I think the attitude expressed by Stagliano is to be applauded. He doesn't want a society where all this is in the faces of people who don't want to see it. He just wants to be able to make his films and run his business for those that do want it.
I should add that the death of copyright has cut the profits of this industry - maybe social conservatives that want a TRULY free market should take notice and end intellectual monopoly.
With that in mind, there's no telling exactly why "they" went after Stagliano, nor why they chose to go after him when they did -- though one could speculate, of course. It might have just been the result of someone in some anti-porn group having the bright idea of actually sending some porn DVDs to Washington. In any case, they failed, which is the important part.
For people watching this who aren't familiar with the videos mentioned, Stagliano or porn in general, you should know that there's nothing "special" about the aforementioned videos, in the sense that what's done in them is not at all new, nor do they achieve some new level of "obscenity" -- not even close. Scenes like the ones in these videos have been around for ages and currently are being produced on a regular basis by multiple big-name vendors.
No it shouldn't be illegal, grown adults should be allowed to view and perform in porn if they so choose. America might as well be a Christo-Fascist Theocracy if it were illegal.
what's obscene is that there is no more hypocritical, corrupt, immoral place on earth than Washington, DC, is this America or is this some fascist dictatorship where the government legislates every single thing we do, we need to stand up against this fascist prosecution of free speech and liberty. Is this 2010 or 1810?
the government should be spending its resources and time protecting society from rapists, pedophiles and murderers instead of instead of trying to "protect" us from what some people might consider obscene. How many more children must die, how many women must be raped before the government gets its priority straight, this country is turning into a fascist theocracy
the Luciferians portray their rebellion against God and nature as "progress (hence progressivism) and freedom" This permissiveness refers only to tearing down the Devine and natural order. In Initiation in the Seventh degree of Satanism, the adept swears "Nothing is true and everything is permitted." In the Communist Manifesto, Marx similarly said, all religion and morals will be abolished and 'everything permitted' - meaning morally acceptable, sexual liberation.
....far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends and mutual assistants. these two sciences run into each other. The devine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both. - James Wilson; signer of the Constitution.
.....the freest of people are they who are most friendly to murder" - the Marqui de Sade. The Marqui de Sade agreed with Saint Augustin that freedom was a function of morals. Freedom for the Marqui de Sade, however meant willingness to reject the moral order.
Porn equal slavery to your own vices, and vices you have many, some people have passion to inflict pain on other - they derive pleasure from hurting others, other have passion to feel powerful and kill other for the high of feeling powerful over others who are helpless where do we draw the line to human behavoir, by your definition of reason there should not be any lines, anything goes - watch your back your neighbor might be a cannibal.
@matrxmax How exactly is porn slavery to your own vices? I'd say sexual repression equal slavery. Now as for your straw men that I guarantee everyone here has heard at least a dozen times before, the line should be drawn at hurting people who don't consent to it. Porn does not fall under that category while murder quite clearly does.
@FatherTime89 Sexual liberation from its beginning is a form of control. the logic is; those who wished to liberate man from the moral order need to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido leads to anarchy.
Men must necessarily be controlled either by power within (conscience) or by a power without ( power of the state) - Robert Winthrop; speaker of the house of representatives.
@matrxmax If you understand this, you will understand why communist wished to eliminate all laws governing obscenity, calling them censorship, violation of free speech, break down all standards of morality by promoting pornography. read it its in the congressional record as "The Stated Goals for Implementing Communism in America" google it. So you thought you were free? it turns out you are really a slave to you own unbridled passions and there are those who are managing your passions.
..... it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams; 2nd President of U.S.A. and signer of the Declaration of Independence.
Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. - Samuel Adams
Only virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. - Benjamin Franklin;
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator, will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies, and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate. - Aldus Huxley
....We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passion unbridled by morality and religion............ Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams; signer of the Declaration of Independence, 2nd President of the U.S.A. (speech to the military Oct. 11, 1798)
War is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, porn equals freedom? Aldus Huxley's "Brave New World" political control is through inflicting pleasure.
Not a big fan of PORN, but even less a fan of the Government slowly taking away every right we have. If they were smart they would tax the hell out of it like cigerettes.
kinda vague on what he was actually arrested for. I know Sodomy and certain types of porn are banned in some states, who (right or wrong) have the power to regulate this stuff if sold to the public.
Did he break the OSHA employment laws? Are the films evidence of him producing movies that do not follow OSHA laws concerning blood and bodily fluids?
Art or obscenity? Who cares? Did he break the OSHA laws or not?
i love you Nick Gillespie...like you i don't watch porn...i don't do drugs...i don't even drink or smoke...not even coffee but i certainly respect the rights of others to do so!
It's ok to touch yourself all you want, sweetcakes. I would visit your site, but you might be a federal agent trying to drum up business by tricking innocent people into visiting a child porn site. Believe me, I have nothing against federal agents (well, ok, I do), but I would much rather they target people who have actually committed a crime on their own without enticing them into it. Call me old fashioned.
I'm sorry. I know I must be blind, but could someone please be so kind as to point out exactly where the First Amendment provides an exemption for obscenity? I assume it's covered by the exemption for "really really offensive stuff", but unfortunately, I've never been able to find that exception either. Please be kind in your reply. I'm not a Supreme Court judge, so to me, the words "no law" in the First Amendment tend to just mean, NO LAW.
@davekrueger The problem does not come from the wording of the First Amendment. I think I can help you and be kind. We have a common law tradition in this country. That means we have written law legislation) and judge made law (court decisions). Both are enforced. The obscenity provisions are common law. The court uses the Miller Test, which it described in Miller v. California. Basically, if the community finds the material offensive it is not protected speech.
So common law trumps the Bill of Rights. Nice. Then why even have a Bill of Rights? It sound like the First Amendment only has power when it's convenient.
@davekrueger It's more like the Constitution in general only has the meaning that the Supreme Court allows it to. Interpretation is just that. The meaning of each amendment is fleshed out by the cases put before the high court. Take Kelo v. The City of New London. I think that the taking clause of the 5th Amendment was intended for roads, schools, police stations, etc. The court says it means a city can eminent domain your house to build a mall because businesses pay more taxes than you do.
@joshuaborton I wouldn't use Kelo as an example of good legal reasoning. The decision was absurd, as O'Connor so clearly stated. Quite simply, the court was wrong. The legal reasoning of the majority lacked any reasoning at all and the decision is an abomination.
@FAHayek89 Good legal reasoning is like good legislation as they are both abstract legal concepts. I could be more easily be convinced of the existence of the tooth fairy. The court was wrong, but as I said they interpret the laws. So, it doesn't matter what the law says... only how it is interpreted by the courts.
The Supreme Court said the material must be 'patently offensive' to be considered obscene. Well, unless they can find a record from the PTO that the offensiveness has been patented, then they should have no case against any of these pornographers.
Savages and barbarians never point out what they do as malevolent (evil) all they do is question decency, and say what morality, what god?, what standards - there are no standards, anything goes, enjoy watching women being brutalized as they become disemboweled with their colon hanging out from their anus, if it satisfies your passions have at it. This does not contribute to anything positive , just your lustful primal evil desires.
@matrxmax Tyrants never call themselves evil they just say what they're doing is just or good. And yes what god? No one has proven there to be a god so why should I adopt his supposed standards?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis
Indeed. Additionally, greedy robber barons can lose wealth to competitors if they gouge customers, so their greed may motivate them to torment people less. But if people resist the moralizing busybodies, they will only redouble their efforts. Anyone who doubts this can look at the history of Prohibition and the drug war.
@WAMill3R I think by that he meant rule by greedy robber barons that use government to bleed the populace dry instead of just capitalism. The idea being that such leeches may become satisfied and stop but the moralist ones never will.
Be reasonable and show a demo of the abject brutality inflicted on mostly drug addicted women that approximates snuff films. Throw away the key and let them rot in their jail cell. Stagliano and Max hey are not the victims here - they inflict inmeasurable pain and suffering on women that need drug rehab intervention.
