Ashcroft V.s Rob Black, the shape of 'justice' to come?

Whether one personally agrees or disagrees with adult fantasy films or not the case of Rob Black (Robert Zicari) and his wife Janet Romano is IMO a warning of the abuses of power set to befall the USA in the event of Bush and his evangelical fundamentalist friends winning this election.

These people are being threatened with 50yrs each in prison for making and distributing adult films via the internet.

Apparantly Ashcroft and his buddies feel that consentual adults making and selling and distributing legal adult fantasy sex films is a crime sufficient for them to take your life away from you.

All this (and more) on the basis of their personal religious views. Views so strident that they are prepared to mess with the US consitution to enforce their idea of morality on the basis of their ideas of the 'proper' role of fundamentalist 'Christian' religion in the USA today.

Woe betide those who don't quite fit the new vision.

'Land of the free'? For how much longer?







[edit on 1-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

What?!

No one is at all fussed that Herr Holy Ashcroft is for taking a man and his wife's lives away for the heinous crimes of running an adult film business with distribution done over the net?

(and after Cheney rated e-commerce so highly and all!)

You have any links regarding this case? I'm very curious because this seems to be a voilation of civil rights and you think there would be some stink about this.

Originally posted by build319
You have any links regarding this case? I'm very curious because this seems to be a voilation of civil rights and you think there would be some stink about this.

- Sure.

www.socaluncensored.com...

www.avn.com...

There are lots of links out there.

Basically Ashcroft and Co. can't abide sex films or sex fantasy and think that because of their personal morality they have the right to take this man and his wife's life away from them.

Fingers crossed the evil puritan b*stards lose the Presidency today because the case will then most likely fold .....

.....with the bonus that Bush won't get to load the Supreme Court 'deck' with his religious psycho fundamentalist friends for the next God knows how many years.

Okay now this is actually a pretty good debate now when you get to the facts. Its not just porn that they are trying to supress.

This is why Ashcroft wants to put them away.

XPW owner Rob Black (real name Robert Zicari) and XPW valet Lizzy Borden (Janet Romano) will face obscenity charges for allegedly distributing pornographic movies that depict murder, rape and other violent acts against women, according to federal authorities in Pittsburgh.

Now Larry Flynt doesnt even agree with this guy.

"I have never been in favor of forced sex, whether real or imagined. I have always promoted consensual sex and portrayed consensual sex,� Flynt wrote. �Bad taste should not be confused with physical abuse. This is where I part company with Mr. Black.�

So the true question about this is, should we allow pornography to depict rape and violence against woman? I think this is the true underlying issue. This isnt just poor harmless porno. This is violent stuff. When you take fantasy to this level, it in fact could be dangerous.

Originally posted by build319
Okay now this is actually a pretty good debate now when you get to the facts. Its not just porn that they are trying to supress.

- I agree it's an interesting debate.

I also think porn is exactly what they are trying to supress. They just picked the easiest target - the people seemingly making the 'most extreme stuff' - to go after first.

They (as supporters have stated) plan to expand their puritan 'net' if they succeed here.

This is why Ashcroft wants to put them away.


XPW owner Rob Black (real name Robert Zicari) and XPW valet Lizzy Borden (Janet Romano) will face obscenity charges for allegedly distributing pornographic movies that depict murder, rape and other violent acts against women, according to federal authorities in Pittsburgh.

Now Larry Flynt doesnt even agree with this guy.

"I have never been in favor of forced sex, whether real or imagined. I have always promoted consensual sex and portrayed consensual sex,� Flynt wrote. �Bad taste should not be confused with physical abuse. This is where I part company with Mr. Black.�

- Larry is a human being entitled to his views as much as anyone and his views are his own affair.

I must also say it makes an interesting first to see Larry Flynt used as the yardstick of taste and propriety!

So the true question about this is, should we allow pornography to depict rape and violence against woman?

- No. Sorry, but I beg to differ. I don't think that is the issue at all.

The issue is, IMO, what gives anyone the right to proscribe and legislate for other peoples' fantasies and use the law to take the liberty from people who are making consentual movies which depict that fantasy?

Even those movies which appear to show subjects many people have 'trouble' with.

This just the latest rerun of the classic puritan versus free art arguement.

Ashcroft & his religious pals think, IMO, that because the subject matter is so graphic and superficially unappealing (they imagine) to many/most that they can legitimately begin closing down liberties in this area.

Sexual repression is always one of the staging posts to political repression and this is very definitely connected to Ashcroft's political evangelical fundamentalism.

These movies (many of which are actually created and produced by women, hence Black's wife is also cited, with absolutely freely participating models/actresses) are totally about sex fantasy and are not about 'depicting (actual) rape and (actual) violence against women'. That is absurd and to completely fail to understand the point of the films.

It may be hard for some people to grasp but these do constitute part of some peoples' fantasies some of the time. Including women. Sorry but there you have it.

Ooops, truth's out, deal with it.

I think this is the true underlying issue. This isnt just poor harmless porno.

- Sorry but it is just harmless. No one was harmed. No one is doing anything against their will, no one is actually assaulted or raped. It's a movie.

This is violent stuff.

- I totally disagree. It is not actually violent stuff because the violence is not real. It's a movie.

When you take fantasy to this level, it in fact could be dangerous.

I suppose at some level that is true. But only in the sense that many things can - taken to an unrealistic and unrepresentitive nth degree - be harmful to people.

So, so what? Does everything potentially harmful to the handfull of idiots who might be complete morons about it and harm themselves over it get banned now?

Is it considered reasonable for Ashcroft's nanny intrusive state to intrude into people's bedrooms as well as imprison people for the rest of their natural lives for making these films?

Do you really believe in such actions?

Do you really hold the fantasy that by taking these two people's lives away from them (which is what a 50yr sentence effectively does) will actually stop anyone from making films you do not agree with or like the look of?

......and what happens when it's something harmless you like that maybe they find 'sinfull' and they threaten you and yours with a 50yr sentence?

Ashcroft and those fundamentalist loons are a dangerous menace, hopefully on their way out of power as we speak.









[edit on 2-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]