Is It 2008? Or 1808?

Occasionally, I visit the website of porn empire Evil Angel to get an idea of some (the porn universe is pretty massive after all) of the content directors are putting out there nowadays. I'm not necessarily a fan of their work as a whole, but I often scan over a host of porn sites in case something interesting catches my eye or I come across a particular girl I think is really hot.

Anyway, I didn't even get to the pages with their content because I noticed a banner on the main page that said "Defend Our Porn"

I click on the banner, and when I realize what was going on... I wanted to throw my computer against the wall.

I know when I talk about certain things, I always mention how fucking angry it makes me. My partner says one thing she really likes about me is how passionate (whether I'm excited or fucking pissed) I am about what I've chosen to do. Anyone who knows me though can tell you I'm a really laid back guy... but when I see that John 'Buttman' Stagliano has been indicted on 'obscenity' charges, I'm hard pressed to feel apathy about it.

Now, while I have two lawyers in family, read a couple books and have watched enough Law & Order to know a thing or two, law isn't exactly my cup of tea. So I'll give you the gist on this but supply the necessary links if you want to really get into it like I did.

Before we go to that, let's first go over the little bit I do know in regards to obscenity law.

According to Miller v. California, in order for material to be deemed legally obscene, a court must determine the following:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary and/or artistic, political, or scientific value.

Now, and this is very important to note... the Miller Test was written in 1973...

As in, long before we would have the pleasure of watching people fondle each other in hot tubs (i.e. Real World) or do whatever they deem necessary to win the affections of a quasi famous person (Tila Tequila, New York) or a celebrity passed their prime (Flavor of Love, Rock of Love).

In fact, part of me wonders just how much of what we see everyday on cable television would be considered 'obscene' by the 'community standards' of 1973.

A few days ago, I posted the findings of Google Trends about the Top Ten Cities Most Likely to Search for Obscene Material but I never go into the reason why they did this research. A defense lawyer in an obscenity trial in Florida wants to use the data to prove that 'community standards' may be a bit more varied than the morality police may believe it to be.

In short... subjectivity shouldn't be allowed to send a motherfucker to prison.

All right, I have an idea what you might be thinking... "Alex, isn't the entire legal process more or less based on subjectivity?"

And to some degree, you would be right to think that. I mean, in a murder case, the prosecution has to prove the act beyond a reasonable doubt to twelve people who probably don't even want to be there. Those twelve people hear everything they, along with the defense has to say and make a determination about the fate of the convicted. We have all seen this process go awry more than once...

However, with something like murder, extortion, fraud, rape, (you get the point) there's at least some sort of frame work to work with. The majority of society agrees that taking someone's life, someone's money or sexual consent is not right. All the prosecution has to do in this matter is prove whether or not the convicted actually did these things.

Obscenity though, is a matter of taste... and last I checked, the Constitution wasn't designed to control taste. Yeah, I know people like Don Imus, and Howard Stern have gotten in trouble a time or two with the FCC. Maybe, a website that promotes hatred gets shut down but no one goes to jail. Unless, it is proven that their speech (porn is protected under the First Amendment) was directly responsible to the harm of another person.

Apparently, as reported here the indictment is for films involving squirting, anal squirting and/or enemas. Does any of this sound like it would be directly harmful to another person?

I'll admit... squirting is pretty cool to look at, but I wouldn't spend my money (and by that I mean my time downloading) on any porn movie that specializes in the genre... double goes for anything involving anal. And I'm willing to bet that somewhere, someone who enjoys porn wouldn't give Ass Parade (site I enjoy) a second look.

Point being... some of us like looking at a girl's nice, big ass, others want to see milk shooting out of a girl's ass and we should all be able to seek out porn that will give us exactly what we're looking for... regardless of whether I (or someone else) isn't necessarily into it.

Lest we forget everyone... pornography is produced, filmed, performed, consumed and intended for consenting adults (more or less). Sure, I'm willing to concede that little Jimmy should probably keep his eyes away from it but if you are going to go there, he should probably keep his eyes away from half of the shit that comes on television.

But potential damage it may do to our children of America aside, no one should have the legal power to regulate our goddamn taste or tell us whatever perversion we decide to indulge in (or watch) is 'obscene' and as such punishable by fine or imprisonment.

This shouldn't even be a fucking discussion...

~ Alex Rose