Censorship

D.C. Porn Ruling Gives "Blue Christmas" A New Meaning

|

My friend John Stagliano has been scrooged this holiday season after a federal judge refused to dismiss obscenity charges related to adult videos distributed by his company.

Buttman Agonistes

In a status conference the day before Christmas Eve, Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected defense motions that the case be dismissed on grounds that federal "contemporary community standards" for obscenity are too vague to govern online expression and that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas created a right to sexual privacy that includes the right to own and distribute sexual media.

Stagliano, a donor to the Reason Foundation, which runs Reason magazine and this site, could stand trial this summer along with his company, Evil Angel Productions. However, Leon indicated the defense could appeal his Wednesday decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, saying, "This is about the overarching legal issue in this case, and needs to be resolved one way or another."

This could be an avenue for addressing the question of whether a community standards carve-out made when porn was still shown in downtown movie theaters is applicable to an era when porn is consumed at home with the blinds drawn. The right to privacy derives from technology, starting with the ability to build houses with separate rooms. There's no reason it shouldn't be expanding as technology advances.

Leon also makes an interesting point about the Lawrence v. Texas argument: "The liberty interest the defendants claim pales in comparison to the liberty interest announced in Lawrence." I agree, but it's also true that the greater-good argument for policing sexual behavior is more compelling than the greater-good argument for policing media consumption. Going back to the Trojan War, and continuing through a modern age of broken homes and crimes of passion, there is ample evidence that romantic autonomy results in vast negative consequences for society, and no evidence that consumption of media results in any consequences at all. From a societal-impact viewpoint, it makes more sense for the state to restrict whom you can have sex with than to restrict what you can watch while having sex with yourself.

See the Buttman working clean in this interview with Reason.tv.

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

237 responses to “D.C. Porn Ruling Gives "Blue Christmas" A New Meaning

  1. REASON WRITES YET ANOTHER PUFF-PIECE IN FAVOR OF REASON FOUNDATION BIG-MONEY DONOR!!! HURR DURR!!! PAYOLA!!! SCANDAL!!! NO OBJECTIVITY!!! DROOL!!! FAVORABLE COVERAGE FOR BIG PORN!!! HURR!!! DURR!!!

    1. Crayon, you missed the reason REASON mentioned he was a donor because they had to and not because they wanted to. Isn’t compliance a bitch?

      1. I STILL STUPID IN LOVE WITH GOVERNMENT!!! STEVE SMITH RAPE ME PLEASE!!!

        1. Would someone take my hellspawn child and put him in a mental institution? I’m tired of giving him handjobs while he reads the collected works of Karl Marx.

          1. Ah, Maaaaaa! No more handouts?

    2. Totally unrelated, but I seem some asshole tried to bring down NWA 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit.

      I’ve been on that flight many times, so I take the report a little more personally that I usually would.

      So, do we get to blame Barak for the first attempted terrorist attack on an aircraft in the US since 9/11?

      1. He was already on a watch list and he still got through security just after TSA publishes their security manual on the internet. Couldn’t be any connection.

        Happy Boxing Day!

      2. Silly Suki, it was a problem inherited from the Bush administration.

        1. I’ve taken that flight several times as well.

          1. Good thing there was a vigilant citizen on board to stop that terrorist. I am thinking plain clothes Ninja.

              1. Maybe, but they don’t seem very Ninjerly.

                1. Yeah, I guess just vigilant citizenry.

                  1. Sounds like he was using thermite with a potassium permanganate and glycerol (liquid) to start the reaction. Could be lots of other things that the bomb chemists probably know about.

                    1. that’s not a terribly good b0mb. Thermite’s just really exergonic reaction. But it doesn’t explode (has to do with moles of gas released per unit reaction and temperature). Great for welding together train rails, though.

                    2. You know a lot about explosives. We’re taking you in for questioning, as you must be a terrorist.

                    3. I think melting a hole through the botto of the plane would be less than trivial.

                      But “Kaboom”, no.

      3. Apparently the bomber had the device strapped to his thigh.

        Which brings to mind the old joke that I am so glad that Richard Reid is known as the shoe bomber and not the underwear bomber.

        I eagerly await the new TSA screening process that results from yesterday’s attempted bombing.

        1. From the BBC: High explosives are believed to have been moulded to his body and sewn in to his underpants.

          Great 🙁

    3. I am smart! I am smart!

      Please don’t rape me.

    4. *cough* blow job *cough*

    5. Slurp! Slurp! Slurp!

  2. You dared suggest that not all sexual activity is beneficial! Prepare to be deluged by a hateful comments from abstinence-hating libertines, Tim.

  3. Buttman fights the good fight. You go, John.

    1. Buttman, there’s big trouble in Gotham City! We need your help! The Poker is on one of his rampages again!

      1. Don’t you mean “Commissioner Hardon”?

  4. Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided.

    1. Why? Is this something about how while the federal government should be impotent to do nearly anything, local governments can be oppressive mini-theocracies if they want?

      1. Of course not, Tony. We all know the federal government is supposed to be the Leviathan run amok and not, say, the City of Plainview.

        1. It’ll be bigger than Leviathan when I get done with it!

      2. Why? Is this something about how while the federal government should be impotent to do nearly anything, local governments can be oppressive mini-theocracies if they want?

        There was no general recognition of a right to do sodomy either when the Ninth Amendment was ratified, or when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

        1. There was also no recognition of a right to have unwiretapped phone conversations when the Fourth was ratified…

          1. There was also no recognition of a right to have unwiretapped phone conversations when the Fourth was ratified…

            Indeed.

        2. No right for the government to ban it either. So you’re a libertarian until you object to the way someone has sex in the privacy of his home?

          1. The power to ban sodomy was reserved to the states.

            1. A pointless power, as married straight monogamous couples can engage in “sodomy”… but I digress.

            2. So I was right, you believe the federal government should be virtually powerless but local governments can tread on any and all freedoms they like.

              1. You’re halfway there, Tony… local governments need to be virtually powerless as well.

              2. So I was right, you believe the federal government should be virtually powerless but local governments can tread on any and all freedoms they like.

                Only so far as the United States Constitution permits.

                Nowhere was it written that sodomy was a civil right, nor was it recognized as such during the ratification of the Ninth or Fourteenth Amendments.

                Lawrence not only contradicted Bowers v. Hardwick , it also contradicted Reynolds v. the United States and The Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. the United States . Lawrence was a very egregious attempt to ignore both constitutional history and Supreme Court precedent to achieve a predetermined result.

        3. But there is now. That’s a stupid argument. THe constitution only addresses things as they existed when the various parts were ratified?

  5. Consenting adults creating and selling a product to be used by consenting adults. Short of taxation, I’m not sure why the government’s involved.

  6. I agree w/ crayon. Reason would have paid little or no attention to the ruling if Stagliano, a truly unlikeable slime, wasn’t a Reason donor.

    1. Kawliga, are you suggesting that Libertarians would act just like the Dems and Repubs and take “donations” from business if they were in power? Come on.

    2. a truly unlikeable slime

      Are you the taste Nazi today or something?

      As for the rest of your and crayon’s point, if he were not a donor they may not have been aware of him. If they were otherwise aware of him there is no doubt they would have been covering him in the same manner.

      1. The crayon mini-jihad over Reason’s choices of coverage was much ado over nothing. Thankfully, he’s given up on it… for now, anyway.

        1. It is just a trick. Don’t fall for it.

          1. Yeah, but it is kinda fun to watch crayon attempt to find some Watergate-esque conspiracy in Reason’s article cycle…

    3. God, you people fall for the damnedest things if it’s written in all-caps and phrased likes something crayon would say.

      1. Not crayon, notable perception.

        1. YEP,YOU DO.

    4. Kawliga/crayon/Morris,

      When you get a chance, read the book Defending the Undefendable by Walter Block.

      1. Kawliga

        Which hand?

  7. From a societal-impact viewpoint, it makes more sense for the state to restrict whom you can have sex with than to restrict what you can watch while having sex with yourself.

    Unless we’re talking about minors, it’s none of the government’s business what consenting adults do together.

    1. Uh, well, it does kind of become the government’s business who you’re screwing when your angry husband shoots you and your boyfriend and then pleads the unwritten law at his murder trial.

      I say we ought to codify and write down that law; it would put a stop to a lot of social breakdown while privatizing the enforcement of moral law.

      The law as it would be written would say:

      “A spouse’s killing of any spouse found to have committed adultery, and/or that spouse’s partner in adultery, shall be considered justifiable homicide.”