@FAHayek89 Certainly they have a choice, but when people are vulnerable, when they maybe addicted to drugs, alcohol, or pills, there are satanic vulture who prey on this vulnerabilities of women., and the promise of fame, money and drugs their mental state is clouded. You aught to read what goes on in this debauchery of porn from insiders who done that, see what they opine.
...so no one is free unless you're allowed to produce porn? ...so pornography equals freedom? up until 1957 pornography had never being considered a 1rst amendment issue; so before 1957 America was not free? so you're against pornography you're against freedom?
Symptoms are often mistaken causes. Like mistakenly believing that since fever is strongly correlated with many diseases fever must cause many diseases. So that fact that someone views violent porn and is violent, or someone views or participates in any "dysfunctional" activity is just as likely, if not more so, to be a sign of personal preference. I'm not advocating the use of these as signs of dysfunctional behavior only pointing out their limits as use of proof of causality.
For those who think we need laws to ban certain behavior based on studies that "prove" causation between certain freedoms and dysfunctional or criminal behavior you must understand correlation does NOT equal causation. For many studies it is impractical and/or immoral to experiment so observations are made without controlling for other environmental variables, specifically confounding variables, and superficial and erroneous relationships are presented as concrete causation.
If we have plenty, (sex) we know that, , divorced from love, "sex is the biggest nothing in the world" - Andy Warhol
Hollywood practically has angels singing hosannas (worship) when movie stars have sex . It created a bogus religion.
Many adults in society have lost the capacity to love, and sex is a paltry substitute. Because of this confusion many obssese with pornography. Society suffers from arrested development manifested as adolecent preoccupation with bodily functions, genitals, porn.
Well golly it looks like we have one of those "family values". "if we don't do everything my way civilization will collapse" nuts, with a dash of conspiracy theorist as well. I look forward to him not showing any proof for his doomsday scenarios/
If sex is freely available, men have much less incentive to marry or be faithful. women were brainwashed to think they were being "exploited" by their family and should seek fulfillment in career and independence instead. the ruling elite used paid subversives like Betty Frieden, Gloria Steinem and the media to make it seem that Feminism was a spontaneous occurrence. tjhey effectively severed sex from marriage and procreation and exalted lust as the main source of fulfillment.
How is free sex subversive? A healthy society is concerned with its survival and the propagation of it's values. this requires that new generations born and raised in a healthy manner, i.e. in a nuclear family. in a healthy society, women are honored for nurturing and educating the young, thus the establishment set out to disparage and undermine women's role as wives and mothers. they extolled "sexual liberation because promiscuous women are less dedicated to family.
@matrxmax You can raise a child without being in a nuclear family just fine. People should not be forced or guilt tripped into accepting those stupid gender roles.
Throughout modern history, the ruling elite have used social engineers to sexually liberate and subvert society. They realized that they couldn't take control until they destroyed the family. This was a central plank of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. The ruling elite and their tax exemt philonthropies used social engineers encouraged sexual dissipation using their "progressive" fronts; liberalism, femenism, socialism, and communism - left wing movements always promised of "free" sex
@matrxmax Enough with your conspiracy theories. No one is proposing to destroy the family just to give people more options, which is what freedom is all about. You who want to force people into nuclear families and "traditional values" for the sake of society you are the true tyrant. Also sacrificing individuals for the sake of society sounds a lot more like communism than free love.
@FatherTime89 According to the Marqui de Sade and St. Augustin two polar opposites, both agreed that freedom is a function of his moral state. In other words "sexual liberation" is a form of political control, that is what you don't understand. Our founding fathers understood this principle very well. John Adams said: " Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, It's.. inadequate to the government of any other."
@FatherTime89 Your passions determine how you live your life, and shapes your character. Sexual liberation is the most subtle form of control because it manipulates passion. human passion is powerful and blinds you to the fact that you are being manipulated. Read: "Libido Dominandi: Sexual Freedom and Political Control" by Micheal E. Jones.
@FatherTime89 Go read the Communist Manifesto and see what it says about dissipating social cohesion and political control. Read the stated goals for Communism to be implemented in America read what it says about repression. You got it backwards.
@matrxmax Go read 1984 read how they want people socially repressed so that they will be more likely to serve the party. I can play this dumb guilt by association crap all day.
@FatherTime89 In 1984 control was through inflicting pain, i.e. 2+2=5, war is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, this contradictions fit very well with porn equals freedom, homosexual is normal motif. In "Brave New World" control was through inflicting pleasure.
@matrxmax Porn equals freedom runs opposite of one of the themes of the 1984 society. No matter how much you want to try to twist the facts, the 1984 society used sexual repression to keep people in line. This is obvious to ANYONE who's actually read the book (it's spelt out pretty bluntly). And yes restricting porn does restrict freedom.
@FatherTime89 George Orwell's inspiration came form collectivist British Ideals of the power elite, thus George Wilhelm and Karl Marx codified the politics and mores espoused by the French revolution. communism has never being for the down and trodden, but for the ruling elite. So to destroy traditional mores of society, they set out to destroy child tutelage, hence reshaping the social order by destroying the traditional family.
@FatherTime89 John Freeman (George Orwell) was a socialist fighting in the Spanish civil war, fighting on the side supported by the Soviet Union. He became desolutioned with the tyranny associated with socialism at the time.
@FatherTime89 Sex is the best form of political control and the most subtlest, because it masquerades behind your passions, and people identify with their passions as their own, and human passion is very powerful that it blinds you to the fact that you are being manipulated. Our founding fathers understood this very well; that they said that our form of government (Constitution) was for a religious and moral people, wholly inadequate for the government of any other. (for conscientious people)
@matrxmax When did they say that and how the hell does letting people have sexual freedom bind them? Are you telling us that freedom is slavery? Now where have I heard that before?
@matrxmax Not all the founders were religious, and they explicitly wrote in that there would be no religious test for office anywhere in the US. So I want a source for that quote of yours.
@FatherTime89 They understood religion contributed to a "civil society" therefore promoted religion but did not promote any particular religious denomination. What you fail to understand is that the founding father did not want an official denomination controlling government like it was in Europe run under the Papacy of Rome..
Here's a thought: if you don't like it, don't buy it. Why is that so hard for people understand? What right do you have to go into someone's home, into their bedroom, and point a gun at their head if you don't like the media they're consuming?
If I was inclined to violence I'd like to pistol whip every fucker who watches crap like Americans Idle, but I respect their right to abuse their intellects even if I don't like it. Hell, I'll even tolerate you watching Jersey Shore.
@Nphyx No, I believe in freedom of conscious, people can have the prerogative to live as they wish and do as they wish, but as a matter of social policy it is wrong for higher education to teach the virtues of porn, what is so virtues about selfish lusfull primal passions it is wrong for children to be taught the virtues of homosexuality it is wrong plane and simple - so what is the next line to be crossed as normal - child-adult consenual sex?
@matrxmax who said anything about teaching children? You teach your children how you want to teach them. Personally I don't think sex and sexuality is wrong, it's a wonderful part of human life, and I won't teach my kid lies until he gets old enough to figure it out for himself. That has nothing to do with pedophilia, although it is typical of perverts (particularly of the neo-puritan repressive bent) to conflate the two. In any case it has nothing to do with regulating the behavior of adults.
@Nphyx Who says fire ( sex ) is bad? fire ( sex) it is wonderful part of human existence, fire; it cooks our food, keeps us warm and cozy in the cold, oh but outside it's place it becomes very destructive of everything in it's wake. So is sex.
@matrxmax I haven't contradicted that statement at all. I just don't believe the approach of, "Son, fire is deadly, dangerous, nasty and awful and you should never look at it, think about it, or get anywhere near it, and anyone who uses fire is a sick person who should be shunned" is a great way to raise a kid who can responsibly cook himself dinner when he's old enough. But this issue is really about whether adults should be able to talk about "fire" with other adults, anyway.
@Nphyx You've missed the point. The analogy is - sex like fire serves it's useful purpose. In the case for sex, intimacy and reproduction within limits of committed heterosexual monogamy, but sex outside of it's place in the natural order of things, it becomes destructive of whole societies and people. Read the history of the Roman Empire and it's demise.
