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: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Urgh... you speak of the same 'art' that tyrannical dictators speak of when slaughtering civilians.

That is what happens when people use 'art' to excuse horrific crimes against humanity.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant
 


Maybe, but it doesn't make it any less artful to the dictators right? And if it's art to them, then it is art.(period)

In the cases of murder, rape and child pornography not all participants are willing, but then again, not all participants in this event were willing participants either.


Of course the big difference is that no one got hurt in that vid. But is it any less artful because the participants were unwilling?

In the cases where people are hurt, sometimes the artist's canvas is deplorable horrendous (starting to sound like a broken record) but it is still art by definition. Not everyone has to agree with it, but if it is seen as artful to some, then there it is.

Since art is subjective, as long as one person sees it as such, then it is art.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by Rasobasi420]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
As far as the beastiality and defication videos go, it can come down to the country that you are in.
In japan and china there is a larger comunity of people who are into the defication or "scat" videos and in some countrys as far as the beastialty is abuse argument goes, some countrys find it perfectly legal to skin and eat dogs for food and clothing so probably in those countrys sex with animals is seen as o.k.

I personally don't condone it, however as long as it is withing the laws of the constituent country then there is little you can do.
Saying that though this case is in America a country where it is illegal and prosecution can be brought for actions contrary to the laws of that particular country.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
We have yet to define art in relation to this discussion, but in my opinion what is art and what is not is very uninteresting, and in many situations totally irrelevant. Art can be many things... anything can be said to have artistic merit, and it does not have to be beautiful to be art. Sure, pictures of children in sexual situations will be considered art by some people, but so what? Those who produce it and enjoy that sort of thing is still responsible for it and will have to answer to the courts if what they are doing is illegal, or if the government thinks it may be illegal, or wants it to be illegal. A lot of art is distasteful, stupid, repulsive and just plain wrong in the eyes of the beholder. I think we have already established that art is a term we can use wherever it has a function. In this case "art" is used to render the fetishist pornography in question more harmless.

Well.. I can tell you that in my book, the label "art" does not change my opinion on anything. Your dumb video production or picture montages does not get any additional authority or merit just because it can be called art. So, there you go.. it's art... Art is not always legal, art is not always ethically or morally correct, and art is rarely relevant for constructive political, social or anthropological discussion.

Let's ignore the whole "art" issue and focus on what this actually is. It's pornography (according to some definitions of Pornography, a lot of the essence of pornography is that it has no artistic value, but I do not believe that definition to be useful in any situation... it's a cheap way of demonising pornography and alienating it.).

In my opinion, any sexual act between two willing adult participants is perfectly fine, and if they want to film this for the enjoyment of others, that is fine. I really don't care what they do to each other as long as they are both willingly participating. This excludes some things of course, like the theoretical possibility that some people may let themselves be murdered on video..etc. But I'm not about to go very deep into what pornography I find acceptable and not.

I feel what a lot of people are missing here though is the whole bestiality issue. Some are still talking about this pornography like no one is getting hurt, or that is it something performed between two or more willing adults. Do you people even know what bestiality means? It means human beings involved in sexual acts with non-human animals. Animals that can not give consent. There is a possibility that the animals may enjoy it, but that is irrelevant. It has to be considered animal abuse. It can still be considered art, but sentient beings are being abused, which should weight against this guy in the court of law. In some courts the Art thing will be more relevant than the animal abuse thing, which is sad, but I am only voicing my own opinion here.

To answer the original OP comment on the news article...


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?


I agree to the fact that it has artistic value, and if that is what the court is there to determine, my opinion is that they should accept that it is can be labeled art at any time. Then they can move on to the real issue here. All parties here are NOT consenting adults... some of the actors are non-human animals who are unable to give consent. That should in my opinion make his depraved art illegal, but that is of course up to the state to decide.

This case is about the obscenity of the pornography though. The focus will be on whether or not the a small group of representatives of the general public feels it may be criminally obscene. That is.. those who watch will decide if it is obscene enough to claim it is not a kind of pornography the general public would wish to consume.



