For those of you who thought the Castillo case was an isolated case, I offer you this:
Rob Zicari and his fianc
101 comments on “Here we go, again…”
Another fine example of why I keep saying that our industry needs to beware of Firestarters. There is an election year coming up, and visual imagery will always be the first thing to be contested.
While the material at issue here is nothing that I would ever watch, or encourage – I also support the rights of others to exercise their free speech. I also feel sorry for their jurors who will be forced to witness those movies – and by that action, it will almost inevitably seal the conviction.
Out here on public ground – we’re all targets.
Michael Tierney
“Obscenities have always been a priority of the attorney general,” said Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. attorney for western Pennsylvania. “[A]nd he has asked each U.S. attorney to make that our priority as well.”
Yeah, because back in the early part of the last century, Prohibition worked so well…
Well, Let the knee jerk reactions on all sides begin.
Personally, I support the stopping of pornography that has ” Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes.”
Sorry, depicting children as sexual objects is just plain wrong.
Nope, not art, not covered by free speech.
Everyone is bìŧçhìņg about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their pørņø movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.
Can’t have it both ways. I don’t care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.
You will not change my opinion about that.
Something that wrong has nothing to do with who is AG, President, PTA member, your Religious Affliction, or what sign you are.
I hate to break it to ya’ll, but there are moral boundaries.
Are they the same for everyone? Should there exist a formalized moral code written and enforced by the Government.
Of course not.
But there are still boundaries.
Now, before you screaming about 1st amendment rights, go read the Federalists papers, and some US Supreme Court Decisions. Not all speech is protected, and frankly crap like pedophilia in any form should not be.
Now, I am going to go find some pørņ, involving women over 18, being victimized and traumatized by a patriarchal society, being big-breasted and horny sexual objects over the age of 18. Ðámņ I wish I were a Pizza delivery guy.
Usually I post under Col, but lately I’ve been offended enough by these facsist maneuvers on the part of the government to start “coming out” and encouraging people to do something about it.
What PAD didn’t mention was that Nightline had a show on this very subject and when Ted Koppell(or is that one l?) interviewed the Justice Department’s head of the obsceneties division, he asked where the line was? At what point do you stop prosecuting?What pørņ do you prosecute and what pørņ don’t you?
The man’s answer(after much wabbling so as not to appear as the censor-hound he is) said “As to content, I see no reason there should be a line”.
No line drawn. That means anything goes. Keep that in mind while arguing that a grown woman dressed as a school girl should be illegal. Cuz they’re coming after what you do like next.
I agree with PAD, join the CBLDF and ACLU. In addition, pay attention to what happens and remember it come election day.
Michael Norton
Okay, so let’s re-cap. The US government still hasn’t tracked down bin Laden or Saddam. A couple of Americans are being killed every day, in a misguided military action that will cost our government tens of billions of dollars, and made us a laughing stock in the international arena. The economy is in the toilet, unemployment is rampant. Gas prices are flirting with two bucks a gallon, with no relief in sight. Environmental regulations are being relaxed- old power plants no longer have to worry about the level of their pollutants, and we’re getting ready to cut down lots of trees, so that, well, they don’t burn down. So all things being equal, let’s go after a couple of pornographers. Thank goodness when our government doesn’t know how to do their job properly, there are always a couple of easy targets to create the illusion that they’re actually doing something.
Brooks– Indeed there is a relevant Supreme Court decision but it bolsters the opposite side to your argument. In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts. The “teen” video that you cite above is similar in that the so called “teens” are in fact consenting adults engaged in activity that is otherwise legal. The relevant case is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. As much as the Attorney General tries I doubt that he will be ultimately victorious. Perhaps a Jury can be convinced but it will be overturned eventually.
I’d just like to state that in regards to Paul Fishbein’s comments in the ABC News article, he has personal and monetary issues with Rob Zicari and Extreme Associates.
In California they have tried prosecution for adult videos a few times and failed in the last couple of years.
As Glenn and others have pretty much said, it’s nice that this country has the time and money to pull stunts like this when there are terror issues, murderers and rapists to deal with among others.
Just to provide a little more info, when Extreme Associates was raided on April 8th there were roughly 47 uniformed federal marshals and postal inspectors from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. That’s 47 people flown both ways, hotel rooms, cars, meals, etc. The length of the warrant was for 10 days, I’m not sure if they stayed the whole 10 days or not.
Our tax dollars at work.
Yeah let’s all bìŧçh about Bush and his administration when if you READ the article or pay attention to, uh, the real world (instead of the little bits of partisan vitriol tossed around, dare I say it, liberally), what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bìŧçhìņg about is the U.S. government doing its job.
Hey if you disagree wth the law, that s fine. Work to get it changed, but you don’t get to McDonalds and yell at the checkout girl for offering you the Big Mac value meal when what you wanted was a Whopper. She’s just doing her job; it’s not her fault you’re at the wrong restaurant. Likewise, don’t bìŧçh at the law enforcement officials in this country no matter how high up, when they are just doing their jobs.
“Yeah let’s all bìŧçh about Bush and his administration when if you READ the article or pay attention to, uh, the real world (instead of the little bits of partisan vitriol tossed around, dare I say it, liberally), what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bìŧçhìņg about is the U.S. government doing its job.”
There’s a joke in there about them FINALLY doing their job and how that THIS is a weird one to finally start doing, but I’ll leave it alone.
Yeah, it might have been on the book for years, but it seems to be a little too weird that they chose NOW to suppossedly enforce it.
Give money to the ACLU? I’d rather burn my money.
I love when they make claims like they want the removal of all crosses from Federal property. I guess we’ll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon:
“Everyone is bìŧçhìņg about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their pørņø movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.
Can’t have it both ways.”
Sure you can. I can support the enforcement of laws against murder, but not be against movies that depict killings. And as for whether such depiction advocates and advances pedophilia, that is a separte case to be made anyway. It may give people with pedophiliac desires a safe and appropriate outlet.
“Gas prices are flirting with two bucks a gallon, with no relief in sight.”
You don’t live where I live. Here, they’ve flirted, smooched, and have gone on to do things that aren’t legal with such a young price.
As for those who say they are just doing their job — Attorney Generals have always picked and chosen what to enforce, and also advocate new laws.
It may give people with pedophiliac desires a safe and appropriate outlet.
Not trying to single you out, but whatever happened to the notion of not encouraging bad behavior? If a pedophile starts masterbating to the kids underwear section of the JC Penny catalogue, how long before he’s sitting in his car across the street from a playground doing the same thing? Or worse yet, talking to your sister or daughter on AOL?
I realize banning objectionable material isn’t much of a solution. Depraved people are going to seek porngraphy out regardless, but I see no reason to devote my time and money to helping others be free to prduce obscenity.
And, no, I don’t give a rat’s behind how long it’s going to be before “they” come after something I do like.
The simply fact is, I can get turned on by a Playboy model dressed in a plaid skirt and button down white shirt and tie. I cannot get turned on by a little girl in the same outfit. To prosecute me for getting turned on by the former is to prosecute me for a normal biophysical reaction inherent to adult males. No child is harmed by this.
Brooks: Personally, I support the stopping of pornography that has ” Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes.”
Sorry, depicting children as sexual objects is just plain wrong.
I don’t care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.
Luigi Novi: If they’re adults, then they’re not depicting children. You can’t depict a child with unless you actually use one.
Brooks: Everyone is bìŧçhìņg about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their pørņø movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.
Luigi Novi: What a non sequitur.
It is a fallacy to equate actual pedophilia (you know, where there actually IS a minor, and where that minor actually IS harmed) with material depicting grown adults dressed AS kids.
You can’t advocate or advance pedophilia with a movie in which a grownup is dressed in overalls and a helicopter beanie.
Brooks: Can’t have it both ways.
Luigi Novi: It isn’t “both ways.” Pedophilia has nothing to do with an adult dressed up in a school uniform or baby outfit. It’s idiotic to say that if Pamela Anderson does a Playboy spread wearing a bib or pigtails that it’s kiddie pørņ, which it isn’t.
Brooks: Now, before you screaming about 1st amendment rights, go read the Federalists papers, and some US Supreme Court Decisions.
Luigi Novi: The Supreme Court is not always right.
Brooks: Not all speech is protected…
Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.
Brooks: …and frankly crap like pedophilia in any form should not be.
Luigi Novi: Movies featuring adults are not pedophilia, regardless of how they are dressed, no matter how many times you advance the false argument that they are.
Wade: …what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!!
Luigi Novi: What’s the law in question? If it’s one pertaining to child pornography, it doesn’t apply, since there are no kids in the movie in question. Hence, there is no law on the books prohibiting the movies in question.
Wade: Hey if you disagree wth the law, that s fine. Work to get it changed, but you don’t get to McDonalds and yell at the checkout girl for offering you the Big Mac value meal when what you wanted was a Whopper. She’s just doing her job; it’s not her fault you’re at the wrong restaurant. Likewise, don’t bìŧçh at the law enforcement officials in this country no matter how high up, when they are just doing their jobs.