@matrxmax If you can reduce the fall of the Roman Empire to "people were having sex in ways I don't approve of" you're missing way more than a simple point about pornography. This distorted view of history is a foul tree and it's clearly yielding poisonous fruits. Rome fell for a lot of reasons, but the worst was the abuse of power that comes with the notion that one group has a right to dictate behavior to another. Defend yourself and your property, that is all you have the right to do.
Can't say I'm on board this time. I have my doubts that in a hundred years people will view Max Hardcore as a genius for his 'porn' films featuring "vomitting, violence, and unrination."
(continued -- for the last time, finally!) Our first amendment rights should not be infringed in any way in my worldview, but should we really just blindly accept the idea that unrestrained liberty is really the best course for humanity? Even the most hardcore liberty advocates have to admit that there are some things that we should fight against -- like child pornography. Why? Because it harms people. Liberty is to be protected, but total, unchecked liberty is at least questionable, isn't it?
@jmatt926 I don't have "liberty" to produce child pornography for the same reason I don't have "liberty" to drive my car over pedestrians or commit any other type of violence against others. Your liberty stops when it starts infringing on other people's rights. By arguing against anarchy when the argument is about civil liberty you simply show that you don't understand the issue.
Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand. I am not advocating anarchy by stating that a person should not blindly be FOR anything that allows our liberties to expand.
Consider the cost, instead of just accepting the premise that, if it creates more liberty, it is worth doing. This attitude is analogous to what some would call a Faustian Bargain; we need to be careful, not dismissive and fleeting, when accepting such an ideal, even if the end result is the same.
(continued) Obscenity as a legal issue is a complex one. However, so are many other issues -- that doesn't mean we abandon them. Obscenity rulings are responsible for keeping ridiculously filthy activities -- like "crush" videos (which by the way are now "free speech" )-- from corrupting our youth (who often have more access to it than even many adults do). Rapists and murderers were often found to have abused animals as children -- as a society, is this what we want to promote as normal?
Well, gee, maybe if parents don't want their kids watching porno, they should pay some goddamn attention to their kids, rather than having the government categorically ban certain types of speech to prevent the possibility that their kids might see it.
(continued) The first reason I'm shocked is that ReasonTV is paying back a favor to a donee. It's that easy to get them to advocate for an issue? Just give them money? Funny, kinda reminds me of Congress. Second, ReasonTV refers to a jury selected randomly from the US population as "12 strangers." Well, ReasonTV, those 12 "strangers" are pseudo-representatives of US citizens -- after all, that is one of the purposes of a jury in our courts. (continued in next comment)
I am a huge fan of ReasonTV and consider myself an independent/libertarian. I'm all for people doing what they want and how they want to do it. However, with an issue like pornography, the water is muddied. There is no debate to the fact that pornography has negative effects on those who participate in it and those who are addicted to it. It has its place, yes, but sometimes it can go too far. I was shocked to see ReasonTV make this video for 2 reasons: (continued in next comment)
@jmatt926 why would you be surprised that reason would say you should be free to choose what you want, even if it is provably bad (not that i think this even is?)
" There is no debate to the fact that pornography has negative effects on those who participate in it and those who are addicted to it."
Uh yes there is and if you tried to substantiate those definitions of harm you would sound just as silly as some douche-bag who talks about the negative effects of alcohol, there might be some truth to it but its relative and contextual and not worthy of a totalizing judgment.
This is what happens when most people in society condone the initiation of the use of force by a group of people who call themselves "government". This kind of thing will never go away as long as any type of government, no matter how small or limited, exists.
Certainly it is difficult to trace the effect of any single book, play or movie, on any one individual. But we all know that the ways in which we use our minds and imaginations do shape our character and helps define us as persons. if you deny this, it indicates how dogmatic resistance to the idea of censorship can result in mindless insistence on the absurd.
@lordthawkeye I keep wondering that myself. Seems to me that if there's any real flaw in the Constitution, its that there's no provision for arresting elected officials or bureaucrats who violate it. And I thought it was the Supreme Law of the Land.
This is absolute insanity. Porn is there for people who like it, and there's quite a variety I assure you. This shouldn't be a case even in the lowest court.
Many of you here are empty lost souls, but yet, there is hope for you still, if you want it, you could be made whole again, ask me how.
Ahhh, there is nothing more that we resent than someone passing judgement on us, because we resent being accountable for our behaviour to a higher power. (God)
@matrxmax I resent someone passing judgment on me because that is not their role. The role of judge and jury is God, and only God. It is very hypocritical to call yourself a christian then openly taking on the role of the lord. That is blasphemy, sir. How can you expect people to follow God's word when you can't follow it yourself?
@Mauhadeeb28 Even you, just passed judgement on me, you see we all have a value system - a world view by which we all make and pass judgement on others based on our values whether secular or religious. My whole point is people really get ticked off by the ideas I present here, never do I call any body with profanities or names like some do to me here. If they want to discard my ideas that is just fine with me, it won't hurt my feelings.
@matrxmax I did not pass judgment. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of a statement. That is not a judgment. That is a fact. You passed judgment by stating "many of you here have empty lost souls..." That presumes that their are people here who are "empty lost souls". That is judging the being of an individual human. I did not judge you as a person, I judged the statement that was made and pointed out its hypocrisy. I did not judge. I said the statement was hypocritical.
You're free to pimp around for your cult. I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you from your proselytism, just keep it away from my face. Is it so hard for you to reciprocate or do you wish to reserve for yourself the right to promote obscenities?
Even if you don't like porn you should still hate these laws because they waste the time of law enforcement prosecuting people that commit no real crime and the concept of criminalizing videos of legal acts is completely stupid.
This is ridiculous. Obscenity is as stupid a reason to harass someone as self-destructiveness. Leave the guy alone already! It's not like he was working with an NEA grant or taxpayer money & he wasn't harassing anyone. Seriously, doesn't the government have anything better to do with our money...like, maybe, QUIT SPENDING IT ON STUPID C**P!!!!!
@Slveryder You probably have not seen what this guy does to women, it is extremely harmful to the social syche and to the women being brutally abused beyond the pale, just for her next fix. If you see what this guy does and why he was convicted to serve 32 years behind bars, you probably will not be saying this.
32 years does not matter. John is HIV positive and will be dead before that time is up. The porn industry is getting more and more "cutting edge" in an effort to increase its sales amongst the younger generation. And more and more niche oriented. Porn is free on the 'net and industry's profits have been falling steeply and steadily for some time. These items are symptomatic both of the industry's decline and specialization. Like cable TV there's something there for everyone.
@teto85 That said, I enjoy some of John's work in front of and behind the camera. The government should get out of the censorship business unless it's patently illegal, snuff and underage, etc. But if everyone is a consenting adult is should be nobody's business and if you don't like it then don't buy, rent, or download it. If you do, then enjoy it.
@teto85 You know what this guy does is not a run of the mill porn, it is brutal, disgusting, I would find no difference of what this guys does and snuff films and most of this women are doing it for their next fix.
So, start a rehab clinic for the women and get them clean. Then they won't have a need for this kind of work. Oh, you'd have to train them for their new careers as well. John's work is of a different genre. He was selling these films, not engaged in making them. Squirting and milk don't seem to be brutal. From other posts it would seem that you need help getting the beam out of your eye. Go back to your street corner and preach there.
Rob Black, lizzy Borden and max hardcore brought it on themselves. They went out and actively tried to push the boundaries. Those two films that stagliano is being targeted for weren't even directed by him. He's simply the distributor
It's not covered by the 1st Amendment because it's so subjective. I don't care for pornography, and I don't feel that it's "art". Nonetheless, as long as those involved whether they be producers, actors, sellers or consumers are CONSENTING and of the acceptable ADULT age, I'm not going to support any law that prosecutes it.
While I am not a fan of John Stagliano's work, laws which can be manipulated in this way are dangerous. We already have a push in California to ban toys with Happy Meals and before that there was New York's push to ban salt in foods, so who is to stay how far these liberal nanny state types are willing to go. Either way, it reeks and it must be stopped.
As usual as of late, somewhat dishonest, politically skewed. Anyone whos ever watched max hardcore knows that his "boundry stretching expression" is finding 18 year olds with underdeveloped bodies, dressing them up as 8 year olds, and making them cry for the camera. So yeah Nick, you are in a sense defending child pornogaphy, or at least the next best thing for a pedofile.
