Copyright violation for images of fornication!
Google was recently found (in a district court) to have violated the Copyright rights of Perfect 10, a company that produces nude images of women. The violation of the copyright was found in the linking images of google. Let me demonstrate below:
You see the big arrow in the picture? It's pointing to the offending image in question. Well, not exactly. That's a Transformers image, and the images of Perfect 10 are naked women. But you get the general idea. (to get the transformers image, for edification, I typed in "cool" to the Google image search engine)It was already determined in Kelly v. Ariba Soft that thumb nail images of this sort are sufficiently transformative, so as to constitute fair use. (and not be infringing)
With decisions like this recent one decided yesterday, I fear for the already tenuous "fair use" law. This is a 9th circuit district court that is not following a 9th circuit opinion. Will Google's picture search technology be long for this world?
posted by Red Tulips @ Thursday, February 23, 2006
55 Comments:
Of course, you know that I think both copyright and porn are abominations. So, you can imagine I have mixed feelings about this case.
But generally, outside the obscenity context, google and any other search engine should be able to include all images in their search engine.
If you don't want to share, don't put it online. But, once you concede that your "creations" are useless unless shared with others, stop insisting you get paid for every exposure.
Did I already say that porn should be illegal? It should, though I'll not go into why. Since for most people, the reasons are obvious. Only lawyers and pornographers need legal arguments.
And copyrights should be abolished. I owe a detailed response to MTA,re: copyrights. I'll make good on my promise in the near future.
"Most people"????
I dispute that. Most people look at porn. That's a fact. They say one thing (that they're anti-porn) while doing another. (visiting porn sites)
I dispute the fact that most people are anti-porn, and in fact I am very much pro-porn.
I think the human body is beautiful and it's a sin that religion has caused humans to be so shamed over it all. I see nothing wrong with porn. I see no connection between porn and violence against women, and in fact, I think porn LESSENS the violence against women. (by looking at porn, potential rapists are relieved of their impulse to rape)
Sex is good, not bad. Anything that encourages sex is a good thing. If people got laid more, maybe they would not want to bomb each other.
I want to add that I believe that in "natural law," porn would be legal. Let people look at what they want to, and if they choose to look at porn, hey, good for them.
I see nothing intrinsically bad about porn. In fact, I celebrate porn! On a different board, I started a thread about women's boobs, because hey, I like looking at boobs! What's wrong with it? If I want to look at boobs, why should the government care? Why am I harming anyone? How am I harming myself? I could very easily look at my own boobs - is that a problem? Is it wrong to stare at my own body, something nature gave me?
I want to finally add that porn is in the eye of the beholder. What is porn? Governments have frequently censored great works of literature by calling it "porn." Some of the greatest authors of all time have been censored - James Joyce, Theodore Dreizner, D.H. Lawrence, amongst others. Great works of art have been censored.
Justice Potter Stewart famously said "I don't know what porn is, but I'll know it when I see it."
OH REALLY??? This means that great works of art are often censored because they are supposedly "pornographic."
Miss R, your argument in favor of porn is simplistic, similar to your agrument for free speech. Too bad life is significantly more complicated than how you portray it. And your positions would leave no one with any dignity whatsoever. That may be okay by you, but thankfully the majority of people on earth still think that dignity is a necessary human attribute.
Porn along with other exploitative conduct is incompatible with a civilized, self-respecting culture that values all its individuals and does not treat some as sex toys (with very devastating consequences).
It may be perfectly fine for those who consume it. But, most people who consume it would not be caught dead parading themselves naked on the internet or in porn magazines before the internet became popular.
Besides an argument against exploitation (which most of porn is), there is a very good argument that even if engaged in eagerly and not commodified, porn destroys the moral fabric of society by devaluing the intimacy between husband and wife, which is often a crucial part of the marital bond.
There are many more arguments against porn that I will not get into because it's legal in America and I don't suspect that anything I say will change that. But, you will not get me to concede that it's wholesome, because it IS NOT.
Preston, you are male and 22. I doubt that there's anything I can say to you that would make your hormones agree with my position. After all, it's no skin off your back that young women (and men) are exploited by the minute to satisfy the lusts of porn consumers and line the pockets of pimps. I, on the other hand, consider these externalities a very high price to pay for a little sexual gratification.
No, I'm not Christian. But, I applaud Christians who reject it, as it is an abominable practice that the world would be better off without.
I am sorry, but your argument about "exploitation" is flat out untrue. Thousands of women try out to be in the porn industry each year. Women are paid far more than men are in porn films. Furthermore, as any male will say, porn often makes men rather than women look ridiculous. I want to add that the porn industry is exploding as men and women WANT to be seen online - and in fact there are tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of "voyeur" sites, where women and men parade naked pictures of themselves online.
"Destroy the moral fabric of society." That's a tall order and that itself is a simplistic statement. I fail to see any proof of this. I think it destroys the moral fabric of society to make people ashamed of their bodies and ashamed of sex. I also happen to know of married couples who get great enjoyment watching porn - it enhances their intimacy, and they enjoy trying out new sexual positions they learn of watching porn films.
I think porn is flat out a good thing. I think sexual education is a good thing. I think learning about more sexual positions and trying have a healthy sex life is a good thing. I am pro-sex in general. Do I think it's good for kids to have sex? No. But then the porn industry has restrictions on kids looking at the material, and I believe it's a parent's duty to monitor a kid's web use.
Why is sex bad? Why is a sex film bad? Why is it bad for society? You start out with the proposition that sex is bad, and then say that porn must be bad since it shows sex. Why is society worse off by showing sex on film? I have yet to find even one compelling reason why it's worse off, ESPECIALLY given the fact that NO ONE is advocating that children look at the images. (and most porn sites ban children from looking at the images)
Porn is a part of life. There is no way in hell to ban it. There are pornographic cave drawings - is that not intrinsic proof that porn does not invade "natural law?"
