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

[gonzo]

SAN DIEGO -- Obscenity prosecutions are taking a toll on the porn industry as publishers embrace an every-man-for-himself approach under relentless Bush administration attacks.

The annual Cybernet Expo (http://www.cybernetexpo.com/) on Sunday here was overshadowed by a big question: Whether to stand united with producers of "extreme" material bearing the brunt of the assault in order to preempt attacks on milder content, or get some distance and hope to avoid being targeted?

Tara, webmaster of freepornstarpix.com (http://freepornstarpix.com/) (NSFW), prefers the latter approach. "It would be better to sacrifice some people … so everybody else can get on with it," said Tara, who declined to give her last name because her family doesn't know about her job. Extreme content producers, she said, "need to cool it, pull back a little bit" instead of "asking for it" during a right-wing administration.

A lightning rod in the debate is the 2003 obscenity prosecution (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/pornlaw/usextreme2003ind.pdf) (.pdf) of production company Extreme Associates (http://www.extremeassociates.com/) (NSFW) for videos that feature urination, adults portrayed as children and simulated rape. The case, which has been bouncing around (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Extreme_Associates) the court system for three years, is expected to go to trial in Pittsburgh next year.

Extreme Associates owner Rob Black (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/interviews/black.html) blasted the porn industry this weekend for breaking ranks, rather than standing united.
"You hear all this solidarity. Bullshit," he said. "This industry except for about five people has hung me out to dry. Everybody wants to make a fucking compromise."

Pressure against the industry increased last month with a landmark lawsuit that appears to target a somewhat milder grade of porn. The Justice Department issued an obscenity indictment (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=66803) against JM Productions and Five Star Video over four porn DVDs, one featuring bukkake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukkake) (NSFW) and another that reportedly simulates torturous oral sex to satirize the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The defendants face a maximum sentence of five years for each of several obscenity counts.

In the new prosecution, the government is "getting closer to the center" and moving away from the most extreme content, said Connor Young, president of the porn webmaster resource site YNOT.com. He thinks all porn should be allowed except material that features children or involuntary violence.
Porn industry attorney Greg Piccionelli believes in the solidarity approach. "If we don't defend the people they start with, sooner or later they'll work their way down," he told the webmasters.

The Extreme Associates case could set a precedent that tiny clips of video or even individual photos could be declared obscene even if they're part of a larger piece of work. "It is absolutely critical that (the defendants) prevail, that the work be taken as a whole," Piccionelli said.

The court cases will also determine if "regressive fiefdoms of conservatism" can apply their own local standards about obscenity to the internet, he said.
What's next? As the extreme content cases are heading to trial, there's no resolution yet over proposed federal rules (http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,67991,00.html?tw=wn_story_related) that threaten to shut down some porn sites.

Piccionelli acknowledged that industry attorneys have developed a reputation as "Chicken Littles" who always say the sky is falling.

Even so, he predicted that if another Republican enters the White House, "the whole industry will be in the same position as Extreme Associates four years from now."

[softball]

An ethical dilema. In Canada, Sweet Entertainment, who produce extreme porn, won a legal battle which really cleared the path for less extreme adult websites to operate freely.
What is disturbing is that in the US, is that tiny jurisdictions are able to impose their community standards on the rest of the country.

[TheEnforcer]

That's a tough nut to crack. I can see where people from both sides of the spectrum feel they are correct in the approach. On the one hand you have people who wouldn't even consider using the content Black produces and doesn't like it because it makes the industry bigger targets. On the other you've got the slpiiery slope and giving the government too mucn power approach as well because shit rolls down hill and how far will it roll down?

[Paul Markham]

An industry that could not stand together against a a bunch of scheming lawyers holding worthless patent is now planning to stand against The White House.

Please let's be real here.

Sorry for my cynicism.

[tony404]

An industry that could not stand together against a a bunch of scheming lawyers holding worthless patent is now planning to stand against The White House.

Please let's be real here.

Sorry for my cynicism.
I hate to say it but its very true. Things can get crazy but I dont think they can make the jump for rape and scat to just naked chicks. At the end of the day they have to be able to show something to a jury and get a gasp. Thats harder and harder nowadays considering whats on cable TV.

[softball]

I hate to say it but its very true. Things can get crazy but I dont think they can make the jump for rape and scat to just naked chicks. At the end of the day they have to be able to show something to a jury and get a gasp. Thats harder and harder nowadays considering whats on cable TV.
I kind of think you have to ask yourself if extreme porn is really part of your industry. The guys that produce it would like you to think so. I question that. The government would like you to think so. I also question that. Do you want to take the fall for rape and scat sites? I question that.
I actually don't consider myself part of the "extreme" business at all. I consider myself part of the adult entertainment business.
I have nothing in common with rape, degredation, or any other extreme sites apart from the media we trade in.