Hmmmmm, Lexi Love is one of my favorite stars, ha ha ha.
But in all seriousness, the Federal government has no business deciding what is obscene or not, and our tax dollars should not be wasted prosecuting people who didn't do anything wrong.
Remember that idiotic "obscenity" SCOTUS decision where the court said "We can't define obscenity, but we know it when we see it" or some shit? What a crock. If you can't define what is or isn't obscene, how the hell can you prosecute people for it??
@whoo689 That SCOTUS definition of "obscenity" is way too collectivist, if you ask me. Libertarians should reject it. "Obscenity" is in the eye of the beholder, for christ sake. In fact, I like watching porn and do so regularly online. But I'm not a rapist or overly agressive or any of that stereotypical bullshit some commenter below me claimed.
Besides, LBJ and Meese's separate porn commissions BOTH found that the claims of anti-porn zealots were heavily exaggerated.
@whoo689 "Porn addiction"? No fucking such thing. It's caused by an ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY in that individual. That person has so little self-control that they let porn take over their lives or psyches. Why the hell does everyone always scapegoat the OBJECT or thing rather than the person?? I'm so tired of people blaming drugs, illegal immigrants, porn and so many other "bad" things for our problems!!
@whoo689 You may not like Max Blumenthal, but his book "Republican Gomorrah" is an excellent tale of religious zealot corruption and the fact that so many of them have so many problems in their personal lives and feel so powerless, which drives the need to control OTHER people's lives through moralist legislation gone wild. These people are control freaks!
Usually people whose lives are doing just fine and are under control don't feel the need to go around telling everyone els ewhat to do.
@whoo689 Usually the people that are cited as 'porn addicts' or supposed rapists 'caused' by porn are actually a very TINY minority of all folks who watch porn. Marty Klein in his book "america's war on sex" estimates at least 50 million Americans regularly are into this kind of stuff, but 50 million Americans are definitely not porn addicts. I'd say it's perhaps twice that or perhaps 75 million. But the moralists and zealots have forced us into hiding for fear of being exposed as sinful.
@whoo689 America needs a porn-lover's and non-conservative sexuality revolution, and by that, I mean, those who are into nontraditional sexual practices need to come out of the closet. People are who into violence and violent movies are well known. So why can't porn lovers be made known as well? Be proud of your preferences. As long as it's all consensual, who gives a shit.
Consensual standards for morality make perhaps the most sense and logic when determining right and wrong.
@whoo689, I assume you are speaking from ignorance of the science.
Look up "The Impact of Internet Pornography on Marriage and the Family: A Review of the Research" published in the Official Journal of the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health.
I am a UC Davis undergraduate so I have access to some resources that the general public does not. If you can't get to the article yourself, PM me your e-mail and I'll send u a pdf attachment.
Precisely, this is the moral relativism pathology that brings about school shooting, going postal, abject hopelessness, life devoid of all meaning and purpose that brings about most known social pathos.
If you believe no one has ever being corrupted by pornography, you have also to believe that no one was ever corrupted by a book, you have also to believe that no one was ever improved by a book.
@matrxmax What are the chances someone will be corrupted and turn into a bad person because of pornography or a book? VERY VERY SLIM. The odds are in favor of humanity. I'm not saying that nobody has ever been corrupted, but not near enough people have been corrupted to the point of banning pornography or books.
If eating chocolate will raise your chances of getting cancer by .005%, should chocolate be banned? Same with corruption. If .0001 people are corrupted by porn, it's not a thread.
@NoNameC68 What do you think drives the homosexual rights (wrongs) movement? Just take a look at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco and the homosexual sex, fetish displays in public taking place in plain view, should we embrace and celebrate this as normal expression of their sexuality?
This has been flagged as spam show
People should be allowed to have as much "obscene" crap as they want as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights.
robertdexter102591 1 day ago
Comment removed
robertdexter102591 1 day ago
Seems like some people think talking about "obscenity" is obscene too. Why the fuck should I login to watch it?
termi892 1 month ago
nice clip .. i like it .. thanks for sahring
esmeraldakrzeminski 5 months ago
I think the attitude expressed by Stagliano is to be applauded. He doesn't want a society where all this is in the faces of people who don't want to see it. He just wants to be able to make his films and run his business for those that do want it.
I should add that the death of copyright has cut the profits of this industry - maybe social conservatives that want a TRULY free market should take notice and end intellectual monopoly.
Alternate2GOP 1 year ago
4:17 - Notice how Nick says "purchased."
MooseOfReason 1 year ago
2.
With that in mind, there's no telling exactly why "they" went after Stagliano, nor why they chose to go after him when they did -- though one could speculate, of course. It might have just been the result of someone in some anti-porn group having the bright idea of actually sending some porn DVDs to Washington. In any case, they failed, which is the important part.
regresseur 1 year ago
1.
For people watching this who aren't familiar with the videos mentioned, Stagliano or porn in general, you should know that there's nothing "special" about the aforementioned videos, in the sense that what's done in them is not at all new, nor do they achieve some new level of "obscenity" -- not even close. Scenes like the ones in these videos have been around for ages and currently are being produced on a regular basis by multiple big-name vendors.
regresseur 1 year ago
ART MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
seavidae7 1 year ago
Is Nick a descendant of Carl Saga, by chance?
eksyte 1 year ago
I love Milk Nymphos. There are a lot worse series out there.
prowleroftheyard 1 year ago
No it shouldn't be illegal, grown adults should be allowed to view and perform in porn if they so choose. America might as well be a Christo-Fascist Theocracy if it were illegal.
krabadie 1 year ago 2
what's obscene is that there is no more hypocritical, corrupt, immoral place on earth than Washington, DC, is this America or is this some fascist dictatorship where the government legislates every single thing we do, we need to stand up against this fascist prosecution of free speech and liberty. Is this 2010 or 1810?
MURDERORMARIJUANA 1 year ago
the government should be spending its resources and time protecting society from rapists, pedophiles and murderers instead of instead of trying to "protect" us from what some people might consider obscene. How many more children must die, how many women must be raped before the government gets its priority straight, this country is turning into a fascist theocracy
MURDERORMARIJUANA 1 year ago
the Luciferians portray their rebellion against God and nature as "progress (hence progressivism) and freedom" This permissiveness refers only to tearing down the Devine and natural order. In Initiation in the Seventh degree of Satanism, the adept swears "Nothing is true and everything is permitted." In the Communist Manifesto, Marx similarly said, all religion and morals will be abolished and 'everything permitted' - meaning morally acceptable, sexual liberation.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax Let us know when you're done with guilt by association fallacies.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@matrxmax Dear Religous Nut:
I don't want to kill you, but if you attack me, my family, or my rights I will. Tyrants (kings, popes, and other oppressors) deserve to be executed
.
harleykman 1 year ago
....far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends and mutual assistants. these two sciences run into each other. The devine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both. - James Wilson; signer of the Constitution.
matrxmax 1 year ago
.....the freest of people are they who are most friendly to murder" - the Marqui de Sade. The Marqui de Sade agreed with Saint Augustin that freedom was a function of morals. Freedom for the Marqui de Sade, however meant willingness to reject the moral order.
matrxmax 1 year ago
,,,,,Just government protects all their religious rights, true religion affords government it's surest support. - George Washington
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax God will send people like you to hell for treating your neighbors as Serfs. God believes in freedom and hate people that ar4e tyrants
.
Enjoy eternal burning mother fuckiung Cheristian dick
.
harleykman 1 year ago
Porn equal slavery to your own vices, and vices you have many, some people have passion to inflict pain on other - they derive pleasure from hurting others, other have passion to feel powerful and kill other for the high of feeling powerful over others who are helpless where do we draw the line to human behavoir, by your definition of reason there should not be any lines, anything goes - watch your back your neighbor might be a cannibal.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax How exactly is porn slavery to your own vices? I'd say sexual repression equal slavery. Now as for your straw men that I guarantee everyone here has heard at least a dozen times before, the line should be drawn at hurting people who don't consent to it. Porn does not fall under that category while murder quite clearly does.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Sexual liberation from its beginning is a form of control. the logic is; those who wished to liberate man from the moral order need to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido leads to anarchy.