It is unnatural to ban porn, just as religions propose unnatural bans on sexuality.
I think society is better off if it removes the giant stick up its ass. THAT would lead to a more dignified and grown up society.
If you mean what you say, post your own pictures up at your blog. I don't want them here.
But, since you're so big on porn and sexuality and you think there's nothing wrong with it. Share yourself with the world. I'm sure there are readers who would enjoy it.
Otherwise, I'll assume that you're a hypocrit who only wants other people's wives, daughters and sisters to expose themselves for you and others to enjoy and exploit while preserving your own dignity.
I didn't say everyone should expose themselves. If they don't want to - that's their perogative. But if they want to, why should we stop them?
It's wrong to look at images of people who don't want to be looked at. I see nothing wrong with looking at images that people post for the world to see.
I want to further add that obscenity laws have banned legitimate political speech as well as literary and film classics. D.H. Lawrence and James Joyce are two of the most famous authors whose works have been banned, though thousands more have.
You don't want to show yourself, fine. Why stop someone else who wants to show themselves? I say, good for them!
If it's so 'good for them,' why isn't it good for you?
Wow, heavy discussion over here. I have to agree with Miss R.
Although XXX films and sites make me sick, I have to agree with the fact that once you put an- across- the- board ban on anything remotely sexual, then you are sliding down a (no pun intended)slippery religious slope where your pastor, priest or city government dictates what, when and how you "do it", which would include, but not limited to, viewing any Sears or Victoria's Secret Catologs.
The human body is a beautiful thing,and sexuality can, as any wonderful and powerful thing, become corrupted and debase.
I personally have been around fundamentalists that demand attention to "appropriate wear, including, but not limited to, long pants for girls & boys, EVEN when playing outdoor sports in the hot bloody summer.
Now that is getting abslutely assenine. I have gone round with these zealots, there is no middle ground.
miss r, you haven't answered my question. Why is it 'so good for them' but not good enough for you? No matter, I know what your answer is and you just proved that your arguments are disingenuous.
vper1, I remember that site that linked to one of our pages. I think it was 'tehran has washington by the cojones.' But, so what. I certainly didn't solicit the link and I have no control over who links to our pages.
You won't get any arguments from me about the difference between mens' and womens' sex drives. Hands down, mens' sex drive is stronger than womens'. But, perhaps you'll get an argument from miss r. She likes to argue against nature.
But, re: "men who aren't getting it from their spouse or significant other now have another option instead of actually cheating."
You completely discount the fact that those are REAL people who are giving it up so that 'men who aren't getting it from their spouse' can get off. That is my point.
Porn in principle affects those who actively participate in it much more than it affects passive consumers. Images depersonalize conduct that would have otherwise been very personal, with very real and damaging consequences. Maybe you've seen the movie fatal attraction.
But, my point is, life is not simple as evidenced by miss r's refusal to expose herself on her blog to support in practice what she supports so vehemently in theory. It's like a used car salesman who wants to sell a lemon to others that he would not drive off the lot himself. Porn takes real people, hence hurts real people.
If men are having trouble in their marriage they should work it out with their wives, or leave their marriage. Divorce is sometimes necessary.
AJ, I never said it's easy to lead wholesome lives. It requires a solid determination to focus on families and personal responsibility. Mostly, it's the job of parents and community.
Really, the state, as in any government body that is far removed from the community, should have little or nothing to do with it. But, I think that communities should be free to dictate for themselves whether they want that kind of trash in their neighborhoods and in their homes.
There's nothing wrong with censorship of that trash because it's at odds with maintaining traditional family values. There's just no way around it. If it was in any way compatible with maintaining self-esteem and respect for others, I wouldn't oppose it. Unfortunately, it's just not possible.
Which is why a port star will never get respect unless he or she stops being a porn star. And even then, unfortunately, many people are unforgiving. Thankfully, it's not people that count. But, why give a shmuck the opportunity to disrespect you?
that's funny, I wrote 'port star' instead of 'porn star.'
that tells you what's on my mind.
I want to hear what JC has to say about this! JC!JC!
O, it's dark in Denmark.
Qrs,
This topic seems to be one of your hot buttons. Is it?
Is it a religious issue or do you have a personal story you can share?
I have always wondered about why Christian Fundies purport to a God that is monogamous, basically anti-sexual -without being married, and yet the top leaders in the Bible (David, Solomon, ect..) had wives , and concubines galore. Does anyone know what a concubines is?
It's unbelievable.
It is amazing that we can see a symmetry on many aspects of your blog,and agree wholeheartedly on most of them, but this issue besmirches us. Why?
AJ, I'd be interested in hearing what JC thinks, too. But, he might not be interested in weighing in.
It's not any more a 'hot-button' issue for me than other issues that hinge on interactions between human beings, human rights, and human dignity.
Sorry, no relevant personal stories to share.
My position is very consistent on each issue I've raised (this one miss r raised). If conduct involves exploiting or harming another, I condemn it. It can't be simpler than that. Do unto others...
Besides, I'm not convinced that we are diametrically opposed on this issue. After all, you concede that 'XXX films and sites make you sick.' So, we disagree on whether they should be prohibited by law.
I don't see prohibition happening on a state-wide or even city-wide scale, but I cannot understand why this sort of trash cannot be prohibited on a community basis, technology permitting.
Why is the state empowered to protect every commercial interest in the nation but unable to protect people's most cherished moral values from corruption and debasement?
When in Rome, do as the Romans. If a local community rejects this type of 'product,' their community is their rome, and they should be entitled to dictate what's permitted based on their values and norms. Isn't that, after all what democractic governance is about?