      1. Are you a troll, a sarcastic commenter, or just a jackass?

        Did you have a prenubtual agreement stating that you an kill your wife if she cheats on you? Even if you did, in what world are such contract provisions enforcable? And even if they were enforceable, the boyfriend is not a party to the contract.

        In the case you described, the murder is the government’s business as all murders are, and the sex is the government’s business only in the sense that the prosecution might mention it as the motive.

        1. Did you have a prenubtual agreement stating that you an kill your wife if she cheats on you? Even if you did, in what world are such contract provisions enforcable?

          Ummm…the Muslim world?

          1. They get to do it on a whim.

        2. What – you want government to protect you from the consequences of breaking your contracts? Typical libertarian – he doesn’t want government regulating his actions, but he sure has no problem demanding the government protect him from the consequences of them!

          Actually I would have agreed with this at one time. But having watched how these things evolve over the years, the smart money says that once adultery becomes acceptable, some group of asshats will start demanding that “jocker and floozy” be made a state sanctioned relationship, complete with legal standing, and, of course, “equal rights”.

          Don’t even ask “equal to what?”.

          So now I say, shoot to kill! and be sure to bury the bodies deep!

          1. What – you want government to protect you from the consequences of breaking your contracts? Typical libertarian – he doesn’t want government regulating his actions, but he sure has no problem demanding the government protect him from the consequences of them!

            I’m more of a classic liberal than a libertarian.

            I consider protecting individual rights (including the right not to be murdered) to be the main legitimate purpose of government. So if the “consequences of my actions” are that someone wants to murder me (as opposed to defending themselves from me), then the government should act to prevent that murder. Or ? failing that ? they should punish the murderer.

            In general I agree that enforcing contracts is a legitimate government action. But I don’t think all possible contract terms should be enforceable. For example, I’m adverse to having the government enforce terms in the form of “Party A may be executed if the following breech occurs?.”.

            For those who think that it should be legal to kill one’s spouse for cheating if one’s marriage contract says so, I wonder ? would you make such terms enforceable in other contracts? For example, suppose an employer, as a condition of employment, made his employees sign a contract stating that he may kill them if they are late to work. Should that employer be acquitted of murder charges if he kills a tardy employee?

            Actually I would have agreed with this at one time. But having watched how these things evolve over the years, the smart money says that once adultery becomes acceptable, some group of asshats will start demanding that “jocker and floozy” be made a state sanctioned relationship, complete with legal standing, and, of course, “equal rights”.

            Not sure what problem you’re getting at here, but I doubt I would approve of murder to solve it. Specifically, what changes to the law will this “group of asshats” demand?

            (If it has something to do with same-sex marriage, my views on that can be found in this thread: https://reason.com/blog/2009/05…..y-lame-arg)

            Also note that not accepting a “she cheated on me” defense to homicide does not mean that adultery is “acceptable”, and cheating on one’s spouse can still affect a divorce settlement in a manner that is unfavorable to the cheater.

        3. What, don’t know your history? This law was enforced in this “New World” of ours as late as 1974. A few states also still allow people to sue the pants off of adulterers and adulteresses for “alienation of affection” and the like. There’s also this 2nd Amendment to the Constitution that allows us private ownership of our means of enforcement.

          The “unwritten law” is easy to enforce: if one spouse can prove the other spouse cheated, the spouse is acquitted of all related murder charges on grounds of justifiable homicide. This being a state law, the “contract provision” is in the social contract to which all legally acknowledged relationships were subject, not the prenuptial agreement. Settling your own problems rather than requesting government intervention is the American way.

          Case in point: Daniel Sickles was acquitted for killing Philip Barton Key for trifling with his pretty wife. I’d say the only injustice there was in the fact that Mrs. Sickles didn’t also get to shoot her husband for his womanizing; equality before the law and all that, you know.

          Of course, if marriage were to be completely privatized, this would apply for any “gay marriage” as well, as long as the contract behind it could be shown to be properly notarized and legally binding. (They’d be knocking each other off right and left, but since when is that anyone’s problem but their own?)

          Did I touch a nerve there, BG? Wouldn’t happen to be thinking of cheating on your spouse, would you? Or maybe you avoided marriage like the plague for fear that you’d actually have to be subject to something other than your own selfish desires?

          1. history

            Quit messing with my links, comments section squirrels!

          2. Totally illogical. If my wife cheated on me, I’d only have the right to shoot her, not the other man. She promised to be faithful to me. The other guy didn’t promise me shit.

            1. Totally illogical. If my wife cheated on me, I’d only have the right to shoot her, not the other man. She promised to be faithful to me. The other guy didn’t promise me shit.

              Or, in other words, “Bros before Hoes!”

          3. I don’t care if that law was enforced in a few states as late as the 1970s. That doesn’t change the fact that it is an irrational and barbaric policy. It inappropriately treats killings that (objectively) are murder or manslaughter as though they were in self-defense.

            The “unwritten law” is easy to enforce: if one spouse can prove the other spouse cheated, the spouse is acquitted of all related murder charges on grounds of justifiable homicide. This being a state law, the “contract provision” is in the social contract to which all legally acknowledged relationships were subject, not the prenuptial agreement.

            Just curious, would this also apply to couples who got married at a time when no such state law existed (so someone who was getting some on the side and not keeping up with the news might unknowingly set themselves up to be legally murdered)? Would it even apply retroactively to people who cheated before this policy became state law?

            And could couples planning on marrying nullify the state law with a prenuptial agreement excluding the “she cheated on me” defense to murder?

            Also, regarding the partners to adultery ? would the killer have to prove that the partner knew the person he or she was fucking was married?

            Settling your own problems rather than requesting government intervention is the American way.

            The main problem with this is that your concept of “settling your own problems” in this case is “killing someone for cheating on you”.

            1. I don’t care if that law was enforced in a few states as late as the 1970s. That doesn’t change the fact that it is an irrational and barbaric policy. It inappropriately treats killings that (objectively) are murder or manslaughter as though they were in self-defense.

              Those are merely your opinions, not facts. Sexual libertinism is pretty irrational and barbaric to those of us who don’t believe in it. Self-defense has nothing to do with this either; the idea is that this ancient tradition of privatized justice for cuckolded spouses is logically consistent with libertarianism. I find particularly amusing that you claim these killings are “objectively” murder or manslaughter. How so? Murder is, by definition, the wrongful taking of life. There is no objective basis whatsoever for believing that it is wrong to punish someone for adultery by killing him (or her).

              Just curious, would this also apply to couples who got married at a time when no such state law existed (so someone who was getting some on the side and not keeping up with the news might unknowingly set themselves up to be legally murdered)? Would it even apply retroactively to people who cheated before this policy became state law?

              As I say, it’s originally known as an unwritten law, which is to say it’s been around since long before anyone thought to write it down. Passing it into law now would be more like a restoration of tradition than the institution of anything new. Therefore, it would pretty much apply to all marriages. The way our laws are typically enforced, it wouldn’t be retroactive in the sense of allowing some guy to kill his wife over something she did before the law got reinstated, but she’d certainly have to watch her step from then on, as would he.

              And could couples planning on marrying nullify the state law with a prenuptial agreement excluding the “she cheated on me” defense to murder?

              Under the libertarian ideal of privatized marriage, I suppose they could. Methinks that would be more than a little socially awkward to do, though. Prenuptial agreements tend to raise an eyebrow as it is, and this would raise them a whole lot more. Who’d want to marry a guy who’d admit on paper that he wants to leave his options open in case he ever wants to commit adultery?

              Can’t you just imagine the questions? “What, already thinking of adultery? Already got someone picked out? Who is she!? Or he, as the case may be? Is there something you’re not telling us?”

              Also, regarding the partners to adultery ? would the killer have to prove that the partner knew the person he or she was fucking was married?

              Nope. Aside from the fact that marriage tends to be pretty well-publicized, it’s the partner’s own fault for playing with fire; people shouldn’t be out sleeping around anyway. The right to behave stupidly–arguably a very important right to libertarians of any stripe–comes with the responsibility to bear the adverse consequences of one’s own stupidity.

              The main problem with this is that your concept of “settling your own problems” in this case is “killing someone for cheating on you”.

              Your having a problem with that, in my opinion, is a powerful indictment of how morally degenerate and generally wussified our culture has become. Our forefathers would be as appalled as I am that you think there’s any such thing as a right to adultery, and that you don’t take adultery to be the terrible crime it is and deserving of death as a punishment.