Luigi Novi: Um…………………………..no.
Where people like Bush and Ashcroft are concerned, they are not simply “doing their job,” they’re violating other peoples’ rights by limiting their speech. Who cares how the people in the movie are dressed? They’re adults. Period. The girl at the McDonalds isn’t trying to tell me what I’m allowed to eat, just what her establishment offers. Your analogy is false.
James Tichy: I guess we’ll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon
Luigi Novi: If the person is a Christian, putting a cross in a cemetery seems appropriate, even if it is a Federal one. But if he’s an agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Shinto, Scientologist, Wiccan, etc., why would there be one in the first place?
Possessing such lewd material, or making it, is not illegal. Sending it through the US Postal Service is. Thus, he broke a law where he should have known better.
No freedom of speech issue here.
Of course there is.
You can’t express something if you’re prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn’t be.
Hence, there is an issue.
The argument of “They haven’t caught all the terrorists yet so they shouldn’t be enforcing obscenity laws” seems to me to be a lot like “They haven’t caught all the ax murderers yet so they shouldn’t be prosecuting petty theft”, or “They haven’t caught all the drunk drivers yet so they shouldn’t pull me over for speeding”. There are big crimes and little crimes, but if you wait until all the big criminals are taken care of to start working on the little criminals, then you could run red lights, steal food, and inject yourself with heroin without any fear of being arrested and taken to court, because we’ll never be completely rid of the big criminals. I think it’s perfectly acceptable for investigators and prosecutors to enforce smaller crimes, too.
If you don’t like the law, your complaint is with those that make the law, not those that enforce it.
davidh
You can’t express something if you’re prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn’t be.
Let them distribute it, but not through the USPS and not by breaking the law.
Hence, there is an issue.
Not a Freedom of Speech issue.
“On the “Frontline” segment, he defended his wares, which includes a video called “Forced Entry” which consists of episodes in which a woman is raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and finally murdered. “
And, no, I don’t give a rat’s behind how long it’s going to be before “they” come after something I do like.
Then it’s not going to be a very long time. You’re not giving a rat’s ášš, y’know….
“As Glenn and others have pretty much said, it’s nice that this country has the time and money to pull stunts like this when there are terror issues, murderers and rapists to deal with among others. “
Because of course those Federal Attorneys would be over in Afganistan hunting for Bin Laden if they weren’t doing that…
This is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard!
It’s raining in New York, how dare you blow your nose!!!
Jesus Christ…there’s plenty of other, logical, reasons to argue against censorship. Leave those attacks and your head up your ášš politics out of it please. There are a lot of Republicans who would support the CBLDF, but who then tune you out when you make everything political.
Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.
Normally, and in all the rest of your post I agree with you but not here. Even speech that could be considered to violate that should be protected because if not, then you’re going to have to ask who gets to make that decision and what is it that violates it?
From Jerry Wall:There are a lot of Republicans who would support the CBLDF, but who then tune you out when you make everything political.
I have to say that it is the Bush administration that makes this political because their own attorneys keep pointing out that the Clinton administration didn’t make it a priority.
That said, we knew this was coming because of what a whackjob Ashcroft is when it comes to this stuff.
But all this griping won’t do anyone any good if we don’t turn it into action. Research,donate and vote. And also write your congressmen to protest the appointment of Bill Pryors from Alabama to the court of appeals. Trust me, if you think Ashcroft is bad, Pryors is worse.
Michael Norton
Not that I disagree that this is a stupid waste of resources and manpower on the part of the Justice Department, but exactly what does this prosecution have to do with the Jesus Castillo case that was tried in the state court system by local prosecutors?
Ashcroft is a scary guy no question, but trust me, the LOCAL AGs with that power-hungry evil gleam in their eyes as they go after comic book shop owners, and adult filmmakers, and the Dead Kennedys (I may be young, but I’m old enough to remember all that PMRC nonsense) are far, far worse. City and State level laws that wouldn’t last ten second in the House or the Senate, are being passed at alarming rates across this great land of ours. Not just stupid laws like you can’t ship pørņ through the mail (which, BTW, was started as an efofrt to curb young women sending nude photos to their husbands on the fornt lines during the Civil War), but even MORe ridiculous laws like the “you can’t slander beef” law that oprah thankfully beat in court a few years back (I’m not a fan of her’s in general, but I was with her every step of the way on that bûllšhìŧ), or even a really dumb one here in the great state (well, it used to be anyway) of Colorado that, get this, bans any business that promotes “alternative religions” i.e. Buddhism, Wicca, Neo-Paganism; basically any religion that isn’t Christianity (or it’s off-shoots), Judaism, Islam, or Scientology. And remember that anti-gay amendment that pased here a few years back, but was mercifully shut down by the USSC (Supreme Court)? Ashcroft, for all his bark, is only the big dog that distracts you, while that rabid littel terrier goes for your nuts.
P.S. I agree with Luigi. If you want a cross as your tombstone, more power to you. Shìŧ, let the neo-Nazis have swastikas too. That’s so we know where to pe when we’re drunk and stuck in the graveyard. 😉
“Not trying to single you out, but whatever happened to the notion of not encouraging bad behavior?”
I don’t assume that this does encourage bad behaviour. I’ve seen The Sting plenty of times, but it has never encouraged me to become a grifter. I don’t think that people are getting one of these tapes accidentally, discovering that it turns them on, and then feel the need to go do something that isn’t actually like the tape anyway.
As for the argument that it’s not a freedom of speech issue because it’s just a restriction on the use of the USPS: the USPS is granted special government monopoly status. Its interferences with distribution of speech are government interferences with speech.
If anyone wants to point to a case where the ACLU stood against crosses on grave markers, I’d be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, I reckon this is just the usual argument-by-assumption that people use against the ACLU.
Captain Nate posted: “Possessing such lewd material, or making it, is not illegal. Sending it through the US Postal Service is. Thus, he broke a law where he should have known better.
No freedom of speech issue here.”
Actually, the US Postal Service itself does not prohibit anyone’s sending allegedly lewd material, provided the intended recipient actually requested the material for his or her own use. If someone receives unsolicited “lewd” material, that person can request Postal inspectors investigate (although, there’s little the inspectors can do other than investigating the nature of the sender’s postal permits; if the material doesn’t violate local standards, the only result is to contact the sender and advise him to update his mailing list). Anyone who thinks the USPS forbids mailing of lewd material is sadly mistaken–there are plenty of undelivered copies of “Playboy”, “Hustler”, and “Playgirl” which wind up being destroyed (mainly because the publishers have no use for returned copies).
Nat Gertler posted: “As for the argument that it’s not a freedom of speech issue because it’s just a restriction on the use of the USPS: the USPS is granted special government monopoly status. Its interferences with distribution of speech are government interferences with speech.”
Actually, the USPS isn’t a monopoly. If you’re not happy with the USPS, there’s always FedEx, UPS, even the internet. There’s nothing to prevent someone from starting up their own postal system and operating it other than gaining acceptance by the public. UPS and FedEx didn’t become overnight successes, after all. Also, it should be noted that while the internet can’t handle any actual shipping or transporting of merchandise,it is quite handy in paying bills, placing orders, and communicating with people anywhere in the world.
For those that care I found a Liberal Online Radio Station.
that’s equivalent to $5.42. The main reason being that we pay 76% tax on petrol. (This is one reason that I ride a motorbike rather than driving a car.)
Michael Norton said:
No line drawn. That means anything goes.
Of course, just because that’s what other people think, doesn’t mean you need to agree. In other words, just because they want to ban everything, that doesn’t mean that you have to say “don’t ban anything” – you can still make your own decision about what you think is acceptable and what isn’t.
Generalising beyond Michael’s point, I’ve heard people reference Pastor Niemuller’s prayer in similar situations (“First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing, because I wasn’t a Communist” etc.). I think that there’s an important distinction between saying “I think that this person is being treated badly, so I’ll stand up for them even though it doesn’t directly affect me”, and saying “I want to have a buffer zone of people who are doing stuff that’s more dodgy than me, so that as long as the police don’t go after them, they won’t come after me either”.
Personally, I’m glad that I can sidestep this issue, since the 1st Amendment etc. doesn’t apply to the UK. But based on the descriptions of the films I’ve seen, I’d say that in an ideal world the company would go out of business due to lack of customers.
Luigi Novi: You can’t express something if you’re prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn’t be.
Captain Nate: Let them distribute it, but not through the USPS and not by breaking the law.
Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS. Any government that thinks it should play Big Brother and tell me what I can and cannot communicate to someone else through the mail should go fûçk itself.
Luigi Novi: Hence, there is an issue.
Captain Nate: Not a Freedom of Speech issue.
