The United States vs. John Stagliano - Part Two

[debbievangilsfan]

John Staglinao has worked with Debbie van Gils on Buttmans European Vacation (1991)

[SteveAntiporn]

what type of porn acts they do in those movies,the ones he was accused for

there are certain porn acts that should be illegal,got a list of that on my forum

all porn related trials should be public

[migkillertwo]

wow, they indicted John Stagliano in April 2008, and it took 2 years to drop the charges? Whatever happened to speedy and public trials?

[talltom1973]

Wow he is real honest, some men would probably lie about their HIV status. Plus if they admit they have it, they would say it was through hetero-sexual contact

[ericclaptonismygod31]

Hope John wins the case. Good luck!

[qtronman]

[1]

"I want to state, for the record, my own view of what is called hard-core pornography. I regard it as unspeakably disgusting. I have not read any of the books or seen any of the current movies belonging to that category, and I do not intend ever to read or see them. The descriptions provided in legal cases, as well as the modern touches in soft-core productions, are sufficient grounds on which to form an opinion."

[qtronman]

[2]

"The reason of my opinion is the opposite of the usual one: I do not regard sex as evil—I regard it as good, as one of the most important aspects of human life, too important to be made the subject of public anatomical display. But the issue here is not ones view of sex. The issue is freedom of speech and of the press—i.e., the right to hold any view and to express it."

[qtronman]

[3]

"It is not very inspiring to fight for the freedom of the purveyors of pornography or their customers. But in the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given rights least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of ones loyalty to a principle."

[qtronman]

{Censorship: Local and Express,

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 173.}

[KladionicaCity]

For debates search reason tv on facebook!

[KladionicaCity]

But there are commercial sites like his,that are subject to some restrictions ,therefore if you wanna keep your children away from this content well there's something called Parental Control on every pc you just have to turn it on.If you've lived in some places,some decades ago ,doesn't mean you know everything about how is like to live in every single damn country of the whole world.Of course if u used to live in Russia during the Soviet Union ,today's America may seem a free country.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I think if you lived even in France or the UK, you would feel relatively free living in the United States.

The Swiss cannot claim the freedoms we have.

Even Australia, which would certainly be my next choice of nations in which to live, do not enjoy nearly the freedom we have here in the United States.

Tell me about freedom in your country. Enlighten me, please.

Are children protected from pornography?

[KladionicaCity]

WTF man you keep asking about children and pornography .I'm starting to think you're a pedophile?Why in France,Switzerland,UK you think they don't have freedom ,please tell me.

[RogerOnTheRight]

You seem afraid to answer the question. Are children in your country routinely exposed to pornography? Is that okay?

[KladionicaCity]

Afraid?I believe i answer that while ago,when you asked my about children prostitutes.If you meant about adult material (DVD/Magazines etc) to children,well that's forbidden to customers under 18.

[KladionicaCity]

But in the INTERNET none is actually protected from pornography anywhere in the world,because governments can't(shouldn't)censor the internet access to the people.The parents got parental control on PC,or send children to play outside.

[mryellow123]

Try to have a smoke with your coffee in the US.

Try to have a smoke with your coffee in Australia.

I think you'll find the later is much more free.

[RogerOnTheRight]

By that, you mean tobacco is cheaper in Australia?

[mryellow123]

No.

In the US insurance, and legal issues mean that you aren't able to enjoy your smoke with your coffee in open air at a cafe.

Freedom at work.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Oh, right. Yes, we stifle smoking in public. Personally, I find the smoke annoying. Many are like me, who agree intellectually, but can't muster the energy to fight for smokers' rights.

It's like those seat belt laws. I guess we could defy them as an affront to our rights, but then, I wear my seat belt because it is indeed safer.

Fight battles worth winning. And fight battles you *can* win.

[mryellow123]

Just one example.

It's symptomatic of the larger issue.

Really half the problem is that people go around repeating over and over as a affirmation "we are free, more free then any other country", all while turning a blind-eye to any freedom that is taken away from any group that they don't like.

[mryellow123]

I have a little story you might actually find interesting, more on-topic too...

One day on an adult webmaster industry forum some Euro webmasters posted their latest shoot as promo and for critiques. The shoot featured a naked woman walking down a public street.

The US webmasters were shocked, "children could have seen!!", they were vocal, disgusted.

The Euro webmasters looked back "wtf?!" They really couldn't understand what was so harmful about childen seeing a natural naked body.

[seka1986]

@mryellow123 smoking is banned in Australia so what are you talking about?

[seka1986]

@mryellow123 freedom is determined by where you can smoke.

[KladionicaCity]

check

[KladionicaCity]

I always hear about USA being proud of their freedom that no country does have,then i hear stuff like in some places there you can't buy alcohol on sunday,or in other you can get ticked for wearing baggy pants (Flint county)and stuff like that,then i'm asking you where's your freedom ,that freedom all people associates with America?Are you sure you ever had it at all?And now they wanna put in jail a man that even didn't break any law at all,but they're like making a law while prosecuting him?

