Remember how ludicrous it was when John Ashcroft draped cloths over the bare breasts of the statue of justice?
Well, Gordon Lee, a Georgia comics retailer, isn’t laughing. Because Gordon is being prosecuted under Georgia law that stems from the same “human body is evil” thinking. A law so sweeping that the following titles can get retailers arrested and charged with fines and jail time: “Watchmen.” “Contract With God.” “Sandman.”
Interested yet? Sit back, I’ll explain:
Every year, Gordon routinely distributes thousands of free comics on Halloween. This year he blew through over two thousand comics. One of the comics distributed was “Alternative Comics #2,” (provided by the publisher during Free Comics Day) in which there was a story called “The Salon.” The subject depicts the meeting of artists Georges Braque and Pablo Picasso.
It is an historically accurate depiction, right down to the fact that Picasso’s studio was brutally hot during that summer and Picasso would paint in the nude.
There is nothing sexual in the depiction. Picasso, shown fully nude, doesn’t have an erection or engage in sodomy with Braque. It is what was: A startled Braque meeting a blissfully immodest Picasso.
For the distribution of the comic (not even the sale, mind you) Gordon was busted on two charges. The first is “distributing obscene material to a minor,” even though the material doesn’t even begin to fit the Miller test for obscenity. And the second, even more insane, is “distributing material depicting nudity.”
Yes, that’s right. Any comic book in Georgia depicting nudity of any kind can get you busted. Remember Doctor Manhattan? He’ll get you one to three years in Georgia.
If these laws are able to withstand constitutional challenge, do you REALLY think there aren’t states who would love to adopt them?
Consider: If a comic book publisher produces a comic biography of the artist Michelangelo, and accurately depicts his statue of David or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, any retailer in Georgia who sells it can be arrested. To say nothing of the publisher using the US mails to send out review copies. Distributing obscene material through the mails has some pretty stiff penalties.
Speaking of Michelangelo, here’s an interesting factoid: There was a chief censor in Rome who considered the master’s fresco atop the Chapel to be obscenity. After Michelangelo died, the censor converted others to his beliefs and hired one of Michelangelo’s students to paint cloths and drapes over the naughty bits of Adam et al.
Now…how many people, off the top of their head, remember the name of the censor? How many remember the name of the artist who aided the censor?
How many remember the name Michelangelo?
And yes, I know some smartguys will immediately claim Michelangelo is only remembered because of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, guess what: Except for sashes and masks, the Turtles are naked, so…
The CBLDF will naturally be undertaking this case. And the point of the foregoing is that censors may sometimes win their short term goals, but in the long term it is the art and the artists who survive and revered while the censors are relegated to laughing stocks and the dustbin of forgotten history. Aid the CBLDF in tossing these particular censors into the dustbin they so richly deserve.
PAD
• 
Fred:
I agree that there are occassions where a movie maker disagrees with the MPAA rating assigned to the movie (with the e-zine I write for, I have rather good contacts within the entertainment industry.) It’s not that large of a percentage, and it mostly has an impact when the target audience of a movie is younger than the final rating would allow for.
I disagree that it’s easier for retailers to preview every comic each week to make a determination. I try my best to alert my retailer when something questionable comes about (the recent Intimates #4 cover springs to mind.) Retailers need tools to make their job easier. Because if something slips past the retailer and makes the news, it ain’t gonna be the publisher or the creator who takes the brunt of it.
No, Mark, and nothing I posted would have lead you to observe that about me.
The fact that you said a dictatorship is “just as valid” as a democracy leads me to just that conclusion.
Furthermore, I believe than any form of government that truly suppresses the people is immoral.
Before someone misinterprets my words, let me clarify that this statement is not a justification for invading another country. It is simply stating the belief that our very country was founded on the belief that every individual has inalienable rights (even if it did take us years to actually apply this to every citizen). That is a core belief that I would hope everyone on this site would agree with. And when we are helping Iraq, it is a core value that I would hope they would adopt. HOW that looks in practice does not mean they have to adopt our current system. But it does mean that any system that would deny this core value will inevitably lead to disaster down the road.
Iowa Jim
Mark, only if “dictatorship” means in each and every instance a suppresive, hostile regime that seeks to keep the populace repressed an living in fear.
Which, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. It may be the kind of dictatorship Saddam ran, but it by no means is something integral to the concept of a dictatorship.