Luigi Novi: Of course it is. There is discussion over it. One side feels its freedom of speech is being abridged by the prosecutions in question. Hence, it’s a Freedom of Speech issue.
Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.
Michael Norton: Normally, and in all the rest of your post I agree with you but not here. Even speech that could be considered to violate that should be protected because if not, then you’re going to have to ask who gets to make that decision and what is it that violates it
Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.
Chris Galdieri: exactly what does this prosecution have to do with the Jesus Castillo case that was tried in the state court system by local prosecutors?
Luigi Novi: I assume Glenn was simply mentioning another obscenity case involving some other person or persons being persecuted for making adult material available to (GASP!) adults.
In 1973, the high court said materials are obscene if the average person thinks they appeal to a prurient interest, that they are “patently offensive” and that they have no artistic merit.
Prurient: 1. Inordinately interested in matters of sex; lascivious.
Patently: 1. In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly:
Offensive: 2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront
Artistic: 3. Showing imagination and skill
Merit: To be worthy or deserving
Now my question is does this particular law actually require for all of these things to be true?
Because I can see where pørņøš…any pørņøš…always appeal to the prurient interests.
But the patently offensive thing seems iffy. I think everyone can agree that pørņøš, while not necessarily offensive to yourself, can be offensive to some people. But the question is, is that good enough for the law?
And the Artistic Merit thing just makes me laugh…I’m sure someone can make the argument…but unless its a pørņø based on Jackson Pollock’s after hours activities, I can’t see it…
-Joe
“”One of the confiscated movies, Forced Entry, features three graphic scenes of women being spat upon, raped and murdered. Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes. We can’t even tell you the title of one of the films.””
I’m all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I’m not going to help pay the lawsuit. I’m sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy’s gonna have to pay hiw own bills.
Do I think he should go to prison? No. Do I think he should have the right to make pørņø films about women being raped and murdered? Yes. Do I think he should make such movies? God no.
Is the government coming down on this company because their crazy religious nuts who want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? Partly. Are they also coming down on brutal rape pørņø because some of those movies are actually real? Partly.
but unless its a pørņø based on Jackson Pollock’s after hours activities, I can’t see it…
Thats presupposing you consider Jackson Pollock of ‘artistic merit’ which is a whole ‘nother can of worms!
“Actually, the USPS isn’t a monopoly.”
Actually, it is — on non-express letter carriage, due to the Private Express Statutes. You can have other companies carry letters, but you still have to pay the USPS the postage, making an effective monopoly. And once you have USPS as both the monopoly and have laws that prevent the USPS from carrying certain sorts of material, you have a real freedom of speech issue.
I’m all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I’m not going to help pay the lawsuit. I’m sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy’s gonna have to pay hiw own bills.
I thinks this passage is the most sensible thing I’ve read in this thread so far.
I’m sure there must be near infinite more worthy causes to spend money for than on someone who’s producing faux-snuff movies, no matter how much doing so might be in his right.
Comparing that case to Jesus Castillo’s (someone I believe really can be described as a victim who deserves all our sympathies) is a joke for so many reasons it’s not funny at all.
Another example to point to when people ask why I’d never join the military to fight for this country….
“In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts”
What the fûçk?!?!?!?! What the Fûçk is this šhìŧ? That is just fûçkìņg wrong! Child pørņø is FILTH!!!! It’s disgusting. Child subjected to this kind of abuse are not emotionally or mentally ready to decide to this kind of thing. What’s just as bad as actually performing lewd acts on them is taking advantage of their innocence, trust, and vulnerability. That’s part of what the thrill is for paedophiles: children are vulnerable and can’t resist, so they can force their will on them. I don’t care whether it’s virtual or simulated, it’s wrong and the Supreme Court are just fûçkìņg disgraceful. But of course we already knew that.
Donald W. Pfeiffer: I’m all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I’m not going to help pay the lawsuit. I’m sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy’s gonna have to pay hiw own bills.
Luigi Novi: No he isn’t. The ACLU will doubtlessly be aiding him.
Donald W. Pfeiffer: Do I think he should go to prison? No. Do I think he should have the right to make pørņø films about women being raped and murdered? Yes. Do I think he should make such movies? God no.
Luigi Novi: Neither do I, but they are being prosecuted for them. Their right to make and distribute them is what’s being challenged, not whether they “should.”
Donald W. Pfeiffer: Is the government coming down on this company because their crazy religious nuts who want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? Partly. Are they also coming down on brutal rape pørņø because some of those movies are actually real? Partly.
Luigi Novi: They’re not real. They’re fiction. They’re not actual snuff films.
Jeremy: In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts”
Pete Wiggins: What the fûçk?!?!?!?! What the Fûçk is this šhìŧ? That is just fûçkìņg wrong! Child pørņø is FILTH!!!! It’s disgusting. Child subjected to this kind of abuse are not emotionally or mentally ready to decide to this kind of thing. What’s just as bad as actually performing lewd acts on them is taking advantage of their innocence, trust, and vulnerability.
Luigi Novi: What part of the above passage didn’t you understand? There WEREN’T any children involved. They were simulated digital images (i.e.: someone drew them on their computer). How can you take advantage of the innocence, trust or vulnerability of an Adobe Photoshop JPEG?
Thanks for the question, Luigi. I understand that the images weren’t REAL, but simulated or not, that’s still pretty fûçkëd up. Yes, no children were being harmed, but it’s still horrible that this šhìŧ is distributed and PROTECTED, so perverts can drool and fantasise and wank over it. I’m sorry if that’s too much info, but that’s what happens.
And I still say that the Supreme Court is disgraceful.
“Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS. Any government that thinks it should play Big Brother and tell me what I can and cannot communicate to someone else through the mail should go fûçk itself.”
Ðámņ right, by the way.
The next person who complains about gas prices get bìŧçh-šláppëd.
You do realize we pay for less than the rest of the wolrd for our gas here in the US of A? That we pay LESS than the gas is worth?
To hëll with it anyways, they NEED to add another DOLAR OR TWO to the price of gas so all the idiots driving 10mpg SUVs and trucks get decent vehicles. Any person who OWNS a vehicle that gets under 30 miles per gallon needs to pay a huge “we are helping fûçk up the planet” tax.
Mike: To hëll with it anyways, they NEED to add another DOLAR OR TWO to the price of gas so all the idiots driving 10mpg SUVs and trucks get decent vehicles. Any person who OWNS a vehicle that gets under 30 miles per gallon needs to pay a huge “we are helping fûçk up the planet” tax.
Hëll yeah! People in this country bìŧçh and moan about stuff that we actually need that’s really a bargain like gasoline adn postage stmaps, then shell out ridiculous amounts of money for useless crap. 5 dollars of gas to go ten mile is too much, but 5 dollars to the valet to go ten feet, that’s OK. Morons.
James Tichy said: “Give money to the ACLU? I’d rather burn my money.
I love when they make claims like they want the removal of all crosses from Federal property. I guess we’ll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon”
I agree, I seriously don’t want to give money to the ACLU. While I’m sure they do good work in some areas, they really have been acting more like a bully over the years. They seem to support Criminals more than they support victims – and while I believe violaters of the Law have rights – they seem to be going totally out of their way to trample victim’s rights.
I heard on the news that a convicted criminal was being given internet access – and talking to young kids (apparently, I believe if I recall correctly, the same reason he was put in jail.) The victim’s called for his access to the computer to be taken away – but the ALCU supported his ability to get on the net – able to talk to children.
I’m sorry, but that seems to not even be helping the convictied man. How is he ever to be reabilitated if he’s allowed to continue his misdeeds.
Places like the ACLU just seem to be becoming more like Nambla. It’s just not helping anyone.
Oh – and I really hate the idea of putting so much time, effort, and money into getting rid of religious symbols in governemnt.
The 10 Commandments – for crying out loud – are not harming a single person! It was basis for our Laws and Lawsystem) And how much money is it going to cost to remove it. (Especially in a time when States need to learn how to spend money more wisely)
The reason America is spirling away in morality, I believe, is efforts like this to expell religion from everybody’s life. If you don’t believe in religion – fine – but don’t expect the world (where 95% of people on Earth apparently believe in some higher life or another) to change for you.
Plus, as for the case – I don’t believe “they” are going on a rampage to arrest decent people. Fight for this if you believe in it – and help to change the laws if you like – but don’t yell at all of us if we don’t follow suit with you.
I’m all for the CBLDF, but I don’t see WHY I’d want to contribute to it for the sake of these people. I don’t see how pørņ movies and distribution has anything to do with comic books.
Surges: The 10 Commandments – for crying out loud – are not harming a single person!
Luigi Novi: Try decorating a courthouse with passages from the Koran, scrolls with Shinto wisdom, Buddhist prayer wheels, or Scientology tracts, and see if people suddenly think that harms someone. The state has no business endorsing religion or connecting the law with religion by putting something like the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. Who is the state to decorate a courthouse with something that tells me which gods I can have, to keep someone else’s Sabbath holy, and not to take someone else’s god’s name in vain, and then say it “doesn’t harm” anyone?