              1. Wow, someone must have fucked your wife good!

                She must be a real thrilla to elicit such an outlook, what’s her number?

                1. Our forefathers would be as appalled as I am that you think there’s any such thing as a right to adultery, and that you don’t take adultery to be the terrible crime it is and deserving of death as a punishment.

                  I take adultery seriously, but your whole argument is laughable, “Social Impact.”

                  1. “the idea is that this ancient tradition of privatized justice for cuckolded spouses is logically consistent with libertarianism”

                    Only if you think that in marrying someone we agree to be killed if we cheat (and take the further leap that such a contract should ever be enforceable), or that the spouse is your property and adultery is some kind of initiation of force against you (even then killing would not be a proportional response).

              2. I find particularly amusing that you claim these killings are “objectively” murder or manslaughter. How so? Murder is, by definition, the wrongful taking of life.

                Not exactly, murder is the intentional killing of one human being by another, except in one of the following cases:

                1) Self defense (or defense of another innocent person)
                2) The person consented (eg: assisted suicide)
                3) The person has been convicted of a crime of equal magnitude and has been sentenced to death by legitimate government authority
                4) The killing occurs in the “heat of passion” or the killer had some similar mitigating mental state (this doesn’t justify the killing but it becomes manslaughter instead of murder)

                The killings you propose do not fit any of those cases except (maybe) case 4 (so it still shouldn’t be considered justified homicide).

                Regarding case number 2, one can only claim the cheating spouse “consented” if it was clearly the intention of the parties entering into the marriage contract that such killing would be allowed in the event that one spouse cheats. And even in that case, the spouse might want to withdraw that consent after being caught, which brings us back to the question of whether contract terms providing for execution of one party should ever have legal force. And of course, the partner never consented to be killed.

                There is no objective basis whatsoever for believing that it is wrong to punish someone for adultery by killing him (or her).

                My argument is based on the principle that each individual has the right to sovereignty over his or her own physical self ? including one’s own sexual organs; and that the use of violence is only justified to protect the rights of an innocent person by targeting an aggressor.

                Adultery does not violate anyone’s rights in this regard (and even if it did the use of force should be proportional to the nature of the violation). Killing someone (if your only “justification” is that they cheated on you) violates that person’s rights.

                Nope. Aside from the fact that marriage tends to be pretty well-publicized, it’s the partner’s own fault for playing with fire; people shouldn’t be out sleeping around anyway.

                It is none of your business, nor is it the government’s business, if consenting adults are out sleeping around. Doing so is a victimless act. However, arresting and prosecuting murders is the government’s business.

                The right to behave stupidly–arguably a very important right to libertarians of any stripe–comes with the responsibility to bear the adverse consequences of one’s own stupidity.

                You have the responsibility to bear the inherent natural consequences of your own actions (for example, if you get cancer from smoking you shouldn’t be able to sue the tobacco companies for the act you gave informed consent to). But if you kill a person for sleeping with your wife, his death is the consequence of your actions (which presumably he didn’t consent to), not his own actions. In that case the killer has violated the rights of the person he killed.

                Your having a problem with that, in my opinion, is a powerful indictment of how morally degenerate and generally wussified our culture has become. Our forefathers would be as appalled as I am that you think there’s any such thing as a right to adultery, and that you don’t take adultery to be the terrible crime it is and deserving of death as a punishment

                If you study history, you should notice that our “forefathers” had all sorts of barbaric and freedom-destroying practices which they would undoubtedly be appalled that modern society has abandoned. Here’s a brief list: slavery, subjugation of women, legally enforced racial segregation, execution for theft, prohibition on all homosexual actions (with draconian penalties), and a general policy of sexually-repressed controlfreakishness.

                We are a better society for having left those things behind. Your preference for the brutality of the past, with respect to murdering spouses for cheating, merely demonstrates that that you are an irrational barbarian whose views should have no bearing on public policy.

                1. Not exactly, murder is the intentional killing of one human being by another, except in one of the following cases:

                  1) Self defense (or defense of another innocent person)
                  2) The person consented (eg: assisted suicide)
                  3) The person has been convicted of a crime of equal magnitude and has been sentenced to death by legitimate government authority
                  4) The killing occurs in the “heat of passion” or the killer had some similar mitigating mental state (this doesn’t justify the killing but it becomes manslaughter instead of murder)

                  My definition of murder has better legal precedent than yours. What makes a killing a murder is not its intentionality but its wrongness. Killing in self defense, by this definition, is not murder. Likewise, executing a criminal for capital crimes is not murder. Assisted suicide is murder, because it is wrong to kill someone even if he consents to be killed. Crimes of passion are murder, albeit with mitigating circumstances which our courts may well be right to take into consideration.

                  This is why killing animals for food or sport is also not murder, as the killing was quite intentional but its purpose was not morally wrong. Likewise, accidental killing is not murder because the killing did not have any purpose at all, let alone a wrongful one. My contention is that killing a spouse for adultery, by this definition, is execution, not murder. You think it murder because you think killing for adultery is wrong. I disagree.

                  Your argument on consent is irrelevant. The agreement in a marriage is that the husband and wife will have sexual relations only with each other. The breach of this agreement is a very serious crime against the relationship, one that merits death. Your argument has no more validity than any criminal’s argument that he somehow has a right to be free of prosecution and punishment for his crimes.

                  My argument is based on the principle that each individual has the right to sovereignty over his or her own physical self ? including one’s own sexual organs; and that the use of violence is only justified to protect the rights of an innocent person by targeting an aggressor.

                  Adultery does not violate anyone’s rights in this regard (and even if it did the use of force should be proportional to the nature of the violation). Killing someone (if your only “justification” is that they cheated on you) violates that person’s rights.

                  This principle of yours I hold to be based on false beliefs. No individual has complete sovereignty over himself, as demonstrated by the fact that we are conceived and born helpless into this world by no choice of our own, and for many years have no say in what is done with us and to us. Personal liberty is only attained gradually over many years by education and civilization, which are also beyond our power to control. Without this societal input, the individual lives in a most oppressive state of anarchy in which one has no rights whatsoever because might is the only right and the individual is sorely lacking of might.

                  In other words, you can’t derive any rights from this supposed sovereignty of yours, because there is no such thing. Your rights are endowed, not inherent. Justice is a matter of giving everyone his (and her) due, and an adulterer’s due is execution.

                  It is none of your business, nor is it the government’s business, if consenting adults are out sleeping around. Doing so is a victimless act. However, arresting and prosecuting murders is the government’s business.

                  If you go sleeping around with some guy’s wife, it’s very much his business to give you your due, which is death. In much of history, it was in fact his duty to do it himself. Later, it did become a more common practice to delegate the responsibilities of execution to the government, but I maintain such delegation can be withdrawn, and should be. Adultery is not a victimless crime; let the victim have justice against the perpetrators.

                  Sleeping around with other unattached people might be more of a “victimless crime” as you claim, but is still a very stupid thing to do. If you contend that this is none of the government’s business, then you must also accept that it has no business rescuing you from getting pregnant or getting AIDS or getting killed because you didn’t check to make sure your partner really was unattached.

                  You have the responsibility to bear the inherent natural consequences of your own actions (for example, if you get cancer from smoking you shouldn’t be able to sue the tobacco companies for the act you gave informed consent to). But if you kill a person for sleeping with your wife, his death is the consequence of your actions (which presumably he didn’t consent to), not his own actions. In that case the killer has violated the rights of the person he killed.

                  People have a responsibility to bear not merely the natural consequences of their actions, but the consequences imposed by justice. By your absurd argument, we could never punish anyone in the slightest for any wrong he ever did anybody because making him bear consequences imposed by anyone other than nature would supposedly be a violation of his rights. Again, a criminal does not have any right to be free from punishment for his crimes. Neither does anyone have a right to be free from being punished for taking a stupid risk. “I did not know what I was doing” has been the plea of the foolish throughout history. It elicits no sympathy from the wise.

                  If you study history, you should notice that our “forefathers” had all sorts of barbaric and freedom-destroying practices which they would undoubtedly be appalled that modern society has abandoned. Here’s a brief list: slavery, subjugation of women, legally enforced racial segregation, execution for theft, prohibition on all homosexual actions (with draconian penalties), and a general policy of sexually-repressed controlfreakishness.