[edit on 11-6-2008 by me_ofef_seraph]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by me_ofef_seraph
 


You're absolutely right ofef. Frankly, I was getting sick of repeating myself over and over again. When it comes to abuse, we need to identify it and protect the innocent. However, when it comes to consenting adults (humans with the mental capacity to make such decisions) and their personal practice, I say go for it. And, although it may seem extreme, I'd even go as far as to say incidences like the Rotenburg Cannibal might even be acceptable to me (depending on the mental state of the volunteer).

Art has no place in court. The subject of obscenity has no place in court in my opinion either since it is indeed so subjective. The only instance where I'd say it should be brought up in the courtroom is when it makes its way to the public eye (public nudity, sex and violence and whatnot.)



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
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.


Depends on who is on top


What if the person is being raped by the goat?






[edit on 12-6-2008 by mOOmOO]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by me_ofef_seraph
So, there you go.. it's art... Art is not always legal, art is not always ethically or morally correct, and art is rarely relevant for constructive political, social or anthropological discussion.
[edit on 11-6-2008 by me_ofef_seraph]


It's a shame this is true of the modern day interpretation of Art.

In the old world, it meant something much different - I do believe that Art was a method through which one was able to attain Glory, i mean; you don't have to look far, just head to your nearest city and you'll find examples of Gothic or Victorian Architecure and perhaps if you're lucky you'll find some Baroque peices which are truly stunning.

Even harking back to the days of the Romans, Such Magnificient structures were created, for no reason other than that it was appealing to the eye.

When was the last time you heard of someone cutting off their own ear so they could make Art from it?

The level of dedication that went into Art in the old days has not been seen in decades, perhaps even a century.

This is truly one of the things in the world to which i am at aghast at this horrible alteration in one of the basic things that make up our society and culture, and even more so because i am clueless as to how it happened...

I was never one for Art in school, probably because i recognised it for the sick, degenerate hobby that it's turned into.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

This is truly one of the things in the world to which i am at aghast at this horrible alteration in one of the basic things that make up our society and culture, and even more so because i am clueless as to how it happened...



I'll tell you how it happened. In past cultures one had to conform to the standard of society and not 'push the limits' for fear of death or worse. Most of the art that survives today from past was the stuff that wasn't destroyed as heretical or obscene.

However, it is commonly known that Greek and Roman theater included graphic mimicked sexual acts and course language. There are also countless terracotta figurines and vases that depict graphic sex acts. It wasn't about beauty then, it was about art and getting your rocks off.

:Interesting side note, the origins of the word 'obscene actually comes from the ancient Greek theater in which the 'skene' was the backdrop of the stage. When the cast left the stage they would stand behind the wall and 'behind the scenes'. Ob skene literally means out of view. So, obscenity really means occurring out of the public eye.:



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
I was never one for Art in school, probably because i recognised it for the sick, degenerate hobby that it's turned into.


And art to a true artist has never been a 'hobby'. Art is an expression of the self, and to those who dedicate their life to it, calling it a hobby would be degrading. However, it is a hobby of mine.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
art...craft...hobby...

they are all different, Art is something NEW...otherwise it's a CRAFT (a copy).

All the so called artists still painting with a brush and paint (etc. etc.) the work they produce is CRAFT work...simple.

If you maybe paint with something new then it would be a piece of art.

Not to say some crafts are artistic but unless it is something interestingly NEW and something realy makes you think (and possibly shocking) then it's a piece of ART.

Just my crafty thoughts' on ART



posted on Jun, 15 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Honestly, i just feel bad for the jurors...

They are going to be subjected to some of the most vile hardocre fetish porn in the world...

Going to be pretty bad for them... i wonder how the jury will be selected...



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Ugh...
I'm at a loss for words.
Abuse, murder, child pornography... art?



posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Here's a real "twist" in the story...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The judge in this trial was suspended after someone found that his own personal website...


...included a picture of two nude women on all fours painted to look like Holstein dairy cows, images of masturbation, a video of a man being pursued by a sexually aroused donkey and a slide show featuring a striptease with a transsexual.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


I know, isnt that just the funniest...

I mean, WTF!

They guy is supposed to be a judge over the obsecenity case, and on his Personal PC, on his open profile, for all the public to see he has:

Women nude painted as cows
Women deficating
A woman with step by step downstairs shaving
Transexual strip show
Beastiality!
AND MORE!!!

