Legality of porn vs. torture in the U.S.

[jimtron]

Interesting Glenn Greenwaldd column (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/10/05/porn/) in Salon today, "Porn producer invokes the Bush/Yoo defense--unsuccessfully."

On Friday in Tampa, Florida, Paul F. Little was sentenced by a federal judge (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/oct/03/040216/judge-sentences-porn-producer-46-month-prison/) to 3 years and 10 months in a federal prison after being convicted of the grave and terrible crime of distributing pornography "over the Internet and through the mail" -- films featuring only consenting adults and distributed only to those consenting adults who chose to purchase them. Even though he lived and worked in California, the Bush DOJ dragged him to Tampa, Florida (http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/10/what-s-really-at-risk-at-a-federal-obscenity-trial-about-four-years-in-prison) in order to try him under Tampa's "community standards," on the theory that his website used servers physically based in Central Florida and some of the films were sent to Tampa customers who purchased them (http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2008/05/pornographers-o.html). There was no suggestion that any serious violence was ever inflicted or that the adult actors in the film were anything other than completely consensual. But the court found that the depiction of severe pain was not required for conviction; instead, mere humiliation and degrading treatment was sufficient to render the films criminal and to warrant a long prison sentence. As the judge put it: "This is clearly degrading, clearly humiliating and intended to be so." So, having already bankrupted Little with the DOJ's prosecution, it's now off to federal prison -- for the next 4 years of his life. But for our highest government officials, including the ones responsible for this prosecution, we have a different story altogether. In 2002, the Bush DOJ radically re-defined "torture" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/themes/redefining.html) and illegal treatment of detainees to exclude anything that falls short of "the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." The DOJ's John Yoo even decreed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/05/AR2008040502099.html) that the President could legally order "'scalding water, corrosive acid or caustic substance' thrown on a prisoner" and possibly even "slitting an ear, nose or lip, or disabling a tongue or limb."

Also:These porn prosecutions are the by-product of the demands from Senate Republicans such as Orrin Hatch (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/grave-and-epic-war-spending-time-with.html)...Hatch was responsible for the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,429341,00.html) (DSHEA), which allows "dietary supplements" to be marketed freely, with virtually no federal regulation.

[Emerson Street]

I am in no way a fan of Max Hardcore, and the way this issue is being dealt with in the UK is as bad, if not worse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner) in some respects, I am not willing to draw comparison with treatment of prisoners ect, as I do not see the BDSM community as comparable, but yeah....

[Travis]

So, wait, the actors involved were humiliated and degraded in order to get them to accept money to be humiliated and degraded on film?

[jimtron]

So, wait, the actors involved were humiliated and degraded in order to get them to accept money to be humiliated and degraded on film?

No, not that I know of. AFAIK the actors freely consented to be in the videos, and I have not heard of any of them complaining about their involvement. The porn in question sounds truly disgusting, but as long as all parties involved (actors, producers, consumers/viewers) are freely consenting adults, I don't see what business it is of mine or law enforcement authorities.

[geni]

No, not that I know of. AFAIK the actors freely consented to be in the videos, and I have not heard of any of them complaining about their involvement.

There have been a few complaints. The descision to go after max hardcore rather than any of the other extreme pornography people was almost certianly bases around his rather poor reputation within the industry. You will get a lot more people defending playboy partly because it is ah less hardcore but also because people have fewer problems with the way it is run.

[jimtron]

There have been a few complaints...

Could you elaborate?

[geni]

Could you elaborate?


http://www.lukeisback.com/stars/stars/max_hardcore.htm

[Travis]

Humiliation and degradation are highly subjective and I find it worrisome that we are now making the "portrayal" of such illegal.

[jimtron]

http://www.lukeisback.com/stars/stars/max_hardcore.htm

This guy appears to be despicable. From the interview linked above, it doesn't seem hard to believe that he would treat people horribly (and not just pretend), which I certainly don't advocate or apologize for. If he mistreats actors, doesn't pay them, coerces them, etc. that's unacceptable, and he should be taken to task for that. I'm in favor of him getting legally punished for that. However, I stand by me earlier statement that the law has no business going after things that freely consenting adults do. IOW, it doesn't matter how "obscene" or gross the videos are, as long as no one is being hurt or mistreated. These are two distinct issues.

This reminds me of an earlier thread about the ethics of prostitution. Prostitution isn't inherently unethical in my view, although of course it's highly unethical to exploit/force/coerce/etc a person who is a sex worker, just as it is unethical to do the same to a garment worker.

Humiliation and degradation are highly subjective and I find it worrisome that we are now making the "portrayal" of such illegal.

Exactly. The point of the Salon column was that some people want to make it legally allowable to torture, but want to legally forbid portraying sadomasochistic videos.

[TragicMonkey]

Well, it's the old saw about Puritans and bear-baiting. They supposedly outlawed it not because it hurt the bear but because it brought pleasure to the spectators.

The problem with legislating morality is deciding whose morality gets legislated.