Qrs,
Who says I have not engaged in certain activities? I say sex is good because I know from experience. ;-) But that said, it's my perogative whether I want to show my naked body online, and it's my perogative if I don't want to. It's my perogative whether I want to have sex or not. Just as it's the perogative of porn stars to show themselves or not.
I am sorry, but you have flat out ignored that aspect of things. It's callled personal choice. You don't believe in personal choice, obviously.
Also, how exactly do you define porn? Porn according to whom? I am glad you find it so easy to define porn. I am laughing right now because thus far, no one can agree to a universal definition of what porn actually is.
Below is a partial list of what books have been banned in the past:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_books
You will see most of what is considered the greatest literature in the world. The bible has been banned. The Koran has been banned. Many of these books were banned because they were considered "pornographic."
These films were banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_films - Note some classics
Again - WHAT IS PORN? You have yet to define it. So how can you ban it?
Where is the harm when women are handsomely paid for showing their naked bodies, and in fact beg for parts in films? Where is the harm when people want to be seen?
IT IS JUST A BODY. IF PEOPLE WANT TO SHOW IT, WHY DO YOU CARE???
P.S.: What are "traditional family values?"
you haven't answered my question.
why don't you want to show yours?
traditional family values: sex is reserved for marriage.
You have not answered anything I said. How do you define porn?
I don't believe anything I said requires anyone to show anything they don't want to. Not sure why you don't see that. Just because I don't want to show something myself doesn't mean I think others should be banned from showing what they want to. It is called FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
How do you comport traditional family values with the fact that gay people are not allowed to get married? With the fact that interracial marriage until the 1960s was banned in many states? Should those people never have sex?
And why should we wait until marriage to have sex? This means people will marry because they are horny and then be miserable. Is this something to be applauded?
you said: "I think porn is flat out a good thing."
so, if it's SO good, why don't you want to do it?
btw, i asked first.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't want to do something that would hurt my standing in society. That is what is keeping me from doing porn. I will be in the law profession - won't exactly help me get clients. But my motivations are IMMATERIAL. YOU ARE CLOUDING THE ISSUE!
It is my PERSONAL CHOICE whether I want to do porn or not! Why can't you accept that someone may be pro-porn without want to actually be a porn star? I am pro-medicine and yet I don't want to be a doctor. I am pro-teaching, and yet I don't want to be a teacher. I believe people should have the ability to sky dive if they want, and yet I have no intention of sky diving.
And why are you being childish with the "I asked you first" nonsense? Why are ducking the fact that you cannot even define what porn is?
hey aj, q, all
i'm with q here, and germain greer by the way. though many people probably have little or no idea who she is.
but i'll start with this: "I don't want to do something that would hurt my standing in society. That is what is keeping me from doing porn."
is it safe to say then, that some women should retain the legal right to freely diminish their standing in society for the satisfaction of men and a 30 billion dollar a year industry?
the defense says, yes. this 30 billion dollar a year industry of female denigration and abuse is a glowing example of freedom of speech.
do i think that makes any sense? no.
do i think it harmful? yes.
do i think freedom of speech has limits? well, yes. so do many right thinking people. even freedom has limits. absolute freedom for one to do exactly as one pleases would mean a society with no morals, no laws, no limits to any acts. it would entail absolute tyranny.
so freedom has limits: there are laws, and they are for the protection of ourselves against our own excesses.
even de sade knew this. he said in his foreword to "incest" that he wrote the book to show explicitely what will happen if "everything is permitted." to explain the consequences of the absence of any limits to action. i think it illuminating for two reasons: (1) he's pushed as the ultimate defender of total freedom: the ultimate libertine, and two (2) it kind of explains why the french revolutionary council, intelligent men who actually read his books, would sentece him to prison and finallly a mental institution for being "reactionary." today, he'd probably be called a fundamentalist.
as for greer, i'll quote and article by abdul hakim murad/ professor tim winter of cambridge u. quoting greer's "the whole woman," he writes:
"‘When the Female Eunuch was written our daughters were not cutting or starving themselves. On every side speechless women endure endless hardship, grief and pain, in a world system that creates billions of losers for every handful of winners.’ (p.3)
She goes on to suggest that the sexual liberation that accompanied the gender revolution has in most cases harmed women more than men. ‘The sexuality that has been freed’, she writes, ‘is male sexuality.’ Promiscuity harms women more than men: women continue to experience the momentous consequences of pregnancy, while the male body is unaffected. When the USS Acadia returned from the Gulf War, a tenth of her female crewmembers had already been returned to America because of pregnancy aboard what became known as the Love Boat. The number of men returned was zero.
Another consequence of the sexual revolution has been an increase in infidelity, and a consequent rise in divorce and single parenthood. Again, it is women who have shouldered most of the burden. ‘In 1971, one in twelve British families was headed by a single parent, in 1986 one in seven, and by 1992 one in five’ (p.202). Another consequence has been the pain of solitude. ‘By the year 2020 a third of all British households will be occupied by a single individual, and the majority of those individuals will be female’ (p.250). One of the most persistent legends of the sexual revolution, that ‘testing the waters’ before marriage helps to determine compatibility, seems to have been definitively refuted. ‘Some of the briefest marriages are those that follow a long period of cohabitation’ (p.255).
A further area in which women seem to have found themselves degraded rather than liberated by the new cultural climate is that of pornography. This institution, opposed by most feminists as a dehumanisation and objectification of women (Otto Preminger once called Marilyn Monroe a ‘vacuum with nipples’), has not been chastened into decline by the feminist revolution; it has swollen into a thirty billion pound a year industry, populated by armies of faceless Internet whores and robo-bimbos. As Greer remarks, ‘after thirty years of feminism there is vastly more pornography, disseminated more widely than ever before.’ Pornography blends into the fashion industry, which claims to exist for the gratification of women, but is in fact, as she records, largely controlled by men who seek to persuade women to denude or adorn themselves to add to a public spectacle created largely for men. (Many fashion designers, moreover, are homosexual, Versace only the most conspicuous example, and these men create a boylike fashion norm which forces women into patterns of diet and exercise which constitute a new form of oppression.) Cellulite, once admired in the West and in almost all traditional societies, has now become a sin. To be saved, one ‘works out’. Demi Moore pumps iron for four hours a day; but even this ordeal was not enough to save her marriage.