But, the judge doesnt consider the stuff on his pc to be indecent... no... it just art...

California has got to be the sickest place on the planet.

[edit on 6/17/2008 by TKainZero]



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKainZero

Women nude painted as cows
Women deficating
A woman with step by step downstairs shaving
Transexual strip show
Beastiality!
AND MORE!!!

But, the judge doesnt consider the stuff on his pc to be indecent... no... it just art...

California has got to be the sickest place on the planet.



The nude woman painted as a cow is actually a pretty funny picture. I haven't seen the women defecating (are you sure it's there?) the transexual stripshow is probably kinda funny too. At least educational with a bit of camp value with it.

And the bestiality is a picture of a shirtless farmer dancing with a farm animal who has an erection. Again, more funny than sick. These are just the random pictures that we all find on the internet and save for others to see. If he considered it to be porn he wouldn't have had it on his family's website.

Besides that, his son was the one who confessed to posting the pics as a joke. His dad just saw the humor in it, nothing more.

I think this is the perfect person to judge the trial. Someone without any religious moral code, and who can see past the overtness of an image and examine the hidden humor, or art.

In cases like these, the judge needs to be both judge, and art critic.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 



California has got to be the sickest place on the planet.


You forgot about the Germans. Ever see a hardcore German fetish flick?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
To be perfectly honest, I am not for censorhip at all. Not one bit. If you want to say it is illegal to do something, fine, go after the people that did the "crime," not the people who have it on tape.

I don't see anyone moving to ban videos of killing and murder. On a good news night you can watch it live from the dinner table with your whole family.



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420

I think this is the perfect person to judge the trial. Someone without any religious moral code



???

The judge shouldn't have any morals? Or just not religous morals????

Whats wroung with religious morals???

Im not a very religious person, and i can count the number of times ive been in a church on a single hand. But what is so wroung with religous morals? Ill take a look...

The Ten commandments, i think ive heard that phrase before, so lets look.


1. You shall have no other God

meh...

2. Have no worshipped idols or imagery

Thats a good one. No worshipped idols? If thats not a refrence not to embrace the celibrisluts of society i don't know what is.

3. Do not take the Lords name in vain

meh...

4. No person or animal shall work on the Sabbath, the Holy day.

Basicly that sets aside a day for a weekend...

5. Honour thy parents

There is something that is lost on youth...

6. Do not kill

Pretty basic, can't argue with that can you? I mean, it makes sense.

7. Do not commit adultery

That seems pretty basic too. A good rule... i mean... would you promote adultry?

8. Do not steal

Again, pretty basic, and i doubt that you would advocate stealing...

9. Do not lie

Another pretty obvious one... a honest society is a better then a dishonest one...

10. Do not covet they neighbours wife, slaves or belongings.

Thats an intresting one there. It is basicly saying don't be jelaous, basicly don't be matreialistic....


What is so bad about those as a start of basic morality? What would be a good base set for morality?
1. Worship what you want
2. Be a materialistic being
3. Use the lords name in vain
4. Work 7 days a week
5. Dishounor you parents
6. Kill
7. Do not be loyal to your spouse
8. Steal
9. Lie
10. And covet your nieghbors things....


There is nothing wroung with having morals rooting in religouis beliefs...

From personal experinces, the girl i have know that are religious, or who attend youth groups, or other church actvities, have much better morals, and more respect for themselfs...

Im not saying that people who aren't in religion can't have morals, but on average, i would say people with a religious background, are more moral then those without...



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TKainZero
 


OK, so before I spend a lifetime forming any type of rebuttal to that, I have to ask.....

Are you seriously telling me that you don't know what I was talking about, and that you're going to use that weak argument?



posted on Jun, 17 2008 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Its pretty clear that this is some sort of payback by the Bush Administration for all of the ultra religious right help he has recieved.

From the inital linked article:


The prosecution is the first in Southern California by a U.S. Department of Justice task force formed in 2005 after Christian conservative groups appealed to the Bush administration to crack down on smut.
www.latimes.com




[edit on 6/17/08 by FredT]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join