Max Hardcore Trial Outtake - "You Look Better with Puke on Your Face"

[Hammer]

Funny Trixie but I can't help seeing your condom argument as contradicting itself. In one breath you say that testing is fallible which seems to indicate that a performer would be smart to demand condoms be worn if they had a brain and yet in the other breath you argue that you're against mandating condoms.

Are you saying that the laws we have in our countries are useless? Do you realize why we make laws and mandates? To protect the morons that don't follow the rules on their own. So, by not mandating condoms, you're condemning a lot of innocent people to death that have sex with performers who didn't use condoms because they believed their partners drug test was proof that they'd be safe.

I'm not arguing for mandating condoms, I'm just pointing out that arguing two sides of an argument with yourself is kinda funny.

Personally, although I hate watching videos with condoms, I think any performer that doesn't wear one while they have sex with a complete stranger (test or not), is a fucking moron.

[RawAlex]

The condom issue is actually a pretty funny one, and something that the porn industry needs to get use to if it ever gets the status of "acceptable". It's called Occupational Health and Safety. In the same manner that city workers have to wear reflective vests, highrise construction guys have to be tied off so they can't fall off the buildings and so on, condoms in porn may in end up being one of those rules of life.

Quite simply, if the government's don't act, they risk liablity for providing an unsafe workspace. More importantly, they risk financial ruin if someone gets sick on a porn set because no OHS rules were enforced.

The day porn becomes legit, this will all get more difficult (and much easier to regulate)

[softball]

The day porn becomes legit,

A day that will live in infamy.

[softball]

you're condemning a lot of innocent people to death

Are you sure about this? How many? Just a ball park will do and no jokes about filling one. I say this only because a lot of people toss this argument around like a mum and apple pie kind of thing.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Are you sure about this? How many? Just a ball park will do and no jokes about filling one. I say this only because a lot of people toss this argument around like a mum and apple pie kind of thing.

I don't know an exact number, let me start polling some HIV patients and I'll get back to you on that one.

Remember these cases? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7348.php

Darren James had unprotected sex with 13 female performers while shooting in Brazil in 1999 and he's just one performer and what about all the other non industry women he had sex with? And how many of those 13 women ended up getting the virus and passing it on? When he returned to the US he passed the virus on to another performer, Lara Roxx who then also tested positive and hit the news. How many men did she give the virus too? Then Jessica Dee became the third porn star to test positive and started a massive scare in the industry during which time 53 performers were quarantined.

How many of those 53 performers actually ended up contracting the virus I don't know but even if it was only a few and those few along with the original 3 had unprotected sex with several non industry partners that we don't know about and those partners had unprotected sex with other partners, it doesn't take a math genius to realize that that could add up to a LOT of people. Maybe you could eventually fill a ballpark with the people that got the virus from the trickle down effect.

Sorry about the trickle down part.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I don't know an exact number, let me start polling some HIV patients and I'll get back to you on that one.

Remember these cases? http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7348.php

Darren James had unprotected sex with 13 female performers while shooting in Brazil in 1999 and he's just one performer and what about all the other non industry women he had sex with? And how many of those 13 women ended up getting the virus and passing it on? When he returned to the US he passed the virus on to another performer, Lara Roxx who then also tested positive and hit the news. How many men did she give the virus too? Then Jessica Dee became the third porn star to test positive and started a massive scare in the industry during which time 53 performers were quarantined.

How many of those 53 performers actually ended up contracting the virus I don't know but even if it was only a few and those few along with the original 3 had unprotected sex with several non industry partners that we don't know about and those partners had unprotected sex with other partners, it doesn't take a math genius to realize that that could add up to a LOT of people. Maybe you could eventually fill a ballpark with the people that got the virus from the trickle down effect.

Sorry about the trickle down part.

That is exactly the mum and apple pie argument I was addressing. You just can't "argue" it. Many feel that way about abortion and Iraq.
However, when I mentioned earlier about choosing your partners, dude had been to Brazil fucking trannies as well. That is tantamount to a crime. This is not the norm.
There are many industries with worse occupational hazards. How many sex scenes do you see in movies at the cinema where the hero pulls out a condom before they roll in the hay....albeit under the covers....but certainly not reaching for a condom.
That girl that got aids also did a double anal dp. Young and foolish and all that. However if you want to ever get old and foolish like me, you better be young and smart like I was.