                  I have studied history and observed that these were pretty awful things. However, I have also studied history from before those times and observed that your sexual libertinism was prevalent in many ancient cultures which ultimately collapsed under their own decadence and degradation. I can’t help wondering why, if your sexual libertinism was such a great way to run a country, it didn’t last. If sexual libertinism was such a great policy, why didn’t our predecessors keep it? Why did they abandon it in favor of that supposedly inferior “sexually-repressed” policy of which you speak so harshly, hmmm? How do you know their policy wasn’t actually the wiser one?

                  We are a better society for having left those things behind. Your preference for the brutality of the past, with respect to murdering spouses for cheating, merely demonstrates that that you are an irrational barbarian whose views should have no bearing on public policy.

                  To the contrary, we are a more decadent, degraded, and declining society for having abolished our sexual restrictions. As for some of those other things, we may well be better for abolishing them, but it always amuses me to hear you modernists talking of how much better the present is than the past when I consider what our descendants will probably think of our brutish, swinish, irrational and barbaric now. Someday, they’ll probably be excoriating our current society for its public schooling, subjugation of men, affirmative action, massive public indebtedness coupled with rapacious taxation, illegal prohibitions against religious expression, and general policy of repression against all semblance of sexual virtue.

                  Your preference for the effeminacy and corruption of the present, with respect to denying wronged spouses justice against the violators of their marriages, merely demonstrates that you are a foolish and over-fed “last man” and that your views are slated for extinction along with the fools’ paradise your kind have made of our once-glorious culture.

                  1. Sorry, Social Trollpact. You keep restating the assumption that “summary execution” is an appropriate penalty for adultery, but you never state why.

                  2. Social Impact,

                    //What makes a killing a murder is not its intentionality but its wrongness. //

                    How do you, specifically you, decide what is morally wrong and was it not morally wrong?

                    On what basis do you claim that death is a proportionate penalty for adultery? You talk of the unwritten rule and of social contracts, but on what basis do you say that is is right or wrong to enforce those social contracts and unwritten rules? Where does the moral imperative come from?

                    And, are you not advocating a form of moral relativism, when you invoke the idea of social contracts? If a Muslim culture is operating under different social contracts, then the unwritten rules and moral hierarchy will be different. And if one contends, as you do, that killing is only murder if it is morally wrong, and one subscribes to the view that wrongness is decided by the social contract one is under, is one not arguing that the rightness or wrongness of a killing is, in fact, entirely dependent on which society one is in?

                    For example, killing someone for professing a belief in the wrong God, is considered murder in the US, for you that is because it is immoral killing. However, in certain Muslim countries, it is entirely acceptable to kill on the basis of ones religion. That is in their unwritten rules, in their social contract. On the basis of the argument you have put forward here, can we say that killing for apostasy is murder, or is it merely a killing which is morally correct, based on the unique social contract the Muslim world is labouring under?

                    Not wishing to break Godwin’s Law, however I shall, could one not argue the same point about genocide and mass exterminations of people? If one is labouring under the social contract that is is morally right to kill someone for being the wrong race, or for being disabled, then that killing is not murder. At this point it is irrelevant if the murdered can and cannot choose to be of race X or disabled, for those are merely caveats to our moral law (it is morally wrong to kill people for things that they have no choice over, and which harm no one else). If one adopts a different moral law, according to a different social contract (one that holds it is morally right to kill someone for their race etc), then do you think that we can declare that action to be murder, or merely murder according to our own moral law?

                    I would say that most people would claim that genocide is murder, even if it was not considered morally wrong by the particular social contract that the exterminators were labouring under.

                    What say you?

                  3. Social Impact,

                    On thinking further, what is your view of a husband beating his wife, for not obeying him? I am under the impression that marriage vows require obedience of the woman to the man? If the woman does not abide by the terms of those vows, has the man a right, under an unwritten rule, to beat his wife, to force subjugation? It does, after all, have a long tradition within society, and it is only until recently that widespread condemnation of wife-beating has occurred.

                    If a woman enters a marriage, does she not agree to submit to the will of the man? And, if she does not submit, should she not face a penalty, much as the adulterer must face? And, if that penalty be physical, is that not permissible in the same way that the violence of wronged-spouse execution is physical?

                  4. Your argument on consent is irrelevant. The agreement in a marriage is that the husband and wife will have sexual relations only with each other.

                    Sexual fidelity is the agreement, but the argument on consent is not irrelevant because both parties must consent to form such an agreement in the first place. The only way I could possibly have a legally relevant “right” to the sexual fidelity of a woman is if she knowingly, intentionally, and without duress consented to such an arrangement (incidentally, this excludes many marriages in past societies, and some in the contemporary Muslim world).

                    Anything else in that same agreement (including terms specifying what should happen in the event of a violation) must be consented to in the same manner to have legal force. Entering into such an agreement is just like entering any other contract.

                    If you go sleeping around with some guy’s wife, it’s very much his business to give you your due, which is death. In much of history, it was in fact his duty to do it himself. Later, it did become a more common practice to delegate the responsibilities of execution to the government, but I maintain such delegation can be withdrawn, and should be. Adultery is not a victimless crime; let the victim have justice against the perpetrators.

                    In what sense is a cuckolded spouse a victim? Only in the sense that he or she is a victim of breach of contract, insofar as marriage is a contract requiring sexual fidelity of both parties.

                    In any other case, would you consider it appropriate to have a general law stating that one party to a contract may kill the other in the event of a violation of the terms?

                    For example, suppose a store owner and a supplier sign a contract stipulating that the store owner will buy all his goods from that supplier. Then suppose the store owner is later found to have secretly purchased some goods from a cheaper supplier. Should the supplier in the contract be allowed to kill the store owner? Should there be a general law stating that such killing is justifiable homicide (unless explicitly excluded by the contract)?

                    Also, in what other case is it acceptable to punish someone who isn’t a party to a contract because they were involved in joint action with a contracting party where said party violated his or her obligations?

                    So say in the example above, should the aggrieved supplier be allowed to kill the other, cheaper supplier? The other supplier is not under contract; but does he have the responsibility to check (somehow) to ensure that his customer is not violating an existing agreement by purchasing from him?

                    People have a responsibility to bear not merely the natural consequences of their actions, but the consequences imposed by justice. By your absurd argument, we could never punish anyone in the slightest for any wrong he ever did anybody because making him bear consequences imposed by anyone other than nature would supposedly be a violation of his rights.

                    Not at all, but punishment or compensation to the victim can’t be just anything that the victim decides. It must be proportional to the crime and the perpetrator must have his or her day in court and so forth.

                    Also, only a guilty individual should be the target of the punishment or forced compensation taking. This excludes an unmarried sexual partner of an adulterer from being punished (at least if the person had no reason to believe his or her partner is married) because that person did not commit the contract violation. If you argue that abetting a contract violation should be a crime, you would still at least have to demonstrate that the partner knew or should have known that he or she was fucking a married person ? otherwise there is no mens rea.

                    Again, a criminal does not have any right to be free from punishment for his crimes. Neither does anyone have a right to be free from being punished for taking a stupid risk. “I did not know what I was doing” has been the plea of the foolish throughout history. It elicits no sympathy from the wise.

                    By what theory of justice is it an appropriate punishment for adultery that the adulterer and his or her partner is death?

                    The view of justice I support ? which is (for the most part) the view of justice practiced in the civilized world ? is something like a watered down version of “an eye for an eye”. I say watered down because criminal and civil penalties are often mitigated by humanitarian or utilitarian concerns or consideration of the perpetrator’s state of mind. Importantly however, penalties should not inflict harm on the perpetrator that is completely out of proportion to the harm he or she inflicted (or tried to inflict) on the victim.

                    In keeping with this principle, contract violations are redressed through the courts as civil suits, and the aggrieved party is (ideally) entitled to compensation of equal value to the physical, financial, or other harm done by the violation. As I stated above, a marriage contract is a contract, and the means for redress should be the same as any other contract. Under this framework, the “victim” of a spouse’s adultery can obtain justice in the form of a more favorable divorce settlement at the cheater’s expense. The victim is prohibited from doing what all other contract breach victims are prohibited from doing: killing the contract violator, vigilantism, attacking individuals who are not party to the contract, etc.

              3. Well, given that my wife and I already had a girlfriend the day we got married, such a clause in a pre-nup seems pretty reasonable to us.

          4. That is just fucking stupid. There are lots of ways people can breach contracts or otherwise wrongs you. None justifies murder. You must not kill anyone except in self defense or in defense of other innocents. Anyone who disagrees is a fucking psycho.

      2. I agree, but Bill’s still my meal ticket, so I can’t shoot him.

        Not yet, anyway… but someday, his ass will be hanging over my fireplace.