Surges: It was basis for our Laws and Lawsystem)
Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments.
The first three Commandments are purely religious, commanding to not worship other gods, not take the Lord’s name in vain, and to keep holy the Sabbath. There are no such laws in the U.S., for there is a separation between Church and State.
The fourth Commandment, to honor one’s parents, is not a law. If anything, things like child abuse and neglect have made it necessary to enact legislation to protect children from their parents. Moreover, honor cannot be automatically bestowed by an honest intellect. Intellectually honest people can honor only those who, in their opinion, warrant their honor. The biological fact of parenthood does not in and of itself warrant honor. Until very recently parenthood was not even a matter of choice, and it still is mandatory, not optional, for many of the world’s people. Why should any child be commanded to honor, without further basis, parents who became parents by accident–who didn’t even plan to have a child? All of us know children who have been abused, beaten or neglected by their parents. What is the basis for honor there? How does the daughter honor a father who sexually molests her? Honor those who merit your honor would be a much more appropriate teaching, and if that includes your parents, good! It has been suggested that “Honor your children” would be a useful commandment. Some may argue that this commandment is for most children to obey their parents in general, but what good is this? Children are already imprinted with a sense of obedience to their parents by the mere fact of their upbringing, and the only reason children would even be exposed to religion in the first place is because their parents indoctrinate them in that religion anyway. They only obey the commandments because their parents tell them to. If the child obeys the parent by upholding the rules of their religion, isn’t such a commandment redundant?
The fifth Commandment prohibits murder, something that was already illegal in cultures preceding the Bible, and would doubtfully be illegal even if we didn’t have the Bible.
The sixth Commandment prohibits adultery, which is not illegal. In countries where it is, punishments are typically severe, involving stoning to death, and/or are not doled out equally to both genders.
The seventh Commandment prohibits theft, which, like murder, is not a concept that required the Bible to be invented.
The eighth Commandment prohibits lying. Lying is not against the law (except in cases of perjury, obstruction of justice or false advertising), and in many instances, lying is not only necessary, but moral as well. There are also laws against libel and defamation, but these are civil liabilities, not criminal offenses.
The ninth and tenth Commandments say it is wrong to covet anything, which is preposterous. The desire for gain has led to capitalism, industry, science and technology, medicine, and the betterment of our lives. It’s ridiculous to say that these rules were the basis for the most successful capitalist nation on Earth.
Of the Ten Commandments, therefore, only two reflect actual laws that are commonly enforced in Western society (three if you want to include the one about lying). To argue, therefore, that these ten rules are the basis of our laws requires you to ignore reality.
surges: The reason America is spirling away in morality, I believe, is efforts like this to expell religion from everybody’s life.
Luigi Novi: Bûllšhìŧ. Why is it that so many theists feel the need to distort the separating church and state into “expelling religion from everyone’s life?” This is a lie. The state has no business taking any position whatsoever on any religion, period, that includes putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. To argue that this “expels” religion from your life is a LIE. In what way is your ability to practice your religion mitigated by the mere absence of its decoration in a state-owned piece of property? Give me just one example of how cases like that actually AFFECTED someone’s ability—ANYONE’S ability, to practice their religion?
I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child pørņ, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?
I don`t see why anybody should be disgusted that these people get procecuted because of obcenity – because this is what it is. I have no problem with pørņ showing adults but children, no. No exceptions whatsoever.
Supporting cases like the comic seller is one thing. This is another. But if you treat both the same, you will harm the comic seller and people who really seem to deserve support. I certainly wouldn`t give a penny to an organization that supports child pørņ, fake or otherwise, even if they also do good things.
Cheers Baerbel. I just came back to see if we’d got back on topic yet. Thanks for pointing out how obscene child pørņ is and how it shouldn’t be supported, simulated or not who gives a dámņ?
I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child pørņ, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?
Posted by Baerbel Haddrell @ 08/31/2003 06:12 PM ET
You did not get it right. As Luigi has pointed out several times now, it cannot be child pørņ since there are no children involved in it. No children engaged in sex for the making of this video, none were assaulted, none were even present.
You may find the idea of adults pretending to children in such a film hideous and unspeakable. I have very personal reasons to agree with you, if you do. But our outrage is unimportant. Our distaste is unimportant. Whether or not you or I find the idea repellent is of no concern to whether or not consenting adults should be forbidden from engaging in, distributing or watching such material.
There are no children involved in this. Therefore, it is not child pornography. I personally find the idea of murder obscene, and it is illegal to kill people. It is not illegal to *pretend* to kill people, and film it, and distribute it. Once we begin removing the portrayal of atrocity and loathsome activities from our arts and media, we have as a people decided that our artists cannot depict anything unpleasant or shocking. We will have sanitized their attempt to portray the world, in all its horror and beauty.
I’d personally like to break these people’s kneecaps. I’m not allowed to, under the law. But I certainly could write a story about a man who went around breaking the kneecaps of people who made movies with adults engaging in sexual activity and pretending to be raped or children while being filmed, and I could even make a movie wherein such kneecap breaking took place. It is not illegal in a work to depict illegal activities, even ones like child pornography, rape, murder, drug trafficing, etc, etc. If it were, comic books would be illegal. Movies would be illegal. The Bible would be illegal…people are stoned to death in it, people are thrown to lions in it, people are murdered in scores in it.
I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child pørņ, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?
Posted by Baerbel Haddrell @ 08/31/2003 06:12 PM ET
No. The specifc charge is obscenity. Child pørņ charges specifically haven’t been leveled.
One of the films that is named in the case is a film that features actresses of legal age in a film called “Extreme Teen #24”. To my knowledge, no computer generated work was involved.
The CGI thread branched off because of a child pørņ law that defined something as child pørņ even when no children were involved– actresses of legal age could not play underage characters engaged in sex (for example, any actress playing “Lolita” or “Juliet Capulet”) nor could a completely CGI character or animated character be underage. In other words, you could have child pørņ even when no actual children were involved to be harmed. By that argument, of course, you could have child pørņ when no pørņ was involved either. That law was recently struck down.
There’s a movie where the stars rape, kill, steal, humiliate, and depict thoroughly evil behavior. And they’re playing underage teens!
So let’s ban A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
Actually, the central theme of this movie (and I think they made a book of it too) is that for freedom to exist, so must the most reprehennsible forms of that freedom. Free speech isn’t “it’s fine unless I find it disgusting,” it’s protection of those things we hate. And much as I hate it, adults dressing like kids do NOT make child pørņ, any more than HALLOWEEN is a snuff film.
And for fun, remember that James Joyce’s ULYSSES was once considered pornography, and its case went to the Supreme Court to allow it to be shipped.
“As to content, I see no reason there should be a line.”
Yeah, right.
Have any posters seen Extreme Teen # 24? I haven’t. But I’m curious why everyone assumes that the adult actresses are pretending to be children in this movie. Anyone with a passing familiarity with “pørņ” movies knows that movies with teen in the title refer to 18 and 19 year olds. Just because they are dressed in school girl uniforms does not mean they are pretending to be children. they do act a little younger and a little more naive than your average 18 or 19 year old. but no one in a “pørņ” movie acts like normal people. I don’t think they are pretending to be children. Its more like the fantasy of a sexually naive and virginal 18 year old.
It seems to me most posters on this thread have no idea what is actually depicted in extreme teen #24. I have no problem with people being unfamiliar with “pørņ” and having no desire to be familiar with it. But calling something obscene based on a vague and possibly inaccurate description of it, without even seeing it is just the sort of things the comic book censors do.
• 
Another fine example of why I keep saying that our industry needs to beware of Firestarters. There is an election year coming up, and visual imagery will always be the first thing to be contested.
While the material at issue here is nothing that I would ever watch, or encourage – I also support the rights of others to exercise their free speech. I also feel sorry for their jurors who will be forced to witness those movies – and by that action, it will almost inevitably seal the conviction.
Out here on public ground – we’re all targets.
Michael Tierney
“Obscenities have always been a priority of the attorney general,” said Mary Beth Buchanan, U.S. attorney for western Pennsylvania. “[A]nd he has asked each U.S. attorney to make that our priority as well.”
Yeah, because back in the early part of the last century, Prohibition worked so well…
Well, Let the knee jerk reactions on all sides begin.
Personally, I support the stopping of pornography that has ” Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes.”
Sorry, depicting children as sexual objects is just plain wrong.
Nope, not art, not covered by free speech.
Everyone is bìŧçhìņg about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their pørņø movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.
Can’t have it both ways. I don’t care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.
You will not change my opinion about that.
Something that wrong has nothing to do with who is AG, President, PTA member, your Religious Affliction, or what sign you are.