[Hammer]

Like I said, I am not arguing for mandatory condom use, I used that as an example to point out the seemingly 'have your cake and eat it to' post Trixie made. It just sounded strange to me for her to make a case for using condoms while at the same time arguing against making it mandatory.

I think the argument that people would make about Hollywood not making a big deal about using condoms in sex scenes is that we all know they're not really having sex. On the other hand, since the performers actually are having sex in porn videos, some people get the wrong message.

[softball]

In the words of a great visionary Canadian, the medium is the message. Having said that, do we contrive our message to match our morals, or do we let Max Hardcore do that for us?

[Hammer]

The Max Hardcore case is not going to tell us anything useful. He isn't in court because of his extreme porn sites, he's in court for shipping extreme porn DVDs to a supposedly conservative community. If he loses the case it will be bad for anyone running extreme sites even though in reality we're comparing apples to oranges since most site owners don't ship content on DVDs.

[Trixie]

Hammer. HammerhammerhammerHAMMER.

There are a lot of things I believe in personally, behaviors I think are smart . . . actions I like to take to protect myself, etc. but that I DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE FOR ME. This is supposed to be a fundamental part of our freedom in this country: choice. You sound like a total commie the way you're talking about people being so stupid they need the government to step in and take their choices away.

I also disagree with comparing this industry to other OSHA regulated industries because we are depicting SEX. Something regular people have recreationally. SEX. An activity that's our birthright. Or biological drive. How you have it, who you have it with, all of that stuff is NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS TO REGULATE, nor is it the industry's business to regulate it. There are a lot of people (like my partner and I) who are making porn depicting our real sex lives, not a studio act. Condom mandates would be a really invasive, restrictive and unnecessary thing to foist upon amateurs who make real porn depicting their real sex lives. For example: we're trying to get pregnant (and just set aside your judgment on us for doing that and pretend we're a "nice, normal" couple). We have spycams and we make porn. So basically a condom mandatory law or regulation would be like telling us we aren't allowed to get pregnant the regular way since we are on cam all the time.

People need more/better education, not more laws and mandates. These issues are more complex than just being all for something or all against something. You can be critical of and concerned about something (condomless sex in porn) without automatically concluding the best remedy is a bunch of inflexible, freedom-taking rules and regulations.

[Trixie]

Clarification: of course I support studios, directors, actors and actresses who insist upon condoms for shoots. I just don't think the industry or the government should demand it across the board.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Trixie

Clarification: of course I support studios, directors, actors and actresses who insist upon condoms for shoots. I just don't think the industry or the government should demand it across the board.

Trixie: Part of the protection of public health is in the interest of everyone. A trade off between personal freedom and safety for the masses, like speed limits, seat belt laws, or smoking laws. You limit some of the freedoms of the masses because in the end it is better for the masses, and saves the state huge amounts of money because they don't have to clean up after things.

Don't make the mistake of mixing up your personal freedoms (you can fuck without a condom if you like, you can fuck a doorknob if you like... you are free to do so) with things like Occupational Health and Safety laws.

You can do work on your own house and you don't have to wear a hard hat. But in theory, a contractor coming to do the same may be obliged to do so. He might be obliged by law to wear steel toe boots, you may be able to wear sandles or nothing at all. That contractor may wear his fuzzy bunny slippers when he works on his own house. You have personal freedom when you do personal things, you have business liablities and rules when you do work for your business.

If condoms were made manditory for all porn shot in your state, as a business owner you would either have to comply with the law, take them to court, or face the penalties prescribed by the law if the state decides to take action. It isn't at all a question of personal freedoms, just another law about workplace safety.

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

It isn't at all a question of personal freedoms, just another law about workplace safety.

Not at all a question of personal freedom, eh? Not at all? Not even a little bit? Huh.

Right there is half of the foundation of where you and I do not and have never seen eye to eye and why we never will.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Trixie

Not at all a question of personal freedom, eh? Not at all? Not even a little bit? Huh.

Right there is half of the foundation of where you and I do not and have never seen eye to eye and why we never will.

Like I said, your personal freedom to produce any material for your own use in any manner you choose (providing you don't break any existing laws, say by fucking children, dogs, or similar) then knock yourself out.

You and I agree entirely, your personal freedoms cannot be restricted. Neither the government nor anyone here is suggesting for a second that your personal freedoms should be limited. In fact, Max Hardcore if he produced this material for fun and gave it for free to a friend in Tampa would not be on trial today.