        1. No Hill fan here, but, uh, in what universe does one reach the position of Secretary of State of the United States and then, at that point, still need her husband to hold her handbag? Frankly, I think that once her nomination was approved, Bill became as much an accessory as that handbag.

          1. He makes more money than I do… for now.

      3. How about ridding ourselves of government recognized spouses, other than by contract?

        1. Don’t shoot!

            1. Sitting duck, dammit.

      4. “A spouse’s killing of any spouse found to have committed adultery, and/or that spouse’s partner in adultery, shall be considered justifiable homicide.”

        Whoa. Going Old Testament.

    2. That doesn’t stop the prigs and blue-noses, Prole.

      That goes for prigs and blue-noses of either party.

  8. John Stagliano, a fine fine name. My favorite name of this Christmas.

  9. Going back to the Trojan War, and continuing through a modern age of broken homes and crimes of passion, there is ample evidence that romantic autonomy results in vast negative consequences for society, and no evidence that consumption of media results in any consequences at all.

    No there isn’t.

    The Trojan war was an example of the government organization (the Spartan army, and allied armies, under the direction of the king) getting involved in an individual’s sex life and enforcing the principle that she was not allowed to have sex with another consenting adult. The government should have minded its own business and the king should have found someone else.

    As for broken homes, it is not nnecessarily “harmful” if a couple gets divorced. If the marriange was an unhappy one, why should they stay together? And if both parties are happy, they can just refrain from cheating on eachother (even if no law prohibits them from doing so).

    Regarding crimes of passion, if two consenting adults have sex, their actions are not forcing anyone to commit a crime of passion. If someone commits a crime of passion, punish that person and leave consenting adults alone.

    – This has been BG, an abstinence-hating libertine.

    1. Agreed. Just saying that if you’re going to make the argument that X is everybody’s business because it might lead to a chain of events producing negative social impact Y, doing the nasty is a more credible X than looking at smutty videos by yourself. (That would be XXX.)

      1. Yea, thanks (NOT) for that visual Tim.

    2. Uhm…isn’t the Trojan War a bit of fiction whipped up by Homer? Hardly the basis for sound legal policy.

      Second, I’ve always hated that story. Two nations go to war for 10 years because of jealous gods and some king who can’t keep his wife? Screw the lot of them and let the soldiers go back to living their lives. Elitist crap.

      1. A. Yes it is fiction. Cited to show that mad love has been making strange things happen for a long time.

        B. This complaint is treated extensively in the Iliad itself. One of the reasons Odysseus is the audience favorite is that he’s the original draft dodger, who had no respect for the war effort or the leadership and pretended he was crazy so he could stay home with his family. But once he was forced to join up, Odysseus was in it to win it. The Iliad is actually pretty agnostic about whether the war is justified, and mostly treats it as something happens.

        1. I think Lister summed it up best:

          “Beware of Trojans, they’re complete smegheads!”

      2. Sliding “Trojan” into the mix. Very deft.

  10. I am continously amazed by the number of people who are pathetic prudes about sex. And some of them are even libertarians. For fuck’s sake, grow up beyond simplistic teenage views of sex. Really, you will feel so much better with that massive stick out of your ass. Unless that’s your thing.

    1. But Epi, how will they sit down with so many massive sticks coming out of so many asses? Or is it sticks out of massive asses?

      Either way, it sounds mighty uncomfy.

    2. There’s a difference between prudishness and Puritanism.

      I personally don’t care if someone wants to wank away to the latest German midget amputee bukkake video available at some file-sharing site.

      However, I would like to live in a community where the local government is able to keep the feature-length film from showing at a theatre next door to my kid’s school.

      I think the point Cavanaugh is making — with which I would agree — is if you can keep your fetishes private then the government shouldn’t get involved.

      But if you’re going to offer midnight showings of Debbie Does Dallas on the big screen in your front yard, well, then I think society should be able to say something about that.

      1. STEVE SMITH WANT GERMAN MIDGET AMPUTEE BUKKAKE PORN!!! WATCH WHILE BUGGER TONY MORRIS AND CHAD!!!

      2. One’s rugged individualism and absolute personal freedom don’t extend very far before they start interfering with others, eh?

        1. Tony, “rugged individualism…extend(ing) far…” ? Is this some sort of euphemism?

          1. Tony just can’t resist reminding us how dependent we should be on Godvernment.

      3. However, I would like to live in a community where the local government is able to keep the feature-length film from showing at a theatre next door to my kid’s school.

        Do you want the local government to keep the feature-length film showing at a private residence next door to your kid’s school, too?

        Is your problem with them advertising the screening next door so it is visible from the street?

        Would you be OK if the outside of the theatre looked like any other residence?

        Or is your problem with the notion that adults are paying for porn?

        If so, are you willing to have the government ban pay porn sites?

        Where is this line you would draw where you would feel that it’s none of the government’s business what consenting adults do in private?

        1. Prole put all these questions well. If it’s a problem with the kid seeing the ads, then I understand, but if its just a problem with what people are watching, I don’t.

      4. But if you’re going to offer midnight showings of Debbie Does Dallas on the big screen in your front yard, well, then I think society should be able to say something about that.

        Nice strawman. But, for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that if you want to offer midnight showings of Debbie Does Dallas (or, say, some porn not lame and 30 years old) you have to prevent light and noise pollution from bothering your neighbors by having a tall fence around your front yard and the viewers using headphones.

        OK with that now?

        Or is there some other aspect besides the pollution aspects that bother you?

        1. And, if you’re agreeable to the tall fence and headphones, are you willing to stipulate that Stagliano (or anyone else) can produce and sell the hardest-core stuff he or she wants, anywhere he or she wants , so long as no one suffers non-consensual harm in the filming and the viewing is done in private?

          1. With no minors involved anywhere in the process, of course.

            1. I thought I made it clear in my first post that if your debauchery of choice was out of my — or my kid’s — sight, then it was out of my mind.

              If consenting adults wish to enjoy pr0n of any kind in the privacy of their own home, then I honestly don’t worry about it.

              I’ve got plenty of other things bothering me than the idea that someone, somewhere might be having an extramarital orgasm.

              Look, I live in Utah, where one is a short 2-3 hour drive from expensive but legal Houses of Ill Repute in Nevada.

              Although I have no intention of patronizing them, their very existence has never bothered me; if the good voters of the Silver State want to permit whorehouses in their communities, then that’s their business.

              Just as long as the good voters of Utah can say we don’t want such businesses in our communities.

              Incidentally, that sums up my view of abortion and the use of various recreational drugs, too. The Tenth Amendment was designed just for these types of scenarios, and if we had Federal Government which respected it I doubt there would be as much political controversy.

              1. Clarification: “If your LEGAL debauchery of choice…”

                I don’t believe minors should be involved in any type of sexual activity with adults, including making pr0n.

              2. Wait, why should the voters of the state of Utah be allowed to prohibit a business which allows consenting adults to exchange money for services? (Other, of course, than by the expedient of putting the business under by not patronising it.)

  11. I am continously amazed by the number of people who are pathetic prudes about sex. And some of them are even ‘libertarians.’

    FTFY

    1. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a social philosophy. A strict Mormon can be as much a libertarian as a debauched doper. It’s about government, not preaching libertinism.

      1. I took the complete prudes bit as imposing, not limited to just personal choice.

        1. Understood. As long as they’re imposing by just expressing their distaste for porn and not trying to use the power of the state, I’m okay with it.

      2. But I would think it would be quite natural that a person might not only simply oppose government coercion but might like the positive aspects from limiting that, those goods described in On Liberty by Mill, and like that work they may also see that those goods are often opposed by traditional social conventions too.

  12. Hhmmm…

    If I sign up to be a abstinence-hating libertine, will my SO let me fool around?

    1. Might want to check with him first.

    2. More likely, he’ll shoot you.

      Shouldn’t be our problem if he does, in my opinion.

      1. What are you a psychotic 13 year old? In what world do you live where someones inalienable right to life is forfeit for hurting someone else feelings? Get cheated on one too many time Social? Maybe it’s because you’re a terrible person.

        1. For hurting my feelings, no. For wrecking a marriage and probably costing me my house, a substantial chunk of my paycheck, rights of access to access my children, which may turn out not to even be my children… hell yeah!

          1. Then you’re paying for the consequences of your own lack of foresight for not signing a prenup stating they can’t have any of those things in the event of infidelity. Sorry but by that rational anyone should be able to get out of being sued by murdering the person that brought the case against them.

