In my riposte to GFR's advocacy of banning 18, 19, and 20 year-olds from participating in pornography, I wrote: "On the other hand, criminalizing participation in such activity would dramatically raise the stakes involved from mild embarrassment to actual legal penalties." Garance responds that she does not "support legal penalties against teenage participants" and notes that she covered this back on May 4.
« Embedded Video Explains It All | Main | More Friedman Units to Come »
More Porn-Blogging
09 May 2007 09:09 am
Comments (49)
I'm not sure I understand the appeal of viewing teenagers engaged in pornography. However, I suppose a good case could be made actually participating in such fare would be mildly titillating..........
I defended a 17 year old charged with videotaping himself and his 16 year old girlfriend having sex. Under the law, both of them are child pornographers, subject to horrifying prison terms, even though they didn't intentionally share the video with anyone. Fortunately, I was able to get my client probation, but that is more a matter of the prosecutor and judge being unusually sensible than any legal defense.
Atrios has some links to public accounts of similar cases.
I have a lot of respect for GFR, but in this instance, she seems oblivious to reality.
"Fortunately, I was able to get my client probation"
Is he on a sex offender registry for life?
How many of the politicians, lawyers, judges and prosecutors playing a part in making, executing and enforcing pornography laws patronize prostitutes on occasion? Prostitutes that did NOT get into the business yesterday, but more than likely in their teens. The DC Madame has boxes full of contact info on Beltway johns. Of course Larry Flynt is ever so much more the cad than these men. His crime is being up front and honest about his business. Better to conduct your affairs in the dark and employ lawyers to fight exposure when threatened........
Jail time for anyone shouldn't be involved. Didn't ESPN just recently do a story about some high schooler getting fucked by statutory rape laws in (surprise!) Alabama? It seems probable that such power would be abused by people over time. People react strangely to the erotic. For gawd's sake, someone covered the breasts of a statue at Justice.
I eagerly await Garance's advocacy for child actors. Unlike 20 year old porn actors, child film and TV actors can't give legal consent to have their zone of privacy destroyed.
And given the personal problems have historically plagued child actors, I look forward to Garance picking up the beat. If she won't watch out for Dakota Fanning, who will?
Is he on a sex offender registry for life?
He won't technically be convicted unless he violates probation, so not at this point . . .
But again, note that he was lucky enough to find a prosecutor and judge with a sense of mercy--a rare occurence for someone not a white collar criminal . . .
TTIUWP
Jail time for anyone shouldn't be involved. Didn't ESPN just recently do a story about some high schooler getting fucked by statutory rape laws in (surprise!) Alabama?
Actually it was Georgia, but yeah, this kid doesn't deserve to go to prison over something like this.
Even under GFR's clarifications, a woman of 21 who makes a video with her 20-year-old boyfriend would still face legal penalties.
GFR knows what's better for you and your kids than you do. That's why her column fit so well in with the other nannyists who write for the WSJ.
Didn't ESPN just recently do a story about some high schooler getting fucked by statutory rape laws in (surprise!) Alabama?
Georgia, but close. Marcus Dixon was convicted of felony child mloestation instead of misdeanor statuary rape after defending a rape charge (and has since won his appeal). Granted, the case wasn't lacking for the negative (group of athletes, drugs, booze, underage girl, etc.).
Sex offender laws are becoming the new tax cuts for politicans. No candidate for office wants to get caught being leniant with rapists and sexual predators. Unfortunately, while it's easy to demonize the obviously guilty (e.g., Dahmer) and run of the mill pedophiles, many otherwise innocent people will have their lives ruined by draconian laws. And add in those who are wrongly convicted or even charged, and there's a lot wrong with running for election by being tough on sex offenders.
"Even under GFR's clarifications, a woman of 21 who makes a video with her 20-year-old boyfriend would still face legal penalties."
Silly, silly digamma! Everyone knows that men are *always* oppressing victimizers and women *always* innocent doe-eyed naifs. That is why our wise Islamic brothers keep their women covered from head to toe, even after they're 21. In fact, well after.
"That is why our wise Islamic brothers keep their women covered from head to toe, even after they're 21."
It does create a Zone of Privacy...
We might be able to come up with a Solomonic solution here if we just keep American women chadored from age 18 to 21.
