Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Universe Prince

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 244
61
3DHS / Re: Does pornography equal obscenity?
« on: July 15, 2010, 11:17:28 PM »
Quote from: Stray Pooch on July 15, 2010, 08:20:35 PM

If I had a movie with one scene in it where a child was raped, would it be necessary to see the rest of the movie to determine if the film was obscene?


Yes. Context matters.

Quote from: Stray Pooch on July 15, 2010, 08:20:35 PM

If the movie contains material sufficient to - in and of itself - be considered obscene, then the rest of the film couldbe about Saint Bernadette and it would still be obscene.


That is not the standard used in our legal system.

Quote from: Stray Pooch on July 15, 2010, 08:29:07 PM

There is, right now, a thriving child porn industry that DOESN'T go away.


And no one is saying child porn should be legal. The films for which Stagliano is on trial are not child porn.

Quote from: Stray Pooch on July 15, 2010, 08:29:07 PM

There are children and adults being abused sexually and recorded on film.


Again, no one is saying that should be legal.

Quote from: Stray Pooch on July 15, 2010, 08:29:07 PM

I know that the libertarian/liberal viewpoint says the government has no business controlling "victimless" behavior, but the issue of pornography (like the drug issue) goes far beyond the actions of consenting adults in "victimless" crimes.

I'm not even going to bother to go into battle on this issue, because I've heard it all before.  But the fact is, some things are wrong and ought to be discouraged.  There is a responsibility to protect freedom by using it appropriately.


The argument I think you're making is that all porn should be considered obscene, and therefore illegal, because of the existence of the idea of pornography can to lead to someone else being abused. If that is your argument, I have to say it is not good enough. I know you said you're not going to argue this, and that's fine. I just don't want to let that sort of "well it's wrong so there oughta be a law" argument pass without comment. I think it is a very bad foundation for law and law enforcement.

62
3DHS / Re: Does pornography equal obscenity?
« on: July 14, 2010, 04:14:06 AM »
Maybe you're right, Kramer. But what have we done that we have a government that decides to prosecute John Stagliano because (as near as I can determine) it felt like doing so? I mean, this isn't some cranky minister bringing this case. This case was brought by the U.S. federal government. Which should be protecting John Stagliano, not trying to put him in jail.

63
3DHS / Re: Does pornography equal obscenity?
« on: July 14, 2010, 01:47:26 AM »
Exactly, Kimba.

64
3DHS / Re: Does pornography equal obscenity?
« on: July 14, 2010, 12:01:34 AM »
But wait! There's more.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/13/closed-court-miller-time-and-j
         According to Miller [the Miller test], for a work to be obscene, it must first and foremost violate community standards. But despite adult stores selling hardcore porn of all kinds all over Washington, D.C., there has not been an obscenity prosecution here in more than two decades. Washington is not a community that seems to be at all concerned that adult films are being watched by local adults.

Another way of looking at the community standard is one that Judge Leon has explicitly rejected. For example, a piece of evidence the prosecution apparently wants to share with jurors is a scene from the film Milk Nymphos which shows a milk enema being administered to an actor. Yet jurors will not be allowed to learn that you can find literally hundreds of similar enema scenes for sale at, for example, washingtonadultstore.com.

Another prong of the Miller test is whether "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Here, too, the judge has helped the prosecution.

Last week, Judge Leon ruled that jurors could not hear from Stagliano's two expert witnesses on the films' merits, on the grounds that they wouldn't have added much scientific value, and that the underlying material is the best evidence for whether a piece of work is obscene. One expert, Dr. Lawrence Sank, a respected clinical psychologist from Cognitive Therapy Center of Greater Washington, was expected to testify to the therapeutic and scientific value of the movies. The other denied expert, University of California Santa Barbara Film Studies Professor Constance Penley (see Reason.tv's interview with Penley here), would have testified to the artistic value of the indicted films.