I hate to break it to ya’ll, but there are moral boundaries.
Are they the same for everyone? Should there exist a formalized moral code written and enforced by the Government.
Of course not.
But there are still boundaries.
Now, before you screaming about 1st amendment rights, go read the Federalists papers, and some US Supreme Court Decisions. Not all speech is protected, and frankly crap like pedophilia in any form should not be.
Now, I am going to go find some pørņ, involving women over 18, being victimized and traumatized by a patriarchal society, being big-breasted and horny sexual objects over the age of 18. Ðámņ I wish I were a Pizza delivery guy.
Usually I post under Col, but lately I’ve been offended enough by these facsist maneuvers on the part of the government to start “coming out” and encouraging people to do something about it.
What PAD didn’t mention was that Nightline had a show on this very subject and when Ted Koppell(or is that one l?) interviewed the Justice Department’s head of the obsceneties division, he asked where the line was? At what point do you stop prosecuting?What pørņ do you prosecute and what pørņ don’t you?
The man’s answer(after much wabbling so as not to appear as the censor-hound he is) said “As to content, I see no reason there should be a line”.
No line drawn. That means anything goes. Keep that in mind while arguing that a grown woman dressed as a school girl should be illegal. Cuz they’re coming after what you do like next.
I agree with PAD, join the CBLDF and ACLU. In addition, pay attention to what happens and remember it come election day.
Michael Norton
Okay, so let’s re-cap. The US government still hasn’t tracked down bin Laden or Saddam. A couple of Americans are being killed every day, in a misguided military action that will cost our government tens of billions of dollars, and made us a laughing stock in the international arena. The economy is in the toilet, unemployment is rampant. Gas prices are flirting with two bucks a gallon, with no relief in sight. Environmental regulations are being relaxed- old power plants no longer have to worry about the level of their pollutants, and we’re getting ready to cut down lots of trees, so that, well, they don’t burn down. So all things being equal, let’s go after a couple of pornographers. Thank goodness when our government doesn’t know how to do their job properly, there are always a couple of easy targets to create the illusion that they’re actually doing something.
Brooks– Indeed there is a relevant Supreme Court decision but it bolsters the opposite side to your argument. In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts. The “teen” video that you cite above is similar in that the so called “teens” are in fact consenting adults engaged in activity that is otherwise legal. The relevant case is Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. As much as the Attorney General tries I doubt that he will be ultimately victorious. Perhaps a Jury can be convinced but it will be overturned eventually.
I’d just like to state that in regards to Paul Fishbein’s comments in the ABC News article, he has personal and monetary issues with Rob Zicari and Extreme Associates.
In California they have tried prosecution for adult videos a few times and failed in the last couple of years.
As Glenn and others have pretty much said, it’s nice that this country has the time and money to pull stunts like this when there are terror issues, murderers and rapists to deal with among others.
Just to provide a little more info, when Extreme Associates was raided on April 8th there were roughly 47 uniformed federal marshals and postal inspectors from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. That’s 47 people flown both ways, hotel rooms, cars, meals, etc. The length of the warrant was for 10 days, I’m not sure if they stayed the whole 10 days or not.
Our tax dollars at work.
Yeah let’s all bìŧçh about Bush and his administration when if you READ the article or pay attention to, uh, the real world (instead of the little bits of partisan vitriol tossed around, dare I say it, liberally), what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bìŧçhìņg about is the U.S. government doing its job.
Hey if you disagree wth the law, that s fine. Work to get it changed, but you don’t get to McDonalds and yell at the checkout girl for offering you the Big Mac value meal when what you wanted was a Whopper. She’s just doing her job; it’s not her fault you’re at the wrong restaurant. Likewise, don’t bìŧçh at the law enforcement officials in this country no matter how high up, when they are just doing their jobs.
“Yeah let’s all bìŧçh about Bush and his administration when if you READ the article or pay attention to, uh, the real world (instead of the little bits of partisan vitriol tossed around, dare I say it, liberally), what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!! So what you are really bìŧçhìņg about is the U.S. government doing its job.”
There’s a joke in there about them FINALLY doing their job and how that THIS is a weird one to finally start doing, but I’ll leave it alone.
Yeah, it might have been on the book for years, but it seems to be a little too weird that they chose NOW to suppossedly enforce it.
Give money to the ACLU? I’d rather burn my money.
I love when they make claims like they want the removal of all crosses from Federal property. I guess we’ll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon:
“Everyone is bìŧçhìņg about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their pørņø movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.
Can’t have it both ways.”
Sure you can. I can support the enforcement of laws against murder, but not be against movies that depict killings. And as for whether such depiction advocates and advances pedophilia, that is a separte case to be made anyway. It may give people with pedophiliac desires a safe and appropriate outlet.
“Gas prices are flirting with two bucks a gallon, with no relief in sight.”
You don’t live where I live. Here, they’ve flirted, smooched, and have gone on to do things that aren’t legal with such a young price.
As for those who say they are just doing their job — Attorney Generals have always picked and chosen what to enforce, and also advocate new laws.
It may give people with pedophiliac desires a safe and appropriate outlet.
Not trying to single you out, but whatever happened to the notion of not encouraging bad behavior? If a pedophile starts masterbating to the kids underwear section of the JC Penny catalogue, how long before he’s sitting in his car across the street from a playground doing the same thing? Or worse yet, talking to your sister or daughter on AOL?
I realize banning objectionable material isn’t much of a solution. Depraved people are going to seek porngraphy out regardless, but I see no reason to devote my time and money to helping others be free to prduce obscenity.
And, no, I don’t give a rat’s behind how long it’s going to be before “they” come after something I do like.
The simply fact is, I can get turned on by a Playboy model dressed in a plaid skirt and button down white shirt and tie. I cannot get turned on by a little girl in the same outfit. To prosecute me for getting turned on by the former is to prosecute me for a normal biophysical reaction inherent to adult males. No child is harmed by this.
Brooks: Personally, I support the stopping of pornography that has ” Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes.”
Sorry, depicting children as sexual objects is just plain wrong.
I don’t care if the actresses in the movies are adults, depicting children, as a sexual objects is still wrong.
Luigi Novi: If they’re adults, then they’re not depicting children. You can’t depict a child with unless you actually use one.
Brooks: Everyone is bìŧçhìņg about the Catholic Church having pedophiles, but they want to have their pørņø movies that support, advocate and advance pedophilia.
Luigi Novi: What a non sequitur.
It is a fallacy to equate actual pedophilia (you know, where there actually IS a minor, and where that minor actually IS harmed) with material depicting grown adults dressed AS kids.
You can’t advocate or advance pedophilia with a movie in which a grownup is dressed in overalls and a helicopter beanie.
Brooks: Can’t have it both ways.
Luigi Novi: It isn’t “both ways.” Pedophilia has nothing to do with an adult dressed up in a school uniform or baby outfit. It’s idiotic to say that if Pamela Anderson does a Playboy spread wearing a bib or pigtails that it’s kiddie pørņ, which it isn’t.
Brooks: Now, before you screaming about 1st amendment rights, go read the Federalists papers, and some US Supreme Court Decisions.
Luigi Novi: The Supreme Court is not always right.
Brooks: Not all speech is protected…
Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.
Brooks: …and frankly crap like pedophilia in any form should not be.
Luigi Novi: Movies featuring adults are not pedophilia, regardless of how they are dressed, no matter how many times you advance the false argument that they are.
Wade: …what we are really talkig about is enforcement of laws that have been on the books for years!!! Years!!!
Luigi Novi: What’s the law in question? If it’s one pertaining to child pornography, it doesn’t apply, since there are no kids in the movie in question. Hence, there is no law on the books prohibiting the movies in question.
Wade: Hey if you disagree wth the law, that s fine. Work to get it changed, but you don’t get to McDonalds and yell at the checkout girl for offering you the Big Mac value meal when what you wanted was a Whopper. She’s just doing her job; it’s not her fault you’re at the wrong restaurant. Likewise, don’t bìŧçh at the law enforcement officials in this country no matter how high up, when they are just doing their jobs.
Luigi Novi: Um…………………………..no.
Where people like Bush and Ashcroft are concerned, they are not simply “doing their job,” they’re violating other peoples’ rights by limiting their speech. Who cares how the people in the movie are dressed? They’re adults. Period. The girl at the McDonalds isn’t trying to tell me what I’m allowed to eat, just what her establishment offers. Your analogy is false.
James Tichy: I guess we’ll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon
Luigi Novi: If the person is a Christian, putting a cross in a cemetery seems appropriate, even if it is a Federal one. But if he’s an agnostic, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, Shinto, Scientologist, Wiccan, etc., why would there be one in the first place?
Possessing such lewd material, or making it, is not illegal. Sending it through the US Postal Service is. Thus, he broke a law where he should have known better.
No freedom of speech issue here.
Of course there is.