Can everyone get off their high horses?
Ye, Garance's idea is a bad one. Very bad. Bad, bad, bad. OK, we all agree.
But, it is kind of an issue that there's this huge unregulated soft-porn industry that makes money off young women for minimal or no compensation, and in settings where informed consent is pretty unlikely. Wanting to do something about this does not make you a fundamentalist or totalitarian or patronizing toward women or anti-sex.
Typical. Now liberals want to regulate the height of our horses.
I don't particularly understand it. 21 doesn't really make much sense as an age limit. The ggw stuff is pretty skeezy, but no matter how drunk these women are, I think it would be hard to make the case that they don't know what they are getting into. (The rape allegations are, of course, a completely separate issue.)I don't know that legislation is an appropiate vehicle to keep people with no sense and alchohol problems from doing stupid things.
Pornographers can't win this battle. The system is rigged even when they try to legally give viewers what they want. You can get arrested if you produce a movie with very young looking actresses who in fact are of age. Presenting them as under age when in real life they are not is a punishable crime. Should it be a crime to tell viewers a girl is 15 when she's really 22? If so aren't you criminalizing the desire for her, not the pornographers exploitation? Can you criminalize desire? Thievery is fetishized in countless movies. It's illegal. Portraying it isn't. What's the difference? Parents of minors might say there's a huge difference. Jewelry store owners might beg to differ.
there's this huge unregulated soft-porn industry that makes money off young women for minimal or no compensation, and in settings where informed consent is pretty unlikely.
The solution is not some radical alteration in the law--all that is needed is for a couple of the women in these videos to sue, claiming that they were too drunk to give valid consent, and that their condition was apparent to the person making the video. A few multimillion dollar verdicts = problem solved! :)
"The solution is not some radical alteration in the law--all that is needed is for a couple of the women in these videos to sue, claiming that they were too drunk to give valid consent, and that their condition was apparent to the person making the video. A few multimillion dollar verdicts = problem solved! :)"
Of course, with a few alterations in the details, this has already happened!
Joe Francis is already in jail!
"Should it be a crime to tell viewers a girl is 15 when she's really 22? "
How bout a virtual re-creation where no humans are involved? A cg of underage sex? What then?
Joe Francis is already in jail!
Very true. It actually happened some time ago. But unfortunately his company is still in operation, his vids are readily available (they actually have never been more popular) and the company is doing very well. It is a black eye for "The Industry" as is the creep who goes by the name of "Max Hardcore". I avoid bringing into my store GGW and Max Hardcore videos on general principles and nobody seems to miss them. There are a ton of other companies for me (and other stores) to carry. I prefer to sleep sound at night...
How bout a virtual re-creation where no humans are involved? A cg of underage sex? What then?
Japanese Anime? Well it is legal but that stuff is cartoons so if no actual child is being harmed I think it is legit.
Now there is a whole new field of 3-D animation being developed. Which is much more realistic and therefore problematic. Animation and fictional literature is not covered by age of consent laws as of right now...
"It is a black eye for "The Industry" as is the creep who goes by the name of "Max Hardcore"
I think Francis and Little are two very different kinds of cases.
Francis abused his talent, which makes him scum in my book.
Little produces a very extreme product, but seems to have decent working conditions for his talent.
Or to put it another way, Francis's crime is a crime against people. Little's crime is a crime against imagination, which isn't really a crime at all.
That said, if I owned a porn store, I'd be wary of carrying Little's product too - not out of moral concerns, but out of concern for runaway prosecutions.
"But, it is kind of an issue that there's this huge unregulated soft-porn industry that makes money off young women for minimal or no compensation, and in settings where informed consent is pretty unlikely."
Looking at the "Girls Gone Wild" site, I don't see anything that looks non-informed-consentual. (Although I'm not really familiar with the whole GGW phenomenon. Sensitive aesthete that I am, it takes a far more refined fuel to rev my engine.)
If I had to propose a policy that might reduce this sort of thing, it would be the establishment of some kind of living wage. I can well remember being nineteen, with no real prospects and working one crappy minimum-wage job after another, and just barely getting by. I can honestly say that I would've leapt at *any* legal (or quasi-legal) job that offered a way out of that-- and I doubt my situation was unique.
