It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Upcoming trial will see hours of hard-core fetish pornography

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

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)




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   
OK, let me be the first to say that I think this type of thing is disgusting. I couldn't stomach watching people do this type of thing. It's despicable and deplorable and a few other 'd' words.... but....

It's art. I don't like it, but if it is his artistic expression, and all parties involved are consenting adults, and all those who purchase his work are consenting adults, then who is the state to judge?

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



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
uh beastiality is not art, its a crime last time I checked. how does one actually get the consent from an adult animal?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by thegdfather
 


Very good point, and accepted. Bestiality is wrong and is abuse. I completely agree.

However, it could be considered art by some, and if it is considered art by some, then I too consider it art. However, it is still despicable and deplorable and all else.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
A lot of serial murders considered there hobby art, so you support murder?

I don't follow your logic, i'm sorry. A line has to be drawn to separate art and abuse. Bestiality and Murder are abuse.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Maybe bestiality and murder are abuse, but they can still be considered art. I never said I supported it. I said that if all parties involved are consenting adults, then why should the government be involved?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Maybe bestiality and murder are abuse, but they can still be considered art. I never said I supported it. I said that if all parties involved are consenting adults, then why should the government be involved?


Because it's illegal?

I'd hardily say "vulgar" is the right word for it, anyhow - i'd be more inclined to call it "sickening".

Whoever they get for the jury had better have stomachs of steel.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Maybe bestiality and murder are abuse, but they can still be considered art. I never said I supported it. I said that if all parties involved are consenting adults, then why should the government be involved?


Can you please explain your rationale in why you think abuse and murder could be considered ART???


Because as an artist, myself, I just dont follow this and certainly dont understand it.


As far as what 2 CONSENTING adults choose to do.....so be it. But wow, disgusting doesnt even begin to desribe this vile stuff.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Because it's illegal?


Yeah, but it's sort of a catch22 in that case. The government gets involved because it's illegal, but it's only illegal because the government got involved.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Sorry didn't mean to say you supported it, just the fact that you considered it art struck me as odd. But like I said before how do you get the consent from an animal for a human being to induce a sexual relationship with it? Thats why it's not art and it's wrong. If we were made to interbreed then we would have discovered it a while ago and it would be the "norm" by now. But we can't and there's no way to tell if the animal is consenting to the action therefore making it abuse. Does it make it ok just because the humans are ok with it? That means cows are ok with being slaughtered because we can't stop eating them.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I have a feeling that the ACLU will be keeping away from this case at about as far as humanly possible.

I'm all for freedom of speech and expression, but sometimes the laws are designed to protect people from their own stupidity.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


It depends on the intention of the artist.


The term art is used to describe a particular type of creative production generated by human beings, and the term usually implies some degree of aesthetic value. An artist makes a work of art for various purposes, such as creating an experience for others or as part of a ritual. ...

en.wikipedia.org...

It's as good a definition as any. Art can be disgusting, evil, hateful and destructive. I can hate it and the artist for their work. But, I can't say it's not art if it was the artist's intention to make it so.



[edit on 10-6-2008 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thegdfather
 


Agreed. Since the animals weren't able to consent, it's abuse and wrong. This person should be sent away cruelty to animals and abuse. Personally, I believe an individual can judge something to be obscene, but not for a governing body.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 


Good point.

I sincerely hope this won't have any reprecussions for internet users other than those who view such 'art' as you call it, because the implications are there.

~Not that i wouldn't be in favour of making the internet a better place in general...



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   
I don't see it going that far. This guy could easily be convicted of animal abuse and justifiably sent to prison. It wouldn't set any precedents because they're already set. However, if it goes further than animal abuse, I'll be a little upset. Not that I enjoy people pooping on each other, but that people who enjoy pooping on each other could no longer do it.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
The Scriptures say its wrong; i wouldnt DOUBT that. IDK how people get turned on by this sick stuff!! PEOPLE are ODD.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Rasobasi420
 





if it is considered art by some, then I too consider it art


Simple as that? What if some pedophile considered kiddie porn to be art, does that make it so?

CT



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
If they can see the beauty in it, then sure. It would still be disgusting horrendous..... (I feel like I've been through this before). And btw, I consider murder to be much more horrible than kiddy porn, but if one can find beauty in something and use it in that way (and note I say artistic beauty, not for the purposes of "self gratification"), then yeah, it's art.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
why yes kiddie porn can be considered and art
so can animal abuse
so can murder
just because you dont like it doesnt make it not art
I hate porn, I hate rap, i hate Charles Manson.....
but all of those can be considered art
if you consider someone expressing themselves by making a movie about some in-depth meaning to be art then you should consider porn to be art then you should consider beastiality to be art. its that simple



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   
And this is WHY I will NEVER support MY money be taken from me and going to pay for "Art".

Because some of these things are NOT art IMO


If anything harms another unwilling innocent person (murder, abuse, child pornography), it is not ART. Period.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join