At any rate, our “three branch” government right now is a joke – not when all three branches are controlled by the same set of nut jobs.
Two out of the three branches were chosen by the people to be Republican. So while you may disagree with the Republican agenda, they are in place due to the choice of the people. (And don’t bother raising the issue that less than 50% voted for them. The fact that some didn’t bother to vote is irrelevant. They could have and chose not to do so. A choice not to vote is still a democratic choice (even though I think it is a stupid one).)
With regard to the Supreme Court, it is far more evenly divided than you portray. A truly “nutjob” court would never have struck down the law against sodomy, to give just one of many examples. Yes, one or two key appointments by Bush would move it more clearly into “republican” / “conservative” territory, but that is the future, not the present reality.
Iowa Jim
Jim, a lot of what you say is true. But how does any of that justify our invasion on the pretense of self defense and the destruction of the established Iraqi government. Whether we cared for it or not, Saddam had been the leader of Iraq for over 20 years. His attempted invasion of Kuwait was 12 years prior to our attack on Iraq. Russia once attempted to invade Afghanistan…if the current Russian government some day decides to play expansionist at some point, will we use Iraq as a precedent to destroy the Russion government and structure elections?
I guess, here’s to point I have with the SotU statement. We now know that Iraq did not have WMDs, and was probably 20 years or more away from being able to produce them. There’s never been a solid, factual piece of evidence linking Saddam to the terrorists that attacked on 9/11. And there’s no solide evidence supporting the idea that Saddam allowed or encouraged or even tolerated terrorst training activities within Iraq’s borders. So the whole justification for invading Iraq has failed to materialize.
Despite this, Bush stated that invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was the “right thing to do.” In the absence of all other justification, the only thing remaining that prevents the war from being one big, huge, whopping mistake is if the US has some inherant right of invasion.
Which Bush flatly stated in the SotU address that the US does not.
Agree with Jim on our government working as intended. I may not like the direction the current leadership is taking us, but it appears that this is what the majority of voters want. If our founders thought that a split party government was the way to go, they’d have said so in the Constitution. And I’d not really want that. I know some think sole-party control is a bad thing, but what will happen, and I think has already started to happen, is that those the divisions within the party will start to show.
Rebulicans are by no means a coherant bunch, composed of various groups wanting sometimes conflicting things, just as democrats are. And now that the Republicans have “won” for the next 2 years, those invidual groups are going to want to see their own iterests met. I’d predict that in some ways, sole-party control of both executive and legislative branches will be less effective than a split of power.
Bobb,
Could you name a few examples of positive “dictatorships” or non-democratic countries (I suspect the former is easier than the latter).
My, admittedly limited, understanding is that democratic/republic and capitalistic systems are the only ones that truly ‘work’. But I’m always open to learning (and you seem like a very patient teacher).
Jim, a lot of what you say is true. But how does any of that justify our invasion on the pretense of self defense and the destruction of the established Iraqi government.
Well, when you put it that way . . .
Obviously from my previous points, I do think the invasion was justified based on what we knew at the time. But I can see your point even though I disagree with it.
Iowa Jim
Robbnn,
You have to go back a ways. Benign feudal kings, Charlemagne, Arthur…ok, he wasn’t real.
I’d be the first to admit, and I think I have, that dictatorships are more prone to corruption than elected forms of government. But the corruption is of the individual, rather than systematic corruption. You’re trading one poison for another. And at least with a corrupt dictator, you only have to remove one person in order to address the corruption. Republics tending toward corruption get their very systems of operation corrupted, where removing a few corrupt individuals does little to address the corruption.
The point being, it’s not necessarily the form of government that is bad, but the people running it. Given human nature, I think history has proven Jim correct, in that all dictatorial regimes ended in corruption and revolution. And that may be a by-product of the dictatorship. In a republic, there’s always the chance to reform through elective change.
Jim, fair enough.
Good points, btw, especially on such a de-railed thread as this.
Bobb wrote:
You have to go back a ways. Benign feudal kings, Charlemagne, Arthur…ok, he wasn’t real.
I’m going to admit that I’m uncertain of what I am about to say so please just take it at face value. I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
There’s an intrinsic difference between somone like a king, and a dictator. For one, a king is not a benign dictator. His power usually derives from the consent of the people to be ruled by him, and they are usually free to go or stay as they wish. Dictators on the other hand derive their power from strength and have usually overthrown the previous form of government.
