In all this talk about nothing... people kinda ignore an important fact that RawAlex was careful enough to point out. The law in Canada is pretty black and white on some of these issues. It is clear where the boundaries are and clear when those boundaries are/were being pushed. You dont have to be against Canada to point that out. I think its a great thing that things are more clear whereas, in the US the legality of any online business can be called into question. Whats legal in LA, California might not be legal in Sistersex, Alabama which presents a problem given the nature of the internet. I agree with community standards in principal... but i think it creates more questions that it solves online. At least Canada is not struggling with that.

Steve Sweet pushed. He knew where the boundaries are and consciously chose to push beyond those boundaries. No one is disputing that. So... nothing happening should be a surprise. I am sure he is a nice guy... but I know a lot of nice people who have went to prison for breaking the law.

On another note concerning the ACTUAL trial that is going on... did anyone actually even READ the press release?

This case has nothing to do with models being forced... It has to do with Bondage/BDSM practices... almost all of the scenes in question involve play piercing in a BDSM scenario.

There isn't a single scene where there actually shows hardcore sex with a bound woman... the case is based on presumption that there was penetration but at no time can you see this in the videos.

Sweets were not oblivious to what the law states, they followed it. The law states that you cannot show penetration involving a bound woman. The court is saying that they crossed that line, yet I'd like anyone to show me where that can be found in ANY of their content... I have personally seen the videos that are being questionned and it doesn't exist.

Good point Good Chris.

that makes little sense.

"the law is really clear"
"he clearly not broken any laws"

Now we are back to bad assumptions about Canada?

i guess i am off track a little. "will he be convicted"? .. i can't possibly say. "was he clearly pushing the limit and beyond and did he make himself a target?" ... yes.

Why don't we just wait and see what happens.

Anyone that has ever succeeded and made it big in life has usually pushed the threashold and become a target. This is how is how things evolve... this is what forces new law structure. Without it, we'd be in the stoneages.

Mr. Bush is doing the exact same thing right now with his war politics. Believe me, he's guilty of crimes and new laws will be formed.

Anyone that has ever succeeded and made it big in life has usually pushed the threashold and become a target. This is how is how things evolve... this is what forces new law structure. Without it, we'd be in the stoneages.

Mr. Bush is doing the exact same thing right now with his war politics. Believe me, he's guilty of crimes and new laws will be formed.[/b][/quote]
most people who have succeeded in business and in life are not pushing the limits of public tolerance, public opinion and challenging areas of the law where you can only be attacked and will find little support or sympathy.

Sykk: "Without the likes of Max Hardcore and Steve Sweet being the envelope pushers, everyone else is at the edge of the envelope..."
That's a great point Sykk, but still... do we want them out there doing that stuff just so that we're safe?
If the girls are truly consenting then by all means I see no problem with it whatsoever. I've heard horror stories about Max's models being sent to the emergency room though, and if it's true then that's way over the line.

Good Chris: "YET, fisting the fuck out of a girl is legal in most U.S. States"
And...?
I'd dare say that the women getting fisted are enjoying it... it's pretty damn hard to get your first up there if you're NOT enjoying it. There's a lot of muscle relaxation that has to go on.

JR: "I think its a great thing that things are more clear whereas, in the US the legality of any online business can be called into question."
Hear hear.
Things are really muddy here in the States - heck, about a lot of stuff.

One of the muddy things is girls who squirt. All of us who do that are "pushing the envelope" here because of the Cambria (I think? can't remember atm) laws. It doesn't necessarily involve a partner, doesn't even necessarily involve penetration. No one is being humiliated. But a man is allowed to ejaculate and a woman is not - it's deemed "obscene". Why?
The law needs to be more clear.



Last edited by Carrie at Feb 19 2004, 01:22 AM

Paul Cabria wrote some guidelines for producers about what they should and shouldnt put on video covers to avoid legal scrutiny.. wasnt a law.

btw.. has anyone ever seen this... rather cool tool to search names and see who they might be linked to..

http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06?_CAMBRIA_PAUL_

I have gotten everything I need out of this discussion. Proof that JR actually does read what I type.

:-)

Alex

bump :rolleyes: