Bring It On!

By ascap_scab on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply

Watch a teen horror flick, go to jail!!

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

In many of the Star Wars movies, the evil charactar clad all in leather, Darth Vader, manually strangles his victims or uses The Force to do it with his mind. This mixed with the leather gives most men an erection.

By Jersey McJones on Aug 30, 2006 | Reply

Hmmm…

“Violent” is a tough nut, oops, I mean vague term.  Not sure how they’re going to defile it, oops, I mean define it.  What semen, I mean, men see and how it affects them is hard to say, oops, I mean difficult to say.  Cum tomorrow, oops, I mean, come tomorrow, who knows what kinds of slut, oops, I mean smut, we’re boing, oops, I mean going to see out there and through what mediums, who knows? 
JMJ 

By Paul Merda on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

Just because some guy acts out because he apparently saw vio-porn isn’t a reason to ban it.  If some guy murders someone allegedly because he saw violence on TV will they ban violence from TV?  I think not. 

The guy is most likely just an asshole and he woulda done someone wrong at some point.  Or perhaps, it was consenting sex that went wrong?  The article did not make clear motive.  There are people who engage in these sorts of sex acts, men and women alike, because they like it…

By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

That is what he claimed at his trial, Paul. The jury didn’t believe him and convicted him of deliberately trying to kill her. He is currently appealing that decision.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

I’ve seen some of this stuff. Pictures of torturing, inflicting permanant damage, beating, raping…what, exactly, does this add to the national debate? Does this do anything but depict women as victims who deserve to be tortured and taken against their will?

I’m not talking about depictions of isolated criminal occurrences within the context of a movie or tv program. I’m talking about alt.rape, alt.torture, alt.bdsm. This is not evil crime in the context of being fought against to restore justice. In this, the only context is women being tortured, raped, beaten for their misery and for men’s pain such that this is what women are for.

Is this what we’re defending here under the guise of free-speech? This is what is being talked about. Not television programing with violence that, for the most part is presented as unmitigated evil that exists in the world but must be fought with every weapon at society’s disposal. This is “This is what society should be”. Is this really worth defending?

By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

If the adults involved are consenting, then yes, it really is none of my business. If they’re not then a crime has been committed in any event. The problem with the law is proving that difference, at least in my opinion.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

Paul (the Cranky one),

Fair enough but surely, then, within this context, bringing up Star Wars movies or violent television shows are a red herring, no? There’s no question of criminal behavior in a Star Wars episode (other than the crime of soaking us for theater tickets to see any of the last three episodes produced…that should be a crime but that’s another debate, I guess). And how does one go about verifying that a picture of a woman published on a newsgroup, tied up and having large fish-hooks piercing her nipples, is a willing participant?

The other thing…we can’t have a small white cross on the seal of the City of Los Angeles or a cross on public property, that must be removed, but such depictions of violence against women must be tolerated?

By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

I agree, both about the context and about the criminal quality of the latest three films. It does trivialise things.

And the problem of determining a willing participant is a difficult one. But that problem is why I have issues with the law. I suspect a legal disclaimer could be added, in the same way that they currently have disclaimers about the age of the models, at least for the professional sites. How to stop amateurs is a problem. Of course, distributing violent and extreme material is already an offence and has been for 50 years, so this might be a logical extension. I just have problems without a better definition of violent and extreme. Using common sense isn’t a good basis for law.

As to the cross, well, I’m steering well clear of that. Although there is a difference between a cross on public property and a video watched in the comfort of one’s own home. To be honest, I’ve only seen the adverts for these sites and they were enough to turn my stomach.

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

I agree that there’s a difference between the cross on the seal and contextless violence against women viewed in the privacy of home are two different things…I’m just not sure that it speaks well for the ACLU that it sues LA for millions to remove the cross and defends the producers of contextless violence against women in court. There’s a difference, alright, I just think the ACLU has it exaclty backwards.

By Paul Watson The Cranky Brit on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

Craig,

Not quite my point, as I’m sure you’re aware. As long as it is consensual, I don’t think what kinky shit people do in their own home is anyone else’s business. You raised an example involving fishhooks and nipples. Well, I can believe that is done willingly. I have a friend who wants to be branded, so I can see that it is possible. I don’t understand that decision in the slightest, but I can see it is possible to be done willingly. 

By Craig R. Harmon on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

No. I know that wasn’t your point; it was mine.

By Liberal Jarhead on Aug 31, 2006 | Reply

Ted Bundy tried to say it was all because of pornography that he killed all those women, too, and it was equally contemptible and dishonest when he said it.  Censorship is more dangerous than the material people would have us censor because they know better than we do what is in our best interests.