Greer and other feminists identify the fashion industry as a major contributor to the contemporary enslavement of women. Its leading co-conspirator is the pharmaceuticals business, which, as she says, deliberately creates a culture of obsession with physical flaws: the so called Body Dysmorphic Disorder which is currently plumping out the business accounts of doctors, psychiatrists, and, of course, the cosmetic surgeons. As Dolly Parton says, ‘It costs a lot of money to look as cheap as I do.’ The world’s resources are gobbled up to service this artificially-induced obsession with looks, fed by the culture of denudation. And perhaps the most repellent dimension is the new phenomenon of hormone replacement therapy, billed as an anti-aging panacea. The hormone involved, estrogen, is obtained from mares: in America alone 80,000 pregnant female horses are held in battery farms, confined in crates, and tied to hoses to enable their urine to be collected. The foals that are delivered are routinely slaughtered.
The consequences of the new pressures on women are already generally known, although no solutions are seriously proposed. Women, we are told by the old school of feminists, today lead richer lives. However, it is also acknowledged that these lives often seem to be sadder. ‘Since 1955 there has been a five-fold increase in depressive illness in the US. For reasons that are anything but clear women are more likely to suffer than men,’ (p.171) while ‘17 percent of British women will try to kill themselves before their twenty-fifth birthday.’ This wave of sadness that afflicts modern women, which is entirely out of keeping with the expectations of the early feminists, again has brought joy to the pharmaceuticals barons. Prozac is overwhelmingly prescribed to women. (This is the same anti-depressant drug that is routinely given to zoo animals to help them overcome their sense of futility and entrapment.)
Greer concludes her angry book with few notes of hopefulness. The strategies she demanded in the 1960s have been extensively tried and applied; but the results have been ambiguous, and sometimes catastrophic. What is clear is that there has not been a liberation of women, so much as a throwing-off of one pattern of dependence in exchange for another. The husband has become dispensable; the pharmaceutical industry, and the ever-growing army of psychiatrists and counsellors, have taken his place. Happiness seems as remote as ever."[http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/boys.htm]
so, freedom of expression of subjugation? well, yes som several industries are involved, some several billions of dollars a year: a lot of menyed interest. and i guess people will then argue that "sex industry" workers, predominantly women have acquired gainful employment and liberation, and that their power to "hurt their standing in society" is a part of the job. as long as they do it freely it's fine.
i find the arguments specious, to say the least.
but who am i to say? i think high heeled shoes "knock me over and **** me pumps" as some so disingenuously call them are oppressive on basic physical grounds that actually have an immediate effect upon the person wearing them.
but i'll save the explanation. suffice to say that i'm happy never to have been cornered in some remote office cubicle with my balance completely out of whack and the flight or play dead reflex kicking in merely because i'm wearing heels.
it wouldn't make sense to people who've had their brains soaked in the endorphines produced by wearing said shoes. they enjoy the opiates. and the men cornering them are entirely appreciative.
whatever.
peace
PS: re art, porn and freedom of expression, here's a review of de sade's "incest" from amazon:
"I support this French guy Marquis in marring his daughter if he love's her why not. It make's me sick to see his wife which is her mother is not happy about the idea I say the hell with her."
i don't think the dope "got it." nor do i think he's entitled to his opinion, but that's just me being fundamentalis.
correction: in my next to last post read: 3 billion pounds (UK turnover/Greer) as opposed to 3 billion dollars.
For US stat guesstimates
turnover
"How much is the online adult sector worth?
Your guess, we suspect, is likely to be as accurate as that of most commentators. Uncertainty reflects -
• the lack of comprehensive government or academic studies
• the absence of basic metrics
• disagreement about the value and prevalence of non-commercial self-publishing (much of which appears to involve content appropriated from commercial sites or offline publishers)
• the dubious (and often notably self-serving) nature of many industry claims - "an industry where they exaggerate the size of everything"
• the innate difficulty of tracking consumption patterns, investment and revenue that is often illicit
One promoter claimed in 2002 that
the Adult Internet industry generated over US$900 billion in revenues in 2000 making it account for 13% of all revenue generated on the internet and making it the #1 product/service on the Internet today!
Another estimated that
the pornography industry in the United States earns revenues of over $10 billion annually. Of that amount, it is possible that up to $2 billion is spent on porn Web sites, with steady growth forecast
and went on to claim that US Baby Boomers account for most of an estimated US$5 billion per year on adult videos.
William Lyon of US industry advocacy group the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) claimed that the online sector had a gross annual profit in 2001 of between US$10 and US$12 billion (significantly more than that of Microsoft)."
money talks: sets the order of the day.
peace
just a note, but important:
q's original post is not about pornography. the industry is suing for copyright infringement. what?
MONEY. money money money.
it talks and the proverbial excrement of male bovine livestock walks, hiding behind the skirts of freedom of speech.
maybe not so much behind as beneath
"Pornography blends into the fashion industry, which claims to exist for the gratification of women, but is in fact, as she records, largely controlled by men who seek to persuade women to denude or adorn themselves to add to a public spectacle created largely for men."
one reason for men to defend pornography: easy and unlimited access.
the cornerstones of "free market" capitalism at work:
"drive in, drive by, drive through," the commodity being women.