And then in a shocking development late yesterday afternoon, Judge Leon indicated that he intended to issue a long ruling in support of his decision that the movies not be played in their entirety for the jurors in the courtroom, in apparent contravention of what Miller has traditionally required. The opinion is a strong signal that the judge is hoping to make lasting case law in this trial.		         

How does this case get to this point in our society? What the frak?

65
3DHS / Does pornography equal obscenity?
« on: July 13, 2010, 11:39:37 PM »
Does pornography equal obscenity? There is a case in federal district court that may be about that very question. Of course, my question is, why is this even in court in the first place? Why is anyone trying to prosecute a producer of pornography in A.D. 2010 United States of America? This does not speak well of our society, in my opinion.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/12/the-trial-of-john-stagliano
         So you would think a small businessman like John Stagliano would be held up as a model of entrepreneurship in the United States of 2010. Stagliano built his Southern California company from scratch into a business now worth millions, creating dozens of full-time jobs with benefits (and providing well-compensated work to hundreds of others, too). Included among those jobs were hires necessary for the specific purpose of compiling the bureaucratic paperwork his industry is required to maintain by various levels of government.

Despite the red tape, Stagliano's California business, Evil Angel, has thrived. Then in 2004, Stagliano invested millions into the Las Vegas economy with an original, dance-centered production show on the Strip. The Fashionistas ran for years, far outlasting better known competing Broadway-generated titles such as Avenue Q, Spamalot, and Hairspray. The show proved a surprise favorite with critics, myself included, who were awed by the artistically ambitious choreography, costuming, and tight storyline told through music and dance.

I became friends with Stagliano after he closed Fashionistas to concentrate on Evil Angel, and so it seemed unlikely I would ever be called upon to write about him again. But then in 2008 something shocking happened: Stagliano was charged by the United States government with enough crimes to potentially put him in prison for the remainder of his life. How could this happen?

Because outside Vegas, Stagliano's day job is as a pornographer. Indeed, within the subculture of pornography, Stagliano is revered for being the originator of the "gonzo porn" genre, in which the viewer is brought more directly into the proceedings, often via performers themselves holding cameras. Stagliano has won numerous artistic awards from his indutry peers, almost too many to count. His movies are taught in graduate film programs, and psychiatrists have used them to treat patients with sexual issues.  

Evil Angel not only distributes Stagliano's films, but also the work of other directors he hand-picks. In this, Stagliano turned out to be as good a connoisseur as director. By 2008, the year he was charged with obscenity, Evil Angel was perhaps the most successful adult DVD distributor in the country.

[...]

But none of this history explains the prosecution of John Stagliano in 2010 for making movies with consenting adults and selling them to other consenting adults. When did his business suddenly become criminal? Why has the power and majesty of the United States government, the financial and personnel resources of the FBI, all joined forces now to try and send Stagliano to prison?

Here is the final piece of the puzzle. In 2005, under then-President George W. Bush, the Department of Justice formed the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (OPTF). The ideological slant of the task force's "mission" is clear from its website: "Enforcement is necessary in order to protect citizens from unlawful exposure to obscene materials." In Stagliano's case, for example, an FBI special agent special-ordered movies that Evil Angel distributed. He then purchased the DVDs on the taxpayer's dime. There was never a single complaint from any actual citizen.

[...]

If [Stagliano] loses this case, almost any current adult content could be declared obscene.		         

66
3DHS / Re: 2nd amendment opposition largely put to rest
« on: July 06, 2010, 05:14:50 PM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on July 06, 2010, 12:19:25 PM

"Use" as in tote them around ostentatiously,


How about a modest hip holster?

67
3DHS / Re: More facts come out about Obama not born in USA
« on: July 06, 2010, 03:57:45 AM »
Quote from: Kramer on July 05, 2010, 11:35:38 PM

you need to be able to read between the lines.


There are no more facts between the lines than are actually in the lines. You've got one guy saying there is no birth certificate, and apparently a bunch of other people clinging to that story as if it means something. This story has gotten to be about as dumb as the "magic bullet".