You can’t express something if you’re prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn’t be.
Hence, there is an issue.
The argument of “They haven’t caught all the terrorists yet so they shouldn’t be enforcing obscenity laws” seems to me to be a lot like “They haven’t caught all the ax murderers yet so they shouldn’t be prosecuting petty theft”, or “They haven’t caught all the drunk drivers yet so they shouldn’t pull me over for speeding”. There are big crimes and little crimes, but if you wait until all the big criminals are taken care of to start working on the little criminals, then you could run red lights, steal food, and inject yourself with heroin without any fear of being arrested and taken to court, because we’ll never be completely rid of the big criminals. I think it’s perfectly acceptable for investigators and prosecutors to enforce smaller crimes, too.
If you don’t like the law, your complaint is with those that make the law, not those that enforce it.
davidh
You can’t express something if you’re prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn’t be.
Let them distribute it, but not through the USPS and not by breaking the law.
Hence, there is an issue.
Not a Freedom of Speech issue.
“On the “Frontline” segment, he defended his wares, which includes a video called “Forced Entry” which consists of episodes in which a woman is raped, beaten, spat on, degraded in every way and finally murdered. “
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03220/209919.stm
And, no, I don’t give a rat’s behind how long it’s going to be before “they” come after something I do like.
Then it’s not going to be a very long time. You’re not giving a rat’s ášš, y’know….
“As Glenn and others have pretty much said, it’s nice that this country has the time and money to pull stunts like this when there are terror issues, murderers and rapists to deal with among others. “
Because of course those Federal Attorneys would be over in Afganistan hunting for Bin Laden if they weren’t doing that…
This is by far the stupidest argument I have ever heard!
It’s raining in New York, how dare you blow your nose!!!
Jesus Christ…there’s plenty of other, logical, reasons to argue against censorship. Leave those attacks and your head up your ášš politics out of it please. There are a lot of Republicans who would support the CBLDF, but who then tune you out when you make everything political.
Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.
Normally, and in all the rest of your post I agree with you but not here. Even speech that could be considered to violate that should be protected because if not, then you’re going to have to ask who gets to make that decision and what is it that violates it?
From Jerry Wall:There are a lot of Republicans who would support the CBLDF, but who then tune you out when you make everything political.
I have to say that it is the Bush administration that makes this political because their own attorneys keep pointing out that the Clinton administration didn’t make it a priority.
That said, we knew this was coming because of what a whackjob Ashcroft is when it comes to this stuff.
But all this griping won’t do anyone any good if we don’t turn it into action. Research,donate and vote. And also write your congressmen to protest the appointment of Bill Pryors from Alabama to the court of appeals. Trust me, if you think Ashcroft is bad, Pryors is worse.
Michael Norton
Not that I disagree that this is a stupid waste of resources and manpower on the part of the Justice Department, but exactly what does this prosecution have to do with the Jesus Castillo case that was tried in the state court system by local prosecutors?
Ashcroft is a scary guy no question, but trust me, the LOCAL AGs with that power-hungry evil gleam in their eyes as they go after comic book shop owners, and adult filmmakers, and the Dead Kennedys (I may be young, but I’m old enough to remember all that PMRC nonsense) are far, far worse. City and State level laws that wouldn’t last ten second in the House or the Senate, are being passed at alarming rates across this great land of ours. Not just stupid laws like you can’t ship pørņ through the mail (which, BTW, was started as an efofrt to curb young women sending nude photos to their husbands on the fornt lines during the Civil War), but even MORe ridiculous laws like the “you can’t slander beef” law that oprah thankfully beat in court a few years back (I’m not a fan of her’s in general, but I was with her every step of the way on that bûllšhìŧ), or even a really dumb one here in the great state (well, it used to be anyway) of Colorado that, get this, bans any business that promotes “alternative religions” i.e. Buddhism, Wicca, Neo-Paganism; basically any religion that isn’t Christianity (or it’s off-shoots), Judaism, Islam, or Scientology. And remember that anti-gay amendment that pased here a few years back, but was mercifully shut down by the USSC (Supreme Court)? Ashcroft, for all his bark, is only the big dog that distracts you, while that rabid littel terrier goes for your nuts.
P.S. I agree with Luigi. If you want a cross as your tombstone, more power to you. Shìŧ, let the neo-Nazis have swastikas too. That’s so we know where to pe when we’re drunk and stuck in the graveyard. 😉
“Not trying to single you out, but whatever happened to the notion of not encouraging bad behavior?”
I don’t assume that this does encourage bad behaviour. I’ve seen The Sting plenty of times, but it has never encouraged me to become a grifter. I don’t think that people are getting one of these tapes accidentally, discovering that it turns them on, and then feel the need to go do something that isn’t actually like the tape anyway.
As for the argument that it’s not a freedom of speech issue because it’s just a restriction on the use of the USPS: the USPS is granted special government monopoly status. Its interferences with distribution of speech are government interferences with speech.
If anyone wants to point to a case where the ACLU stood against crosses on grave markers, I’d be interested in seeing it. Otherwise, I reckon this is just the usual argument-by-assumption that people use against the ACLU.
Captain Nate posted: “Possessing such lewd material, or making it, is not illegal. Sending it through the US Postal Service is. Thus, he broke a law where he should have known better.
No freedom of speech issue here.”
Actually, the US Postal Service itself does not prohibit anyone’s sending allegedly lewd material, provided the intended recipient actually requested the material for his or her own use. If someone receives unsolicited “lewd” material, that person can request Postal inspectors investigate (although, there’s little the inspectors can do other than investigating the nature of the sender’s postal permits; if the material doesn’t violate local standards, the only result is to contact the sender and advise him to update his mailing list). Anyone who thinks the USPS forbids mailing of lewd material is sadly mistaken–there are plenty of undelivered copies of “Playboy”, “Hustler”, and “Playgirl” which wind up being destroyed (mainly because the publishers have no use for returned copies).
Nat Gertler posted: “As for the argument that it’s not a freedom of speech issue because it’s just a restriction on the use of the USPS: the USPS is granted special government monopoly status. Its interferences with distribution of speech are government interferences with speech.”
Actually, the USPS isn’t a monopoly. If you’re not happy with the USPS, there’s always FedEx, UPS, even the internet. There’s nothing to prevent someone from starting up their own postal system and operating it other than gaining acceptance by the public. UPS and FedEx didn’t become overnight successes, after all. Also, it should be noted that while the internet can’t handle any actual shipping or transporting of merchandise,it is quite handy in paying bills, placing orders, and communicating with people anywhere in the world.
For those that care I found a Liberal Online Radio Station.
Here’s the link
http://www.radioleft.com/
Pretty cool, when you think that you are alone and the media makes you feel like it.
Grem-
Joe Nazzaro said:
Gas prices are flirting with two bucks a gallon, with no relief in sight.
You should try living in the UK… According to the AA:
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/fuel/
the average price for unleaded petrol in the south of England (where I live) is 343.2 pence per gallon. According to this currency converter:
http://www.translatum.gr/converter/currency.htm
that’s equivalent to $5.42. The main reason being that we pay 76% tax on petrol. (This is one reason that I ride a motorbike rather than driving a car.)
Michael Norton said:
No line drawn. That means anything goes.
Of course, just because that’s what other people think, doesn’t mean you need to agree. In other words, just because they want to ban everything, that doesn’t mean that you have to say “don’t ban anything” – you can still make your own decision about what you think is acceptable and what isn’t.
Generalising beyond Michael’s point, I’ve heard people reference Pastor Niemuller’s prayer in similar situations (“First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing, because I wasn’t a Communist” etc.). I think that there’s an important distinction between saying “I think that this person is being treated badly, so I’ll stand up for them even though it doesn’t directly affect me”, and saying “I want to have a buffer zone of people who are doing stuff that’s more dodgy than me, so that as long as the police don’t go after them, they won’t come after me either”.
Personally, I’m glad that I can sidestep this issue, since the 1st Amendment etc. doesn’t apply to the UK. But based on the descriptions of the films I’ve seen, I’d say that in an ideal world the company would go out of business due to lack of customers.
Luigi Novi: You can’t express something if you’re prohibited from distributing or displaying it. People are being prosecuted. Many think they shouldn’t be.
Captain Nate: Let them distribute it, but not through the USPS and not by breaking the law.
Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS. Any government that thinks it should play Big Brother and tell me what I can and cannot communicate to someone else through the mail should go fûçk itself.
Luigi Novi: Hence, there is an issue.
Captain Nate: Not a Freedom of Speech issue.
Luigi Novi: Of course it is. There is discussion over it. One side feels its freedom of speech is being abridged by the prosecutions in question. Hence, it’s a Freedom of Speech issue.
Luigi Novi: The only expression that should not be is that which violates the Clear and Present Danger Clause.