However, Max is operating a commercial business. He has ended up in court because of a business transaction.

In the same manner: If the state of California passed a law that said "all porn performers must wear condoms during actual penetration", then the companies producing porn would have the three choices I mentioned before.

You and I won't see eye to eye on this (or pretty much anything else) because you don't have a line that runs down the middle and seperates your personal life from your "professional" life. You also fail to catch the basic concept of personal freedoms versus business regulation, which is very important for understanding why Max is in court and not some of the people posting personal videos on newsgroups that cover the same material.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Like I said, your personal freedom to produce any material for your own use in any manner you choose (providing you don't break any existing laws, say by fucking children, dogs, or similar) then knock yourself out.

You and I agree entirely, your personal freedoms cannot be restricted. Neither the government nor anyone here is suggesting for a second that your personal freedoms should be limited. In fact, Max Hardcore if he produced this material for fun and gave it for free to a friend in Tampa would not be on trial today.

However, Max is operating a commercial business. He has ended up in court because of a business transaction.

In the same manner: If the state of California passed a law that said "all porn performers must wear condoms during actual penetration", then the companies producing porn would have the three choices I mentioned before.

You and I won't see eye to eye on this (or pretty much anything else) because you don't have a line that runs down the middle and seperates your personal life from your "professional" life. You also fail to catch the basic concept of personal freedoms versus business regulation, which is very important for understanding why Max is in court and not some of the people posting personal videos on newsgroups that cover the same material.

Let me ask you this then. Around here the Sikhs are protesting the fact they will be forced to wear hard hats on construction sites and sawmills. They, of course wear turbans. The Sikhs are calling it a human rights code violation. They are also whinging about wearing motorcycle helmets.
How do you stand on this safety issue?

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

You and I won't see eye to eye on this (or pretty much anything else) because you don't have a line that runs down the middle and seperates your personal life from your "professional" life. You also fail to catch the basic concept of personal freedoms versus business regulation, which is very important for understanding why Max is in court and not some of the people posting personal videos on newsgroups that cover the same material.

And you fail to catch the basic concept of capitalism, of obscenity laws (even if he weren't making money what he does could still be found illegal, it would just lower his chances of being caught), and of the way that they intersect in porn cases to create a uniquely discriminatory system that is UNPARALLELED in our country. You also fail to recognize the grey area created by all of this intersecting with SEX which is obviously different and more personal than roofing or taxi driving. You fail to figure in consent or gender issues or the fact that what is motivating all of this legal bullshit is not people's safety or "business", it's people's morals and asthetics. Religion and personal taste are not supposed to figure into laws like this.

[softball]

and just set aside your judgment on us for doing that and pretend we're a "nice, normal" couple

I think you guys are a very nice, normal couple. But my opinion of normal might be a bit skewed. But nevertheless, not particularly abnormal apart from maybe the camera deal and that is only a maybe.

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I think you guys are a very nice, normal couple. But my opinion of normal might be a bit skewed. But nevertheless, not particularly abnormal apart from maybe the camera deal and that is only a maybe.

Likewise! And thanks for the character reference (Hammer thinks it's wrong for us to have children). I think we're a super vanilla, 99.9% monogamous, responsible, healthy couple and totally boring except for a few little kinks here and there.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Trixie

(Hammer thinks it's wrong for us to have children). .

China has some funny ideas about who, or who should not, have children.
But we don't live there.

[softball]

BTW, we suggest condoms for anyone who is not with their partner. If they know each other and trust each other, that is entirely up to them to make that call.
But there are tons of things that condoms won't prevent and then it opens a can of worms on oral sex....etcetcetcetc....ad nauseum

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

BTW, we suggest condoms for anyone who is not with their partner. If they know each other and trust each other, that is entirely up to them to make that call.
But there are tons of things that condoms won't prevent and then it opens a can of worms on oral sex....etcetcetcetc....ad nauseum

Yeah, once people start in on mandatory condoms, that logically means all sex should involve barriers and I think it's fucked to insist on dental dams for every pussy-eating or ass-rimming. I have no desire to suck cock or eat pussy or ass through a latex barrier. Unless maybe there's some weird cyborg role play going on. I do like licking around the sides of panties, though. It doesn't make it safer, but I do like to have a few barriers sometimes for the tease.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Trixie

Yeah, once people start in on mandatory condoms, that logically means all sex should involve barriers and I think it's fucked to insist on dental dams for every pussy-eating or ass-rimming. I have no desire to suck cock or eat pussy or ass through a latex barrier. Unless maybe there's some weird cyborg role play going on. I do like licking around the sides of panties, though. It doesn't make it safer, but I do like to have a few barriers sometimes for the tease.