68
3DHS / Re: More facts come out about Obama not born in USA
« on: July 05, 2010, 11:12:48 PM »
None of that looks like facts about Obama.

69
3DHS / Re: 2nd amendment opposition largely put to rest
« on: July 05, 2010, 03:16:23 PM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on July 05, 2010, 01:05:54 PM

Observe ONCE MORE: In Iraq, nearly everyone was armed, Saddam was widely despised, and there were no effective rebellions.


Observe: The U.S. isn't Iraq.

70
3DHS / Re: 2nd amendment opposition largely put to rest
« on: July 05, 2010, 03:14:55 PM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on July 05, 2010, 09:29:20 AM

Do you really think that a guy with a even a military rifle has much chance against the electronic stun weapons that the Army has, or that he is going to be able to take out a predator drone? No one is going to overthrow the US government, no matter who is in charge, with the puny weapons of NRA members. Nor will it come to a situation where US troops will be asked to fire on citizens.The citizens can be repelled with all manner of nonlethal weapons, and Semper Fi does not indicate faithfulness to the American People, but to the Corps, sir, yes, sir.


You underestimate the ingenuity of people. You also apparently missed the point about not banning weapons. You think too small.

71
3DHS / Re: 2nd amendment opposition largely put to rest
« on: July 05, 2010, 01:48:46 AM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on July 04, 2010, 04:12:59 PM

And again, firearms were a necessity to most of the people at the time the Constitution was written.

Most Americans do not need to hunt game to survive, nor are wild Indians about.


Xavier, you're not that ignorant. You know better, or you should.

Reasons for armed self-defense still exist and easily found in the news media.

But beyond that, the authors of the Bill of Rights were not merely trying to protect the right of people to hunt game or merely to protect themselves. Put it in context. Not that many years prior to the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, most if not all of the people who collaborated on those documents were involved in armed rebellion against the rule of Britain over the colonies.

Anyone who actually thinks the protection of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment is about hunting game or fighting off Indian attacks is willfully ignorant.

And don't give me that, but we couldn't defend against the army now, because yeah, we could. And trust me, if (I said 'if' you right-wingers) the liberals are right that the fascists are about to take over, when the new fascist regime is in place, the liberals will find renewed interest in the right to keep and bear arms. Suddenly the "assault weapons" ban will seem as stupid to them as it does to everyone else. And not because they'll be worried about hunting game or defending against Indian attacks.

72
3DHS / Re: Human capability peaked before 1975 and has since declined
« on: June 24, 2010, 03:20:42 PM »
People used to write opinion articles that made sense. Now, we have blog entries like this. Maybe the author of the blog peaked in 1975.

73
3DHS / government oil spill projections
« on: June 24, 2010, 11:42:38 AM »
Once again, I find that government regulations contributed to the problem rather than actually helping.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325131111637728.html
         BP PLC and other big oil companies based their plans for responding to a big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on U.S. government projections that gave very low odds of oil hitting shore, even in the case of a spill much larger than the current one.

The government models, which oil companies are required to use but have not been updated since 2004, assumed that most of the oil would rapidly evaporate or get broken up by waves or weather. In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon caught fire and sank, real life has proven these models, prepared by the Interior Department's Mineral Management Service, wrong.
More

Oil has hit 171 miles of shoreline in southern Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northern Florida. Further, government models don't address how oil released a mile below the surface would behave—despite years of concern among government scientists and oil companies about deep-water spills.		         

74
3DHS / Re: Chimpanzees kill to win new territory
« on: June 22, 2010, 11:02:27 PM »
Kramer, are you 12 years old?

75
3DHS / Re: Respect
« on: June 22, 2010, 02:55:51 PM »
Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on June 22, 2010, 02:42:23 PM

Do you deny that there is an ample supply of officers willing to command the troops?

Do you deny that they will do so, if called upon to?


I deny that generals are morons, that they are are interchangeable, and that they merely and/or only do whatever the President tells them to do. They take orders from the President, yes, but saying they just line up to do whatever the President says is a gross oversimplification at best.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 244