            1. Then you’re paying for the consequences of your own lack of foresight

              And so will the asshat I catch banging my wife. Count on it.

              1. Uhm, you do realize your wife is banging the asshat, also? Is that the sort of woman you want raising your children?
                Frankly, I’d be happier if neither of you reproduced.

            2. I don’t have any spouse, so this is all pretty academic for me. You’re a wimp for thinking it’s “murder” to execute a cheater and home breaker.

              1. There’s a reason you don’t have a spouse, whacko.

                1. Yep. That I’m not as stupid as you.

                  1. I’m sorry whacko but you are not making sense, and I am busy fucking your woman, could you clarify that for me?

                    1. Hey, social impact. it is obvious from your posts that you are either a virgin or a scorned man. Most likely an awkward individual, someone who is socially, physically, and sexually inadequate. But, you are very tough, something we can all see by your crazed posts so, you got that going for you.

                      Good

                    2. capitol l speaks the truth.

                    3. You and your sock puppets are retarded, L.

                    4. Whose sock puppet are you? You sound like a Rick Santorum acolyte.

              2. Just so I’m clear on your argument, S.I., let me see if I have this:

                Today, if I catch my hypothetical wife (hypothetical our planned marriage isn’t until next summer, but for now, let us assume she and I are wed already, k?) in bed with a hypothetical lover, it is your philosophy that *regardless* of whether I choose to end the marriage or not at that moment, she has damaged it — and, by extension of all of the legal and financial matters tied up in a marrage, likewise damaged my entire life — to such a degree that the ending of her life, regardless of what legal name you apply to that ending (‘execution’, ‘manslaughter’, ‘murder’, whatever…) is a just penalty?

                Do I understand your philosophy here at least enough to restate the wording?

                Because if so, I must ask the following questions to further clarify my perception of your arguments:

                1) Given that, had I not discovered my hypothetical wife’s hypothetical infidelity, we would still be married and enjoying all the benefits of that marriage, is it her infidelity or my discovery of that infidelity which destroys the marriage?

                1B) To further clarify, let us suppose that she has been banging my hypothetical neighbor for a month discreetly. At what point in the month was my life so irreparably harmed? Was it the first time she screwed him? Was it moment she gave him a ‘come hither’ look?

                I guess my argument here is that, as much as I abhor adultery, and scorn polyamory, I do not see where the switch turned on that said ‘Okay, it’s now legal for me to put two in her and two in him.’

                2) Given that your argument seems to rely on the historical and traditional nature of the family structure, would individuals coming from social structures who do not practice strict monogamy be entitled to the same legal defense once they move to America? If I am from the hypothetical Moromango tribe of Northsoutheastwest Samoa, where we practice more of a free love than in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and my family and I move to, say, Texas, for work or educational purposes or simply because we like Tex-Mex food, do I gain the right to whack my wife for giving the gardener a hand-job as a holiday present if I suddenly decide to take personal offense?

                2B) Let me follow-up by asking this: Do you extend this social contract beyond the Judeo-Christian concept of marriage into other Western concepts, or even non-Wester concepts, of righteous execution? I’m not talking the old standby argument about Old Testament justice for mixing fabric types in one’s clothing, S.I. … I’m not even talking about issuing executions out of Deuteronomy for contempt of court or perjury, I’m talking about, say, honor duels over business and politics and gambling debts, for example, both of which were considered well within bounds even up until the mid-to-late 19th century. I’m talking about a Muslim father honor-killing his daughter for losing her virginity before marriage. Should all of these things be considered righteous kills because of some long-standing tradition, regardless of its status of formal codification into the law, or do we merely consult the Book of Social Impact for his views?

                1. wtf does adultery have to do w/ polyamory?!

                  1. wtf does adultery have to do w/ polyamory?!

                    Polygamy is a felony. So, to practice polyamory, one has to have extramarital sex. And, under the … unusual … legal system being proposed here, that one can kill one’s spouse and their lover for having sex, however defined, then a consensual polyamorous relationship gives at least one of the participants the right to murder the others despite having originally consented to it.

                    1. polygamy and polyamory are not the same thing. not mutually exclusive, but still not the same thing. also, i don’t accept the premise of the dipshit’s “legal” system so i have even more trouble associating it w/ adultery. also, is adultery exclusive to lawful marriage? this idea is so much BS it can hardly be seriously discussed…

                2. 1) Depends on what you mean by “destroys” in that question. I’d say your marriage is pretty well ruined when your wife starts messing around. It’s not legally dissolved, though, until there’s either a death or a divorce.

                  1B) I’d say it’s when the adultery started alienating her affections from you and yours from her. Of course, learning the cause of this alienation would undoubtedly exacerbate it quite a bit, right?

                  Of course, these are mostly philosophical points. What would acquit you or convict you at a murder trial would be what concrete evidence you offer that she was cheating on you. Hearsay doesn’t get you very far with most juries.

                  2) As with most laws, it applies to anyone who’s here, regardless of their origins. As established in many a test case, countries generally do hold immigrants responsible for knowing the laws of their new country and conducting themselves accordingly.

                  2B) By definition, a social contract extends only to one’s own society. Since societies tend to share their boundaries and limits with the nation within which they reside, the law would apply only where it is actually passed. Other nations might have such a law, but that’s in the social contract for their society, not ours. the Muslim nations’ dubious laws about honor killing do not apply here for the same reason that our laws against honor killing do not apply there: we and they are operating under different social contracts. If you’re contending that other social contracts are superior or inferior to our own, I have to ask what basis you offer for making the comparison.

                  As to other domestic traditions of privatized justice such as those honor duels, I suppose if anyone cares to bring them back and can make a case for it, I’d be open to persuasion. At present, I see no compelling reason to champion those causes myself.

                  If you mean to ask whether my personal philosophy includes them, I would say some more so than others. My contention is that this particular tradition of the unwritten law works better than what has replaced it. The state-instituted death penalty, on the other hand, works better than the previous tradition of privatized blood vengeance; it also works better than the “rehabilitation” nonsense that seems to have replaced it these days. The kind of “honor” people were upholding with those old honor duels doesn’t much exist anymore, but if someone cares to make the case that the honor duel system is superior to suing people blind, I’m certainly open to persuasion.

                  1. Social Impact,
                    //the Muslim nations’ dubious laws about honor killing do not apply here for the same reason that our laws against honor killing do not apply there: we and they are operating under different social contracts. If you’re contending that other social contracts are superior or inferior to our own, I have to ask what basis you offer for making the comparison.//

                    On what basis do you call them dubious laws? Are they not, under the contention of their own social contracts, not dubious at all, but entirely Just laws?

  13. If Buttman goes to jail and EA goes down, I’m shooting somebody.

  14. Good for the goose: you bet your ass.

  15. Tagliaferro; Yes, but he was a donor. And that’s the point, oh, astigmatic one.

    1. Sorry, I am watching football. Just which of the several comments I have made are you talking about?

      We have threaded comments now, but if you wish to use this method at least quote what you are whining about.

    2. Like my parakeet Onan.

      Look it up.

  16. We have threaded comments now

    YOU LIE!

  17. “A spouse’s killing of any spouse found to have committed adultery, and/or that spouse’s partner in adultery, shall be considered justifiable homicide.”

    So, under the laws you prefer, upwards of 70% (maybe higher, since people tend to lie about their sex lives) of wives will, at some point in their lives, gain the legal right to kill their husbands in cold blood at any time they choose with no legal repercussions, possibly even years or decades later?

    Really?

    1. And, if someone wanted to legally murder their spouse, all they would need to do is hire someone really good-looking and charming to seduce said spouse, secretly film it, then blithely murder them in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses present, and afterwards hand over a copy of the filmed sexual act to the cops and walk off, whistling a cheery tune?

      Really?

      1. And how would you define adultery? Would oral sex suffice to invoke the death penalty? A handjob? Maybe just whispering dirty things in their ear while they jacked off? Heavy petting?

        At what dividing point would they instantaneously cross from heavy flirting to committing a capital offense?

        1. What if your wife cheats on you with Steve Smith? Isn’t that punishment enough?

            1. Fail.

          1. You saying that would kill her? Or that she might wish it would? In that case, why would she do it?

        2. Anything that looks like adultery to a jury of the spouse’s peers should suffice. Not too bright, are you?

        3. What if we used the Islamic punishment of killing any woman who even speaks to men not married to them? That would satisfy the far-right social conservative quotient, no?

          /sarcasm

        4. Oral sex is adultery? Aw, man…

      2. You’re really grasping for straws. Might I remind you the law applies for both the cheater and the partner? Who’d want to take the job knowing the one offering it to him would have the right to kill him as well if he actually performed it?