You also have to define “benign”. To the Sunnis in Iraq, Saddam was a benevolent ruler who most of them loved. they had good jobs, land, and plenty of money. To the Shia’s and the Kurds, he was a despot who’s troops came into houses and took fathers, sons, children and even whole families away and either tortured or killed them and dumped their bodies in mass graves.
“So, out of curiosity, just how soon do you see the draft coming back?”
Within sixty days after something else large on US soil gets blown up.
PAD
His power usually derives from the consent of the people to be ruled by him, and they are usually free to go or stay as they wish.
See, I don’t know if I get that impression from a monarchy.
Really, the difference I see is that a monarchy claims to rule by the hand of god, while a dictator does not.
I mean, take the French Revolution. The people overthrew the monarchy… so, in such a case, would you view the monarchy is just that, or a dictatorship, by virtue of the fact that the French monarchy didn’t care what the people thought, they just wanted to be in control of the country.
“So, out of curiosity, just how soon do you see the draft coming back?”
Within sixty days after something else large on US soil gets blown up.
See, I still don’t see it happening even then. The two most likely areas of future war involving us (assuming the Chinese don’t totally lose their minds and invade Taiwan) would be Iran or North Korea. Both could be better handled with either surgical strikes (Iran) or just massive nukes ahoy (Korea). There’s no reason to invade either one. Iran has plenty of people waiting to take it over–they’re called Iranians. If Bush wants to gamble on Iran he could drop some bunker busters on their nuke sites and send lots of stinger missiles to the local Junior Highs. I’ve always thought that we have seriously underestimated the destabilizing effect of 14 year olds with weapons.
As far as Korea goes, we should just tell the Chinese that it’s all theirs to do with as they wish. Kim could probably fall ill on the way back from a high level meeting in China. There aren’t too many places where domination by the Communist Chinese would be like a flowering of freedom but North Korea is one such place.
But anyway, neither scenario, and I seriously doubt both, requires more USA troops.
As far as Korea goes, we should just tell the Chinese that it’s all theirs to do with as they wish. Kim could probably fall ill on the way back from a high level meeting in China. There aren’t too many places where domination by the Communist Chinese would be like a flowering of freedom but North Korea is one such place.
Bwa-hah-hah! Funny, but true (and, ergo, the kind I like best…)
Both could be better handled with either surgical strikes (Iran) or just massive nukes ahoy (Korea).
And yet, that obviously isn’t Bush’s style.
Saddam has WMD that he’ll use at a moment’s notice? Carpet bomb and send in +100k US troops.
Why expect Bush to do any different?
Craig,
Well, arguing about the near future is pointless, since all we have to do is nothing and time itself will quickly determine who is right and who is wrong.
We’ve both got long memories so if the draft returns you can quote me and mock my feeble powers of prognostication. I, on the other hand, will take the high road and, should I prove to be correct, merely write “Neener neener neener” in large bold type 50 or 60 times.
Really, the difference I see is that a monarchy claims to rule by the hand of god, while a dictator does not.
If the people don’t believe the hand of God is involved, I don’t see a king hanging on to his throne. Don’t forget, the American colonists offered to make George Washington their king. After previously rising up against their old king.
I mean, take the French Revolution. The people overthrew the monarchy… so, in such a case, would you view the monarchy is just that, or a dictatorship, by virtue of the fact that the French monarchy didn’t care what the people thought, they just wanted to be in control of the country.
A monarchy. but as most governments do, it grew corrupt and the people revolted. dictatorships, even so-called “benign” ones are already corrupt. They took over without the consent of the people and by force.
And yes, I know some smartguys will immediately claim Michelangelo is only remembered because of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Well, guess what: Except for sashes and masks, the Turtles are naked, so…
Technically, wouldn’t that mean they’re not naked? I mean, I’m just saying… 8^)
Prose novels are not comics. Comics are a visual medium that are puts them closer to movies than to novels.
Movies have a guideline rating system. Hasn’t seemed to chill their output any.
Well, Fred & Bobb pretty much read my mind on this, but to add my own couple o’ pennies….
I suppose that depends on your definition of “chilling their output.” With the ratings system in place, the resulting box office plusses and minuses that go along with each rating and the preferred audience(s) of the studios…film production normally begins with a specific rating already in mind, causing the production – from start to finish – to be shoehorned into the guidelines of the rating the studio wants, rather than simply making the film and letting its promotion and marketing find its intended audience.
