The Shotgun Blog
« What they mean when they say "nice guys finish last" | Main | July 1, 1916 - Remember Beaumont Hamel »
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Defend our porn...
That's the e-home of John Stagliano, a man charged with violating obscenity laws for his pornography--Defend our Porn dot org (probably not safe for work, but I didn't poke around that much. Promise.)
Stagliano is facing lots of years in prison for his pornography. I have no idea what's in the porn, since I've never seen any "Evil Angel" videos (the name of his company). I'm fairly certain it's discomfitting, and probably pretty, uhm, fetish-y. But what do I know. I'm not a connoisseur (I swear. No, really).
But I am a connoisseur of liberty, and I'm pretty sure that--in spite of the fact that I probably wouldn't want to watch the stuff myself, probably would disapprove of it if I did see it, and most definitely would not encourage people to watch it--Stagliano should be free to sell it to adult consumers who know what they're getting. And me and you have the liberty to call him a peddler in filth, and are free to encourage others not to be his friend, and so on. He should, in short, be legally permitted to do this.
Bureaucrash is fast on the scene with a video defending Stagliano:
Meanwhile, here is an interesting exchange between Stagliano, and associate professor of law Barry McDonald in the L.A. Times. Boiling down the points:
[Posted by: P.M. Jaworski.]
McDonald: "Let's break this question down into its two main component parts. First, is no one truly harmed by obscene materials? Assuming compliance with laws in making them, this question would focus initially on their consumers. Recall that the definition of obscenity requires that the materials be designed to appeal to an unhealthy or morbid interest in sex-related activities. Can it really be maintained that a viewer of such materials is not harmed in some way? I'm not a psychologist or sociologist, but it seems to me that viewing them to obtain sexual pleasure cannot be the healthiest way of experiencing sex. Moreover, the viewer is not the only, if even the main, concern of obscenity laws. Such laws are also designed to protect minors and unwilling adult viewers from advertent or inadvertent exposure to obscene materials. Even putting adults aside, surely our society has a strong interest in protecting minors from the potential harm from being exposed to such materials -- however that harm may be defined.
"Finally, even if these concerns did not exist, would our government really have no legitimate interest in preventing the dissemination of obscene materials via public channels of marketing, distribution or exhibition? Do communities across our country lack a sufficient interest in "drawing a line" in the sand and saying enough is enough? Shouldn't commercial porn distributors adhere to some minimal standards of public decency to avoid the proliferation of cable channels, movie houses, adult bookstores or websites hawking this stuff and its inevitable tainting (some may say further deterioration) of the public square and consciousness? To merely state these questions is, in my view, to ask and answer them."
Stagliano: "From a legal standpoint, this comes down to your view of human nature and society. Is it right, ethical or moral for one group of people to control the thoughts of another group? Indeed, it is the thoughts that erotic images arouse in the viewer's mind that those who would assume the power to control others have a problem with. Just remember that if you would assume such power, Barry, you personally are responsible for arresting me because I sold images you didn't like. This is exactly what you allowed to happen when I was indicted on nine counts of obscenity by the Department of Justice last April.
"Barry, your point is that people must be forced to not think things that you don't like, and for that you'd have me put in jail. Your comment that it "seems" to you that viewing images "to obtain sexual pleasure cannot be the healthiest way of experiencing sex" seems not a good enough reason to imprison me for 39 years. In fact, using a proper concept of morality based on individual rights, it is you and those who would put me in jail when I did not infringe on anyone's rights who are behaving immorally.
...
"We don't need the 1st Amendment to protect the people who go along with the majority in a community. We need it to protect those who would question the accepted wisdom, which is what I am doing. I do not think like you, Barry. I believe that my sexuality should not be defined and judged by the words of the Miller decision. My concept of art and sex differs from others'. Am I to be condemned to jail for this? That is essentially what you are advocating. To a community, something may be "morbid," but to me, an individual in that community, it is not. To me, the pleasure I get from viewing such material is simply a wonderful expression of my biological nature."
Okay: Who wins this exchange, and why? Should we have obscenity laws? Is this a free speech/expression issue?
Posted by westernstandard on July 1, 2008 in Media | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5539b124f8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Defend our porn...:
Comments
Yet another example of how Llibertarians are so idealogically driven that they undermine any political chance to manifest their ideas.
Llibertarians are nothing but useful idiots. Defenders of pornographers that exploit women and drug pushers that exploit hapless abusers.
What's next? I can't even imagine.
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-01 11:48:03 AM
Anybody else tired of porn moguls being held up as paragons of free speech and individual liberty?
Posted by: ECM | 2008-07-01 12:14:11 PM
Smutpeddlers can burn in hell. It ought to be a duty to oppress them.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-01 12:16:05 PM
Oh, epsi, I should have known you'd turn this into a discussion not about liberty per se, but another rant about your feelings on libertarians/Libertarians. My response? Epsi who? If you'll humour me with a reason to agree with your position on this issue, I might agree with you.
ECM: I don't see many cases of porn moguls being held up as paragons of anything.
Zebulon: They might still do that.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-01 12:25:37 PM
The People Versus Larry Flynt (a motion picture) was more than enough, but now we have this joker and there have been plenty of other porn moguls going on, at-length, about how they love the 1st Amendment, and how they're 'standing up for your rights' down through the years (you can't tell me you haven't seen this same dance played out time and time again for the past several decades, can you?)
It also doesn't hurt (or help?) if you've spent a great deal of time in the belly of the beast (i.e. 'The Valley' just north of LaLaLand) where they're really big on this type of 'speech' but not so hot on anything they actually disagree with (that "anything" being the sort of thing you'd think any sane person would get behind such as Yahoo and co. facilitating the imprisonment of journalists in China, as one example).
In any event, my point is that there are much better (and much more insidious) examples of free speech and liberty being trampled than the poor porn vendor. As someone else noted, libertarians, for some bizarre reason, pick jokers like this to make their points when they could pick situations that are slightly more germaine (and acceptable) to everyday people as most people aren't going to cry too hard if Joe Pornmogul (oh I know: you're a free speech absolutist so it doesn't matter what the speech is--it's all good, even if libertarians are the biggest fans of the perfect being the enemy of the good).
Along those lines, it also has the benefit of not making libertarians seem like they're more interested in protecting the creatures that exploit various and sundry groups and contribute to the slide of a denuded culture into moral oblivion (Then again, libertarians aren't particularly known for their love of political relevancy.)
Posted by: ECM | 2008-07-01 12:49:21 PM
Hello, Western Standard. Not one single "Happy Canada Day" post? This late on July 1? Of course not.
Posted by: anon | 2008-07-01 1:23:01 PM
epsilson sounds like a real party girl.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-07-01 1:25:49 PM
ECM, you are probably right that Libertarians would be more politically relevant by picking their battles more carefully. On the other hand, defending freedom, even for those whom we find disgusting or immoral, makes the argument more credible.
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-01 1:26:58 PM
The porn industry is like the drug industry, you cannot control it or stop unless you are willing to indulge in mass executions of the guilty.
Are you ready to do that?
If not, then shut up and mind your own business.
Posted by: John V | 2008-07-01 1:30:15 PM
John V: All we have to do is make the punishment fit the crime. My suggested punishment for porn peddling is a hefty fine, followed by jail time for repeat offenders. That ought to turn many people away from it, especially small business owners.
Suggesting an extreme punishment like mass execution is a sign of a weak argument. Why not bring up Hitler and the Nazis while you're at it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-01 1:34:14 PM
Give it time, anon. Western Standard contribs are mostly out on the west coast. There's a time delay from downtown Toronto...
ECM: You have a point, and I concede it--too many libertarians focus only on the crazies, and too many of them are keen on "perfect as the enemy of the good" kind of arguments and games. But I insist that if you look through my posts, you'll find a bit of both. I often post about Ezra and Mark Steyn, often talk on the radio about those issues, and often refer to "mainstream" cases where I think a little liberty would do a lot of good.
But I'm also aware that there are people who do things that I don't like that should also be free to do that. And I post those things as well, as evidenced here.
And I should point out that I didn't "herald" or in any way hold up this guy as a "good" guy. I just said that what he does, which I said I'd probably not like, should be legal. And I say "probably" because I don't have prudish or Victorian sentiments.
In fact, I don't even understand the impulse to want to lock up people for something they find aesthetically unpalatable. And I haven't yet come across a persuasive argument that convinces me that there's something more than mere aesthetic revulsion here. And just because something is disgusting is hardly a reason to make it illegal.
And that's what I'm looking for: Reasons, not just reactions.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-07-01 1:52:23 PM
As George Jonas says, "Liberty is indivisible."
Insofar as pornographers literally "exploit" women -- i.e. coerce them into a demeaning lifestyle they are incapable of resisting -- they deserve to be shut down just like any other coercive business (such as most branches of government).
But when blogers emote about the "exploitation" of women in the porn industry, what they really mean to say is that they disagree with the choices these women have made to participate, and would prefer to deny them that choice. For their own good, of course.
Problem is, there's no end of things we could forbid people doing "for their own good." Your aversion to porn is another person's aversion to cartoons of the Prophet. Maybe you would like to be saved from roasting in hell?...
Liberty is indivisible.
Posted by: Grant Brown | 2008-07-01 2:07:48 PM
Insofar as pornographers literally "exploit" women -- i.e. coerce them into a demeaning lifestyle they are incapable of resisting --
Posted by: Grant Brown | 1-Jul-08 2:07:48 PM
How do they coerce them? Are all the women nymphomaniacs incapable of doing anything else?
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-07-01 2:35:28 PM
Remember this day, Canada Day 2008, when Henry Morgantaler received the Order of Canada. Yeah, lots to be proud of.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-01 2:47:18 PM
Remember this day, Canada Day 2008,
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 1-Jul-08 2:47:18 PM
It's Dominion Day, Punk.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-07-01 2:51:11 PM
Not where I live.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-01 2:54:56 PM
Insofar as pornographers literally "exploit" women -- i.e. coerce them into a demeaning lifestyle they are incapable of resisting -- they deserve to be shut down just like any other coercive business (such as most branches of government).