[jimtron]

The problem with legislating morality is deciding whose morality gets legislated.

Mine. What problem?

[quixotecoyote]

This guy appears to be despicable. From the interview linked above, it doesn't seem hard to believe that he would treat people horribly (and not just pretend), which I certainly don't advocate or apologize for. If he mistreats actors, doesn't pay them, coerces them, etc. that's unacceptable, and he should be taken to task for that. I'm in favor of him getting legally punished for that.

I sure don't want to make Little the poster-boy for the pro-porn position, but so far I haven't seen evidence that he's actually done any of those things. He just comes off as so unlikeable that he makes an easy target for moralists, and since none of the real charges could stick, they pulled out this Tampa ******** to put him away.

[Kevin_Lowe]

There have been a few complaints. The descision to go after max hardcore rather than any of the other extreme pornography people was almost certianly bases around his rather poor reputation within the industry. You will get a lot more people defending playboy partly because it is ah less hardcore but also because people have fewer problems with the way it is run.

I've heard it said that the battle against censorship is necessarily fought at the very edge of what is acceptable, because pro-censorship forces will always target the most extreme content first in the hope of setting a precedent.

I disagree with everything he does, but I support his right to sell videos of him doing it.

[AgeGap]

Lets hope the moral stance of the prosecutors does not come back to bite them on their bums.
It would be interesting to see what smut is on John Yoo's or Orrin Hatch's hard-drive.
It is the 21st century and this seems as ridiculous as saying video games are inherently evil.

ETA: I saw Hostel a few nights ago on TV. Could the legislators go after this next?

[ponderingturtle]

Humiliation and degradation are highly subjective and I find it worrisome that we are now making the "portrayal" of such illegal.

The thing is that he seems to be a complete slimeball, who's entire business is based on useing women who don't yet know what is acceptable employer employie relations.

[geni]

I've heard it said that the battle against censorship is necessarily fought at the very edge of what is acceptable, because pro-censorship forces will always target the most extreme content first in the hope of setting a precedent.


Not exactly. Content is only one factor the other is the defendant. Paul Little isn't a very sympathic defendent. This means that he will be at a disadvantage in court and at a disavantage in getting outside help to put together a legal team.

He's also probably not the most extream person around. That probably goes to Marco Fiorito (of 2 Girls 1 Cup fame). Someone distribiting his films in the US got hit by 3 years of unsupervised probation and forfeiture of $98,000.

I imagain the lines of obsenity will be pushed back further by a mixture of difficulty of enforcement and more sympathetic defendents.

[ponderingturtle]

Not exactly. Content is only one factor the other is the defendant. Paul Little isn't a very sympathic defendent. This means that he will be at a disadvantage in court and at a disavantage in getting outside help to put together a legal team.

He's also probably not the most extream person around. That probably goes to Marco Fiorito (of 2 Girls 1 Cup fame). Someone distribiting his films in the US got hit by 3 years of unsupervised probation and forfeiture of $98,000.

I imagain the lines of obsenity will be pushed back further by a mixture of difficulty of enforcement and more sympathetic defendents.

It would be interesting to find out wich of the two of them actors work with repeatedly more often.

[Beerina]

So let me get this straight.

Filming fake torture is punishable by 3+ years in jail.

Filming and doing real torture is A-Ok?


WTF!!!!?!?!?!??? :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[fuelair]

Welcome to Bushtopia!!!

[Travis]

The thing is that he seems to be a complete slimeball, who's entire business is based on useing women who don't yet know what is acceptable employer employie relations.

You know that based on what? Personal experience?

They were legally adults and entered into a legal contract to portray fictional elements within the context of a pornographic film. If we start saying the employer should have known they were naive (and how would anyone establish such a thing?) then we open up a whole new can of worms.

The films of Audrey Hollander are way out there in terms of depicting humiliation in porn and, like Max Hardcore, she produces and stars in them herself. What's the real difference between her and Max?

Don't tell me we are supposed to assume the actresses in Max's were naive just because they were young women?

[ponderingturtle]

You know that based on what? Personal experience?

Documentaries.

They were legally adults and entered into a legal contract to portray fictional elements within the context of a pornographic film. If we start saying the employer should have known they were naive (and how would anyone establish such a thing?) then we open up a whole new can of worms.

There are many people who take advantage of people trying to get into the porn industry. Agents who make their clients have sex with them to get any work. In porn properly you do not have to have sex with someone to get a job, only as the job.

I am not saying many of the individual acts are something that I think you must coerce someone into doing, it is that from what I know about him, he does exactly that.

[Dragoonster]

There are many people who take advantage of people trying to get into the porn industry. Agents who make their clients have sex with them to get any work. In porn properly you do not have to have sex with someone to get a job, only as the job.

I am not saying many of the individual acts are something that I think you must coerce someone into doing, it is that from what I know about him, he does exactly that.

Then why wasn't the charge rape?

[jimtron]

The thing is that he seems to be a complete slimeball, who's entire business is based on useing women who don't yet know what is acceptable employer employie relations.