Men must necessarily be controlled either by power within (conscience) or by a power without ( power of the state) - Robert Winthrop; speaker of the house of representatives.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax If you understand this, you will understand why communist wished to eliminate all laws governing obscenity, calling them censorship, violation of free speech, break down all standards of morality by promoting pornography. read it its in the congressional record as "The Stated Goals for Implementing Communism in America" google it. So you thought you were free? it turns out you are really a slave to you own unbridled passions and there are those who are managing your passions.
matrxmax 1 year ago
..... it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams; 2nd President of U.S.A. and signer of the Declaration of Independence.
matrxmax 1 year ago
Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. - Samuel Adams
matrxmax 1 year ago
Only virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. - Benjamin Franklin;
As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator, will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope, movies, and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate. - Aldus Huxley
matrxmax 1 year ago
....We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passion unbridled by morality and religion............ Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams; signer of the Declaration of Independence, 2nd President of the U.S.A. (speech to the military Oct. 11, 1798)
matrxmax 1 year ago
War is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, porn equals freedom? Aldus Huxley's "Brave New World" political control is through inflicting pleasure.
matrxmax 1 year ago
Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030)
There's one law....there are more that apply....
HeathenRage 1 year ago
Nick Gillespie reading D.H. Lawrence is my new porn. Don't ban this!!!
megsies 1 year ago
Not a big fan of PORN, but even less a fan of the Government slowly taking away every right we have. If they were smart they would tax the hell out of it like cigerettes.
consultantmichael 1 year ago
@consultantmichael why even tax cigarettes,you may be taxed for one of your vices one day
lilbeaveymac 1 year ago
@lilbeaveymac
I am LIQUOR. I'm not saying one is better or any worse then the other.
consultantmichael 1 year ago
kinda vague on what he was actually arrested for. I know Sodomy and certain types of porn are banned in some states, who (right or wrong) have the power to regulate this stuff if sold to the public.
JizzonTheDark 1 year ago
Did he break the OSHA employment laws? Are the films evidence of him producing movies that do not follow OSHA laws concerning blood and bodily fluids?
Art or obscenity? Who cares? Did he break the OSHA laws or not?
HeathenRage 1 year ago
at first I thought he was looking at 4chan
aallppiinnee 1 year ago
i love you Nick Gillespie...like you i don't watch porn...i don't do drugs...i don't even drink or smoke...not even coffee but i certainly respect the rights of others to do so!
dirksilver 1 year ago
This is why I hate Social Conservatism and Nanny State Liberalism.
chevydriver1123 1 year ago 10
@chevydriver1123 agreed.
jm227307 1 year ago
It would have massively more comfortable watching this if a woman was the front for this video.
TainaAtheist1 1 year ago
@AngieInSex
It's ok to touch yourself all you want, sweetcakes. I would visit your site, but you might be a federal agent trying to drum up business by tricking innocent people into visiting a child porn site. Believe me, I have nothing against federal agents (well, ok, I do), but I would much rather they target people who have actually committed a crime on their own without enticing them into it. Call me old fashioned.
davekrueger 1 year ago
I'm sorry. I know I must be blind, but could someone please be so kind as to point out exactly where the First Amendment provides an exemption for obscenity? I assume it's covered by the exemption for "really really offensive stuff", but unfortunately, I've never been able to find that exception either. Please be kind in your reply. I'm not a Supreme Court judge, so to me, the words "no law" in the First Amendment tend to just mean, NO LAW.
davekrueger 1 year ago
@davekrueger The problem does not come from the wording of the First Amendment. I think I can help you and be kind. We have a common law tradition in this country. That means we have written law legislation) and judge made law (court decisions). Both are enforced. The obscenity provisions are common law. The court uses the Miller Test, which it described in Miller v. California. Basically, if the community finds the material offensive it is not protected speech.
joshuaborton 1 year ago
@joshuaborton
So common law trumps the Bill of Rights. Nice. Then why even have a Bill of Rights? It sound like the First Amendment only has power when it's convenient.
davekrueger 1 year ago
@davekrueger It's more like the Constitution in general only has the meaning that the Supreme Court allows it to. Interpretation is just that. The meaning of each amendment is fleshed out by the cases put before the high court. Take Kelo v. The City of New London. I think that the taking clause of the 5th Amendment was intended for roads, schools, police stations, etc. The court says it means a city can eminent domain your house to build a mall because businesses pay more taxes than you do.
joshuaborton 1 year ago
@joshuaborton I wouldn't use Kelo as an example of good legal reasoning. The decision was absurd, as O'Connor so clearly stated. Quite simply, the court was wrong. The legal reasoning of the majority lacked any reasoning at all and the decision is an abomination.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
@FAHayek89 Good legal reasoning is like good legislation as they are both abstract legal concepts. I could be more easily be convinced of the existence of the tooth fairy. The court was wrong, but as I said they interpret the laws. So, it doesn't matter what the law says... only how it is interpreted by the courts.
joshuaborton 1 year ago
The Supreme Court said the material must be 'patently offensive' to be considered obscene. Well, unless they can find a record from the PTO that the offensiveness has been patented, then they should have no case against any of these pornographers.
kittyprydekissme 1 year ago
Savages and barbarians never point out what they do as malevolent (evil) all they do is question decency, and say what morality, what god?, what standards - there are no standards, anything goes, enjoy watching women being brutalized as they become disemboweled with their colon hanging out from their anus, if it satisfies your passions have at it. This does not contribute to anything positive , just your lustful primal evil desires.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax Tyrants never call themselves evil they just say what they're doing is just or good. And yes what god? No one has proven there to be a god so why should I adopt his supposed standards?
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S. Lewis
FatherTime89 1 year ago 20
@FatherTime89
Indeed. Additionally, greedy robber barons can lose wealth to competitors if they gouge customers, so their greed may motivate them to torment people less. But if people resist the moralizing busybodies, they will only redouble their efforts. Anyone who doubts this can look at the history of Prohibition and the drug war.
WAMill3R 1 year ago 2
@WAMill3R I think by that he meant rule by greedy robber barons that use government to bleed the populace dry instead of just capitalism. The idea being that such leeches may become satisfied and stop but the moralist ones never will.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
Be reasonable and show a demo of the abject brutality inflicted on mostly drug addicted women that approximates snuff films. Throw away the key and let them rot in their jail cell. Stagliano and Max hey are not the victims here - they inflict inmeasurable pain and suffering on women that need drug rehab intervention.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax So you don't think those women have a choice in what they do? There might be an argument against this type of film, but that isn't it.
FAHayek89 1 year ago
@FAHayek89 Certainly they have a choice, but when people are vulnerable, when they maybe addicted to drugs, alcohol, or pills, there are satanic vulture who prey on this vulnerabilities of women., and the promise of fame, money and drugs their mental state is clouded. You aught to read what goes on in this debauchery of porn from insiders who done that, see what they opine.
matrxmax 1 year ago
...so no one is free unless you're allowed to produce porn? ...so pornography equals freedom? up until 1957 pornography had never being considered a 1rst amendment issue; so before 1957 America was not free? so you're against pornography you're against freedom?
matrxmax 1 year ago
gee thx 4 da porn, nick.
onvogmasaj 1 year ago
Symptoms are often mistaken causes. Like mistakenly believing that since fever is strongly correlated with many diseases fever must cause many diseases. So that fact that someone views violent porn and is violent, or someone views or participates in any "dysfunctional" activity is just as likely, if not more so, to be a sign of personal preference. I'm not advocating the use of these as signs of dysfunctional behavior only pointing out their limits as use of proof of causality.
A bit long sry
bullpcp 1 year ago
For those who think we need laws to ban certain behavior based on studies that "prove" causation between certain freedoms and dysfunctional or criminal behavior you must understand correlation does NOT equal causation. For many studies it is impractical and/or immoral to experiment so observations are made without controlling for other environmental variables, specifically confounding variables, and superficial and erroneous relationships are presented as concrete causation.
bullpcp 1 year ago
"Like me you may have never puchased a porn DVD in your life."