"pay as you go," no strings attached.
not very flattering for anyone involved
JC - You have yet to give me any definition of pornography. This is the fundamental problem with obscenity law. What exactly is porn? I am serious. I linked for all of you to see classic books and movies that have been banned in the past. The distinction between porn and art is not an easy one to make.
Furthermore, just as you claim that porn is bad for women, there are some feminists who claim porn liberates women.
I want to go out on a limb and say that of course being a "porn star" hurts someone's standing in broader society. That said, that does not mean that they should not have the ability to hurt their standing in society if they choose to do so. It also doesn't go to whether society is being completely hypocritical when they are on the one hand mass consumers of porn, and yet on the other hand, say porn is wrong.
http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005.html
That is an article about a feminist for porn. She is one of many. Just as many feminists claim porn denigrates women, many feminists also claim porn liberates women from the shackles of male-dominated faux-morality.
The sexual revolution has of course had some bad consequences. Of course many families have broken up with the concept of sexual liberation. But then again, many families were also saved.
Pornography creates on the one hand perhaps and unrealistic expectation in what sex is about, but on the other hand, it can enhance a sex life. My best (female) friend learned how to have sex, for example, by watching porn. In fact, most of my friends have learned how to have sex by watching porn. It definitely has enhanced society's knowledge as to what sex is and what good sex is.
Women that were in loveless marriages, with the dawn of the sexual revolution and feminism, suddenlyl have an avenue of escape. Furthermore, with the advent of sexual choice and the removal of the shackle of waiting until marriage, people are not marrying because they are horny.
Look at marriage statistics. Generally, the later people marry, the less the chance there will be a divorce. Marrying because you are horny and have no other option - bad idea.
Is the effect of pornography all good? Of course not. Some men become so addicted to pornography, they lose all ability to actually interact with women. Other men grow unrealistic expectations from pornography. But then again, the positive aspects of porn are often ignored.
I am good friends with a couple who watch porn together to enhance their sex life. All of my male friends - without exception - have watched porn, and they have learned how to satisfy a women in a large part by watching porn.
These are good things.
And finally, I will watch porn on occasion to get a good laugh. I happen to find pornography to be some of the funniest things around. Seriously. Go turn on Cinemax at 1 am and watch a movie - try to keep a straight face! The stuff just is seriously comedic. Getting a good laugh is good for society - this is often an overlooked benefit of porn.
http://libertus.net/censor/pcontrov.html
More feminists for porn.
What is the difference between a sex ed film and porn? What is the difference between a documentary on the sex business and porn? What is the difference between a raunchy comedy and porn? What is the difference between any mainstream Hollywood movie and porn?
I have yet to see any definition that adequately defines the difference between any of this. Until a definition is set, it is a very real harm to free expression to have anti-obscenity laws on the books.
And obscene to whom? I find religious morality to be obscene. I find the idea of waiting to marriage to be obscene. Does that mean that this should be banned? Of course not.
Tyranny of the majority rules when you ban porn just because a majority of people think it's wrong.
As far as whether porn depresses women, I find that argument specious.
Anti-depressants were prescribed at massive rates since way before the explosion of the porn industry. Please show any definitive connection between women and their depression and porn. You are giving a correlation, when in fact it could be any number of factors that cause depression. I read studies that showed the overprescription of antidepressants was occurring in the 1920s and 1930s.
As far as women getting body image dysmorphia because of porn stars - I would say that's not due to the porn industry, but rather Hollywood in general. Mostly men look at porn (though some women do look at porn, including some of my friends). Women, on the other hand, look at fashion magazines and watch Hollywood films. These films show women with eating disorders. In contrast, most porn stars actually are more full figured than Hollywood stars. I am serious. There are very few women in society who get boob jobs to look like a porn star. (they exist, but they are a minority of women in society, save for places such as South Beach) Many women will starve themselves to fit whatever societal ideal there is out there - but don't blame the porn industry for that, blame Hollywood/the fashion industry, society at large, brain chemistry, and some personal responsibility to the women with the eating disorders.
Porn stars are not anorexic waifs. They are curvaceous women. The porn industry is not responsible for anorexia.
Many of the supposed ill effects of porn really are the result of other societal factors.
I think the greater ill to society is not porn, but the complete miseducation kids are getting about sex. Abstinence only education is a huge social ill. Purposely not teaching people what sex is and what good sex is is a huge social ill. Porn hopes to correct this - that is why I think it has a net positive effect on society and on women.
http://www.now.org/issues/health/121704abstinence.html
That is a link concerning the lies found in abstinence only education. I see this as a far bigger threat to society than porn.
Amongst the lies...
- A 43 day old fetus is a "thinking person"
- HIV can be spread through sweat and tears
- Gender stereotypes such as "Women gauge their happiness and judge their success by their relationships. Men's happiness and success hinge on their accomplishments." Another lists "Financial Support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Women," and "Domestic Support" as one of the "5 Major Needs of Men." This same curriculum encourages girls to show their admiration of boys by "regard[ing] him with wonder, delight, and approval."
- Pregnancy occurs one out of every seven times of condom use.
- 50% of women who have abortions will become sterile.
These are just some of the lies that are taught. So-called "pornography," (itself a word made up by religious fundies) in fact rejects such notions. It celebrates sex and sexuality, and for this, I say it's a good thing.
Anyway, I ask anyone on here to please define pornography. I ask something that is in fact futile, because there is no definition and there inherently cannot be a definition. What is porn to some is art to others. Look at Robert Mapplethorpe as modern example. Why should the community get to ban "porn" when porn is now on the internet? Why should there be a community based standard when porn itself is found internationally? It just makes no logical sense to subject someone making movies in California to the laws of Alabama if someone in Alabama should happen to click on a website. Sadly, the current law in fact reflects this reality.
I want to add that discussing porn calms me, as it obviously it gets my mind off of the armegeddon occurring in Iraq.