Well, all I can say, is thank heavens there are millions of irresponsible kids out there doing illegal things that are part of growing up, mistakes and all.
I suppose some day the liberal utopia will be established, and the unendurable blandness of never having anything really good happen will be balanced by never really having anything bad happen.
I won't feel bad if I don't live to see that day.
I think Francis and Little are two very different kinds of cases.
Francis abused his talent, which makes him scum in my book.
Little produces a very extreme product, but seems to have decent working conditions for his talent.
Or to put it another way, Francis's crime is a crime against people. Little's crime is a crime against imagination, which isn't really a crime at all.
That said, if I owned a porn store, I'd be wary of carrying Little's product too - not out of moral concerns, but out of concern for runaway prosecutions.
I agree Petey they are different cases. Francis is a dirt bag and he is paying the price for filming underage girls and I believe there were rape charges. But Max has got into some trouble about 8-10 years ago by having one of his 18-21 year-old performers, who was dressed up to look very young, to say on camera she was only 14 years-old. And 90% of the time refers to his femlae performers on camera as "little girl".
I am fortunate I am in a VERY blue northeastern state which allows me to carry even the most hardcore Euro porn there is if I want to...short of beastality. But your point about potential prosecutions is taken because not everyone is afforded the luxury to operate their porn stores in one of the bluest of states. In my case my choice not to carry Max Hardcore is a personal decision more than a business one...
(Reposted to correct formatting error...take #2 *rolls eyes*)
I think Francis and Little are two very different kinds of cases.
Francis abused his talent, which makes him scum in my book.
Little produces a very extreme product, but seems to have decent working conditions for his talent.
Or to put it another way, Francis's crime is a crime against people. Little's crime is a crime against imagination, which isn't really a crime at all.
That said, if I owned a porn store, I'd be wary of carrying Little's product too - not out of moral concerns, but out of concern for runaway prosecutions.
I agree Petey they are different cases. Francis is a dirt bag and he is paying the price for filming underage girls and I believe there were rape charges. But Max has got into some trouble about 8-10 years ago by having one of his 18-21 year-old performers, who was dressed up to look very young, to say on camera she was only 14 years-old. And 90% of the time refers to his female performers on camera as "little girl".
I am fortunate I am in a VERY blue northeastern state which allows me to carry even the most hardcore Euro porn there is if I want to...short of beastality. But your point about potential prosecutions is taken because not everyone is afforded the luxury to operate their porn stores in one of the bluest of states. In my case my choice not to carry Max Hardcore is a personal decision more than a business one...
"But Max has got into some trouble about 8-10 years ago by having one of his 18-21 year-old performers, who was dressed up to look very young, to say on camera she was only 14 years-old. And 90% of the time refers to his femlae performers on camera as "little girl".
Sure. Like I said, a crime against imagination.
I'm not trying to tell you to carry his stuff if you don't want to. It is extreme. But I always find the distinction folks make between porn and non-porn fiction film to be pretty bizarre.
You can have a murder and rape of an 8 year old actor in a non-porn fiction film, and no one has a problem with it. But once you enter pornland, an actor above the age of consent acting young becomes a moral catastrophe.
Why is it acting in one case, and a seeming documentary in the other case?
Lots of dumb ideas in this conversation. The solution to this "problem" is to not worry about it. There are much better things to worry about then whether stupid girls are doing stupid things that are titillating stupid guys, and that some jackass is making money off of it. BFD.
Facts of life that will never change:
- There are lots of stupid people that will do stupid things.
- People get titillated.
- People will find every possible way to make money.
Sorry, that's the way life is, deal with it.
Porn Store Owner Dude, regarding your comment about anime ("Japanese Anime? Well it is legal but that stuff is cartoons so if no actual child is being harmed I think it is legit."): it *may be* legit, but it's still probably worthwhile to be careful about that too. You never know what a prosecutor with an agenda might get up to. In other words, one who is looking for an excuse. I've noted that J-List has this warning / advisement on their site for the dating SIM games and anime / manga:
"Please note that J-List never sells items featuring characters that are or appear to be under the age of 18. It is the intent of the J-List as well as the original publishers and artists that all artwork in all dating-sim games we sell represent adult characters, aged 18 or older, with no exceptions."
