Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I'm skeptical that framing the issue in this manner is an effective argument.
Watch "Taxi to the Dark Side" for the most effective argument I have ever witnessed. (IMDB lLink is available on my signature)
As you always do, you have made such a clear case for these hypocrites who are not patriots and who have left such a tragic legacy. They have trashed public decency and are the real criminals who should be locked up. We have to go after them even after they have left office including the clown criminal who ran the DOJ and I'm sure was ruling when the decision was made to go after this pornography producer.
Sadomasochism = bad. Torture = good.
Sick.
"This is clearly degrading, clearly humiliating and intended to be so," says the judge. Does this mean we can have bosses, spouses and teachers sent away for 4 years?
I'm skeptical that framing the issue in this manner is an effective argument.
Since I'm not an advertising executive or a producer of political commercials, I really don't care -- in general (with some exceptions) about the "framing" of arguments. I'm interested in whether arguments are true -- not whether they can be reduced to 10-second sound bites and featured on Chris Matthews.
Puritan: A person that is haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere, is enjoying himself.
- H.L. Mencken
The difference is that the person on the recieving end of the government sadists didn't enjoy it. ( & it's a bunch of terr-rists with funny-sounding names). With the films, as soon as somebody enjoyed it, it became immoral . ;)
It seems like the judge's focus on "humiliation" and "degradation" comes from Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin's theories.
A reminder that there are few friends for free speech.
Thanks Glenn for another fearless article. In case there are occasions when you doubt whether you are getting through to people and whether it is worth the effort, may I say that for me your work is indispensible. I live in Boulder, a part of the country in which many people have adopted the belief that taking a stand on any point of principle or ethic is coarse and spiritually immature. Keep at it Glenn. You speak for me.
Another fine example of the degree of cognitive disconnect which infects America's collective psyche. "Make believe sadism" is incredibly amoral, dangerous and obscene thus illegal, but "actual violence and sadistic conduct" is a necessary (though not necessarily moral or effective) tool in combating "teh ebyl" forces that seek to destroy America thus moral and legal. Break out the magical ponies for everyone in Bush's ethical bizarro world. Sounds like Scalia logic.
This guy is famous within the porn community for his use of coercion on reluctant "actors". He will hire a naive woman new to the business, one who has heard all the bullshit about how nice the industry is and how respectable it has become.
He then proceeds to impose whatever he wants on the "actors", counting on the fact that the police are not likely to take seriously a claim by an "actor" in a porn film to have been raped, or humiliated. The typical police response is that the "actor" knew what she was getting into.
Women have ended up badly traumatized, beaten physically, psychologically abused, and it has all happened in the name of free speech without the women involved being given any recourse except to run as far away from this animal as they can.
Even within the porn community this guy is loathed. The prosecution was moved to Florida because the authorities were unable to get a conviction in California. The industry knew he was eventually going to go down, and only hoped he wouldn't take everybody with him.
This is far from being a simple First Amendment case. Women have been scarred for life by this animal. Even those of us who are heavily oriented towards protecting the right of free expression need to take a closer look at this before jumping in with this sort of defense of Paul Little. Don't waste a lot of your sympathy on this guy. He beats and pisses in the mouths of naive 18 year old girls who, as I think most of us can agree, are not terribly sophisticated and able to protect their own rights.
Another great post. I remember something Bill Maher said a while ago. He knew our government wasn't serious about the "war on terror", because we still have the "war on drugs". Police resources are limited. It's a matter of priorities. It costs 30-40 thousand dollars a year to keep one prisoner locked up. So we are going to spend over 100,000 dollars, to keep this porn producer imprisoned. What a waste of our tax dollars.
This guy is famous within the porn community for his use of coercion on reluctant "actors". He will hire a naive woman new to the business, one who has heard all the bullshit about how nice the industry is and how respectable it has become.He then proceeds to impose whatever he wants on the "actors", counting on the fact that the police are not likely to take seriously a claim by an "actor" in a porn film to have been raped, or humiliated. The typical police response is that the "actor" knew what she was getting into.
Women have ended up badly traumatized, beaten physically, psychologically abused, and it has all happened in the name of free speech without the women involved being given any recourse except to run as far away from this animal as they can.
First of all, I'd like to see some links for these claims. Do you have any?
Secondly, if what you're describing were even remotely true, then he would be guilty of far more than obscenity -- what you're describing is assault, kidnapping and potentially even rape. It's easy for you to come and blurt things out like that, but given the DOJ's commitment to putting him in jail, I find it extremely unlikely that they would not have charged him with the crimes you claim he committed if he actually did.
From all the accounts I read, the federal prosecutors never even made any such claims as part of their sentencing arguments.
Third, this is only one of many, many examples of rising federal obscenity prosecutions for porn producers. You're trying to claim this is some sort of aberration, but it is part of a much larger trend for the reasons I documented.
This is far from being a simple First Amendment case. Women have been scarred for life by this animal. Even those of us who are heavily oriented towards protecting the right of free expression need to take a closer look at this before jumping in with this sort of defense of Paul Little. Don't waste a lot of your sympathy on this guy. He beats and pisses in the mouths of naive 18 year old girls who, as I think most of us can agree, are not terribly sophisticated and able to protect their own rights.
As always, we get to the heart of the matter -- adult women can't make good decisions for themselves and need to Sutungpo's of the world to interfere in their lives, using the force of law, to override their will and tell them what they really want for themselves.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