[RogerOnTheRight]

We have more freedom here than exists nearly anywhere else on the planet.

Whether this man actually broke a law is to be determined by a court of law. He is in fact charged with a crime.

The reason this guy is charged is because his movies are easily accessed by children. Now, maybe in your culture children engage in sex all the time, or are prostitutes, I don't know. Is that accepted in your country?

Here in the USA, we imagine we have some morality that dissuades such behaviour.

[KladionicaCity]

You would know that if you would move once in a while outside the sterile bubble that your little conservative community is.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Well, sterile also means germ-free.

As it happens, I have been around this planet a few times. I spent a fair amount of my childhood living overseas. I choose to live in my community for some very good reasons.

Do you have a particular point? Did you mean to refute my assertion that we have more freedom than most countries?

Are you saying children do indeed belong in the world of prostitution and pornography? Is that okay in Croatia?

[KladionicaCity]

But there are commercial sites like his,that are subject to some restrictions ,therefore if you wanna keep your children away from this content well there's something called Parental Control on every pc you just have to turn it on.If you've lived in some places,some decades ago ,doesn't mean you know everything about how is like to live in every single damn country of the whole world.Of course if u used to live in Russia during the Soviet Union ,today's America may seem a free country.

[KladionicaCity]

Why do you keep mentioning child prostitution?Stagliano is charged with obscenity violations for selling adult videos online and via unmarked packing envelopes shipped by the UPS. None of the films contain children. This is not a child porn case.The internet is not national tv,is open-source indeed and it should remain this way.

[KladionicaCity]

This is freedom for you?No authority shouldn't try to censure the internet and change its content unless some illegal content like cp,which is not this case.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I think you mean "censor", not "censure".

The issue involves exposing children to pornography. My question to you is, is this acceptable in your country?

A token, large "enter" button accompanied by a fairly complex textual warning message is hardly protection for children.

[KladionicaCity]

WTF man you keep asking about children and pornography .I'm starting to think you're a pedophile?Why in France,Switzerland,UK you think they don't have freedom ,please tell me.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I'm talking about exposing children to pornography. Hardly the same thing as child pornography.

Of course France, UK, etc have freedom. But in the United States, we have more freedom.

Ever been to the states?

You never answered my question, is it acceptable in your country for children to be exposed to pornography?

[KladionicaCity]

man you keep trying to put my country in a bad light ,thus avoiding my question ,ad hominem.You're really lame.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Actually, I am asking questions about your country, but you don't answer them.

By your pointed avoidance, you are putting your own country in a bad light.

[KladionicaCity]

avoid what?Read my comments carefully then you'll the answers.Not my fault if you're senile.

[murphycline]

If you have kids then it's your responsibility as a parent.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Let me guess: you don't have children, right?

If you did, you might feel otherwise about them tripping into a web site with pictures of anal sex.

Or maybe you wouldn't. You tell us.

[murphycline]

You haven't argued why it isn't the parent's responsibility to monitor his child's internet usage. Instead you go for the ad hominem attack. If you can't argue why it's not the responsibility of the parent then don't bother.

[RogerOnTheRight]

I'm not making an ad hominem attack at all. I am simply asking if exposing a child to pornography is acceptable in KladonicaCity's country.

And I don't make any argument about the parents. I happen to agree parents have primary responsibility for their children's internet usage.

But the parents still have a reasonable expectation there will not be this sort of image so easily accessed. A single button click is not control at all.

[KladionicaCity]

That's all what i'm saying!

[KladionicaCity]

Parental Control is the function that have all Windows OS on the Control Panel,you also should have another on your antivirus ,this program blocks sites of suspicious content or sites you don't want your children to see.I was not talking about that shitty disclaimers on the websites,that's retarded

[mryellow123]

The adult industry has always advised putting computers in a public area of the house where use by use can be actively monitored.

Doesn't matter what you install, if the computers in a bedroom then you don't know what's going on.

[KladionicaCity]

But there are commercial sites like his,that are subject to some restrictions ,therefore if you wanna keep your children away from this content well there's something called Parental Control on every pc you just have to turn it on.If you've lived in some places,some decades ago ,doesn't mean you know everything about how is like to live in every single damn country of the whole world.Of course if u used to live in Russia during the Soviet Union ,today's America may seem a free country.

[RogerOnTheRight]

Certainly I cannot claim complete and perfect knowledge of all countries and cultures. Yet, it is fair to refute your assertion I am living in a "sterile bubble", which you foolishly claimed.

[mryellow123]

"The reason this guy is charged is because his movies are easily accessed by children. "

False.

He was charged because he sent content across state lines to an undercover FBI agent, who made the purchase for the sole purpose of creating a charge.

Not one single charge has any relationship at all to accessability to minors.