Yeah, we know what normal is....lol

[Trixie]

Gotcha -- thanks for clarifying.

[Hammer]

Will someone please point out to me where in this thread I supported government mandated condom use? The commie would like to know.

[Trixie]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Will someone please point out to me where in this thread I supported government mandated condom use? The commie would like to know.

You said "Do you realize why we make laws and mandates? To protect the morons that don't follow the rules on their own. So, by not mandating condoms, you're condemning a lot of innocent people to death that have sex with performers who didn't use condoms because they believed their partners drug test was proof that they'd be safe."

That's why I made the Commie remark.

But the whole of what you said puts us in a dog-chasing-its-tail situation:

Originally Posted by Hammer

Funny Trixie but I can't help seeing your condom argument as contradicting itself. In one breath you say that testing is fallible which seems to indicate that a performer would be smart to demand condoms be worn if they had a brain and yet in the other breath you argue that you're against mandating condoms.

Are you saying that the laws we have in our countries are useless? Do you realize why we make laws and mandates? To protect the morons that don't follow the rules on their own. So, by not mandating condoms, you're condemning a lot of innocent people to death that have sex with performers who didn't use condoms because they believed their partners drug test was proof that they'd be safe.

I'm not arguing for mandating condoms, I'm just pointing out that arguing two sides of an argument with yourself is kinda funny.

Personally, although I hate watching videos with condoms, I think any performer that doesn't wear one while they have sex with a complete stranger (test or not), is a fucking moron.

You're saying my "contradiction" is funny, and in the same breath you're agreeing with me, thereby contradicting yourself if I, indeed, am contradicting myself.

Sounds like we both agree that condomless fucking in porn has risks but that we don't want to see condom use mandated. Or am I misunderstanding you?

To clarify, YES, I think a smart person will use condoms when fucking strangers or anyone with tons of sex partners, whether in porn or not, however I do NOT think that choice should be made by anybody except the people fucking. If a studio or director or partner insists upon condoms, then the person has a choice whether or not to work with them unlike if the government or CCBill or some broad gang of industry knuckleheads decides to require it for everyone.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Will someone please point out to me where in this thread I supported government mandated condom use? The commie would like to know.

Ill get you the proper red shit for Florida you commie bastard!

[deviant]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Ill get you the proper red shit for Florida you commie bastard!

That would be a quick way of getting hammer into some trouble. I got my first two degrees down in Miami. A couple years ago these kids I'd seen around campus selling political T-shirts were down on Calle Ocho walking around with some pro-commie signs and they were attacked by an angry mob of old cuban guys in their 60s & 70s. The footage made the local news, it was pretty funny, the old guys chasing the college kids down the street trying to hit them in slow motion with their walking sticks and umbrellas, throwing their coffe cups at the car they jumped into. They asked for it though, alot of those older guys (and younger ones too) went through some serious nightmares when castro took over.
Communism isn't a joke down there. I wouldn't dare an enemy to wear a shirt like that in Miami. I know you're playing though gonzo, I just wanted to tell that story. It still makes me laugh.

[softball]

"we by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others"

I guess that Karl means fuck the condoms and get busy procreating....
There you have it, you Commie bastard....

[Hammer]

What do commies where in the summer? I sure don't want to wear my fur hat in August.

Yes Trixie, we agree, I was just pointing out that it struck me strange for someone to make such a strong case for the use of condoms and then not be for some sort of requirement to use them. Then again, I won't deny that I think there are times when the government needs to pass laws for the good of the masses when those masses are too dumb to think for themselves. Like I said, most of us know that murder is wrong and yet there are people that don't seem to agree so we have a law against it and a punishment for failure to comply. Sometimes it becomes necessary to have a higher authority make the rules. However, I don't think condom use in adult films is one of those cases.

[softball]

alot of those older guys (and younger ones too) went through some serious nightmares when castro took over.

Castro overthrew a gangster president and Meyer Lansky. Those guys that got run out of Cuba should have been very afraid. The country was becoming a gangland haven created by a dictator that seized power himself.
Cuba is in a financial mess because the US has been boycotting it for so long. How many countries could stand up against that and still have a higher literacy rate and lower infant mortality rate than the US?