Michael Norton: Normally, and in all the rest of your post I agree with you but not here. Even speech that could be considered to violate that should be protected because if not, then you’re going to have to ask who gets to make that decision and what is it that violates it
Luigi Novi: Michael, anything that presents a clear and present danger cannot be protected. Slander, libel, perjury, lying to a police officer or Congress, revealing classified government secrets to an unauthorized person, false advertisement, threatening someone, or anything that violates pre-existing laws to the same effect (murder, rape, blowing up a building) is not covered, nor should it be. There is no problem of “who” makes that decision. Some girl dressed up like a schoolgirl in a sex video does not cause harm. It merely offends some people.
Chris Galdieri: exactly what does this prosecution have to do with the Jesus Castillo case that was tried in the state court system by local prosecutors?
Luigi Novi: I assume Glenn was simply mentioning another obscenity case involving some other person or persons being persecuted for making adult material available to (GASP!) adults.
From http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/03220/209919.stm
In 1973, the high court said materials are obscene if the average person thinks they appeal to a prurient interest, that they are “patently offensive” and that they have no artistic merit.
From http://dictionary.com
Prurient: 1. Inordinately interested in matters of sex; lascivious.
Patently: 1. In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly:
Offensive: 2. Causing anger, displeasure, resentment, or affront
Artistic: 3. Showing imagination and skill
Merit: To be worthy or deserving
Now my question is does this particular law actually require for all of these things to be true?
Because I can see where pørņøš…any pørņøš…always appeal to the prurient interests.
But the patently offensive thing seems iffy. I think everyone can agree that pørņøš, while not necessarily offensive to yourself, can be offensive to some people. But the question is, is that good enough for the law?
And the Artistic Merit thing just makes me laugh…I’m sure someone can make the argument…but unless its a pørņø based on Jackson Pollock’s after hours activities, I can’t see it…
-Joe
“”One of the confiscated movies, Forced Entry, features three graphic scenes of women being spat upon, raped and murdered. Extreme Teens #24 has adult women dressed up and acting like little girls in various hard-core pornographic scenes. We can’t even tell you the title of one of the films.””
I’m all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I’m not going to help pay the lawsuit. I’m sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy’s gonna have to pay hiw own bills.
Do I think he should go to prison? No. Do I think he should have the right to make pørņø films about women being raped and murdered? Yes. Do I think he should make such movies? God no.
Is the government coming down on this company because their crazy religious nuts who want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? Partly. Are they also coming down on brutal rape pørņø because some of those movies are actually real? Partly.
but unless its a pørņø based on Jackson Pollock’s after hours activities, I can’t see it…
Thats presupposing you consider Jackson Pollock of ‘artistic merit’ which is a whole ‘nother can of worms!
“Actually, the USPS isn’t a monopoly.”
Actually, it is — on non-express letter carriage, due to the Private Express Statutes. You can have other companies carry letters, but you still have to pay the USPS the postage, making an effective monopoly. And once you have USPS as both the monopoly and have laws that prevent the USPS from carrying certain sorts of material, you have a real freedom of speech issue.
For more on the Private Express Statutes, see http://pe.usps.gov/text/qsg/q011.htm for the basics from the USPS itself, or http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_express_statutes for a more in-depth look.
I’m all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I’m not going to help pay the lawsuit. I’m sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy’s gonna have to pay hiw own bills.
I thinks this passage is the most sensible thing I’ve read in this thread so far.
I’m sure there must be near infinite more worthy causes to spend money for than on someone who’s producing faux-snuff movies, no matter how much doing so might be in his right.
Comparing that case to Jesus Castillo’s (someone I believe really can be described as a victim who deserves all our sympathies) is a joke for so many reasons it’s not funny at all.
Another example to point to when people ask why I’d never join the military to fight for this country….
“In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts”
What the fûçk?!?!?!?! What the Fûçk is this šhìŧ? That is just fûçkìņg wrong! Child pørņø is FILTH!!!! It’s disgusting. Child subjected to this kind of abuse are not emotionally or mentally ready to decide to this kind of thing. What’s just as bad as actually performing lewd acts on them is taking advantage of their innocence, trust, and vulnerability. That’s part of what the thrill is for paedophiles: children are vulnerable and can’t resist, so they can force their will on them. I don’t care whether it’s virtual or simulated, it’s wrong and the Supreme Court are just fûçkìņg disgraceful. But of course we already knew that.
Donald W. Pfeiffer: I’m all for the right to produce and sell such films, but I’m not going to help pay the lawsuit. I’m sure the ACLU and the CBLDF have done some amazing things in the past, but this guy’s gonna have to pay hiw own bills.
Luigi Novi: No he isn’t. The ACLU will doubtlessly be aiding him.
Donald W. Pfeiffer: Do I think he should go to prison? No. Do I think he should have the right to make pørņø films about women being raped and murdered? Yes. Do I think he should make such movies? God no.
Luigi Novi: Neither do I, but they are being prosecuted for them. Their right to make and distribute them is what’s being challenged, not whether they “should.”
Donald W. Pfeiffer: Is the government coming down on this company because their crazy religious nuts who want to tell the rest of us how to live our lives? Partly. Are they also coming down on brutal rape pørņø because some of those movies are actually real? Partly.
Luigi Novi: They’re not real. They’re fiction. They’re not actual snuff films.
Jeremy: In 2002 the Supreme Court held that virtual or simulated, child pornography is in fact protected speech. In that case, the defendant created realistic looking digital images of very young children engaged in sex acts”
Pete Wiggins: What the fûçk?!?!?!?! What the Fûçk is this šhìŧ? That is just fûçkìņg wrong! Child pørņø is FILTH!!!! It’s disgusting. Child subjected to this kind of abuse are not emotionally or mentally ready to decide to this kind of thing. What’s just as bad as actually performing lewd acts on them is taking advantage of their innocence, trust, and vulnerability.
Luigi Novi: What part of the above passage didn’t you understand? There WEREN’T any children involved. They were simulated digital images (i.e.: someone drew them on their computer). How can you take advantage of the innocence, trust or vulnerability of an Adobe Photoshop JPEG?
Thanks for the question, Luigi. I understand that the images weren’t REAL, but simulated or not, that’s still pretty fûçkëd up. Yes, no children were being harmed, but it’s still horrible that this šhìŧ is distributed and PROTECTED, so perverts can drool and fantasise and wank over it. I’m sorry if that’s too much info, but that’s what happens.
And I still say that the Supreme Court is disgraceful.
“Luigi Novi: Bull. It’s the citizens’ tax dollars that run the USPS. Any government that thinks it should play Big Brother and tell me what I can and cannot communicate to someone else through the mail should go fûçk itself.”
Ðámņ right, by the way.
The next person who complains about gas prices get bìŧçh-šláppëd.
You do realize we pay for less than the rest of the wolrd for our gas here in the US of A? That we pay LESS than the gas is worth?
To hëll with it anyways, they NEED to add another DOLAR OR TWO to the price of gas so all the idiots driving 10mpg SUVs and trucks get decent vehicles. Any person who OWNS a vehicle that gets under 30 miles per gallon needs to pay a huge “we are helping fûçk up the planet” tax.
Mike: To hëll with it anyways, they NEED to add another DOLAR OR TWO to the price of gas so all the idiots driving 10mpg SUVs and trucks get decent vehicles. Any person who OWNS a vehicle that gets under 30 miles per gallon needs to pay a huge “we are helping fûçk up the planet” tax.
Hëll yeah! People in this country bìŧçh and moan about stuff that we actually need that’s really a bargain like gasoline adn postage stmaps, then shell out ridiculous amounts of money for useless crap. 5 dollars of gas to go ten mile is too much, but 5 dollars to the valet to go ten feet, that’s OK. Morons.
James Tichy said: “Give money to the ACLU? I’d rather burn my money.
I love when they make claims like they want the removal of all crosses from Federal property. I guess we’ll have to find a new marker for my grandfather soon”
I agree, I seriously don’t want to give money to the ACLU. While I’m sure they do good work in some areas, they really have been acting more like a bully over the years. They seem to support Criminals more than they support victims – and while I believe violaters of the Law have rights – they seem to be going totally out of their way to trample victim’s rights.
I heard on the news that a convicted criminal was being given internet access – and talking to young kids (apparently, I believe if I recall correctly, the same reason he was put in jail.) The victim’s called for his access to the computer to be taken away – but the ALCU supported his ability to get on the net – able to talk to children.
I’m sorry, but that seems to not even be helping the convictied man. How is he ever to be reabilitated if he’s allowed to continue his misdeeds.
Places like the ACLU just seem to be becoming more like Nambla. It’s just not helping anyone.
Oh – and I really hate the idea of putting so much time, effort, and money into getting rid of religious symbols in governemnt.
