Obscenity illegal?

[youtube]oL_J9hYAJ_w[/youtube]​

 

[No Intent]

"Since 1973, a work is considered obscene if taken as a whole it appeals mostly to the prurient interest of an average person, applying contemporary community standards, and if it's deemed to depict sexual or excretory functions in a patently offensive way, that has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

So these guys believe there are discrepancies in obscenity laws, specifically in concerns to pornographic content. They argue that the opinions of all people (in concerns to pornography) can vary in terms of what each person deems to have “literary, artistic, political or scientific” value. Obviously the text, ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’, comprises of literary and artistic value, but can the same be said for pornographic film?

“Pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"
(wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). Some may argue that pornography possesses serene artistic value, and would be affirmed by text’s (that also have literary value), such as the ‘Karma Sutra’, aka ‘The Art of Love’. So pornography in the form of video, which consists of content comparable to the Karma Sutra, and evidently “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”, is illegal why? Because of the difference in media format? No...It’s because of what is considered to be either porn, or erotica. “The main difference is that erotica will have a plot, a story arc, characters that mature and there should be some underlying literary merit to the style of the prose. Pornography, on the other hand goes from one sex scene to the next for no other purpose than to arouse;”

The man in contention is responsible for selling ‘pornographic’, not ‘erotic’ content, and therefore should be accountable for his accusations.

 

[Deacon Frost]

That's not the point, No Intent, the point is that 50 years ago something that was just as obscene was banned, but is now considered artistic. He's basically saying how can you deem this wrong, when history has shown us that through time things become more revered.

And, to your post, why should he be prosecuted for that? Why should that law exist? It's been over 30 years since its inception, it doesn't apply anymore since the internet has made it big. Why should a man face life in prison for making something that billions of people may enjoy? Where do we draw the line between societal acceptance and reasoning?

 

[No Intent]

That's not the point, No Intent, the point is that 50 years ago something that was just as obscene was banned, but is now considered artistic. He's basically saying how can you deem this wrong, when history has shown us that through time things become more revered.

Perhaps it is only of recent that people can distinguish erotica from pornographic content, and therefore only now[/], can the appropriate decisions be made whether the respective content is obscene or not.

And, to your post, why should he be prosecuted for that? Why should that law exist? It's been over 30 years since its inception, it doesn't apply anymore since the internet has made it big. Why should a man face life in prison for making something that billions of people may enjoy? Where do we draw the line between societal acceptance and reasoning?

What do you mean by “it doesn’t apply anymore since the internet has made it big”?

 

[Deacon Frost]

Perhaps it is only of recent that people can distinguish erotica from pornographic content, and therefore only now[/], can the appropriate decisions be made whether the respective content is obscene or not.

How foolish, to think that our generation is wiser than past generations. We didn't grow intelligent over night, and you can't assume that our standards today will be the standards of tomorrow, so that theory is moot.

What do you mean by “it doesn’t apply anymore since the internet has made it big”?

The law was passed 27 years ago. The internet has happened since then, and content and desired content has changed dramatically. The exchange of information has increased 100 fold, and people are consuming more today than ever. Standards have changed since 1973, and so the law is no longer valid.

In fact, many of our laws are no longer valid since they were created many generations ago, IMO, laws should be updated on a decadely basis.

 

[Schnell]

So these guys believe there are discrepancies in obscenity laws, specifically in concerns to pornographic content. They argue that the opinions of all people (in concerns to pornography) can vary in terms of what each person deems to have “literary, artistic, political or scientific” value. Obviously the text, ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’, comprises of literary and artistic value, but can the same be said for pornographic film?

“Pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire"
(wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn). Some may argue that pornography possesses serene artistic value, and would be affirmed by text’s (that also have literary value), such as the ‘Karma Sutra’, aka ‘The Art of Love’. So pornography in the form of video, which consists of content comparable to the Karma Sutra, and evidently “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”, is illegal why? Because of the difference in media format? No...It’s because of what is considered to be either porn, or erotica. “The main difference is that erotica will have a plot, a story arc, characters that mature and there should be some underlying literary merit to the style of the prose. Pornography, on the other hand goes from one sex scene to the next for no other purpose than to arouse;”

The man in contention is responsible for selling ‘pornographic’, not ‘erotic’ content, and therefore should be accountable for his accusations.

What does it matter if there is a plot or not? Is it somehow less obscene if you know the motivation behind the blow job, rather than just skipping straight to the blow job?

If this guy edited in a shitty plot in his movies, does that radically change how obscene they are?


I think this whole thing is ridiculous. If you don't want to see it, don't go to the website and order it. Simple.

 

[No Intent]

We didn't grow intelligent over night, and you can't assume that our standards today will be the standards of tomorrow, so that theory is moot.

Of course standards are constantly changing, that's why I have said that the defintions of erotica and pornography may have been established only of recent.

The law was passed 27 years ago. The internet has happened since then, and content and desired content has changed dramatically. The exchange of information has increased 100 fold, and people are consuming more today than ever. Standards have changed since 1973, and so the law is no longer valid.

Laws don't become invalid because of a communal belief, it just prompts them to be altered, which I have no argument with.

In fact, many of our laws are no longer valid since they were created many generations ago, IMO, laws should be updated on a decadely basis.

Agreed.

What does it matter if there is a plot or not? Is it somehow less obscene if you know the motivation behind the blow job, rather than just skipping straight to the blow job?

Apparently, yes.

If this guy edited in a shitty plot in his movies, does that radically change how obscene they are?

No, because if he edited in a shitty plot, it would still lack literary merit to the style of the prose.

I think this whole thing is ridiculous. If you don't want to see it, don't go to the website and order it. Simple.

Agreed.

 

[b0b3rt]

I love Reason, props for posting.

Obscenity should not be illegal. It violate nobody's rights. Nobody is forcing you to look at it.