[deviant]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Those guys that got run out of Cuba should have been very afraid.

LOL. Just curious, what would happen to you and your business if a theoretical Castro took over your country tomorrow?

[softball]

Originally Posted by deviant

LOL. Just curious, what would happen to you and your business if a theoretical Castro took over your country tomorrow?

No idea, really. It is way to hypothetical. What would happen to you and your business if your country was blockaded for forty years, harassed, invaded and choked by a foreign nation many times your size. The Cuba you see today is a creation of that blockade. Who knows what would have happened if Fidel had been accepted into say, NAFTA.
Another thought. If your country was run by Meyer Lansky, do you think you would have a hope in hell of running a legit porn business?
Too many questions and too many whatifs to make a rational judgment.
It might be a good movie script, though.

[Hammer]

Our continued boycott of Cuba after all these years is ridiculous. Kennedy tried to overthrow Castro in the Bay of Pigs and fucked it up for everyone. I want cheap Cuban cigars and to be able to vacation in Cuba. Hell, it's a quick plane trip for me.

[softball]

Every decent corner store around here sells Cuban cigars. Most of my friends vacation there. I haven't been there myself but Havana sounds like a lot of fun. You can go, just fly through Mexico.

[DannyCox]

I have a number of American friends that regularly go to Cuba. The Cubans are good enough not to stamp your US passport, put to just give you a paper you keep with your passport until you leave the country. They then give you another to give to the authorities in your next port of entry. Some fly through Canada, others Mexico, and still others go through Jamaica or the Caymans. Very common.

[bluemoney]

Damn! Dude has his own icon at Oprano ---->

[softball]

as a business owner you would either have to comply with the law, take them to court,

Here in lies the problem. I have just spent two years and close to a hundred thousand dollars fighting a lawsuit. I won. And I would not recommend this misery on anyone, win or lose. However, here's what I have learned. Anyone can pass a law and guys like you say if you have a problem, sue them. That is what my adversary did.
Easy right? Not a chance. You better have deep pockets and a very thick skin.
Guys like you are what make it easy for tyrants to do what they like. You have to interrupt the injustice before it is codified. In this case I agree with Tasty and think you are about four hundred feet out in left field.

[RawAlex]

On that stuff, I stand on the side of "the law is the law". If they cannot wear the gear, then they should do a different job or not ride a motorcycle if they cannot comply. Nobody is forcing them to comply - only to comply if they want to participate. This is especially true in Canada, because of social medicine, the state would be forced to bear a bigger burden if one of these people was injured because they failed to be wearing safety gear.

Example in Minneapolis Airport: Some of the taxi drivers there, being Muslim, refuse to take passengers who might be carrying alcohol, which is against their religion. They have even refused to carry guide dogs or helper dogs ( http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=116428 ) - which is again against their religion.

If that is an issue, perhaps they should get a different job. Nobody is denying them the personal freedom to do whatever they want, but there are also guidelines and policies that come with most jobs, and you need to be able to fill them. We don't hire blind taxi drivers, and generally we don't hire deaf people to answer phones. Some things are "obvious".

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Example in Minneapolis Airport: Some of the taxi drivers there, being Muslim, refuse to take passengers who might be carrying alcohol, which is against their religion. They have even refused to carry guide dogs or helper dogs ( http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=116428 ) - which is again against their religion.

I'd be interested in knowing how the ADA/religion battle turns out....
Personally, I think you need to carry the dog.
If I gotta put the cut curbs in, make my doors a certain width, put special padding around my special bathroom sink, make special shitter bars, put 2 never used handicapped parking spaces with loading zone per 20 in my parking lot, and every other damn ADA thing for that one wheel chair dude that comes into my store, then the Muslim gotta carry the damn dog.

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I'd be interested in knowing how the ADA/religion battle turns out....
Personally, I think you need to carry the dog.
If I gotta put the cut curbs in, make my doors a certain width, put special padding around my special bathroom sink, make special shitter bars, put 2 never used handicapped parking spaces with loading zone per 20 in my parking lot, and every other damn ADA thing for that one wheel chair dude that comes into my store, then the Muslim gotta carry the damn dog.

Oh happy day....Emp and I agree.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Oh happy day....Emp and I agree.