Likewise, while comics are a visual medium, it’s still possible for parents (or, for that matter, anyone wondering if the comic in question seems to be in line with their tastes) to flip through the comic in the store to determine whether it’s going home with them or not. As most of us here are (or have been) comics readers, surely we’re familiar with the “flip test” to see if a book sparks our interest. With films, however, there is no comparable “flip test.” (Unless, that is, one waits ’til the movie’s out on video/DVD, rents it and fast-forwards through it…but, there’s still cost associated with that, unlike the comic or novel “flip test.”) Personally, if I had my druthers the actual movie rating system would fall by the wayside, as well.
I don’t really see voluntary rating systems as a means of, as some have suggested, passing on parental responsibilty to others. Rather, it’s a market response to a demand by concerned parents (and others) for more information about what they consume. The movie ratings system is supposed to help guide movie goers in general, but specifically parents, decide which movies they want to see.
But now movie studios are aiming for certain ratings, because they are somewhat tied to revenue. PG-13 movies do better than PG movies, on average.
I think there is a need in some communities for a law regulating unsolicited distribution of material that many would find objectionable or offensive. Assigning penalties harsher than some felonies seems out of place. Getting back to the event that started this thread, one of the keys here is whether the material can be considered unsolicited. Going beck to movies as an example, if kids sneak into a movie theater to see an R rated movie, that can hardly be classified as unsolicited. But what if they sneak into what they think is a PG movie, and end up with an R?
This is where I think this case will hinge: even if the child involved (and whether his parent(s) were present with him or not is also important) went to the store to get the free comic, is it reasonable to assume that the expectation of that free comic included mature content, including nudity? While we as comic consumers might understand that some comics have very adult and mature themes, including nudity, sex, profanity, and violence, young children might not share that expectation. And I think many of us would agree that a comic given to a child should be free of those more adult themes.
Howard:
>I disagree that it’s easier for retailers to preview every comic each week to make a determination. I try my best to alert my retailer when something questionable comes about (the recent Intimates #4 cover springs to mind.) Retailers need tools to make their job easier. Because if something slips past the retailer and makes the news, it ain’t gonna be the publisher or the creator who takes the brunt of it.
Howard, I speaking in the context of the statement regarding reviewing comic content as being synonymous with film content. It being easier to review material in a comic over reviewing a film (or a novel). I wouldn’t expect a retailer to review every comic the comes into his or her store as Spider-Man stories don’t tend to have wagging pëņìšëš in their pages. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to have unknown independent books flipped through quickly to ensure that 7 year olds don’t walk out with them or, as many shops do, have them in a seperate section not easily accessable to the lil ones.
BTW, from the info that I’ve seen, looks like Gordan dropped the ball on this one….. but jalitime? I’d have an issue with that.
Fred
Going beck to movies as an example, if kids sneak into a movie theater to see an R rated movie, that can hardly be classified as unsolicited. But what if they sneak into what they think is a PG movie, and end up with an R?
I think the theater owner would be off the hook on this one; the comic book equivalent of this scenario would be if some kid went into a comic shop and was somehow able to shoplift a mature rated comic.
Movies do have flip-tests, by the way, in the form of movie trailers.
Further, I see nothing wrong with some of the aspects of gearing a film toward a specific rating / target audience. I think that comics already do this. You won’t see certain things in Superman or Spider-Man because the writers already know the audience they’re gearing the story toward (and if they don’t, hopefully the editors will do their job and remind them.)
(That doesn’t mean I’m for gutting a creative work to lessen the rating, mind you. The rating system is still voluntary, and I think we’ll see less of this gutting as the DVD market gets stronger and “Director’s Cuts” have become so prevalent.)
Actually, Howard, I think we’ll more impact of ratings with the advent of direct market DVDs. Studios and ratings boards will be more inclined to tone down content, because they can always include it in the DVD. That way, that portion of the audience that wants to see the deleted material can do so, by buying the DVD and watching the special features.
Bobb:
You’re right. That would be a more natural course of action, allowing for maximum audience in theaters and maintaining the original integrity of the piece.
Ratings on movies or comics or anything else does not curtail free speech.
If a creator wants to speak freely, there are always independent publishers and self-publishing. If the creator wants to speak freely AND have avenues to commercial success assured, he or she is mixing apples and oranges. To have one, a compromise may have to be worked with the other.