You can have a murder and rape of an 8 year old actor in a non-porn fiction film, and no one has a problem with it. But once you enter pornland, an actor above the age of consent acting young becomes a moral catastrophe.
In porn, the idea is 'let's beat off to this'. I'm guessing that in the non-porn film, the murder and rape is going to be as a horrible tragedy that some heroic character is going to avenge, or something like that.
It's far more objectionable to eroticize evil than it is to present evil as evil.
"I'm guessing that in the non-porn film, the murder and rape is going to be as a horrible tragedy that some heroic character is going to avenge"
Well, prior to 1967, you'd have been correct.
Rule #1 of the Hays Code was:
No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.
But since the breakdown of the Hays code, plenty of fiction films put you in the position of identifying with evil or sin.
And while there is sometimes an outcry over such films, no one talks about criminalization of them.
But in porn, both live action and animated films that involve no crime in their production, only a crime in their storylines, have been prosecuted many times over.
"It's far more objectionable to eroticize evil than it is to present evil as evil."
I perfectly understand the logic here. What I find weird is that eroticizing evil is unquestionably legal in non-porn, but quasi-illegal in porn.
It's as if viewers understand that non-porn is fiction, while somehow thinking all porn is a "documentary", and that crimes that occur in the porn storyline are somehow real and must be prosecuted, even when that porn "documentary" is animated.
You never know what a prosecutor with an agenda might get up to.
Again I don't necessarily disagree. In any given jurisdiction any given prosecutor could file charges.
But for me the "canary in the coal mine" are the adult wholesalers. If they carry it, it is probably pretty safe in a legal sense. The reason being that the wholesalers have to ship product over state lines...so there is interstate transport aspect which would potentially involve the feds. The feds are the ones who give The Industry the most trouble. In fact, if I remember correctly from the USA firing investigation, wasn't one of the "priorities" that DoJ gave Carol Lam was to be aggressive with "obscenity prosecutions"? And despite the fact that the feds are the most aggressive with obscenity prosecutions, the wholesalers still carry the anime vids...and they are the ones who probably know best what they can and can't carry since they diligently monitor federal laws about erotica. They are at the most risk and with the most to lose.
Why is it acting in one case, and a seeming documentary in the other case?
I don't have any problems with the restrictions about age (real or portrayed) that are placed on the adult video industry, Petey. I find them all very appropriate...even in a "fantasy context", where even if the performer is over the age of 18, he/she can't portray someone under the age of consent.
Now as far as the non-porn portrayals go...I guess the question, is in allowing those depictions is it a double standard or not? I guess that would depend on the message or theme of the movie. I could imagine it being appropriate at times but can just as easily see it being exploitative too. But in a porn setting it is only about the exploitation, so I see that as the big difference.
Do you have any examples of non-porn fictional films that deal with that subject, to give me an idea of your frame of reference on the subject?
"Do you have any examples of non-porn fictional films that deal with that subject, to give me an idea of your frame of reference on the subject?"
Well, to reach back into the classics, there is something like A Clockwork Orange where you are identifying with various rapes and assaults.
If there are too many redeeming messages in that film to suit things, a few more recent films would be Catherine Breillat's Fat Girl, which featured multiple soft-core scenes of underage sex, or the recent unpleasant AmerIndie Pretty Persuasion which was a black comedy featuring lots of cynical underage sex.
Even more to the point is something like Michael Haneke's brilliant Funny Games, which consists entirely of a couple of sadistic killers toying with a family, while the audience is invited to completely identify with the sadistic killers.
Nobody in America thinks seriously about criminalizing movies like these. (FWIW, Fat Girl was banned in Canada and A Clockwork Orange was banned in Britain.) But if these movies showed penetration, with adult actors playing the roles, no one would risk distributing them in America, and if someone did try, prosecutors would be lining up to bring charges.
-----
"I don't have any problems with the restrictions about age (real or portrayed) that are placed on the adult video industry"
Also worth noting is that these "restrictions" don't exist legally.
The Supreme Court a few years back said that a completely animated version of children involved in sex could not be outlawed since no children were harmed in the making of the film. The Court got the "crime against imagination" distinction I was trying to make above.
And while obscenity charges have been brought against Max Hardcore multiple times, no one has ever been able to win a conviction, including for the film where a 19 year old actress was playing a 14 year old character.