        1. Hey, how ya doin tough guy?

    2. Yes, we get some real fucking morons here. Bloody good take-down of this particular moron though, Prolefeed. 🙂

      1. Epic fail, DB. Like all your fellow moronic loserdopians, you judged the debate before it was over.

        1. Epic fail, Social Trollpact. You deserve a Steve Smith rapin’.

          1. Epic and catastrophic fail, hand waver. You and this “Steve Smith” of yours would contract a fatal case of lead poisoning in the attempt.

            1. Only silver bullets kill Steve Smith, so no. I’m afraid your anus would be violated.

        2. “Loserdopian” is a right-winger term. You’ve just outed yourself, SI.

          Go run your own life. Our lives are not yours to govern.

          1. Never said I was one of you, loserdopian; and I’m not the one trying to govern other people’s lives.

            1. Have you been sodomized by Steve Smith yet?

            2. People who use that incorrect stereotype tend to be the kind that want everyone to live according to their beliefs. Even some liberals use the term.

              You’re not fooling anyone.

              1. BTW, SI… I said you outed yourself as a right-winger, not a libertarian.

    3. Think the number’s really that high? I’d love to see where you’re getting that unlikely figure. If it were true, though, the thought of so many bottom-feeders in the gene pool being slated for imminent execution at the hands of their wronged spouses would be even more amusing to me.

      1. Think the number’s really that high? I’d love to see where you’re getting that unlikely figure.

        It’s from this thing called a “series of tubes.” A minute or so googling “infidelity statistics” gets you these (take into account these are based on the numbers of people who ADMIT to infidelity, which is certainly a lower bound to the actual number):

        It is estimated that roughly 30 to 60% of all married individuals (in the United States) will engage in infidelity at some point during their marriage (see, Buss and Shackelford for review of this research). And these numbers are probably on the conservative side

        OR

        We do not know how honestly respondents are to questions about infidelity, so, what we can learn from such statistics is limited. Keeping those limitations in mind, here are some infidelity statistics I came up with due to resent research on the subject.
        Have you ever cheated:

        * Yes: 41%
        * No: 59%

        Have you ever been cheated on:

        * Yes: 68%
        * No: 32%

        Would you be unfaithful if you knew you wouldn’t be caught:

        * Yes: 8%
        * No: 92%

        Note how 41% say they’ve cheated, but 68% say they’ve been cheated on, which would indicate a lot of lying right there.

        And then there’s the 41% who said they already HAVE cheated, but only 8% who said they would cheat if they wouldn’t get caught, which, if both were entirely truthful, would indicate the vast majority of cheaters only do so if they think they WILL get caught.

        OR

        Percentage of marriages where one or both spouses admit to infidelity, either physical or emotional: 41%

        Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had: 57%

        Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had: 54% …

        Percentage of men who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 74%

        Percentage of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 68%

        Note how the previous poll said only 8% would have an affair if they knew they wouldn’t get caught, then this poll indicates the vast majority of both men and women WOULD.

        Happy?

        1. But, sure, it’s REEEEEAL likely that what is quite likely the majority of voters are going to vote for a law that would give their sexual partners the right to kill them without repercussions.

          How old are you? 12?

          1. Prole, you’re the one getting worked up over a purely hypothetical proposal. If this is how mad you get when I contend for a hypothetical, I’d hate to see what kind of tantrum you must be throwing every time an actual Congressman proposes something you don’t like in an actual bill.

            1. Several years ago, a Tennessee lawmaker put forth a bill calling for the amputation of a limb as punishment for dealing drugs.

              Overkill may fizzle and die on the House floor, but it’s the fact that someone actually CONSIDERED such an idea in the first place that should concern freedom-loving people.

        2. Note how 41% say they’ve cheated, but 68% say they’ve been cheated on, which would indicate a lot of lying right there.

          If an unmarried person sleeps with a person married to someone else, is the unmarried person also considered a cheater? If so, an ambitious unmarried person servicing < 2 spouses of other people can make the statistic work.

          1. I meant, of course, servicing an average of as little as < 2.

            1. Not that I trust the accuracy of such surveys.

        3. What, no link? Googling such a broad and general topic doesn’t tend to be too informative. Internet studies have been known to say the darndest things, you know. There’s a reason the more competent college professors don’t let you cite Wikipedia in your papers.

          C’mon, Prole, where’s the link? What professional survey turned up these results, or was it an internet poll? Too ashamed of your source to say?

  18. This could be an avenue for addressing the question of whether a community standards carve-out made when porn was still shown in downtown movie theaters is applicable to an era when porn is consumed at home with the blinds drawn. The right to privacy derives from technology, starting with the ability to build houses with separate rooms. There’s no reason it shouldn’t be expanding as technology advances.

    It would also seem that the popularity of porn would indicate it doesn’t offend “community standards” nearly as much as the court would hold.

  19. The technique that I want to share with you involves using a reverse cell phone search in order to bust a cheating spouse. Many people are not aware that this technology exists, but you can in fact trace who owns any cell phone number from the comfort of your own home. I hope you are beginning to realize how powerful this method could be for you.

  20. I love my wife and would not kill her for any reason. Unless of course we are surrounded by Indians and I only have one bullet left.

    1. What if you were surrounded by Amazons?

      Happy Boxing Day!

      1. Thanks, you too, Suki! I got Raging Bull and Rocky IV just for the occasion. 😉

      2. Surrounded by Amazons?

        Depends on the type of Amazon, I suppose.

        Wonder Woman comic book Amazons?
        Classical greek myth Amazons?
        Stereotypical man-hating warrior women?
        Futurama aliens from planet Amazonia?
        Generally tall and athletic women?

        Gonna need more specific details if I’m gonna get this fantasy going…

        1. This is why I created the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood…

  21. LOL, what a joke. Can you believe that nonsense!

    RT
    http://www.online-invisibility.net.tc

  22. LOL< what a joke. Can you believe that nonsense.

    Jess
    http://www.Ultimate-Privacy.net

  23. Free Buttman!

    1. It’s a slogan we can all get behind!

      And should get behind. Trust me you don’t want to be in front…

    2. And yes, I mean that in both senses: free Buttman of these charges and grant us free Buttman porn.

      It can be taken both ways…

      1. Up your ass with Mobil gas – happy motoring!

      2. If you take it both ways, we sure to video the action and sell it to Stagliano.

  24. I guess with a name like Stagliano he was destined to be a pornographer.

    Lately, a tremendous amount of Reason posts have been linked on conservative sites. Something tells me this won’t be one of them. 🙂

  25. The restaurant down the street from my house violated community standards a few years ago, which is why said community refused to spend money there and the restaurant went out of business. If you want to know whether Stagliano’s porn company violates community standards, you don’t need to go to the courts; just look for a “Going out of Business” sign. If you see one, the community’s standards have been violated.

  26. Shit ! I’ve been killed 3, no, make it 4 times in absentia or vicariously or something. Damn it, consensual seemed like a good idea at the time (and fun, too).

  27. Stagliano’s variety of porn is beyond disgusting. Several of his “works of art” depict, not any sort of sex a non-diseased mind would find arousing, but rather rape and murder. The thought that anyone I deal with during the day is whacking off to his product makes me want to puke. Obviously someone is, since he’s making money off it, and if those people are discovered they deserve the fullest degree of social reproach the law allows.

    So while Mr Tagliano should not be put in jail for his film-making pursuits, I wouldn’t use him as any sort of poster child for liberty. As happens so often on the blood-stained pages of history, the flagrant abuse of liberty by some threatens the liberty of all.

    1. And Evil Angel is on the wrong side of another one of Reason’s pet issues:

      Thousands of internet users have been told they’ll be taken to court unless they pay hundreds of pounds for illegally downloading and sharing hardcore porn movies.

      Newsbeat’s found out that people across the UK have been accused of using file-sharing networks to get hold of dozens of adult titles without paying for them.

      A German company called DigiProtect claims the users are breaking copyright law and is demanding ?500 to settle out of court.

      Many of the letters seen by Newsbeat indicate that DigiProtect is acting on behalf of one of the biggest adult studios in the United States, Evil Angel, run by American porn mogul John Stagliano.

      1. After doing some…research, I don’t think much more than a tiny minority of the work Stagliano distributes depicts “rape and murder”. In fact, I couldn’t find any.

