tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post3995727966929753913..comments2023-10-23T09:51:37.441-05:00Comments on Blog of Pro-Porn Activism: 2257 Update: Could The Free Speech Coalition Have Made A Better Case?? J. D. Obenberger Thinks So.Renegade Evolutionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17905949172886730262noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-54272348384643589002013-08-01T20:42:29.385-05:002013-08-01T20:42:29.385-05:00Dines piece is typical Dines bullshit - merrily fa...Dines piece is typical Dines bullshit - merrily fabricating imaginary monsters like the threat of "teen porn." The fact that she does not dispute is that the performers in this niche market (she does her best to blow it up to poster size but it remains a relatively small part of the consumer base for porn overall) are legally adults, full-stop. No one, not even the rabid Ms. Dines, suggests otherwise. But the fact that some performers have small breasts is clearly reason enough to trash not only the legal rights of porn producers, but of porn performers as well, whose real identification documents are required to be passed from hand to hand through the entire chain of custody of sexually explicit materials under 2257 as it stands. Of course, Dines cares as much for performers' privacy as she d does for their safety, which is not at all.<br /><br />As for her purported sources "in the business," I'm inclined to look toward Monica Foster or Jenna Presley or Aurora Snow. They'd be more likely to know who Gail Dines is and why it would be worth their time to contact her. Rob Black lives in his own universe and I doubt radical feminist porn bashers are included. But even among the latest bunch of washouts to trash the business in which they made the money that bought them their bling, I seriously doubt any of them would take their troubles to Dines, as they get a lot more mileage by working off their grudges through industry blogs where they know they'll be noticed by those on their grudge lists.<br /><br />Given that Dines has yet to produce a single "inside scoop" from any of her claimed sources that hadn't already appeared elsewhere or been invented by Dines herself, I doubt she communicates with anyone in the industry.<br /><br />When she has no facts that support her vile opinions, which is always the case, she makes shit up. That's how she enjoys her comfortable living at our collective expense, by making shit up and selling it to a certain type of gullible liberal idiot who frequents places like Counterpunch and Alternet. <br /><br />Our failure to refute Dines' lies through these channels has been extremely costly in political terms but those who should know this are still fighting the last war and have no clue why the loss of liberal support engineered by Dines and her friends has been such a catastrophe. <br /><br />All in all, the usual circus of clowns, liars, fools and hooples parading themselves in all their nauseating splendor. If the big shots in the business don't care to challenge that circus of bullshit, they'll continue to lose one battle after another. <br /><br />Ernest Greenenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-52556173451735656252013-08-01T18:37:46.831-05:002013-08-01T18:37:46.831-05:00By now, I think it's safe to say that most of ...By now, I think it's safe to say that most of us have seen Gail Dines piece (co-authored by her husband David Levy) on 2257, either on Counterpunch or Gene Ross' AdultFYI. It's filled with the usual mix of half-truths and seeming reasonableness.<br /><br />Dines recently said she has an informant in the San Fernando Valley. Given the rhetoric used on the UAWA website, my bet it's Robert Zicari aka Rob Black.Sheldon Ranzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04458885781941849341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-38155863814149638282013-07-26T20:18:25.742-05:002013-07-26T20:18:25.742-05:00Comparisons between the exercise of free speech wi...Comparisons between the exercise of free speech without government intervention that can land you in jail for a single paperwork error are absurd on the face of them. <br /><br />Tobacco has killed millions of Americans and continues to kill them every day.<br /><br />Has one tobacco company executive ever served a moment's time for this? Nope.<br /><br />The commodities are different, The stakes are different. The consequences to the public are utterly different, as 2257 protects absolutely no one.<br /><br />As for profitability, though the government tried hard to make that the issue and the lame counsel for the plaintiffs bought into it, that was never the issue and never will be.<br /><br />The issue is whether or not government power can be used to end-around The First Amendment with bullshit regulations that help no one. <br /><br />Not one piece of kiddie porn will be prevented from creation by 2257. Not one child will be protected by it. It's just a weapon of harassment that makes any discussion of sexuality a potentially dangerous enterprise.<br /><br />That was my whole point about the odious Price of Pleasure on this thread. Thanks to 2257 you can't even make an effective propaganda piece denouncing pornography without violating the law. That is a classic prior restraint of protected political speech that has nothing to do with making money.<br /><br />That this was not the obvious line of attack on 2257 from the get-go is an inexcusable lapse of judgment on the part of the FSC and its lawyers, all of whom seem to have suffered an attack of amnesia regarding what the initials of their organization stand for.Ernest Greenenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-17445420921458505352013-07-26T19:58:15.148-05:002013-07-26T19:58:15.148-05:00A major difference, though: Tobacco has been prove...A major difference, though: Tobacco has been proven to cause cancer and disease for its users. Consensual adult porn HAS NOT. <br /><br />In my night job, we are required to "card" (ask for valid ID/driver's license) anyone up to 40 who buys tobacco and/or alcohol, even though the legal age to consume alcohol is 21. But, if the customer appears like he is 40, and there are no signs that (s)he is buying the product for an underage person, then it's up to the discretion of the cashier whether to ask for ID.<br /><br />IOW, the standard for tobacco and alcohol products, even though they can potentially cause far greater harm than watching an adult porn video, is still far less stringent than 2257 for performers/producers.<br /><br />And, although porn can produce a decent profit, it is greatly exaggerated, and far less that that of the alcohol or tobacco companies....even with the recent limits on advertising.<br /><br />The problem here is NOT keeping porn out of the hands of underage people; trust me on this, porn producers and performers are very much concerned of that. The real problem is that adult performers are, thanks to the 2257 system, reduced to children in that they have to provide such information every single time, even when it is fully established that they are of legal age and with the proper credentials. In other words, they are collectively assumed guilty until proven innocent. <br /><br />At least the tobacco requirements treat them as a legal product. That would be a major improvment for adult porn.<br /><br />Anthony Kennersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-59082776938310815732013-07-26T13:32:14.127-05:002013-07-26T13:32:14.127-05:00I mean, I know it's politically incorrect to s...I mean, I know it's politically incorrect to say, but look what the government has done to the tobacco industry using the time honored "Those damn cigarette manufacturers just don't want to work hard enough to protect children from tobacco!!!" card.<br /><br />The hoops they have to jump through are extreme, but they just have to do it, and they continue to make profits.SexyLittleIdeashttp://sexylittleideas.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8385392963347857134.post-50684610640426753332013-07-24T01:41:11.267-05:002013-07-24T01:41:11.267-05:00Just one point here about Dines's and her pals...Just one point here about Dines's and her pals' violations of 2257. They are exempt neither under fair use rules, which govern copyright (and allow for limited reproduction of materials for review, commentary or satire) nor under the "educational use" exemption in 2257, which specifically forbids distribution to the public and limits circulation of materials to qualified academic researchers.<br /><br />When confronted in person on the 2257 violations in POP, he sneered and told me that the producers from whom the images in the movie were stolen "had an economic motivation to keep the required records" so he - that's right, Bob Jensen - admitted he trusted the producers NOT to have shot any minors in the content the movie recycled. In short, he defended what he and Dines and Chyng Sun do on the grounds that 2257 is bullshit anyway.<br /><br />Why am I not surprised that Dines would cynically defend it as necessary when even she and her cadre don't believe it is?<br /><br />And that's why the plaintiffs' counsel should have shredded her on the stand. Typically, our side didn't miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.Ernest Greenenoreply@blogger.com