Porn makers distance themselves from some... porn makers?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Rox

Enforcer, you pretty much summed up my view of the issue. Certainly I'm no fan of "extreme" (i.e. degrading) content, and I wouldn't spend a second of my life promoting it, but the fact of the matter is that there are no shortage of "average Americans" who see not one iota's difference between showing a woman being pissed on or slapped around, and the run-of-the-mill DP or orgy scene. To their minds, we're just as "evil" as Max Hardcore or Rob Black for promoting porn at all, regardless of how vanilla or not it may be by industry standards.

For me, it's the principle of the thing. I am disgusted and enraged by the activities and "message" of Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church, yet cannot in good conscience demand their First Amendment rights be abridged; I feel the same way about extreme content. I'd never produce or promote it and it'd be wonderful if there were no market for it, but the reality is, there is; and as long as that's the case, someone will be fulfilling the market's needs.

As Voltaire (arguably) said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The problem, as Rob Black and others pointed out in the seminar is that there's no telling where the bar for "obscenity" could be set once the wheels are in motion, and if it's low enough, there could be a lot of people facing jail time for things like teen and barely legal, BDSM or any number of niches that some of us promote or produce.

I have no illusions that the Feds would be satisfied with just putting producers of extreme content out of business; their goal is to outlaw ALL porn... once again, they aim first for the "low hanging fruit" but will have no problem climbing all the way up the tree with the support of the increasing number of "average Americans" (and government officials) who want to wipe adult entertainment off the map because it "destroys families" and makes Jesus cry.

Just a moment while I go get my tin foil hat.

Why are Americans so scared of everything that goes bump?

They have no intention or chance of getting rid of porn, they know that and so do most the people campaigning against porn. Because the number of votes they gain would soon be countered by the number of votes they lose.

Do you think the millions of Americans surfing the Net and buying porn are going to vote Republican after they closed their porn shops and sites?

Yes they will make a lot of noise which will scare some, yes they will take out some who are on the edge of porn. But in 6 years how much have they actually achieved in shutting down porn?

[Grump]

"But in 6 years how much have they actually achieved in shutting down porn?"

Quite a bit actually. 2257 ring a bell? Change who existing laws apply to, add in retroactive enforcement of these new applications of exisiting laws and they could shut down quite a few. Didn't even need a vote.

Several programs folded right after the new 2257 rules were introduced, one that I know of was for certain directly because of the new rules. Still others made significant changes because of these new rules for existing laws.

Will it succeed? Probably not but some damage has already been done.

Many of the same people who will gasp in horror at extreme porn will have the same reaction to Gay porn.

Those who want thier opinions made into laws are a real danger to the rest of us.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Grump

"But in 6 years how much have they actually achieved in shutting down porn?"

Quite a bit actually. 2257 ring a bell? Change who existing laws apply to, add in retroactive enforcement of these new applications of exisiting laws and they could shut down quite a few. Didn't even need a vote.

Several programs folded right after the new 2257 rules were introduced, one that I know of was for certain directly because of the new rules. Still others made significant changes because of these new rules for existing laws.

Will it succeed? Probably not but some damage has already been done.

Many of the same people who will gasp in horror at extreme porn will have the same reaction to Gay porn.

Those who want thier opinions made into laws are a real danger to the rest of us.

Very solid points!

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Grump

Several programs folded right after the new 2257 rules were introduced, one that I know of was for certain directly because of the new rules.

Exactly the point Paul is making. Those programs didn't need to fold and the whole issue of secondary producers ended up being thrown out. Now it's coming back in this new bill, but it too will end up tied up in the courts thanks to the FSC. So, at this point, no one has been investigated or prosecuted for 2257 violations and haven't been since the law first went into effect in 1995.

The same thing happened when Acacia came along, people were running for the hills.

If you want to work in the adult industry you need to realize that this is not a risk-free business and be prepared to deal with some possible legal hassles at some point. This is a business for people with brass balls and if they don't have them they need to stick to something safe, like selling insurance.

