not sure where this bestiality conversation comes in. Don't see it mentioned anywhere.

A 500 pound man who would wear a thong in public view definitely should be arrested, and have the book thrown at him. Seriously. I'm not kidding.

Come on, with the rate our legislative bodies have been adding laws and regulations, this is a ridiculous statement. Of course we're BOUND by the law but even our elected officials don't know what laws they're passing, how can we?

Get back to me onces you have all of these laws memorized.

Mary Beth Buchanan is possibly running for PA Senate, which would explain her use of what are considered entrapment techniques in some cases. She was also the force behind the prosecution of Tommy Chong. A prosecuter's road to the Senate or AG's office is often littered with the corpses of dead legal priciples.

But its okay to film cattle being slaughtered....right? Think about it. The ONLY reason ANYONE has a problem with it, is because at root, it involves sex. It is okay to film animals in every other unwilling participation that they're forced into, so why is sex such a big deal. In my opinion it is gross, but seriously does grossness make it criminal? Think about what is being said and on how many points it can be chiseled away. There is no reason animal porn should be illegal.

Without hearing what was the offending part because it is to offensive to comment is a fascist argument to censor the defendant's contesting by a clever loophole. There are horrible rape and murder cases that are argued with full disclosure the details of the offense for the cause of serving justice, leaving no ambiguity as to a charges validity. Refusing to say what it is because it disgusts you only proves you are to weak to effectively hear the case due to your own bias. If the material in question has 'no place being disclosed in the courtroom due to its pornographic nature' then maybe that basis alone is not what constitutes an acceptable court case. A crime must be described if it occurred, victims and property tabulated, and motivations and factors in the perpetrators involvement are weighed. If the only part that comes into it at the end is the perpetrator is getting themselves and others aroused - as adults are still allowed to do I hear - then the other 2 factors (victims and property), I assume are not an issue here unless these were snuff films, in which case several other capital offenses would apply instead.
Rigged.

The United States that I live in continually proves its own stupidity...

People should have liberty to film and do what they want as long as all people on the film are not having their liberties denied.

That's freedom. If on the video it was clear that the female was being injured in a way that she didn't agree with, and was somehow being "bullied" into continuing to make these films, then, there's a problem... but, SHE WENT TO JAIL, TOO.

Seriously, if people want to show people what they do in the bedroom, and the only people they are showing are those who CHOSE TO LOOK, KNOWING what was going on in that bedroom... there is no harm done, unless the video literally contained murder. Which it did not.

If JESUS disagrees, that's why he and God made Hell, right? Get off of people's back.

It's not because the dog cannot only "not consent" it also cannot "reason". Two dogs "making out" is two animals following instinct. A human and a dog demonstrates a form of animal cruelty, even if the dog seems to be going along with it... the animal is being USED in a way that society has deemed wrong.

This is old.

Just ending now.

Most didn't even know about it. Most didn't know about it here in Pittsburgh. Media totally coasted over it.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILD PORN OR BESTIALITY.

I wish people would quit associating those two with the adult film industry instantly.

Child porn is different than adult films. Child porn is rape and the molestation of a kid. Porn isn't.

First they go after the pornographers and no one complains. Next they'll go after Hollywood.

Last stop will probably be laws against what we can and can't do in our bedrooms with our own bodies with other consenting adults.

I'm all for having Rob and Liz set free, but first I want the US government to take back what they said about the films in question. I don't need government officials telling me what I should or shouldn't do in my bedroom and what I should be ashamed of doing. That's not their job.

Rob and Liz are going to jail because others are sexually repressed.

The films in question are all laughable. Average person would laugh hysterically while watching them. They were mocking situations and were funny. Valentino and the Pokemon ride? One of the funniest scenes I have ever watched.

Winning the case or not doesn't really matter because the main intent of the government was to use our money to bankrupt the company. Obscenity prosecutions need to stop. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong because either way you go broke trying to prove it. If you do win early, they'll appeal.

"These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."

As a grown adult I WILL choose what I watch as long as it involves consenting adults.

What is degrading is brainwashing children into believing in some medieval fairytale.

aren't these the same christians that send our kids over seas to kill people, and be killed themselves?

So let me get this straight:
It's okay to film two dogs making out.
It's okay to film a dog making out with a tree.
It's okay to film a dog making out with a non-dog, non-human animal.
It's okay to film a human making out with a human.
It's okay to film a human making out with a tree, especially if said tree is carved into a shape similar to a part of the male anatomy.
But it's not okay to film a human with a dog because the dog can't consent?