Excellent and informative comments, jc! Thanks for weighing in! btw, this is not my post.
Miss r, you said: "as many feminists claim porn denigrates women, many feminists also claim porn liberates women from the shackles of male-dominated faux-morality."
I have two words - PAID SHILL
Further, you have aptly demonstrated that you are ALL FOR porn as long as someone other than yourself is doing it. Nothing but hypocritical and selfish.
You concede that porn results in a litany of damaging effects not only on those who produce it, but those who consume it.
Yet, in its favor you present arguments that border on the absurd: that it serves as (1) a sex-ed aid for viewers (couples and inexperienced men), (2) an "escape" for wives with meaningless marriages (3) for yourself as a distraction from unbearable world events, and finally (4) as comic relief.
Notably and not coincidentally, all these so called 'good results' inure to the benefit of porn consumers not porn producers.
So, it is one thing to insist that porn be legal. But, stop trying to argue that it's in anyone's benefit except for selfish consumers. Similar to the argument for lending money at interest - it's all about exploitation and making it seem like the exploiter is doing the exploited a favor. Give me a break.
Peace.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE define what "porn" is.
I have asked this many many times! This is at the heart of why porn should not be illegal, even if you are against the idea of pornography! PLEASE give me a definition of porn! Until you can, how can you say it's a good thing to ban porn?
Btw, this also ties into why I believe hate speech should be legal. There is no real definition for what hate speech actually is.
And why are any of the things I listed as good results of porn in fact bad? You have not explained how sex aid is a bad thing or even selfish. You have not explained how an escape for wives in bad marriages is a bad thing or selfish. You have not explained why it is bad to be distracted from unbearable world events or find comic relief to be a bad thing.
Why is any of this "selfish"? By that standard, all of the media we consume is selfish! You have yet to articulate anything that even borders on something that makes sense.
Whether or not I star in a porn film has nothing to do with the price in tea in China. I feel people should have the right to sky dive, and yet I would never do it. Are you saying I cannot hold such an opinion unless I sky dive? Because that flat out makes no sense. I am not advocating that everyone stars in porn movies. I am saying it is about PERSONAL CHOICE. Do what you want to do. Why can you not grasp this? Why does personal choice seem so hypocritical to you? I fail to see this!
Paid shills are pro porn? I am not getting a penny from the porn industry and yet I consider myself a feminist for porn. I know plenty of female friends of mine who think the same way. Are they all paid shills for the porn industry? Are you saying it is impossible to be a feminist and yet also be pro-porn?
And can't you see the possibility that in fact women in the porn industry flat out like having sex, and like being seen having sex? That maybe this is a benefit to them, and the money is just gravy?
Because I have seen scores of women on HBO's Real Sex say exactly that thing.
You may be anti-sex, and that's fine. But not everyone is, and some people rather enjoy the activity and enjoy starring in porn films. Not every female is as exploited as Catherine MacKinnon and company pretend they are.
And btw, to the extent that some women later regret they starred n porn films and later feel the stigma of that - that's society's hypocrisy with regards to porn at work. That does not speak to the fact that these women were in fact used and abused at the time they actually starred in such films. There are some slimy porn producers, sure, but then there's slime across the entire world. Wal-Mart is slimy. The United States government is slimy. Are porn producers any more exploitative than any other business? NO. They are a business, like anything else. So your point that somehow the porn stars are exploited seems specious.
Anyway, back to the broader point. Please define pornography, or for that matter, hate speech.
vper1, I understand your attraction to the concept of freedom. I would defend freedom with my life as indeed I do, considering I could be doing other things with my time which would immediately benefit my bottomline as opposed to blogging.
But, I do not defend freedom for freedom's sake but for the sake of justice. What is justice? Do unto others...If everyone is unharmed, that is justice.
No man or woman is an island unto themselves. Like it or not your actions, words and choices affect others. Therefore, freedom must have its limits or indeed, the most powerful - he who can assert his 'free' will over others - will prevail in tyranny.
I think it's you who is not giving the human race enough credit. Human beings are not animals and are not meant to be slaves, whether it's to moneylenders, drugs, alchohol, or sex.
You cannot defend freedom to create porn without defending porn. Just as you cannot support the right to insult without supporting the insult.
BTW, drugs and alcohol, are different from porn. With drugs primarily the consumer (and the seller through jail) is harmed. With alcohol it's just the consumer.
Neither involves the loss of self-respect associated with creating porn. Porn is far worse than both drugs and alcohol in that respect.
Note that no matter what, producers of all these ills gets away scot free and most if not all stay away from that which they produce. As an added outrage, where do you think these producers get their start-up capital from? We're back to the same money-grubbing blood suckers we've been railing about for the past four months.
Outlawing drugs is not necessarily bad. The real problem with outlawing drugs in the current economy is that the people who sell these drugs often have no other choice. It's not very different with porn. So, people try to justify allowing it by pointing to the economic advantages. But, the only people who benefit from all these lurid industries are the ones who 'finance' them.
This is why civilization is in decline. Because people convince themselves that it's okay to allow things that harm others in the name of freedom.
Just like democracy for democracy's sake ends in mob rules, freedom for freedom's sake results in anarchy and societal decline. Argue until you turn blue. Human beings need wholesome rules to survive. There's just no way around it.
Okay, I will ask for the last time.
What is porn?
What is hate speech?
I am serious. Please. Tell me what you think these are.
You also have yet to explain why sex is unwholesome or why porn= mob rule.
q,
sorry, my bad. not yr post.
vper1,
Freedom is not freedom if you have partial restrictions or ANY restrictions for that matter.
america was founded on laws. laws restrict freedom. that means - according to you - that freedom is not freedom. you can twist the name of these restrictions and call them "rules" but rules are still restrictions - of freedom. your point is not valid.
