Court asks if porn law covers mainstream films

[KevinG]

This makes sense going along with the Supreme Court's 2002 decision striking down the CPPA act because it banned virtual CP.

Basically they said fake cp is just that, fake ... so how can it be illegal?

Like, I can't be found guilty of selling pot if it's really oregano.

[Hammer]

ummm... Titanic?

The actors that played the parts were in their twenties and it's been a while since I saw the movie, but at what point did they indicate that the lovers in question were under 18? I also vaguely remember a scene where he was drawing her picture while she laid nude on a couch but I'll be damned if I can remember the scene where Leonardo actually banged the chick.

You know, the whole idea of holding Hollywood accountable to this idiotic child porn obsession the government has is ridiculous and even more ridiculous than claiming that 2257 will protect children in any way, but now we're rooting for the bad guys when they go after Hollywood? WTF?

C'mon Spaz, really.

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by Hammer

ummm... Titanic?

The actors that played the parts were in their twenties and it's been a while since I saw the movie, but at what point did they indicate that the lovers in question were under 18? I also vaguely remember a scene where he was drawing her picture while she laid nude on a couch but I'll be damned if I can remember the scene where Leonardo actually banged the chick.

You know, the whole idea of holding Hollywood accountable to this idiotic child porn obsession the government has is ridiculous and even more ridiculous than claiming that 2257 will protect children in any way, but now we're rooting for the bad guys when they go after Hollywood? WTF?

C'mon Spaz, really.

I am not rooting for the bad guys for going after Hollywood, I WANT them to place the same restrictions for sexually explicit content to, follow the exact same regulations we do. Once the mainstream gets a taste of the craziness involved it may see the light of day as the stupidity it is... LOTS of press that will work in our favor


spaz

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Hammer

ummm... Titanic?

The actors that played the parts were in their twenties and it's been a while since I saw the movie, but at what point did they indicate that the lovers in question were under 18? I also vaguely remember a scene where he was drawing her picture while she laid nude on a couch but I'll be damned if I can remember the scene where Leonardo actually banged the chick.

You know, the whole idea of holding Hollywood accountable to this idiotic child porn obsession the government has is ridiculous and even more ridiculous than claiming that 2257 will protect children in any way, but now we're rooting for the bad guys when they go after Hollywood? WTF?

C'mon Spaz, really.

I wouldn't want to be mis-understood either.....but if you look deeply into the law, it would apply to that scene in the car on Titanic, as they "Implied" the act. And of course, her nipples were in a "turgid" state.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner......5 years in jail for you, sir.

[helix]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I wouldn't want to be mis-understood either.....but if you look deeply into the law, it would apply to that scene in the car on Titanic, as they "Implied" the act. And of course, her nipples were in a "turgid" state.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner......5 years in jail for you, sir.

Bonus points for you because you used the word "turgid" in a sentence.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by helix

Bonus points for you because you used the word "turgid" in a sentence.

Hey, I'm a PROfessional writer you know.
I'z gots all kinds o' big worders.

[Hammer]

Looking at turgid nipples often results in a turgid penis which is of course the definition of lascivious. The law says "lascivious displays of the genitals" or "actual or simulated sex" but I seriously doubt that any Hollywod scenes would be what most reasonable people would construe as simulated sex and I've never seen a Hollywood movie scene that showed a lascivious display of the genitals. In most cases, most of what you think you see is a response of your imagination.

Now, on the other hand, a photo of a chick about to put her mouth on a penis but not actually doing it or a photo of a guy with his penis about to enter a vagina but not actually entering, is pretty much going to be considered "simulated sex" by just about everyone.

So, comparing Hollywood sex to porn sex and hoping that the government is going to start applying 2257 to Hollywood and thinking that will lead to a public outcry of support for the porn industry is nothing more than wishful thinking.

[spazlabz]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Looking at turgid nipples often results in a turgid penis which is of course the definition of lascivious. The law says "lascivious displays of the genitals" or "actual or simulated sex" but I seriously doubt that any Hollywod scenes would be what most reasonable people would construe as simulated sex and I've never seen a Hollywood movie scene that showed a lascivious display of the genitals. In most cases, most of what you think you see is a response of your imagination.

Now, on the other hand, a photo of a chick about to put her mouth on a penis but not actually doing it or a photo of a guy with his penis about to enter a vagina but not actually entering, is pretty much going to be considered "simulated sex" by just about everyone.

So, comparing Hollywood sex to porn sex and hoping that the government is going to start applying 2257 to Hollywood and thinking that will lead to a public outcry of support for the porn industry is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Isn't it Monster's Ball where Halley Berry gets stone cold bent over and fucked like crazy? Tits flying, moaning and groaning and being treated like a total slut thereby fulfilling at least a dozen of my feverish fantasies all at one time?

require a custodian of records for movies that have scenes like this is all I want

You put the exact same thing in a porn site, no cock visible, you think you could get away without having a 2257 statement and a CoR's page?

spaz