(Note, I’m not sure if anyone is advocating if ratings hamper free speech or not; just wanted to clarify.)
Movies do have flip-tests, by the way, in the form of movie trailers.
I’m not sure I see them as equivalent. I’d consider a trailer to be closer to future solicitations for comics, in that it’s a promotional tool put together by the studio/publisher intended to entice the viewer/reader. As such, the studio gets to pick and choose which elements it wants to expose you to in advance.
The comics “flip test” gives a prospective reader access to the full content of the book to spot-check as the potential reader sees fit.
Robbnn’s right, the rating’s don’t curtail free speech. But when people use ratings to dictate, rather than recommend, what people can and can’t see, that is a restriction on free speech.
Whether it’s a prohibited restriction or not is another matter entirely.
Why not, Bobb? I’m not saying it’s a good thing, necessarily (though sometimes; pørņ to kids is never a good thing, and that’s dictated).
Unless I’m missing something, “dictated ratings” apply only to children, not adults (right?), and that would only be X and NC-17 (R and the PG’s are recommendations)
‘R’ is a recommendation to the parent, but a dictate to the theater owners. Parents can bring their children if they want to, but theater owners are prohibited from allowing access to unaccompanied children.
As it should be.
I don’t think the R rating is a mandatory restriction in most places. Local ordinances might enforce them, but I don’t know of any state or higher law that requires a theater to follow the MPAA ratings’ recomendations. A lot of theaters won’t carry NC-17 or X films, basically because there’s less profit in such films. With X rated, it also might be to accomodate public opinion and such, or even to comply with a local ordinance.
Robbnn, I think I don’t understand what your “why not” refers to. That the ratings don’t, by themselves, restrict free speech? Because they are essentially guidelines (arrgh), not rules (with local exceptions excluded). They might have some impact on the full range of expression, as most film distributors won’t take a film that has been assigned an MPAA rating, and some theaters won’t show films without them, so there is an access issue.
The MPAA ratings system is a purely voluntary. There is no state or federal law requiring movie theaters to comply with the restrictions (ie, not allowing children under 17 in without a parent or guardian).
Also, the X rating doesn’t really exist anymore. The MPAA replaced it with the NC-17 because the producers of movies with very mature content such as “The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover” that were considered “art” films didn’t want the stigma of the X.
In practice, though, the NC-17 rating is considered the kiss of death at the box office, since it cuts off the most lucrative film going audience: teenagers. The only movie to deliberatelyl court the NC-17 rating was “Showgirls” and we all know how successful that was.
Movies that initially get slapped with the NC-17 rating usually end up being re-edited so they can get an R rating.
Ironically, despite its title as “Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,” the Southpark movie was initially given an NC-17 rating and had to be re-edited. One of the things the MPAA objected to was the Terence and Philips song, originally called, “Mother F**ker.” Stone and Parker changed it to “Uncle F**ker,” which for reason, was considered less offensive.
Go figure.
It is official. The sky really is falling. The first case from the new Bush Attorney General is an appeal to stop pørņ. Free speech as we know it is dead.
For those who haven’t guessed, I say this with tongue firmly planted in cheek. I don’t know enough of the case in question to have an opinion yet, but it is ironic that this is the first case under the new Bush AG. I can guess, though, how some of you will respond, so figured I would go ahead and mention it.
Here is the story: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050216/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/obscenity_appeal_3
Iowa Jim
I can guess, though, how some of you will respond, so figured I would go ahead and mention it.
What, he’s not going to execute some mentally handicapped kid first instead?
Maybe torture some Gitmo prisoners?
Of course, left undefined in the article is exactly what it was in those materials that makes them “obscene.” Was it hardcore adult action, kiddie pørņ, or bëšŧìálìŧÿ?
Which is the main problem I have with these obscenity cases. When somebody comes up with a better definition for obscenity than, “I know it when I see it,” maybe I’ll be more supportive.
Everybody has a different definition of what’s “obscene.” Some might find a naked drawing of Picasso obscene. Personally, I find sending over 1500 young Americans to die chasing fictitious WMDs obscene, but somehow I doubt Gonzales will take that case up.
Fine, I’ll bite.
There’s not many facts in the news piece on the case. Basically, the tapes involved were purchased, and depict rape and murder. I’m assuming they’re fictional tapes, and not real snuff films, as they aren’t prosecuting them for murder, etc.