Nick....come on buddy. Fess up.
kbr7171 1 year ago
@kbr7171 I think Nick went straight from VHS to online porn.
TheLastBrainLeft 1 year ago
If we have plenty, (sex) we know that, , divorced from love, "sex is the biggest nothing in the world" - Andy Warhol
Hollywood practically has angels singing hosannas (worship) when movie stars have sex . It created a bogus religion.
Many adults in society have lost the capacity to love, and sex is a paltry substitute. Because of this confusion many obssese with pornography. Society suffers from arrested development manifested as adolecent preoccupation with bodily functions, genitals, porn.
matrxmax 1 year ago
What community standards should be used?
Cyber space's. Where the only thing that really seems to offend the internet are
Scat videos
animal cruelty videos (all ready illegal, or at least should be)
and self-mutilation (which isn't sexual)
As much as I dislike them I don't want to see scat vids banned but hey maybe the feds won't want to look for scat.
Or even better how about we let people set their own damn standards, instead of relying on the community.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
Well golly it looks like we have one of those "family values". "if we don't do everything my way civilization will collapse" nuts, with a dash of conspiracy theorist as well. I look forward to him not showing any proof for his doomsday scenarios/
FatherTime89 1 year ago
If sex is freely available, men have much less incentive to marry or be faithful. women were brainwashed to think they were being "exploited" by their family and should seek fulfillment in career and independence instead. the ruling elite used paid subversives like Betty Frieden, Gloria Steinem and the media to make it seem that Feminism was a spontaneous occurrence. tjhey effectively severed sex from marriage and procreation and exalted lust as the main source of fulfillment.
matrxmax 1 year ago
How is free sex subversive? A healthy society is concerned with its survival and the propagation of it's values. this requires that new generations born and raised in a healthy manner, i.e. in a nuclear family. in a healthy society, women are honored for nurturing and educating the young, thus the establishment set out to disparage and undermine women's role as wives and mothers. they extolled "sexual liberation because promiscuous women are less dedicated to family.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax You can raise a child without being in a nuclear family just fine. People should not be forced or guilt tripped into accepting those stupid gender roles.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
Throughout modern history, the ruling elite have used social engineers to sexually liberate and subvert society. They realized that they couldn't take control until they destroyed the family. This was a central plank of the Communist Manifesto in 1848. The ruling elite and their tax exemt philonthropies used social engineers encouraged sexual dissipation using their "progressive" fronts; liberalism, femenism, socialism, and communism - left wing movements always promised of "free" sex
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax Enough with your conspiracy theories. No one is proposing to destroy the family just to give people more options, which is what freedom is all about. You who want to force people into nuclear families and "traditional values" for the sake of society you are the true tyrant. Also sacrificing individuals for the sake of society sounds a lot more like communism than free love.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 According to the Marqui de Sade and St. Augustin two polar opposites, both agreed that freedom is a function of his moral state. In other words "sexual liberation" is a form of political control, that is what you don't understand. Our founding fathers understood this principle very well. John Adams said: " Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, It's.. inadequate to the government of any other."
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax You have it backwards, sexual repression is a form of political control. Go read 1984 sometime.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Your passions determine how you live your life, and shapes your character. Sexual liberation is the most subtle form of control because it manipulates passion. human passion is powerful and blinds you to the fact that you are being manipulated. Read: "Libido Dominandi: Sexual Freedom and Political Control" by Micheal E. Jones.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Go read the Communist Manifesto and see what it says about dissipating social cohesion and political control. Read the stated goals for Communism to be implemented in America read what it says about repression. You got it backwards.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax Go read 1984 read how they want people socially repressed so that they will be more likely to serve the party. I can play this dumb guilt by association crap all day.
FatherTime89 1 year ago 2
@FatherTime89 In 1984 control was through inflicting pain, i.e. 2+2=5, war is peace, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, this contradictions fit very well with porn equals freedom, homosexual is normal motif. In "Brave New World" control was through inflicting pleasure.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax Porn equals freedom runs opposite of one of the themes of the 1984 society. No matter how much you want to try to twist the facts, the 1984 society used sexual repression to keep people in line. This is obvious to ANYONE who's actually read the book (it's spelt out pretty bluntly). And yes restricting porn does restrict freedom.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 George Orwell's inspiration came form collectivist British Ideals of the power elite, thus George Wilhelm and Karl Marx codified the politics and mores espoused by the French revolution. communism has never being for the down and trodden, but for the ruling elite. So to destroy traditional mores of society, they set out to destroy child tutelage, hence reshaping the social order by destroying the traditional family.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax So Orwell was a socialist? Am I reading that right? He wrote Animal Farm an attack on the USSR and socialism.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 John Freeman (George Orwell) was a socialist fighting in the Spanish civil war, fighting on the side supported by the Soviet Union. He became desolutioned with the tyranny associated with socialism at the time.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Sex is the best form of political control and the most subtlest, because it masquerades behind your passions, and people identify with their passions as their own, and human passion is very powerful that it blinds you to the fact that you are being manipulated. Our founding fathers understood this very well; that they said that our form of government (Constitution) was for a religious and moral people, wholly inadequate for the government of any other. (for conscientious people)
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax When did they say that and how the hell does letting people have sexual freedom bind them? Are you telling us that freedom is slavery? Now where have I heard that before?
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@matrxmax Not all the founders were religious, and they explicitly wrote in that there would be no religious test for office anywhere in the US. So I want a source for that quote of yours.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 They understood religion contributed to a "civil society" therefore promoted religion but did not promote any particular religious denomination. What you fail to understand is that the founding father did not want an official denomination controlling government like it was in Europe run under the Papacy of Rome..
matrxmax 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 In 1984's Utopianism torture and fear was used to keep people in line, remember Winston 2+2=5 because the all powerful state said so.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax They used torture and sexual repression amongst other things (like say the 5 minutes of Hate).
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Five minute of hate directed at phantom enemies like we do Osama bin Laden the phantom menace.
matrxmax 1 year ago
Here's a thought: if you don't like it, don't buy it. Why is that so hard for people understand? What right do you have to go into someone's home, into their bedroom, and point a gun at their head if you don't like the media they're consuming?
If I was inclined to violence I'd like to pistol whip every fucker who watches crap like Americans Idle, but I respect their right to abuse their intellects even if I don't like it. Hell, I'll even tolerate you watching Jersey Shore.
Nphyx 1 year ago
@Nphyx No, I believe in freedom of conscious, people can have the prerogative to live as they wish and do as they wish, but as a matter of social policy it is wrong for higher education to teach the virtues of porn, what is so virtues about selfish lusfull primal passions it is wrong for children to be taught the virtues of homosexuality it is wrong plane and simple - so what is the next line to be crossed as normal - child-adult consenual sex?
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax who said anything about teaching children? You teach your children how you want to teach them. Personally I don't think sex and sexuality is wrong, it's a wonderful part of human life, and I won't teach my kid lies until he gets old enough to figure it out for himself. That has nothing to do with pedophilia, although it is typical of perverts (particularly of the neo-puritan repressive bent) to conflate the two. In any case it has nothing to do with regulating the behavior of adults.
Nphyx 1 year ago
@Nphyx Who says fire ( sex ) is bad? fire ( sex) it is wonderful part of human existence, fire; it cooks our food, keeps us warm and cozy in the cold, oh but outside it's place it becomes very destructive of everything in it's wake. So is sex.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax I haven't contradicted that statement at all. I just don't believe the approach of, "Son, fire is deadly, dangerous, nasty and awful and you should never look at it, think about it, or get anywhere near it, and anyone who uses fire is a sick person who should be shunned" is a great way to raise a kid who can responsibly cook himself dinner when he's old enough. But this issue is really about whether adults should be able to talk about "fire" with other adults, anyway.
