Torture: OK; Bondage Porn: 3 Years In Prison

[Elfdart]

Salon's Glenn Greenwald noticed the similarities between a producer of S&M porn arguing that his videos didn't involve humiliation and/or real violence; and the Junta's claim that the rape, water torture and other sadistic acts carried out by the government.

On Friday in Tampa, Florida, Paul F. Little was sentenced by a federal judge to 3 years and 10 months in a federal prison after being convicted of the grave and terrible crime of distributing pornography "over the Internet and through the mail" -- films featuring only consenting adults and distributed only to those consenting adults who chose to purchase them. Even though he lived and worked in California, the Bush DOJ dragged him to Tampa, Florida in order to try him under Tampa's "community standards," on the theory that his website used servers physically based in Central Florida and some of the films were sent to Tampa customers who purchased them.

These porn prosecutions are the by-product of the demands from Senate Republicans such as Orrin Hatch, who simultaneously argue that (a) the Threat of Muslim Terrorism is so grave and "transcendent" that we must dismantle our entire Constitutional system and turn ourselves into a lawless surveillance state in order to combat it, and (b) the FBI and DOJ should use their resources to prosecute American citizens who produce consensual adult pornography. The same Alberto Gonazles who decreed the Geneva Convention to be a quaint relic in order to legalize torture announced in 2005 that adult pornography prosecutions would be his "top priority" as Attorney General (at his confirmation hearing, Michael Mukasey assured Hatch he shares the same concerns about "mainstream, adult pornography" as Gonzales did).

There are differences. The actors have sworn in court that they were not harmed, and were free to quit the video shoots at any time, which cannot be said of the inmates tortured in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. The very fact that Paul Little was actually dragged before a court on the other end of the continent* is another difference, since torturers (thanks to Dungeonmaster John McCain) now have Get Out Of Jail Free cards no matter where they do their dirty work.

So as GG points out, you can actually rape and torture people against their will and the law won't touch you, but if you hire actors to pretend to do it, you get three-plus years in the federal pen. If this logic were applied to all performers, every movie producer, director and distributor who shoots scenes in which stuntmen and actors are injured or appear to be injured could face imprisonment. Depending on whether or not there's a statute of limitations, the producers of Gunsmoke (for example) could be dragged into court because Harrison Ford got his front teeth knocked out while filming an episode when he was a guest star 40-plus years ago.



* The Constitution forbids this kind of chickenshit:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Johonebesus]

Unfortunately, he wasn't convicted of producing the porn, but of disseminating it to Floridians through servers that reside in Florida. Thus, the "crimes" technically occurred in Florida, at least in part. This is an aspect of modern communication technology that hasn't been properly addressed yet. If they wanted to be fair, or at least as close to fair as they can get here, then the state should have gone after the customers and maybe whoever owned and maintained the servers. It shouldn't be the producer's responsibility to keep up with the community standards in every part of the world where someone might seek out his product. Not that these nebulous and subjective "community standards" should have any place in law anyway, or that the distribution and viewing of porn should be outlawed to begin with.

As to the main point, everyone already knows that conservatives don't have much of a problem with violence, but they hate and fear sex. It isn't the violence depicted in the porn that truly disturbed them. It was the sexual nature that caused them to pursue the matter. The only reason the violence was a factor was that it made it easier for them to get a conviction, and so worth their time to pursue it.

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, the "community standards" provision is itself unreasonable, because it creates a law with no clear definition: a law whose definition is entirely subject to personal opinion. How can anyone seriously argue that people are being given "due process" and "fair trial" when they are being accused of violating laws which they refuse to define in an objective manner?

[Darth Wong]

There are differences. The actors have sworn in court that they were not harmed, and were free to quit the video shoots at any time, which cannot be said of the inmates tortured in Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

There is another difference: torture of dark-skinned people is something that God-fearing "heartland" white people masturbate to, not left-wing weirdoes.

Remember: sexual gratification = bad. Religious gratification = good. Injustice = irrelevant.

[Marcus]

I do wonder if some of the strength of the reaction is not based on certain types of pornography highlighting to the staunchly conservative viewer their own reaction to violence.

Given some of the current mainstream movies, which present violence against women (and men) in such disturbingly loving and graphic detail, it -seems- that there is for some of the audience/creators a sexual, or at least power, angle to it, separate from schadenfreude (sp?).

By presenting violence and control in a consensual, frankly sexualized manner, perhaps it troubles them when they consider their own underlying response to and reason for enjoying that violence, that power over others, that they so deify.

[Elfdart]

I do wonder if some of the strength of the reaction is not based on certain types of pornography highlighting to the staunchly conservative viewer their own reaction to violence.

Given some of the current mainstream movies, which present violence against women (and men) in such disturbingly loving and graphic detail, it -seems- that there is for some of the audience/creators a sexual, or at least power, angle to it, separate from schadenfreude (sp?).

By presenting violence and control in a consensual, frankly sexualized manner, perhaps it troubles them when they consider their own underlying response to and reason for enjoying that violence, that power over others, that they so deify.

There's an old joke that the only difference between porn and mainstream movies is production values. In other words it's all in the eye of the beholder. Of course studios like Paramount and Universal won't be charged (although they could be) since they are owned by larger corporations and therefore above the law.

I think there's a lot of projection to go with the hypocrisy, but I doubt the wowsers on the jury are smart enough to know what that means.