So THAT's why there's snow outside my window!

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

So THAT's why there's snow outside my window!

around here the moon turned to fire red.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I'd be interested in knowing how the ADA/religion battle turns out....
Personally, I think you need to carry the dog.
If I gotta put the cut curbs in, make my doors a certain width, put special padding around my special bathroom sink, make special shitter bars, put 2 never used handicapped parking spaces with loading zone per 20 in my parking lot, and every other damn ADA thing for that one wheel chair dude that comes into my store, then the Muslim gotta carry the damn dog.

...or the muslim can protect his personal freedom to refuse dogs by driving his personal car and not working in the taxi business. Nobody is forcing him to accept dogs in his car - UNLESS HE USES IT FOR A PUBLIC BUSINESS.

If I have to accept his wife covered from head to toe in a bedsheet in my store, he can accept a handicapped person's guide dog.

[softball]

Keep the lawyers and snivel servants out of our bedrooms. What is going on here really, is a morality war. A crusade by the Christian right. Not unlike the crusade in Iraq. Same principal. They feel a certainty and a calling to proselytize and eradicate evil. However, historically that has been the "American Way". Spreading light and freedom around the world whether the local wogs like it or not. This is just a domestic manifestation of that holy war.
Onward Christian soldiers....

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Keep the lawyers and snivel servants out of our bedrooms. What is going on here really, is a morality war. A crusade by the Christian right. Not unlike the crusade in Iraq. Same principal. They feel a certainty and a calling to proselytize and eradicate evil. However, historically that has been the "American Way". Spreading light and freedom around the world whether the local wogs like it or not. This is just a domestic manifestation of that holy war.
Onward Christian soldiers....

Bill Clinton knew the value of a blowjob.

[softball]

Bill Clinton will go down in history as a great American president. Hopefully the next one will be as good if not better. Last chance, kids.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Bill Clinton will go down in history as a great American president. Hopefully the next one will be as good if not better. Last chance, kids.

Gonzo's first rule of porn

"Most every guy likes his dick sucked."

Freel free to ad yours

[RawAlex]

Trixie, I swear you aren't reading what I post:

Your personal freedoms to choke when you suck cock, to vomit on your boyfriend, or for that matter to do your own personal two girls one cup isn't being infringed. Nobody is telling you what to do in your sex life. You are ENTIRELY FREE TO DO WHAT YOU LIKE.

Your personal freedoms are intact.

You can also video tape the event, and give copies to your friends if you want. You are also free to do this. However, if you send that material by US mail and it happens to be found to be obscene, well... different kettle of fish.

You also miss the point: I agree with you, but under the legal framework that exists, obscenity still exists as a crime, and the Supreme Court of the US has upheld the law and created a (faulty) way to judge it. That is what there is, and off you go.

As for wearing of condoms or other in COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS, the state pretty much has the right to mandate occupational health and safety rules. Production of porn for retail sale is a commercial undertaking, and if the state feels that there is a compelling need to protect people when they are making a commercial product, it is within their powers to do so.

Again, nobody is denying you your write to fuck without a condom (or on your head, or getting fucked in the ear if it turns you on) but as part of a commercial product, as part of a business, you are subject to the laws that apply to business the same as anyone else.

You are blurring the line between business and personal because that is the choice you have made in your own life. When sex becomes a business, it is in reality no different from any other business, and the state has an interest in protecting everyone on the job. Heck, even the porn industry as a whole understands the need to protect it's workers and mandates frequent testing and such. As a performer, I am sure that you have been through these tests many times.

[Hammer]

What about the Muslim chick that worked at Walmart that refused to ring up a customer's order because she was buying pork products? Then she demanded that the conveyor belt be cleaned because the pork has touched it. Then to top it all off, eventually that Walmart stopped carrying pork products and started carrying produce that was specifically geared towards Muslims because they had a sizable Muslim clientelle. Time for some white folks to fly a fucking plane into that Walmart if you ask me.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

What about the Muslim chick that worked at Walmart that refused to ring up a customer's order because she was buying pork products? Then she demanded that the conveyor belt be cleaned because the pork has touched it. Then to top it all off, eventually that Walmart stopped carrying pork products and started carrying produce that was specifically geared towards Muslims because they had a sizable Muslim clientelle. Time for some white folks to fly a fucking plane into that Walmart if you ask me.

Business is business. BTW, it was white folks who flew the planes on 911.