Just because there are no rules does not signify tyranny
read the brothers karmazov and/or crime and punishment sometime. while you still can get them at your local library.
but until then absolute freedom is the absence of laws, rules, restrictions, whatever you want to call them. it's the jungle and it ain't rosy.
bush has a problem with restrictions, and he has enough power and backing to flaunt them. he has no problem binding you, it's he himself that feels the need to be unbound. at other people's expense.
will you defend him citing freedom? be my guest.
I think you are not giving the human race enough credit here;
if true, neither were the founding fathers.
your underlying assumption: if there aren't any rules or 'morals' people will go around raping and pillaging at will just because.
there are rules and morals, and guess what? some "people … go around raping and pillaging at will just because."
miss r,
"PLEASE give me a definition of porn! Until you can, how can you say it's a good thing to ban porn?"
you seem to know very well what it is, seeing the amount of time and energy you are able to use discussing it. and the fact that it "calms you" suggests you can actually recognize it when you see it.
but perhaps i am unjust by presuming too much on your part? perhaps you have no idea exactly what it is you're talking about? if so then maybe you should consult a dictionary.
as i myself would find it fairly difficult, not to mention meaningless, to defend something i have to ask others to define while acting as if i actually know what it is i'm discussing and defending.
on the other hand, if you do know what you're talking about and defending is, i.e. porn, then all i can say is that you're being disengenuous for no reason other than to prove a point. (i know some peole consider this cute. i'm happy to say i'm not one of them.) or you're basically lying.
You also have yet to explain why sex is unwholesome
no one said it is. strawman.
or why porn = mob rule.
nor did anyone equate the two. strawman.
peace
btw, i cited ms germain greer not because she's a feminist. i couldn't care less. i coted her words because she actually reasons well, and makes valid defensible points.
and she's wise enough to admit to mistakes, when the facts she cites go against her.
an endearing quality in a human being.
JC,
No, I cannot define what porn is. I honestly am curious what you think porn is. That is the inherent problem with obscenity and with hate speech law. It inherently is overinclusive and underinclusive.
And I didn't say you said that sex was unwholesome or that porn = mob rule, though QRS did say, and I quote...
Just like democracy for democracy's sake ends in mob rules, freedom for freedom's sake results in anarchy and societal decline. Argue until you turn blue. Human beings need wholesome rules to survive. There's just no way around it.
I would assume this statement is saying that allowing porn is equivalent to mob rule.
I would further assume such a statement implies she believes porn is inherently unwholesome because it involves filming/engaging in/viewing in sex acts.
JC,
For the record, I often will admit mistakes or change my mind if I see new facts to fit the situation. I just am not convinced that anything you, Greer, or QRS have said in any way gives reasons why porn should be unlawful.
I want to further add that vper1 is correct, and similar things occur all the time in Italy. But my question is one of correlation/causation and slippery slope. Does porn cause this to happen, or is the spread of porn simply a sympton of society at large? And how can we ban porn (or hate speech) without seriously harming the ability to engage in freedom of expression? (this goes back to my fundamental question as to how to define porn or hate speech)
vper1,
i can't believe you're really interested in living in such a world as you describe. if you are… i've not more to say.
miss r,
as a working definition: porn: "filming/engaging in/viewing sex acts."
as for this:
And I didn't say you said that sex was unwholesome or that porn = mob rule, though QRS did say, and I quote...
"Just like democracy for democracy's sake ends in mob rules, freedom for freedom's sake results in anarchy and societal decline. Argue until you turn blue. Human beings need wholesome rules to survive. There's just no way around it."
nowhere in there does she say that. if i understand her rightly, by "freedom for freedom's" sake she's thinking of the absence of the rule of law, and that would indeed lead to anarchy.
that fact that you can read what you do into it, unwittingly is excusable, wittingly, however, is devious, to say the least.
JC,
I am glad you wrote your definition of porn. To this I have questions for you...
Is something porn if it is a sex ed video? Should we bad all sex ed films?
Is something porn if it is a documentary of sex rituals from a sociological/scientific perspective?
Is something porn if it is a film that is 100 minutes long, and there is sex for 1 minute in it? 5 minutes? 10 minutes? 30 seconds? What would be the adequate ratio?
Is something porn if it is a documentary of the problems with rape?
Is something porn if it is very graphic...anime sex?
Is something porn if it is a novel with graphic sex scenes?
Is something porn if sex is filmed to make a political statement?
These questions are very real. They are not easily answered by your porn definition, which is my inherent problem with banning porn.
As far as your "clarification," it seems to back up what I am saying. QRS, correct me if I am wrong, was stating that allowing porn equals the absence of the rule of law, which equals mob rule.
And for that matter, I have a real question...WHAT IS SEX?
I am serious.
Is sex kissing? Is it penetration? Is it mere nakedness? I am serious.
And what do you mean by "viewing" sex acts? Does this mean that filming a man viewing sex is itself porn, even if you don't see anything other than a man looking at sex??
Stop wasting time, miss r, you know that the US Supreme Court doesn't take any of your arguments seriously.
What makes you think we will?
Today, whether or not something is obscene is a fact to be determined by a jury comprised of members in the local community. If porn were outlawed, they would similarly decide what is and is not considered porn in their community.
I hope that ends this long and winding discussion where you started by defending porn for porn's sake and ended by trying to argue against the feasibility of banning it. Your case is weak.
Porn is a serious vice, and it can and has been outlawed without seriously curtailing freedom of expression. Your position lacks merit.
So, how 'bout those Bears?
Think they'll do the superbowl next year?
:)
JC, I think Viper was just kidding. You gotta lighten up a bit, you're too intelligent!
JC,I agree with you that it can be bad on society, but it goes back to Miss R's quest for definition.
