:51pm | #

Maybe the Bush administration is extending an olive branch to its Islamic antagonists?

Bingo | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Bush Sycophant who can barely use Google | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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. | April 20, 2008, 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.

Iguana | April 20, 2008, 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. | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Brian | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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. | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 9:10pm | #

And I think the video(SFW) is somehow appropriate to this thread.

arlo | April 20, 2008, 9:11pm | #

First they came for the milk enema ass squirting babes... and I said nothing.

Kolohe | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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. | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 9:35pm | #

After looking at it again the video may not be entirely work-safe...

Swear to God?

DaveS | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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. | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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!"

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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?

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 10:01pm | #

I'm thinking "Ho's That Row" is from a completely different line of producers (dorysluts.com?)

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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?

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Mike W. | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Mad Max | April 20, 2008, 10:32pm | #

CP,

Fair enough. It's not as if I can abolish that usage.

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 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?

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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...

Goddess of Freedom | April 20, 2008, 10:42pm | #

With friends like these, who needs enemas?

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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".

Guy Montag | April 20, 2008, 10:55pm | #

Martinis for incredibly expensive Scotch

fixed

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.

Chris Potter | April 20, 2008, 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 | April 20, 2008, 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.