It’s just another attempt to legislate morality. It relies on a community definition of obscenity. As far as can be determined from the news, the material was sent to people that purchased it, so it’s not unsolicited, it’s not uncontrolled, and it’s being viewed by people that want to view it. Seems to me that it’s a blatant attempt by the federal gov’t to regulate what people view in the privacy of their own homes.
I think it’s telling that the judge in part relied on the Texas decision striking down laws that would effectively prohibit gáÿ šëx because it was an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Isn’t it interesting how the party that’s supposed to favor smaller government and less intrusions into private lives keeps trying to regulate private activity?
The ‘why’ refers to “when people use ratings to dictate…. what people can and can’t see, that is a restriction on free speech.” Free speech doesn’t include access to a particular market segment or medium.
Michael Moore can spout whatever nonsense he wants, but if movie theaters refused to carry it, he hasn’t been denied free speech, he’s just been denied distribution. Nothing prevents him from building his own theater, or renting town halls and a projector. No one is arresting him. Aren’t we conflating two different issues?
Robbnn, thanks for the clarification.
We’re starting to drift back into the difference between the spirit and the law regarding free speech. Laws prohibiting the showing of certain movies might be an unconstitutional restriction of speech. A theater or chain or distributor isn’t. I guess instead of “people” I should have used “legislators.”
What, he’s not going to execute some mentally handicapped kid first instead? Maybe torture some Gitmo prisoners?
Craig, Ok, I admit that was not one of the responses I expected!
Iowa Jim
It’s just another attempt to legislate morality. It relies on a community definition of obscenity. As far as can be determined from the news, the material was sent to people that purchased it, so it’s not unsolicited, it’s not uncontrolled, and it’s being viewed by people that want to view it. Seems to me that it’s a blatant attempt by the federal gov’t to regulate what people view in the privacy of their own homes.
I am curious: Is there any limit to what can be depicted? Assume, for the moment, that the person(s) being filmed do it of their own free will (and are not actually harmed) and the person watching it chooses to do so. Is there any act or simulation of an act that goes too far?
Iowa Jim
Iowa Jim:
>>It’s just another attempt to legislate morality. It relies on a community definition of obscenity. As far as can be determined from the news, the material was sent to people that purchased it, so it’s not unsolicited, it’s not uncontrolled, and it’s being viewed by people that want to view it. Seems to me that it’s a blatant attempt by the federal gov’t to regulate what people view in the privacy of their own homes.
>I am curious: Is there any limit to what can be depicted? Assume, for the moment, that the person(s) being filmed do it of their own free will (and are not actually harmed) and the person watching it chooses to do so. Is there any act or simulation of an act that goes too far?
Hockey. I find this to be one of the most offensive subjects ever to be filmed. I would never want someone to not have the option of seeing it should they choose to.
Fred
“Hockey. I find this to be one of the most offensive subjects ever to be filmed. I would never want someone to not have the option of seeing it should they choose to.”
Ah-HA! So you’re the one behind the NHL being canceled this year!
Jim, clearly there are limits, but they are not based upon community definitions of obscene. Child pornagraphy, for instance. While I’m sure most would agree that such images, even re-creations, are offensive, that’s not the reason such material is prohibited: it’s primarily to protect children from being exploited. I’m not sure how a court would view a film using adult actors to portray children would be viewed, but my guess would be to lean toward regulation.
Otherwise, I fail to see how it can be fair to regulate such sales (assuming they don’t run afoul of such notice laws, such as the one in GA that started this thread) if they are made by consenting adults, and do not otherwise depict prohibited acts (child pørņ). Absent some clear indication that a distinct class (children) are placed in increased risk because of the act, there is no justification outside of community norms to prohibit the expression/film.
What class is put at risk because of the creation/sale of adult sex film, even those that depict murder and rape?
I am curious: Is there any limit to what can be depicted? Assume, for the moment, that the person(s) being filmed do it of their own free will (and are not actually harmed) and the person watching it chooses to do so. Is there any act or simulation of an act that goes too far?
For my own tastes? Absolutely. Do I think that my personal tastes should be the standard by which things should be seen by other adults? No.
Now, let’s look at the reason these materials were declared “obscene”: Depictions of rape and murder. Is any movie that depicts rape or murder automatically obscene or is there some kind gore/brutality rating that pushes it over the top? Again, we’re assuming that the participants are willing and not actually harmed. If they were, then the producers of the film should be charged with rape/murder.