But even though the restrictions don't exist legally, the risk of runaway prosecutions is so high with this type of material that de facto restrictions and codes have appeared to protect distributors and manufacturers.
In Washington when I managed a video store there was a series called "Cherry Poppers" which had the women dressing as little girls.
Very popular with the old pervs. They were outlawed which I thought was a good thing.
It is now illegal to dress like a child in pornography.
When ever some old fuck came in the store and asked for underage porn I would tell him he had 30 seconds to get the fuck out or get his ass beaten and have the cops called after I was done kicking the shit out of him.
Are there statutory defintions of what children wear? A lot of college aged girls like to wear berrettes, does that qualify? So plaid "catholic school girl" skirts are now illegal if you are going to video tape it? Underoos have been reissued in the same styles, but in mens sizes, would that be impermissible?
http://www.brandchannel.com/features_profile.asp?pr_id=32
I have to agree here with the idea that prosecutors should use their discretion. They have it for a reason.
In response to Petey's last post (it is too extensive to quote at length)...
Petey...
The only film you site that I am familiar with is "A Clockwork Orange". The rape scene in that movie was brutal. I think Kubrick used that scene to immediately give the viewer insight into the depth of Droog's depravity. While disturbing, I find that scene appropriate. Some of the other films you cite I am not all that familiar with but they look like they are legitimate examples. After some thought the ones that jump to mind for me are David Cronenberg's film "Shivers" that briefly touches on underage sex in a science fiction/horror kind of way (a woman and child, along with most of the other characters in the movie, are "taken over" by some kind of lifeform which control their actions...a la "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers"). Much of Cronenberg's work has a psycho-sexual theme to it though. Then there was "Buffalo 66" where Vincent Gallo's character becomes romantically involved with a 16 year-old girl played by Christina Ricci. But your point is again taken...while these films are considered controversial, and banned in some places, it never result in obscenity prosections.
In regards to part 2 of your post I think you are completely accurate in what the law is on fictional anime and literature. And The Industry has self censored themselves also for fear of obscenity prosecutions. During Reagen's 2nd term AG Meese started going after the adult industry by using RICO. Which resulted in "guilty" parties, being found guilty of having as few as 3 "obscene" videos, having to forfeit over $10,000,000 of business and personal holdings. And even though the SCOTUS put an end to the practice of using RICO forfeitures in the Alexander ruling the industry still went the route of self-censorship. For example, one of most famous porn movies is "Taboo". In the movie a mother (Kay Parker) ends up sleeping with her son (Mike Ranger). The popularity of the film led to numerous sequels. But in the 80's The Industry stopped producing "incest themed" movies for fear of being prosecuted after child advocacy groups expressed outrage that movies like "Taboo" encourage child sexual abuse, but continued to allow "Taboo" to be available to the stores . Ironically "Taboo" is still VERY popular today even if the industry doesn't produce any new films dealing with that subject matter. I think they would like to from a business point of view seeing how popular the "Taboo" series still remains...but they have been forced to censor themselves. Sadly the government's actions, at the behest by some on the feminist left (i.e. Katherine McKinnon and the late Andrea Dworkin) and the religious right, have resulted in "indirect but real" censorship being brought to bear on The Industry even when it comes to protected speech. I wonder if there would be one iota of outrage over non-porn film version of "Oedipus Rex" being made?
kbxpwqmre xptcwk clqnup prmfjucan qsjkwnre rthibjndf buamyr
Good site. Thank you!
http://low-price-airline-ticket.mainblog.info/low-price-airline-ticket.html Get low price airline ticket Here! All about low price airline ticket.
Very good site. Thank you:-)
http://dui-lawyers-san-diego-66010f1.lisyonok.org/ dui lawyers san diego
Comments closed May 23, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I'm curious if GFR has a position on Avril Lavigne videos.
The poor young flower was only 18 during the filming of the Complicated video, and I believe her zone of privacy was invaded.
How was she able to make the choice to become a figure of mass popularity at that age? Wouldn't we be better off if she had waited until she was 21, and was thus able to make proper decisions?
(And I think it's important to note that I don't support legal penalties against Avril herself. However, I'd throw the book at the other actors in her video.)
Posted by Petey | May 9, 2007 9:41 AM