Nphyx 1 year ago
@Nphyx You've missed the point. The analogy is - sex like fire serves it's useful purpose. In the case for sex, intimacy and reproduction within limits of committed heterosexual monogamy, but sex outside of it's place in the natural order of things, it becomes destructive of whole societies and people. Read the history of the Roman Empire and it's demise.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax If you can reduce the fall of the Roman Empire to "people were having sex in ways I don't approve of" you're missing way more than a simple point about pornography. This distorted view of history is a foul tree and it's clearly yielding poisonous fruits. Rome fell for a lot of reasons, but the worst was the abuse of power that comes with the notion that one group has a right to dictate behavior to another. Defend yourself and your property, that is all you have the right to do.
Nphyx 1 year ago
Will Storm Squirters 2 be concidered a cinematic masterpiece in 50 years? Maybe not ... Great.
wimscheers 1 year ago
Can't say I'm on board this time. I have my doubts that in a hundred years people will view Max Hardcore as a genius for his 'porn' films featuring "vomitting, violence, and unrination."
It's a tough call really.
dbutch1976 1 year ago
Milk Nymphos was a good video lol
WallyMammoth 1 year ago
Can somebody tell me why you have to be 18 to view porn?
ipodpwnszune 1 year ago
Huh? I've never heard of porno producers getting prosecuted before....is the government gonna start regulating how much we're allowed to beat off?
Joe77477 1 year ago
@Joe77477
Yes. From now on, if you beat off, you will be summarily castrated. For the good of the children.
WAMill3R 1 year ago
@WAMill3R well hopefully the feds will be decent enough to let me finish before they bust in and arrest me, lol
Joe77477 1 year ago
@Joe77477
No. They will literally bust your balls over it.
WAMill3R 1 year ago
I love when the state tries to ban anything, like somehow they can change demand. It makes me think of what would happen if they banned gravity.
reapfreak 1 year ago
(continued -- for the last time, finally!) Our first amendment rights should not be infringed in any way in my worldview, but should we really just blindly accept the idea that unrestrained liberty is really the best course for humanity? Even the most hardcore liberty advocates have to admit that there are some things that we should fight against -- like child pornography. Why? Because it harms people. Liberty is to be protected, but total, unchecked liberty is at least questionable, isn't it?
jmatt926 1 year ago
@jmatt926 I don't have "liberty" to produce child pornography for the same reason I don't have "liberty" to drive my car over pedestrians or commit any other type of violence against others. Your liberty stops when it starts infringing on other people's rights. By arguing against anarchy when the argument is about civil liberty you simply show that you don't understand the issue.
dragan221 1 year ago
@dragan221
Perhaps it's you who doesn't understand. I am not advocating anarchy by stating that a person should not blindly be FOR anything that allows our liberties to expand.
Consider the cost, instead of just accepting the premise that, if it creates more liberty, it is worth doing. This attitude is analogous to what some would call a Faustian Bargain; we need to be careful, not dismissive and fleeting, when accepting such an ideal, even if the end result is the same.
jmatt926 1 year ago
(continued) Obscenity as a legal issue is a complex one. However, so are many other issues -- that doesn't mean we abandon them. Obscenity rulings are responsible for keeping ridiculously filthy activities -- like "crush" videos (which by the way are now "free speech" )-- from corrupting our youth (who often have more access to it than even many adults do). Rapists and murderers were often found to have abused animals as children -- as a society, is this what we want to promote as normal?
jmatt926 1 year ago
@jmatt926
Well, gee, maybe if parents don't want their kids watching porno, they should pay some goddamn attention to their kids, rather than having the government categorically ban certain types of speech to prevent the possibility that their kids might see it.
WAMill3R 1 year ago
(continued) The first reason I'm shocked is that ReasonTV is paying back a favor to a donee. It's that easy to get them to advocate for an issue? Just give them money? Funny, kinda reminds me of Congress. Second, ReasonTV refers to a jury selected randomly from the US population as "12 strangers." Well, ReasonTV, those 12 "strangers" are pseudo-representatives of US citizens -- after all, that is one of the purposes of a jury in our courts. (continued in next comment)
jmatt926 1 year ago
I am a huge fan of ReasonTV and consider myself an independent/libertarian. I'm all for people doing what they want and how they want to do it. However, with an issue like pornography, the water is muddied. There is no debate to the fact that pornography has negative effects on those who participate in it and those who are addicted to it. It has its place, yes, but sometimes it can go too far. I was shocked to see ReasonTV make this video for 2 reasons: (continued in next comment)
jmatt926 1 year ago
@jmatt926 why would you be surprised that reason would say you should be free to choose what you want, even if it is provably bad (not that i think this even is?)
sickmint79 1 year ago
@jmatt926
" There is no debate to the fact that pornography has negative effects on those who participate in it and those who are addicted to it."
Uh yes there is and if you tried to substantiate those definitions of harm you would sound just as silly as some douche-bag who talks about the negative effects of alcohol, there might be some truth to it but its relative and contextual and not worthy of a totalizing judgment.
Vice81 1 year ago
This is what happens when most people in society condone the initiation of the use of force by a group of people who call themselves "government". This kind of thing will never go away as long as any type of government, no matter how small or limited, exists.
furyofbongos 1 year ago
YES! This should definitely be illegal but you don't hear me though.
4LOSTSOULSONLY 1 year ago
Certainly it is difficult to trace the effect of any single book, play or movie, on any one individual. But we all know that the ways in which we use our minds and imaginations do shape our character and helps define us as persons. if you deny this, it indicates how dogmatic resistance to the idea of censorship can result in mindless insistence on the absurd.
matrxmax 1 year ago
Two simple questions.
1) Was "It" consensual ?
2) Did they comprehend what they were consenting too ?
If the answer is 'YES' to both I see no aggression, so I see no problem.
CyrusFarrelli 1 year ago
I find politicians obscene. How come nobody's carting them off to prison?
lordthawkeye 1 year ago 23
@lordthawkeye I keep wondering that myself. Seems to me that if there's any real flaw in the Constitution, its that there's no provision for arresting elected officials or bureaucrats who violate it. And I thought it was the Supreme Law of the Land.
ThePenWolf 1 year ago
@lordthawkeye great comment!
olga2415 1 year ago
Porn MMMMMMMM! me likey porn.
jsh78mang 1 year ago
4:17
"Like me, you may have never purchased a porn DVD in your life..."
I know, right? Why purchase porn when you can find it online free of charge?
ilieklolcatz 1 year ago
Anyone else agree that as a general rule of thumb if it's legal to do it it should also be legal to make video tapes of it?
FatherTime89 1 year ago
@FatherTime89 Thank you, and yes I agree.
renegade2142 1 year ago
This is absolute insanity. Porn is there for people who like it, and there's quite a variety I assure you. This shouldn't be a case even in the lowest court.
MagnusIan 1 year ago
Many of you here are empty lost souls, but yet, there is hope for you still, if you want it, you could be made whole again, ask me how.
Ahhh, there is nothing more that we resent than someone passing judgement on us, because we resent being accountable for our behaviour to a higher power. (God)
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax I resent someone passing judgment on me because that is not their role. The role of judge and jury is God, and only God. It is very hypocritical to call yourself a christian then openly taking on the role of the lord. That is blasphemy, sir. How can you expect people to follow God's word when you can't follow it yourself?
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@Mauhadeeb28 Even you, just passed judgement on me, you see we all have a value system - a world view by which we all make and pass judgement on others based on our values whether secular or religious. My whole point is people really get ticked off by the ideas I present here, never do I call any body with profanities or names like some do to me here. If they want to discard my ideas that is just fine with me, it won't hurt my feelings.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax I did not pass judgment. I merely pointed out the hypocrisy of a statement. That is not a judgment. That is a fact. You passed judgment by stating "many of you here have empty lost souls..." That presumes that their are people here who are "empty lost souls". That is judging the being of an individual human. I did not judge you as a person, I judged the statement that was made and pointed out its hypocrisy. I did not judge. I said the statement was hypocritical.
Mauhadeeb28 1 year ago
@matrxmax
You're free to pimp around for your cult. I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you from your proselytism, just keep it away from my face. Is it so hard for you to reciprocate or do you wish to reserve for yourself the right to promote obscenities?
Cafeeine 1 year ago
@matrxmax The problem here is that you are suffering from the god delusion. God is a construct of the deluded, retarded mind.
teto85 1 year ago
Reason you should do something similar for profanity on television.