The 10 Commandments – for crying out loud – are not harming a single person! It was basis for our Laws and Lawsystem) And how much money is it going to cost to remove it. (Especially in a time when States need to learn how to spend money more wisely)
The reason America is spirling away in morality, I believe, is efforts like this to expell religion from everybody’s life. If you don’t believe in religion – fine – but don’t expect the world (where 95% of people on Earth apparently believe in some higher life or another) to change for you.
Plus, as for the case – I don’t believe “they” are going on a rampage to arrest decent people. Fight for this if you believe in it – and help to change the laws if you like – but don’t yell at all of us if we don’t follow suit with you.
I’m all for the CBLDF, but I don’t see WHY I’d want to contribute to it for the sake of these people. I don’t see how pørņ movies and distribution has anything to do with comic books.
Surges: The 10 Commandments – for crying out loud – are not harming a single person!
Luigi Novi: Try decorating a courthouse with passages from the Koran, scrolls with Shinto wisdom, Buddhist prayer wheels, or Scientology tracts, and see if people suddenly think that harms someone. The state has no business endorsing religion or connecting the law with religion by putting something like the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. Who is the state to decorate a courthouse with something that tells me which gods I can have, to keep someone else’s Sabbath holy, and not to take someone else’s god’s name in vain, and then say it “doesn’t harm” anyone?
Surges: It was basis for our Laws and Lawsystem)
Luigi Novi: No, it wasn’t. Our legal system was derived from the British, not from the Ten Commandments.
The first three Commandments are purely religious, commanding to not worship other gods, not take the Lord’s name in vain, and to keep holy the Sabbath. There are no such laws in the U.S., for there is a separation between Church and State.
The fourth Commandment, to honor one’s parents, is not a law. If anything, things like child abuse and neglect have made it necessary to enact legislation to protect children from their parents. Moreover, honor cannot be automatically bestowed by an honest intellect. Intellectually honest people can honor only those who, in their opinion, warrant their honor. The biological fact of parenthood does not in and of itself warrant honor. Until very recently parenthood was not even a matter of choice, and it still is mandatory, not optional, for many of the world’s people. Why should any child be commanded to honor, without further basis, parents who became parents by accident–who didn’t even plan to have a child? All of us know children who have been abused, beaten or neglected by their parents. What is the basis for honor there? How does the daughter honor a father who sexually molests her? Honor those who merit your honor would be a much more appropriate teaching, and if that includes your parents, good! It has been suggested that “Honor your children” would be a useful commandment. Some may argue that this commandment is for most children to obey their parents in general, but what good is this? Children are already imprinted with a sense of obedience to their parents by the mere fact of their upbringing, and the only reason children would even be exposed to religion in the first place is because their parents indoctrinate them in that religion anyway. They only obey the commandments because their parents tell them to. If the child obeys the parent by upholding the rules of their religion, isn’t such a commandment redundant?
The fifth Commandment prohibits murder, something that was already illegal in cultures preceding the Bible, and would doubtfully be illegal even if we didn’t have the Bible.
The sixth Commandment prohibits adultery, which is not illegal. In countries where it is, punishments are typically severe, involving stoning to death, and/or are not doled out equally to both genders.
The seventh Commandment prohibits theft, which, like murder, is not a concept that required the Bible to be invented.
The eighth Commandment prohibits lying. Lying is not against the law (except in cases of perjury, obstruction of justice or false advertising), and in many instances, lying is not only necessary, but moral as well. There are also laws against libel and defamation, but these are civil liabilities, not criminal offenses.
The ninth and tenth Commandments say it is wrong to covet anything, which is preposterous. The desire for gain has led to capitalism, industry, science and technology, medicine, and the betterment of our lives. It’s ridiculous to say that these rules were the basis for the most successful capitalist nation on Earth.
Of the Ten Commandments, therefore, only two reflect actual laws that are commonly enforced in Western society (three if you want to include the one about lying). To argue, therefore, that these ten rules are the basis of our laws requires you to ignore reality.
surges: The reason America is spirling away in morality, I believe, is efforts like this to expell religion from everybody’s life.
Luigi Novi: Bûllšhìŧ. Why is it that so many theists feel the need to distort the separating church and state into “expelling religion from everyone’s life?” This is a lie. The state has no business taking any position whatsoever on any religion, period, that includes putting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. To argue that this “expels” religion from your life is a LIE. In what way is your ability to practice your religion mitigated by the mere absence of its decoration in a state-owned piece of property? Give me just one example of how cases like that actually AFFECTED someone’s ability—ANYONE’S ability, to practice their religion?
I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child pørņ, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?
I don`t see why anybody should be disgusted that these people get procecuted because of obcenity – because this is what it is. I have no problem with pørņ showing adults but children, no. No exceptions whatsoever.
Supporting cases like the comic seller is one thing. This is another. But if you treat both the same, you will harm the comic seller and people who really seem to deserve support. I certainly wouldn`t give a penny to an organization that supports child pørņ, fake or otherwise, even if they also do good things.
Cheers Baerbel. I just came back to see if we’d got back on topic yet. Thanks for pointing out how obscene child pørņ is and how it shouldn’t be supported, simulated or not who gives a dámņ?
I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child pørņ, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?
Posted by Baerbel Haddrell @ 08/31/2003 06:12 PM ET
You did not get it right. As Luigi has pointed out several times now, it cannot be child pørņ since there are no children involved in it. No children engaged in sex for the making of this video, none were assaulted, none were even present.
You may find the idea of adults pretending to children in such a film hideous and unspeakable. I have very personal reasons to agree with you, if you do. But our outrage is unimportant. Our distaste is unimportant. Whether or not you or I find the idea repellent is of no concern to whether or not consenting adults should be forbidden from engaging in, distributing or watching such material.
There are no children involved in this. Therefore, it is not child pornography. I personally find the idea of murder obscene, and it is illegal to kill people. It is not illegal to *pretend* to kill people, and film it, and distribute it. Once we begin removing the portrayal of atrocity and loathsome activities from our arts and media, we have as a people decided that our artists cannot depict anything unpleasant or shocking. We will have sanitized their attempt to portray the world, in all its horror and beauty.
I’d personally like to break these people’s kneecaps. I’m not allowed to, under the law. But I certainly could write a story about a man who went around breaking the kneecaps of people who made movies with adults engaging in sexual activity and pretending to be raped or children while being filmed, and I could even make a movie wherein such kneecap breaking took place. It is not illegal in a work to depict illegal activities, even ones like child pornography, rape, murder, drug trafficing, etc, etc. If it were, comic books would be illegal. Movies would be illegal. The Bible would be illegal…people are stoned to death in it, people are thrown to lions in it, people are murdered in scores in it.
I have waited on purpose so that I get a better idea what this is actually about. Did I get this right: This is about distributing child pørņ, although the parts are played by adults and there is some computer manipulation involved as well?
Posted by Baerbel Haddrell @ 08/31/2003 06:12 PM ET
No. The specifc charge is obscenity. Child pørņ charges specifically haven’t been leveled.
One of the films that is named in the case is a film that features actresses of legal age in a film called “Extreme Teen #24”. To my knowledge, no computer generated work was involved.
The CGI thread branched off because of a child pørņ law that defined something as child pørņ even when no children were involved– actresses of legal age could not play underage characters engaged in sex (for example, any actress playing “Lolita” or “Juliet Capulet”) nor could a completely CGI character or animated character be underage. In other words, you could have child pørņ even when no actual children were involved to be harmed. By that argument, of course, you could have child pørņ when no pørņ was involved either. That law was recently struck down.
There’s a movie where the stars rape, kill, steal, humiliate, and depict thoroughly evil behavior. And they’re playing underage teens!
So let’s ban A CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
Actually, the central theme of this movie (and I think they made a book of it too) is that for freedom to exist, so must the most reprehennsible forms of that freedom. Free speech isn’t “it’s fine unless I find it disgusting,” it’s protection of those things we hate. And much as I hate it, adults dressing like kids do NOT make child pørņ, any more than HALLOWEEN is a snuff film.
And for fun, remember that James Joyce’s ULYSSES was once considered pornography, and its case went to the Supreme Court to allow it to be shipped.
“As to content, I see no reason there should be a line.”
Yeah, right.
Have any posters seen Extreme Teen # 24? I haven’t. But I’m curious why everyone assumes that the adult actresses are pretending to be children in this movie. Anyone with a passing familiarity with “pørņ” movies knows that movies with teen in the title refer to 18 and 19 year olds. Just because they are dressed in school girl uniforms does not mean they are pretending to be children. they do act a little younger and a little more naive than your average 18 or 19 year old. but no one in a “pørņ” movie acts like normal people. I don’t think they are pretending to be children. Its more like the fantasy of a sexually naive and virginal 18 year old.
It seems to me most posters on this thread have no idea what is actually depicted in extreme teen #24. I have no problem with people being unfamiliar with “pørņ” and having no desire to be familiar with it. But calling something obscene based on a vague and possibly inaccurate description of it, without even seeing it is just the sort of things the comic book censors do.