Upcoming trial will see hours of hard-core fetish pornography

Upcoming trial will see hours of hard-core fetish pornography

www.latimes.com

Ira Isaacs says his films, which feature bestiality and defecation, have artistic value. Federal prosecutors say they are criminally obscene. Hours of footage will help jurors decide who's right.

If all goes according to plan, an otherwise stately federal courtroom in downtown Los Angeles will be converted into a makeshift movie theater this week, screening a series of graphic -- many would say vulgar -- sexual fetish videos.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This would be amusing jury duty to be asked to commit to....

I wonder if any of the jurors will be able to object to taking part in this trial.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by LostNemesis

The point, Isaacs said, "is do we really want to throw artists in jail in America?"

This is exactly why I don't care for modern art.

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by LostNemesis

 

The point, Isaacs said, "is do we really want to throw artists in jail in America?"

This is exactly why I don't care for modern art.

Not sure how anyone could think sexually abusing animals could be considered art.

Originally posted by riley

Originally posted by Scramjet76
reply to post by LostNemesis

 

The point, Isaacs said, "is do we really want to throw artists in jail in America?"

This is exactly why I don't care for modern art.

Not sure how anyone could think sexually abusing animals could be considered art.

Well art is in the eye of the beholder, but that does not mean its not right?

Just because someone thinks its like art, doesn't mean it's not wrong.

This is ridiculous. Art?

We have a current discussion in another thread about the "Max Hardcore" verdict. He was found guilty on 20 counts altogether I believe. But in his case, the state of California charged the guy with child molestation charges even though they knew beforehand the girl in the video in question was above the legal age of 18. That case was thrown out.. But the FBI later seized his company because of "research" according to the wikipedia article about him.

These guys are dirtbags though, and if they are found guilty by a jury they deserve to serve their time. Free speech is their only real defense. But this case is different in that the question is whether or not the free speech argument is possible because of whether or not the material is considered art. I guess that's for the jury to decide..But.. I mean you can consider murder art too but does that make it right?.. DUHH no.. That's not even a valid defense.. The guy sounds like a disgusting dirtbag like alot of people in the porn industry..

-ChriS

[edit on 9-6-2008 by BlasteR]

[edit on 9-6-2008 by BlasteR]

The last time I was on jury duty I had to look at slides of murder victims for hours and hours. I would prefer hardcore porn over dead bodies any day of the week. Although, I hear this guy is waay out there.... so maybe it wouldn't be all that enjoyable.

it's art guys. the art of sex is art. God created woman and man for that reason. This person videotapes people enjoying themselves and having fun. No one is getting harmed, the actors are over 18, I don't see the problem. Just because someone doesn't like it, don't ruin it for the guy that does. kinda a lame case based on nothing.

Originally posted by LostNemesis


I wonder if any of the jurors will be able to object to taking part in this trial.

I have been called a couple times to jury duty. Every time we were asked if we had a problem with________ whatever it was. So yes, I would think that if they have a problem with it, they can be excused.

Originally posted by jedimiller
it's art guys. the art of sex is art. God created woman and man for that reason. This person videotapes people enjoying themselves and having fun. No one is getting harmed, the actors are over 18, I don't see the problem.

yeah I know god created the animals to serve man n all but thats taking it to extremes don't ya think?

Jedi I suggest you go back and reread the OP..

[edit on 9-6-2008 by riley]

porn, if you don't like it, don't watch it. way too many people care way too much about what other people enjoy watching. if the guy was selling a thousand movies a month, someone out there wants to see his movies. if they can't get them from him, i'm 100% sure there are japanese or european sites perfectly happy to sell them to him. anybody with any familiarity with the internet knows this. they know they won't be able to stop people watching this kind of stuff.

the point of the court case is not to stop distribution of this type of material, the point of the court case is to say, "the government doesn't like people watching this type of material". personally, i wouldn't be too happy with any government telling me this. it's not their job.

I wonder what happens if any of the jurors actually get turned on by this sort of case?

Originally posted by pieman
porn, if you don't like it, don't watch it. way too many people care way too much about what other people enjoy watching. if the guy was selling a thousand movies a month, someone out there wants to see his movies.

Exactly what I meant. You get a star from me. See, people are getting too political now they are going to want to ban porn? I mean come on. people enjoy it, it's our animalistic nature to do so. Send a copy my way.