It's important to make a distinction between these issues. There's the obscenity issue, which is the reason, if I'm not mistaken, that Little is in legal trouble; and then there's the issue of treating workers unfairly, which doesn't seem to be a high priority of the U.S. government, afaik. I don't think anyone here is saying Little is a good guy, or that it's OK to mistreat actors.

[ponderingturtle]

Then why wasn't the charge rape?

I am not claiming he raped them.

It might fit into sexual harrassment lawsuits though.

Being a slimeball who uses his position to get women to have sex with him does not make someone a rapist. It makes them a slimeball.

[ponderingturtle]

It's important to make a distinction between these issues. There's the obscenity issue, which is the reason, if I'm not mistaken, that Little is in legal trouble; and then there's the issue of treating workers unfairly, which doesn't seem to be a high priority of the U.S. government, afaik. I don't think anyone here is saying Little is a good guy, or that it's OK to mistreat actors.

While I like to see that he is in trouble, I do not agree with the idea of someone being charged for obsenity.

[geni]

It's important to make a distinction between these issues. There's the obscenity issue, which is the reason, if I'm not mistaken, that Little is in legal trouble; and then there's the issue of treating workers unfairly, which doesn't seem to be a high priority of the U.S. government, afaik. I don't think anyone here is saying Little is a good guy, or that it's OK to mistreat actors.

While in theory the law doesn't make a distinction in practice it does. Much harder to get jury or judge sympathy. Also much harder to put together defence funds. Partly because the people who might give money to such a defence are not interested in supporting the defendant in question and partly because those interested in createing anti censorship caselaw generaly look to pick vaugly sympathectic defendants. If you wish to push the limits of what is acceptable it is generaly a good idea to make sure that other than that your behaviour is pretty good.

For example I suspect that:


http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7161&volume_id=317&issue_id=397&volume_num=42&issue_num=52&l=1


Would have a far better chance of beating any obsenity charges brought against them.

[Dragoonster]

I wonder if the ACLU considered siding with Little, they seem to be specialized in defending unsavory people.

[geni]

I wonder if the ACLU considered siding with Little, they seem to be specialized in defending unsavory people.

Even the ACLU try to pick the more sympathic defendents when there is a choice.

[jimtron]

I wonder if the ACLU considered siding with Little, they seem to be specialized in defending unsavory people.
They have defended unsavory people, or specialize in defending unsavory people? If the latter, please provide evidence.

[Dragoonster]

They have defended unsavory people, or specialize in defending unsavory people? If the latter, please provide evidence.

Both. I consider them specialized in the latter because they win or help win via briefs most of those unsavory people they side with.

Nazis, the Phelps, NAMBLA, sex offenders, Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, e-mail spam...pretty broad spectrum.

I love the ACLU, they have the objectivity to defend scum in order to prevent Constitutional freedoms from being chipped away. From the sounds of this case, looks like Little needed a better defense team or argument.

[ponderingturtle]

While in theory the law doesn't make a distinction in practice it does. Much harder to get jury or judge sympathy. Also much harder to put together defence funds. Partly because the people who might give money to such a defence are not interested in supporting the defendant in question and partly because those interested in createing anti censorship caselaw generaly look to pick vaugly sympathectic defendants. If you wish to push the limits of what is acceptable it is generaly a good idea to make sure that other than that your behaviour is pretty good.

For example I suspect that:


http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7161&volume_id=317&issue_id=397&volume_num=42&issue_num=52&l=1


Would have a far better chance of beating any obsenity charges brought against them.

The thing is that they self censor their activities, and so don't do many of the things Max Hardcore does that are likely to result in obsenity charges.

Things like fisting, and pee come to mind as the sort of things that can get you an obsenity charge, and they don't do that.

They have a site where they put documentaries up about themselves,freely available, but linking to it would be a violation of forum rules.

The most transgressive thing that they do that I am aware of is the mixing of sex and fetishs particularly BDSM in the same video.

So while a obsenity case against them would have much more sympathetic defendants, they also keep the sort of material that is most likely to get you in trouble for obsenity out of their content.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Humiliation and degradation are highly subjective and I find it worrisome that we are now making the "portrayal" of such illegal.

Yeah... how does this differ from a non-porn movie that depicts crimes like rape, murder and child abuse?

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah... how does this differ from a non-porn movie that depicts crimes like rape, murder and child abuse?
That's called prime time TV, or the ten o'clock news.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Well, this issue was discussed extensively in the "Porn Generation" thread with no success. There is simply put, people who are convinced this is wrong and that it is not the same as a violent hollywood flick.... they just can't explain why it is not the same as that.

There are people who are convinced that gay people shouldn't marry. They are convinced beyond any level of common sense, that it is simply wrong. People are supposed to be straight. Period.

"The Porn Generation" thread offered what seemed like an opportunity to discuss this issue with the people who are biased. However, it only proved that you can't bring insight into people who reject it.