[tony404]

I kind of think you have to ask yourself if extreme porn is really part of your industry. The guys that produce it would like you to think so. I question that. The government would like you to think so. I also question that. Do you want to take the fall for rape and scat sites? I question that.
I actually don't consider myself part of the "extreme" business at all. I consider myself part of the adult entertainment business.
I have nothing in common with rape, degredation, or any other extreme sites apart from the media we trade in.
Very good point

[Hell Puppy]

I'll continue to mine the coal so long as the canaries are alive.

[Hell Puppy]

An ethical dilema. In Canada, Sweet Entertainment, who produce extreme porn, won a legal battle which really cleared the path for less extreme adult websites to operate freely.
What is disturbing is that in the US, is that tiny jurisdictions are able to impose their community standards on the rest of the country.

Wanna buy a zipcode list?

Where's Lee?

[Hell Puppy]

An industry that could not stand together against a a bunch of scheming lawyers holding worthless patent is now planning to stand against The White House.

Please let's be real here.

Sorry for my cynicism.

Yup, the industry is not yet weeded out enough to be the domain of business people only. It may never be. You cant organize them. There's way too many people active in the business who could care less about long term repercussions, the prevailing attitude is, and may always be, get as much as you can as fast as you can with no regard to the long term repercussions.

It's an industry tradition.

[softball]

I'll continue to mine the coal so long as the canaries are alive.
The canaries haven't kacked, but they are gasping for air. Up to you, but the future is not with half dead canaries. That is where old school falls apart. Scratching the left overs. This much is obvious.

[softball]

Yup, the industry is not yet weeded out enough to be the domain of business people only. It may never be. You cant organize them. There's way too many people active in the business who could care less about long term repercussions, the prevailing attitude is, and may always be, get as much as you can as fast as you can with no regard to the long term repercussions.

It's an industry tradition.
Actually, there is no industry. All the bullshit awards (best blowjob video, best dp...blah blah), the conventions. All a weak cry for recognition. Personally, I could care less. Show me the money.

[Hammer]

There's child porn, extreme porn and everything else. I don't care to support anyone that produces the first two.

[Paul Markham]

Most of those who do the extreme stuff do it for the money.

So they do porn that will make more money and when faced with a big expense, keeping out of jail, they want us to support them.

Maybe those producing extreme porn should set an example and form a union. Which puts 10% of their turn over into a legal expenses fund.

It's a good example when getting themselves into trouble by selling extreme porn for more profit, they need to come to us cap in hand.

At the moment they seem to be arguing, "We're the guys giving the anti porn lobby a hammer to hit you with, so when we get taken to court can you help pay for our lawyers?"

I got a better idea, close up shop or defend yourselves.

[softball]

Someone once said to me "If you get busted for this and wind up in the newspaper, you should never do something that would embarrass you". 'nuff said.

[TheEnforcer]

There's child porn, extreme porn and everything else. I don't care to support anyone that produces the first two.


Here's the conundrum. CP, no if, and's, or but's about it wrong to matter what anyone says. Period. No doubts whatsoever.

Extreme porn. I've got the libertarioan side of me that says whatever two CONSENTING adults do on their own time is fine by me. None of my fucking business. But on the other hand the extreme stuff is not what I would push, even as a businessman, despite what I think politically they should be able to do.

[Hammer]

I agree with you TheEnforcer and I do think that what two consenting adults do should be legal, but the majority of the country doesn't agree with us, and therein lies the rub.

[Rox]

Here's the conundrum. CP, no if, and's, or but's about it wrong to matter what anyone says. Period. No doubts whatsoever.

Extreme porn. I've got the libertarioan side of me that says whatever two CONSENTING adults do on their own time is fine by me. None of my fucking business. But on the other hand the extreme stuff is not what I would push, even as a businessman, despite what I think politically they should be able to do.

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

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

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

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

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

[softball]

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

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

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

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

I have no illusions that the Feds would be satisfied with just putting producers of extreme content out of business; their goal is to outlaw ALL porn... once again, they aim first for the "low hanging fruit" but will have no problem climbing all the way up the tree with the support of the increasing number of "average Americans" (and government officials) who want to wipe adult entertainment off the map because it "destroys families" and makes Jesus cry.
The good news is they can't get rid of all porn in two years. Time for a regime change.

[Paul Markham]

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

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

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

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

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

Why are Americans so scared of everything that goes bump?

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

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

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

[Grump]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[gonzo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Very solid points!

[Hammer]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Markham]

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

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

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

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

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

[softball]

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

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

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

Or don't you think that matters and we should be totally exempt?
2257 is way more insidious than that. It also puts the talent at extreme risk. If you are turning over personal info to any guy with twenty bucks that says he wants a photo set to "publish", is that acceptable?