Now, if you want an example of something I found offensive, I thought the scene in the “Passion of the Christ” where Jesus was whipped to the point where his rib was exposed was too graphic and there was no reason it had to be that graphic (and no, I don’t care if that’s how “it really was”, I’m talking about from a purely artistic standpoint). Yet thousands of people had no problem taking their children to see it. So, does the fact that I found that scene offensive mean that Mel Gibson should be charged with obscenity?
Den’s making the exact point why cases like this are generally a bad idea: You can’t know until after the public views your product whether it violates the law or not. And something that might be considered obscene 20 years ago might not be labled obscene today. Or worse, the east coast might find a violation where the west coast might not. This is a Federal law, and if it can’t be applied uniformly or with any level of predictability, than it is nothing more than an arbitrary application of moral standards.
Hmmm. I admit to not having thought this one through yet, but I’m thinking about this kind of thing in conjunction with hate crime legislation (which, personally, I’m against since all crime is hate crime, but it is an issue to some on the left)… if motives make a crime more abhorant, doesn’t graphic dipiction of such a crime that promotes enjoyment of a hate crime — as opposed to displaying it as a negative thing — make that obscene? For example, there are pørņ movies that are clearly meant to titilate with rape scenes. That’s encouraging hate, as I understand it. So, I could see an argument classifying anything meant for purient interest that dipicts a sex crime (i.e., you’re meant to enjoy the sex crime) as being obscene (still a lot of grey area, though).
Despite the claims that movies doen’t encourage behavior, I think common sense shows that it does (or advertizers wouldn’t spend so much money on commercials).
If movies depicting rape and murder are now going to be considered obscene and punishable by jail time, Hollywood is going to become a penal colony.
Despite the claims that movies doen’t encourage behavior, I think common sense shows that it does (or advertizers wouldn’t spend so much money on commercials).
This is my point: I am convinced (partially based on evidence, partially based on opinion) that seeing an act DOES have an influence. However, that act must be taken within its context.
The example from The Passion of the Christ is a valid one. For most who saw it, the context did portray the reality and in no way left me enticed to mimic it or relive it for “purient” interests. But I can respect the view of those who say that it did not have to be that graphic to get the point across.
When you get into pørņ films that depict rape, it is not the same as watching a rape enactment on CSI, and that is not because the pørņ film is more sexually explicit. There is no question in my mind that watching a depiction of rape where the perpetrator is left satisfied and the “hero” does desensitize the viewer. They may not ever commit an act of rape, but I am certain that they will be abusive and demeaning to women in other ways.
Bottom line, the definition of “obscene” is not just that I happen to be disgusted by watching it. I don’t watch Fear Factor because the things they make people eat would make me throw-up just watching it. The reason there does have to be a limit is because the images and message does impact people.
How do we judge this? Obviously, if we do want to allow as much freedom of speech as possible, then there will always be a “gray” area. The best way in our society is for there to be some assesment of the public’s view of what is obscene. While it may not be as strict as some want, or as open as others want, it is the best compromise that prevents one person or small minority from “imposing” their morality on another group from either side of the issue.
Iowa Jim
I’m not sure how a court would view a film using adult actors to portray children would be viewed, but my guess would be to lean toward regulation.
Actually, lately, they have gone the other way. Which is a huge problem. Allowing someone to buy a film that “depicts” a child having sex with an adult (even though the “child” is legally of age) only serves to arouse their desire to engage in such an act. You then have either a very sexually frustrated person, or more likely, you have someone who commits an act of sexual abuse on a minor or child.
Bottom line, it doesn’t matter what the “law” says. Watching pornography that depicts abuse, rape, murder, acts of violence, etc., DOES hurt our society. The problem today is not a question of whether a law calling such pørņ films obscene is an issue. The problem today is that for me to even say such films DO cause harm is to be called intollerant and imposing my morality on another. If it is wrong to actually commit the act, then why is it wrong to say that films glorifying someone committing the act is harmful and destructive? Again, you must take context into account. Schindler’s List did not cause most decent people to be drawn to acts of violence. Pornographic films, on the other hand, are fantasies designed to glorify the actions so that you can live them vicariously. It is a gross mistake to confuse the two types of movies. The fact that a movie contains a rape or murder or child abuse is not the problem. When the film does not portray these things as bad is when there is a problem.
Iowa Jim