For example:
A pretty girl dressed in a (modestly short) skirt is more sensuous to me than butter-up 36D cup half-naked thobbing cutie at a topless go-go bar. This area being a military town, we have quite a few of them!
And no JC, I've never been to one. I've been waiting so I can invite you to the US sometime just so you can
experience
true freedom! So when are you coming?
ha ha
But that's just me. What I find erotic , another might laugh at as simple, but a die-hard fundy might whip out the fire and brimstones.
I stand by what Miss R said- the human body was created by God/Goddess and is a beautiful thing.*
*
Unless of course, you weigh over 400 pounds and try to fit it all in a (large) bikini, then it's really not anything but absolutely ridiculously nauseating..... but maybe to some guys it is OK. Who am I to say what beauty is for another guy?
Or girl?
That said, and my Kudos to Miss r stated, I certainly agree with Qrs and JC, that each community should be able to say *NO!*!!
If you don't like it-leave!
Years ago when I was younger, my roommates and I would try to be the first one home from work to relax, have a beer and flip on the Playboy channel on TV!
hee hee........until later the community voted a ban on it.
Party poopers.
Porn is a serious vice, and it can and has been outlawed without seriously curtailing freedom of expression. Your position lacks merit.
Have you simply not looked at the list of books and movies I produced that were banned? You are a law student. You really feel comfortable saying there is no curtailment of freedom of expression?
I happen to know Supreme Court jurisprudence as well as anyone on this particular subject. The most famous quote, as I have said over and over again, was made by Justice Potter Stewart.
I don't know what pornography is, but I'll know it when I see it.
That really inspires confidence in the law on obscenity!
The US Supreme Court in fact does take all of my arguments very seriously, and as a result, there simply is not a workable definition of pornography. They cannot define what the darned thing is! The standard is "contemporary community standards," which means that juries have the ability to define fact and law what is porn. A jury in Alabama can convict a man of pornography who lives in California if ONE person in Alabama happens to click on an offensive image. There is a haphazard, sloppy law, that is a mish mosh across the country.
I thought you believed in so-called "natural" law? How is this what nature intended?
You keep on saying porn is a serious vice without explaining why it is a serious vice. You dismiss sex ed. You dismiss any notions that your ideas of "family values" in fact does not necessarily lead to a great family structure. You dismiss any notion of porn as comedic, of porn as sexually liberating.
Great works of art and literature have been banned in the past as "pornographic." For you to say "obscenity" can be banned without curtailing freedom of expression is shocking for me to read. Either you are ignoring facts or you are cherry picking reality.
Anyway, this was an entertaining thread, but we are not getting anywhere. I guess this will be my final post on the subject.
Another thought:
Though it might not be a person's life long goal to be a porn/erotic dancer in a sleazy film or bar, it might just be means to an end.
I do not know you, but if any of you have experienced the humility of being poor, one blown engine away from fighting for a space on the street, as I have at one time in my life-
I can assure you...
Integrity and Appropriateness
begins taking a back seat when you're wondering if your next meal is going to be your last.
Thank God I didn't have to go there, but for some they do.
AJ,
Just want to interject. (even though I swore I would not post again!)
Agreed on all ends, and certainly being an erotic dancer/porn star is better than ditch digging and a whole host of things. (in fact I considered porn at one point in my life as a way to pay bills)
But the point is that some people actually do want to be a porn star. I have a friend who has more than enough money to live and wants to be a porn star. This is her desire.
So it's not just indigents who become porn stars.
(okay, now I am gone)
..."considered porn at one point in my life"...
Ummmm...really???!
Wanna do another blog?
HAHA!
*just kidding Qrs,Jc!
sorry.. i mean.. i..i.. just...couldn't.. resist.....!
i will leave now.
I thought I would beat Viper to it...
..Viper please stop doing that! Put that down! You're in Qrs's house!
Im telling!
One last post for real.
This was one of the best threads in a long time for me. I thoroughly enjoyed every minute. Thank you, qrs, for allowing uncensored, adult discussion.
The news in the world is so horribly depressing, that discussing porn law just is a welcome relief from the horrors all around us.
Vper1 and AJ, I am so flattered that you would want to see images of me, even though you have no idea what I look like. I could have two heads and be an alien from the planet liugfwa, but hey, a boob is a boob, right? ;-)
Everyone on here flat out rocks. I especially include the people I disagree with - you all seriously rock.
HAMLET.
There's another: why may not that be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddits now, his quillets, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks? why does he suffer this rude knave now to knock him about the sconce with a dirty shovel, and will not tell him of his action of battery? Hum! This fellow might be in's time a great buyer of land, with his statutes, his recognizances, his fines, his double vouchers, his recoveries: is this the fine of his fines, and the recovery of his recoveries, to have his fine pate full of fine dirt? will his vouchers vouch him no more of his purchases, and double ones too, than the length and breadth of a pair of indentures? The very conveyances of his lands will hardly lie in this box; and must the inheritor himself have no more, ha?
HORATIO.
Not a jot more, my lord.
HAMLET.
Is not parchment made of sheep-skins?
HORATIO.
Ay, my lord, and of calf-skins too.
HAMLET.
They are sheep and calves which seek out assurance in that.
[Shakespeare, Hamlet]
* * * * *
DICK.
The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
JACK CADE.
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.
[Shakespeare, King Lear]
sophistry, true mark of one destined to make a killing defending the money men and their idea of heaven, lawyer.
i commend you R. you are the pride of your profession.
may you live in infamy.
JC,
You are very funny. You do realize you insult QRS when you insult lawyers. You are funny.
And for the record, I am working right now to help debtors. That is my work and the area of law I plan to go into.
But lawyer = whore = bad, right? ;-)
Personally for me, I think sluts make the world go round. But that's just my opinion.
Post a Comment
<< Home