It's a sad sad day when Jon Stewart can't legally tell terrorist sympathizers to go fuck themselves on TV.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
Even if you don't like porn you should still hate these laws because they waste the time of law enforcement prosecuting people that commit no real crime and the concept of criminalizing videos of legal acts is completely stupid.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
There's no good reason to want to ban these movies, period. Our government truly needs to drop these disgusting revolting obscenity laws.
FatherTime89 1 year ago
I don't get what this guy even did. Didn't Larry Flynt already fight this fight 20 years ago?
sdfkjllshadflhadfshl 1 year ago
This is ridiculous. Obscenity is as stupid a reason to harass someone as self-destructiveness. Leave the guy alone already! It's not like he was working with an NEA grant or taxpayer money & he wasn't harassing anyone. Seriously, doesn't the government have anything better to do with our money...like, maybe, QUIT SPENDING IT ON STUPID C**P!!!!!
Slveryder 1 year ago
@Slveryder You probably have not seen what this guy does to women, it is extremely harmful to the social syche and to the women being brutally abused beyond the pale, just for her next fix. If you see what this guy does and why he was convicted to serve 32 years behind bars, you probably will not be saying this.
matrxmax 1 year ago
32 years does not matter. John is HIV positive and will be dead before that time is up. The porn industry is getting more and more "cutting edge" in an effort to increase its sales amongst the younger generation. And more and more niche oriented. Porn is free on the 'net and industry's profits have been falling steeply and steadily for some time. These items are symptomatic both of the industry's decline and specialization. Like cable TV there's something there for everyone.
teto85 1 year ago
@teto85 That said, I enjoy some of John's work in front of and behind the camera. The government should get out of the censorship business unless it's patently illegal, snuff and underage, etc. But if everyone is a consenting adult is should be nobody's business and if you don't like it then don't buy, rent, or download it. If you do, then enjoy it.
teto85 1 year ago
@teto85 You know what this guy does is not a run of the mill porn, it is brutal, disgusting, I would find no difference of what this guys does and snuff films and most of this women are doing it for their next fix.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax
So, start a rehab clinic for the women and get them clean. Then they won't have a need for this kind of work. Oh, you'd have to train them for their new careers as well. John's work is of a different genre. He was selling these films, not engaged in making them. Squirting and milk don't seem to be brutal. From other posts it would seem that you need help getting the beam out of your eye. Go back to your street corner and preach there.
teto85 1 year ago
...to keep him there inside her when his crisis was over... You should get into the porn audio book business :) i lol'd
andristic 1 year ago
Rob Black, lizzy Borden and max hardcore brought it on themselves. They went out and actively tried to push the boundaries. Those two films that stagliano is being targeted for weren't even directed by him. He's simply the distributor
buckiemohawk 1 year ago
Good stuff. Tell your government to mind it's own business.
LordNapalm 1 year ago
It's not covered by the 1st Amendment because it's so subjective. I don't care for pornography, and I don't feel that it's "art". Nonetheless, as long as those involved whether they be producers, actors, sellers or consumers are CONSENTING and of the acceptable ADULT age, I'm not going to support any law that prosecutes it.
FrankieFrankenmeiste 1 year ago
While I am not a fan of John Stagliano's work, laws which can be manipulated in this way are dangerous. We already have a push in California to ban toys with Happy Meals and before that there was New York's push to ban salt in foods, so who is to stay how far these liberal nanny state types are willing to go. Either way, it reeks and it must be stopped.
cflancop 1 year ago
Which movie with the boy pictured with the drum at 3:16?
volumedealer1 1 year ago
The Government better not take away my HENTAI!
Apptendo 1 year ago
What is really "obscene" is the totally frivolous lawsuit!
herne 1 year ago
As usual as of late, somewhat dishonest, politically skewed. Anyone whos ever watched max hardcore knows that his "boundry stretching expression" is finding 18 year olds with underdeveloped bodies, dressing them up as 8 year olds, and making them cry for the camera. So yeah Nick, you are in a sense defending child pornogaphy, or at least the next best thing for a pedofile.
Vlaxitov 1 year ago
There's definitely hypocrisy in this. I mean, who doesn't watch porn?
sniper6081 1 year ago
Hmmmmm, Lexi Love is one of my favorite stars, ha ha ha.
But in all seriousness, the Federal government has no business deciding what is obscene or not, and our tax dollars should not be wasted prosecuting people who didn't do anything wrong.
Elasaltaculos 1 year ago
Remember that idiotic "obscenity" SCOTUS decision where the court said "We can't define obscenity, but we know it when we see it" or some shit? What a crock. If you can't define what is or isn't obscene, how the hell can you prosecute people for it??
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 That SCOTUS definition of "obscenity" is way too collectivist, if you ask me. Libertarians should reject it. "Obscenity" is in the eye of the beholder, for christ sake. In fact, I like watching porn and do so regularly online. But I'm not a rapist or overly agressive or any of that stereotypical bullshit some commenter below me claimed.
Besides, LBJ and Meese's separate porn commissions BOTH found that the claims of anti-porn zealots were heavily exaggerated.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 "Porn addiction"? No fucking such thing. It's caused by an ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY in that individual. That person has so little self-control that they let porn take over their lives or psyches. Why the hell does everyone always scapegoat the OBJECT or thing rather than the person?? I'm so tired of people blaming drugs, illegal immigrants, porn and so many other "bad" things for our problems!!
Take some goddamn responsibility for your mess!
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 You may not like Max Blumenthal, but his book "Republican Gomorrah" is an excellent tale of religious zealot corruption and the fact that so many of them have so many problems in their personal lives and feel so powerless, which drives the need to control OTHER people's lives through moralist legislation gone wild. These people are control freaks!
Usually people whose lives are doing just fine and are under control don't feel the need to go around telling everyone els ewhat to do.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 Usually the people that are cited as 'porn addicts' or supposed rapists 'caused' by porn are actually a very TINY minority of all folks who watch porn. Marty Klein in his book "america's war on sex" estimates at least 50 million Americans regularly are into this kind of stuff, but 50 million Americans are definitely not porn addicts. I'd say it's perhaps twice that or perhaps 75 million. But the moralists and zealots have forced us into hiding for fear of being exposed as sinful.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 America needs a porn-lover's and non-conservative sexuality revolution, and by that, I mean, those who are into nontraditional sexual practices need to come out of the closet. People are who into violence and violent movies are well known. So why can't porn lovers be made known as well? Be proud of your preferences. As long as it's all consensual, who gives a shit.
Consensual standards for morality make perhaps the most sense and logic when determining right and wrong.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689 So many other types of morality have so many holes.
whoo689 1 year ago
@whoo689, I assume you are speaking from ignorance of the science.
Look up "The Impact of Internet Pornography on Marriage and the Family: A Review of the Research" published in the Official Journal of the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health.
I am a UC Davis undergraduate so I have access to some resources that the general public does not. If you can't get to the article yourself, PM me your e-mail and I'll send u a pdf attachment.
wood9670 1 year ago
Precisely, this is the moral relativism pathology that brings about school shooting, going postal, abject hopelessness, life devoid of all meaning and purpose that brings about most known social pathos.
If you believe no one has ever being corrupted by pornography, you have also to believe that no one was ever corrupted by a book, you have also to believe that no one was ever improved by a book.
matrxmax 1 year ago
@matrxmax What are the chances someone will be corrupted and turn into a bad person because of pornography or a book? VERY VERY SLIM. The odds are in favor of humanity. I'm not saying that nobody has ever been corrupted, but not near enough people have been corrupted to the point of banning pornography or books.
If eating chocolate will raise your chances of getting cancer by .005%, should chocolate be banned? Same with corruption. If .0001 people are corrupted by porn, it's not a thread.
NoNameC68 1 year ago
@NoNameC68 What do you think drives the homosexual rights (wrongs) movement? Just take a look at the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco and the homosexual sex, fetish displays in public taking place in plain view, should we embrace and celebrate this as normal expression of their sexuality?
matrxmax 1 year ago
What are you trying to say? That pornography causes homosexuality? Nah, I doubt it.
Are you telling me that sex drives homosexual rights? Considering it's not illegal for men to have sex with each other, that