Where would we all be right now if Larry Flynt was as big a pussy as those program owners and webmasters that all actually believed that our government could pass a law and make it retroactive.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Grump

Several programs folded right after the new 2257 rules were introduced, one that I know of was for certain directly because of the new rules. Still others made significant changes because of these new rules for existing laws.

You mean people who were publishing porn without the documentation to prove the models were over 18.

Are they also the kind of people you want to protect?

We are pornographers, we chose this profession to make money, with that comes some risks and responsibilities. Buying porn without documentation is reckless and could encorage someone in countries less regulated to put under age people in front of a camera.

Or don't you think that matters and we should be totally exempt?

[softball]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

You mean people who were publishing porn without the documentation to prove the models were over 18.

Are they also the kind of people you want to protect?

We are pornographers, we chose this profession to make money, with that comes some risks and responsibilities. Buying porn without documentation is reckless and could encorage someone in countries less regulated to put under age people in front of a camera.

Or don't you think that matters and we should be totally exempt?

2257 is way more insidious than that. It also puts the talent at extreme risk. If you are turning over personal info to any guy with twenty bucks that says he wants a photo set to "publish", is that acceptable?

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

2257 is way more insidious than that. It also puts the talent at extreme risk. If you are turning over personal info to any guy with twenty bucks that says he wants a photo set to "publish", is that acceptable?

Very true and something that needs to be looked at to protect models. But removing the need for people to buy porn without the necessary documents does nothing to protect 16/17 year olds from doing porn. And I know 2257 is not a 100% fail safe, but it's better than nothing.

And I think 2257 proves my point, how much less porn is there on the Internet today compared to last year?

Yes it closed down a few small publishers, but how much did it reduce the amount of porn on the Net? Seems the tin foil hat is working.

[Grump]

"You mean people who were publishing porn without the documentation to prove the models were over 18."

No, or I would have said that. Want to guess my weight next?

I meant the people who found the proposed record keeping rules, such as every url where every image is displayed, to be impossible to comply with. This is of course exactly the reaction that was intended by the government when these rules were created, to make compliance impossible.

[Paul Markham]

Originally Posted by Grump

I meant the people who found the proposed record keeping rules, such as every url where every image is displayed, to be impossible to comply with. This is of course exactly the reaction that was intended by the government when these rules were created, to make compliance impossible.

Very good and valid point. So you think they changed the law so it would be easy to bring down.

You see they really love porn but wanted to make it look like they were trying to stop it.

Trust me if they really wanted to make it tough they could. But they were going for appearance more than effect.

You just proved it.

[Rox]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Just a moment while I go get my tin foil hat.

Why are Americans so scared of everything that goes bump?

I'm not scared... I'm APPALLED, and the "noisemaking" about pornography is just one of many threats to my constitutional rights, particularly those guaranteed under the First Amendment, that I find untenable.

They have no intention or chance of getting rid of porn, they know that and so do most the people campaigning against porn. Because the number of votes they gain would soon be countered by the number of votes they lose.

Do you think the millions of Americans surfing the Net and buying porn are going to vote Republican after they closed their porn shops and sites?

It would seem you underestimate the unabashed hypocrisy of these people, and their ability organize. That same guy who's paying $24.95/month for access to a porn site is likely to be contributing much more than that on an annual basis to a right-wing politician or organization pandering to the religious folks. People fall all over themselves to show their piety in public ways while privately breaking all sorts of commandments that they claim should be the basis of civil law.

Yes they will make a lot of noise which will scare some, yes they will take out some who are on the edge of porn.

But in 6 years how much have they actually achieved in shutting down porn?

The problem is that the "edge" can be redefined over and over again in obscenity prosecutions. Today it's Extreme Associates' content; tomorrow it might be interracial, gay/lesbian, BDSM or twinks. Where does it end? Regardless of the nature of the content, there are plenty of people more than willing to hound the government into passing more laws "for the good of the children!"

Originally Posted by Grump

This is another attempt to do what they can't do with new laws. As you (Paul) pointed out above, no law banning porn would pass yet they can make it almost impossible to stay in business and be legal.

Exactly. It's an end-run around the First Amendment, and we should fight it at every turn.