        1. IMO, professional porn is like professional wrestling – fake as hell.

          1. Unlike professional wrestling, professional porn actors really ARE fucking — they just don’t have a real connection with their partners, and the feigned passion is generally not at all real.

            1. That’s what I mean, prole – in both cases, there’s acting involved, showboating and positioning.

              Real sex doesn’t look posed. I know, I’ve tried. Snicker.

        2. You’re right, I was wrong. I was thinking of Robert Zicari of Extreme Associates, another pornographer Reason sided with against the Wicked Buchanan of Western Pennsylvania in this 2004 piece.

          Still don’t think associating the libertarian message with pornography is going to help spread the message, though.

          1. From the 2004 piece:

            Under the banner of their company, Extreme Associates, the pair are known for producing material that even fellow pornographers find objectionable. Their videos are products of a jaded, hypermediated era: explicit porn coupled with the over-the-top gore of slasher movies and the stunts and gross-out spectacles of reality TV. In the Extreme universe, women drink viscous cocktails of semen, spit, and other bodily fluids. Dead fish are considered sex toys. U.S. Marines save a female reporter from Osama bin Laden, then rape her themselves after cutting off Bin Laden’s head. Jesus comes down off the cross and rapes an angel.

            1. Really sick stuff. I won’t watch it. I’d advise anyone against watching it.

              And I will vehemently defend their right to make and sell stuff like that, so long as it is to adults and no non-consensual harm is caused in the filming.

              If you don’t defend the extremes of liberty, the statist rats will chip away at progressively less extreme stuff until you get to the outright bans that, say, would prevail in Utah if that pesky Bill of Rights wasn’t there and not yet interpreted out of existence by SCOTUS.

          2. Might have a valid point, Tulpa, but siding with the SIs of the world won’t win us brownie points, either.

          3. If you’re trying to get to 50.1% of the voting population using libertarian themes, you’re gonna be hard-pressed to have any libertarian issues left in your quiver when you approach a bare majority.

            I feel that while you can emphasize certain libertarian issues to the broad public, abandoning your principles because some of them are unpopular and accepting a great deal of statism will result in a Pyrrhic “victory”.

            1. Oh, I agree that Reason shouldn’t throw pornographers under the Bang Bus, but perhaps their support shouldn’t be quite so deep- full-throated.

              1. +1 for the humor, despite agreeing with Reason publishing this article, and others like it from time to time

                1. +1 to prolefeed’s plus-one.

  28. “Sexual libertinism is pretty irrational and barbaric to those of us who don’t believe in it.”

    Then don’t engage in it, SI. Nobody’s forcing you.

    1. And if you don’t like his opinion, don’t read it. No one’s forcing you.

      There’s no one so sensitive as the libertines, apparently.

      1. Then don’t engage in it, SI. Nobody’s forcing you.

        Steve Smith’s forcing him. Do some research next time, TheLibertarianGuy.

        And if you don’t like his opinion, don’t read it. No one’s forcing you.

        I’m no libertine, but how are you supposed to know that you don’t like someone’s opinion unless you read it (or a review of his opinion in The Chicago Sun-Times)?

        1. “Sexual libertinism is pretty irrational and barbaric to those of us who don’t believe in it” means SI doesn’t like the opposing opinion, QED.

      2. I picked that one line, Tulpa, but the rest of SI’s stuff is ripe for the picking as well. He/she sounds like one of those self-appointed morality gurus that crop up whenever anything a twitch off “normal” is brought up.

        The intentional conflation with libertarian and libertine is also a tactic used by prudes and priggish bluenoses. Bill O’Reilly did that for a long time after his on-air fight with Neal Boortz, which is one reason I quit watching O’Reilly (except for Dennis Miller’s Wednesday segment, then it’s off to another channel).

        Besides, “community standards” cannot apply to online behavior, which seems to be lost on some folks here. But they pretend it DOES apply anyway.

        1. SI is just hack trollery… not worth your time.

          1. I’d agree if his opinion wasn’t shared by people who can actually turn their beliefs into law.

            1. Really? There are so many of us that you’re afraid we might succeed? Where are you living, exactly?

              1. So you admit you want to turn your beliefs into law. Now we’re getting somewhere.

                Rape is already illegal, among other sexual crimes. Creating new ones is unnecessary, unless it’s to satisfy some creepy need to make others live according to their set of moral guidelines.

                How would you enforce this missionary-only-get-it-over-quick-before-it-feels-good lifestyle mandate, SI?

        2. That tactic is used by some libertarians too, for whom agreement that certain alternative life choices should not be illegal is not enough; they demand acceptance, praise, and support for state sanction of those life choices. Whence the cosmotarian distaste for Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

          1. Then to that extent, for those issues, they do not hold libertarian beliefs IMO, however libertarian they are on other issues.

            Which is fine. Very few of us don’t have at least a small residuum of statist thoughts.

            1. The trollstuff upthread, concerning the idea of killing unfaithful spouses… that’s probably the most troubling bit in this whole thread.

              1. It is troubling and way over the top. Sound to me like a young, insecure man who doesn’t think he can keep a (hypothetical) woman happy and faithful on his own, so he needs the legal threat of death to keep her faithful (and happy, I suppose). Way too much of a hang-up on sex in that opinion. A cheating spouse breaks a contract and hurts your feelings. She does NOT deserve physical punishment or anything remotely close to death as a result. If he wants to kill a guy caught in the act of raping his wife, we can talk.

                1. Oh, hell yeah. Catch someone raping anyone else, DRT their ass on the spot.

                  Same goes with child molesters – one shot, one kill, no trial.

                  1. Wow, you must be really nervous people. Everything I’ve suggested wouldn’t have raised so much as an eyebrow in the philosophy courses I took at college. Of course, these are the same people who took in stride David Hume’s assertion that it’s not unreasonable to prefer the destruction of all the world to the scratching of one’s finger.

                    Still, if you find my ideas disturbing and think them a threat to you, you must not have much confidence in your own ideas.

                    For your information, Libertarian Guy, I’ve managed to put up with living in our irrational and barbaric in-your-face sexually libertine society for decades. I’m not the one imposing a particular point of view on a captive audience through the public schools here. Neither, I should point out, am I the one buying Senate votes for crazy government schemes with huge amounts of your money. If you’re so scared of me, you must be shaking in your boots at those people.

                    For what it’s worth, I do support the death penalty for rape as well, privately or publicly applied. The world could do with fewer Polanski types.

                    1. Social Impact,

                      //Still, if you find my ideas disturbing and think them a threat to you, you must not have much confidence in your own ideas.//

                      I think the ideas of Osama Bin Laden are disturbing and a threat to me. It does not mean that I do not have confidence in the justice of my own ideas, but rather fear the actions of other people acting against me on the basis of their beliefs. In the same way, it is reasonable to be fearful and disturbed by your beliefs, for the actions that they allow (and, indeed require) the individual to engage in. One can quite reasonably fear the beliefs of someone who advocates murder (for that is what I consider it to be) for adultery.

                    2. SI, if you think any of us are supportive of “buying Senate votes for crazy government schemes”, you’re barking up the wrong path.

                      Your continued conflation of libertarian and libertine, however, shows what you’re really getting at. While you have a point about rape, you have the air of desire to regulate consensual adult activities about you, and we already have enough laws as it is.

                2. Throughout most of human history, there have been severe legal consequences (death, having her teeth bashed out with bricks, etc) for women caught cheating on their husbands. So you’re indicting most historical human societies — including your own — as a bunch of limp-dicked wusses.

                  1. …including your own ancestors’

  29. ‘Jesus comes down off the cross and rapes an angel.’

    And they accomplished this without an NEA grant. Imagine that.

    1. best post of the thread ieo

  30. jester win.

    Dunno bout the whole thread, but something.

  31. Congratulations, everyone, for making porn boring.

  32. truth,,,,obama people have no idea of the extent to which they have to be gulled in order to be led.”
    “The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one.”
    “All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it.”
    “Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise.”pelosi don’t see much future for the Americans … it’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities …obama feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance … everything about the behaviour of American society reveals that it’s half Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold TOGTHER.They include the angry left wing bloggers who spread vicious lies and half-truths about their political adversaries… Those lies are then repeated by the duplicitous left wing media outlets who “discuss” the nonsense on air as if it has merit? The media’s justification is apparently “because it’s out there”, truth be damned. STOP THIS COMMUNIST OBAMA ,GOD HELP US ALL .THE COMMANDER ((GOD OPEN YOUR EYES)) stop the communist obama & pelosi.((open you eyes)) ,the commander

  33. With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz books series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.