[Paul Markham]

2257 is way more insidious than that. It also puts the talent at extreme risk. If you are turning over personal info to any guy with twenty bucks that says he wants a photo set to "publish", is that acceptable?
Very true and something that needs to be looked at to protect models. But removing the need for people to buy porn without the necessary documents does nothing to protect 16/17 year olds from doing porn. And I know 2257 is not a 100% fail safe, but it's better than nothing.

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

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

[Grump]

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

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

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

[Paul Markham]

I meant the people who found the proposed record keeping rules, such as every url where every image is displayed, to be impossible to comply with. This is of course exactly the reaction that was intended by the government when these rules were created, to make compliance impossible.
Very good and valid point. So you think they changed the law so it would be easy to bring down.

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

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

You just proved it.

[Grump]

I think they thought the new 2257 rules would be allowed. Just like the new labeling proposal now in the Senate, The Internet Safety Act ( http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6083983.html?tag=nl and http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2006/InternetSafetyAct.pdf ) the goal is to make it tough for companies to be legal and compliant in this business, and easier for prosecutions to happen.

How many of us have time to go back and label every single page containing sexualy explicit content? Hell- I have AVS sites I haven't even seen since they were built back in the late 90s.

"It would impose up to 15 years in prison--an increase from the five years suggested in the original proposal--on any commercial site operator who fails to place "clearly identifiable marks or notices" prescribed by the federal government in either the site's code or on the pages themselves..."

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

[Hammer]

Everyone that was serious about this business in the first place found a way to comply with the law. The ones that folded either had no way to become legal, weren't true business people or weren't making enough money with their site to make it worth the hassle to comply. Either way, I say good riddance to them.

[Rox]

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

Why are Americans so scared of everything that goes bump?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Markham]

I think they thought the new 2257 rules would be allowed. Just like the new labeling proposal now in the Senate, The Internet Safety Act ( http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6083983.html?tag=nl and http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/pdf/ne/2006/InternetSafetyAct.pdf ) the goal is to make it tough for companies to be legal and compliant in this business, and easier for prosecutions to happen.

How many of us have time to go back and label every single page containing sexualy explicit content? Hell- I have AVS sites I haven't even seen since they were built back in the late 90s.

"It would impose up to 15 years in prison--an increase from the five years suggested in the original proposal--on any commercial site operator who fails to place "clearly identifiable marks or notices" prescribed by the federal government in either the site's code or on the pages themselves..."

This is another attempt to do what they can't do with new laws. As you (Paul) pointed out above, no law banning porn would pass yet they can make it almost impossible to stay in business and be legal.
Well actually if my understanding of US law is right they can't make it impossible to stay in business. I think what they wanted to do was make it tougher for many and look like they were tackling the problem to their supporters. As far as the Internet is concerned I'm sure they know it would just be taking over by off shore sites, like with gambling.

Everyone that was serious about this business in the first place found a way to comply with the law. The ones that folded either had no way to become legal, weren't true business people or weren't making enough money with their site to make it worth the hassle to comply. Either way, I say good riddance to them. Exactly true.

[softball]

Well actually if my understanding of US law is right they can't make it impossible to stay in business. I think what they wanted to do was make it tougher for many and look like they were tackling the problem to their supporters. As far as the Internet is concerned I'm sure they know it would just be taking over by off shore sites, like with gambling.

Exactly true.
OK, here is a cunundrum. You work in Canada. You keep records. The DOJ drops by and asks for them. What is wrong with this?
Firstly, they have no legal authority. They are just tourists in my country.
It is illegal to give out this information by Canadian law.
Now, what would you do?

[Paul Markham]

OK, here is a cunundrum. You work in Canada. You keep records. The DOJ drops by and asks for them. What is wrong with this?
Firstly, they have no legal authority. They are just tourists in my country.
It is illegal to give out this information by Canadian law.
Now, what would you do?
I live and work in CZ and the DOJ has no power here.

And I'm sure the DOJ knows this and knows they can't put through a law that will close down an industry by the back door, they even addressed this issue in the ammenments.

Yes they will try to make it tougher for people to open porn businesses, they will try to reign in some of the extreme porn, however what they willnot do is ban porn.

[softball]

I live and work in CZ and the DOJ has no power here.

And I'm sure the DOJ knows this and knows they can't put through a law that will close down an industry by the back door, they even addressed this issue in the ammenments.

Yes they will try to make it tougher for people to open porn businesses, they will try to reign in some of the extreme porn, however what they willnot do is ban porn.
Ya know if the shit hit the fan, I would just move to Holland. No big deal. However, I think Canada is a better choice at the moment.

[Paul Markham]

Ya know if the shit hit the fan, I would just move to Holland. No big deal. However, I think Canada is a better choice at the moment.
And I think the DOJ know this. They might not be the sharpest tools in the box but after what happened to gambling they can't be that stupid to think they can stop porn.

But if you have a tin foil hat you are protected. </joke>

Yes it will be tough for individual businesses and a lot might have to tighten up how they operate. But they will not stop porn.