I submit to you that if the dog can't consent, neither can the other dog, the tree, the non-human animal, or the dildo, and therefore none of these should be allowed to be filmed. *sarcasm*

Anyone else see the inconsistencies here?

Animals could never be considered willing participants. I guess it is b/c animals(non-human) can't defend themselves so it's ok to abuse them however we as a society see fit.

I agree to that if women or men decide to participate in drinking vomit or simulating rapes, and filming it for posterity to enjoy, why try to stop them? Personally I don't want to see it, and I'm not going to, and I don't really care who does see it. It's not like it is in your face everywhere you go.

Can you expand on this comment?
"HEY WAKE UP, there are alot more degrading stuff being done to men by men, because they have always been light years ahead in the EXTREME p0rn."

I am just curious, and would like to know what you are referring to.

And as for degradation of women, just take a look at many billboards, magazines( women's fashion included ). It is less 'extreme' but is pervasive as everyone sees it. Degradation of women seems to be one of the neo-cons most sacred 'family values'.

Animals could never be considered willing participants and why that is ok is beyond me. I guess it is b/c animals(non-human) can't defend themselves so it's ok to abuse them however we as a society see fit.

I tend to agree to that if women or men decide to participate in drinking vomit or simulating rapes, more power to them. I don't want to see it, and I'm not going to, and I don't really care who does see it. It's not like it is in your face everywhere you go.

What do you mean by this comment?
"HEY WAKE UP, there are alot more degrading stuff being done to men by men, because they have always been light years ahead in the EXTREME p0rn."

I am just curious, and would like to know what you are referring to.

And as for degradation of women, just take a look at many billboards, magazines( women's fashion included ). It is less 'extreme' but is pervasive as everyone sees it. Degradation of women seems to be one of the neo-cons most sacred 'family values'.

Seriously, Americans are the most ridiculously conservative people in the western world. Their 'liberals' are right of most countries conservatives.

And don't even start on Obama changing anything, he's a good God-fearing church-going Christian because you can't get elected to his job if you're not.

Feel like I'm being unfair because you're American and don't feel like all the conservatives? Get over it. It's your country, and if it's broken, it's your fault as much as theirs. What are you doing to fix it?

And to think they spent our tax money on this BS over the years. These lawyers and judges ought to be in prison instead, for this waste of time and oxygen.

There is porn on the Internet? where have I been all these years.

"These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."

And yet, I don't feel degraded. Methinks someone is going a bit overboard in describing the threat of fictional fantasy images to our society.

If a man or women is openly willing to do something un-socially acceptable on film (being still or motion picture) then it is their constitutional right to do so.

I mean, lets be honest, they should go after the producers of "That 80's Show", what a wreck!

:P

Grant,

How about doing some proper research. If you don't have an editor, you need one. If you do, they fell asleep. This is basic college jouralism stuff.

A simple search would have turned up the resaons why the case went forward. It was NOT about plain old pornography.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Associates

I do not agree with the authorities or the laws, but that is for another debate.

I am fuming, what is this really about, because they are not being detailed in what prompted the seizures. You can have a snuff film, as long as you prove there was no one hurt during the filming of the movie...but it seems there was something degrading being done to women....HEY WAKE UP, there are alot more degrading stuff being done to men by men, because they have always been light years ahead in the EXTREME p0rn.

They just woke up, and found this, or someone CHOSE this and said we are starting here...more likely a lonely woman too making the descision about
pursuing this, as any guy would probably just not bother.

IS IT THE CONTENT THAT IS ILLEGAL?,
OR THE FACT THAT IT'S A WOMEN BEING DEGRADED.

If its the content, make it clear what is going on, so the average joe can know the precedent and know what the boundaries are, don't wait till he crosses them before saying..ok now you have gone too far. If taking a dump on my wife, and filming it constitutes degrading...then I would have to say killing someone obscenely like in SAW would be closer to being extreme, and that should maybe not be published, but HEY what ever lines the pockets of those in power deciding right?

If its about a woman being degraded, I would say she was a willing participant, and this is just like a plant raping a bunch of schoolgirls and calling the art ANIME, isn't having sex with plants EXTREME?

Before you go after them, go after ALL THE BESTIALITY p0rn , there is alot more of those out there, and the animals ARE NOT WILLING PARTICIPANTS, they are innocent bystanders being abused...yet ANIMAL HOUSE, the p0rno is out there...how could this not have been investigated before this one....I mean COME ON!