Posted by: Grant Brown | 1-Jul-08 2:07:48 PM
Yes Grant, women who end up in this line of work have no idea what they are getting into. They just see the Dollar Bills and then all higher brain functions seize and they just beg to be exploited.
Some bizarre ideas you have about how women function, is the idea to shocking to you that there are women out there who chose it because they like it? Or that they do not see themselves as exploited?
In general one could assume that the women in porn today (in the west) chose this line of work and aren't forced into it. Strip Clubs etc. seem to be a different story (just see the whole "Stripper Visa" thing in Canada).
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 3:01:51 PM
We could learn a lesson from our American conservative friends: even when someone they don't like is running the show, and policies they don't agree with are being enacted, and ones they like are not being enacted, they never stop loving America. I don't like Morgentaler getting the Order of Canada, either, but that doesn't mean I feel ashamed to be Canadian, or not feel proud. What the hell is wrong with you neocons?
I haven't been here in more than a year; the names have changed, but it's the same Canada-loathing B.S. Screw you, Canada-haters!
A traditionalist, 1965-Red-Tory, devout Christian, Canadian patriot.
Posted by: anon | 2008-07-01 3:09:34 PM
When I was in Edmonton in December, I saw a large billboard for a local adult club. Thank goodness for the labor shortage, because it is eliminating jobs like that.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-07-01 3:11:24 PM
Quiet a lot of wide ranging comments I see along with the liberal claim that the women in this line of work have no idea what they are getting into. I say liberal/leftist since it denies personal responsibility and pushes the victim status card. Of course this is the problem with claiming exploitation unless the responsible adult is actually forced. I note that liberals have no difficulty in exploiting children however, as with environmentalist propaganda and other favoured causes.
While I concur that one cannot legislate morality, that is force people to become moral through force, I do wonder if those pushing complete freedom would not need to draw the line at some point. If so what justification would they advance? For example should adults be free to have sex with children? Should there be no age restriction for consuming alcohol?
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-01 3:22:25 PM
John V wrote: "The porn industry is like the drug industry, you cannot control it or stop unless you are willing to indulge in mass executions of the guilty. Are you ready to do that?"
And thirty years ago, you'd probably have said that mass executions were the only way to enforce laws against drinking and driving and compulsory seatbelt laws. If you can think of no other way to enforce a law than a guillotine with a conveyor belt, John, it's just as well you're not calling the shots.
P.S. Heroin is physiologically addictive. Porn isn't.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-01 3:36:55 PM
By the way, what are the SPECIFIC charges against this guy? The article doesn't say, and I sure don't trust this guy's website to be on the up and up about them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-01 3:38:17 PM
While I concur that one cannot legislate morality, that is force people to become moral through force, I do wonder if those pushing complete freedom would not need to draw the line at some point. If so what justification would they advance? For example should adults be free to have sex with children? Should there be no age restriction for consuming alcohol?
Posted by: Alain | 1-Jul-08 3:22:25 PM
My personal definition of Freedom is: That each individuals Freeodm ends where another persons begins".
Yes, that is a "sliding line" but so is life.
As for age restrictions. There are good reasons on why they are in place. Drinking and driving (or sex) can all have consequences that one can only realize once one has reached a certain age. And yes, this is individual too. there are 20 years old who should't have sex, drink or drive but as a society we have set certain limits.
Having said this, the "demonization" of any of these things (sex, drugs and booze) does more harm than good, and a truly Free society should not try to hide / avoid discussion of these things in an open manner.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 3:38:50 PM
Llibertarians in their jihadist zeal for no-limit freedoms would have a very difficult time answering those questions, Alain.
Epsi
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-07-01 3:40:30 PM
Oh boy....porn, it is just such fun to get all in a lather over the folks who earn their living in that industry, eh? I also think it is concievable, correct me if you think I'm wrong, that it has been around for...well...as long as us? That in it self is not to say it is for everyone, but adults don't need 'Jackboot Justice' coming along and kicking in bedroom doors.
So, what is next on the list of forbidden acts, doggy style?
Posted by: prairie dog | 2008-07-01 4:30:03 PM
I'll answer Alain's questions.
Libertarian's believe in responsibility, at least Conservative libertarians do.
That would mean that an individual who could not give informed consent to an act would be an exploited individual.
Children and people of low IQ could not give informed consent to an adult act, adult act being a definition of sex.
>"Defenders of pornographers that exploit women...."
What's next? I can't even imagine.
epsilon | 1-Jul-08 11:48:03 AM
Of course you can't imagine, epsilon. you are a woman and according to your first post are of such diminished metal capacity that you could easily be exploited./
Are you sure, epsilon, that women should even have the power to vote, susceptible to blandishments and exploitation as you feel woman are, men being so much more "adult" in their decision making?
Epsilon, what of the men who are depicted in the porn industry?
Are they exploited too, or don't you care about them?
>"John V: All we have to do is make the punishment fit the crime. My suggested punishment for porn peddling is a hefty fine, followed by jail time for repeat offenders. That ought to turn many people away from it, especially small business owners."
Zebulon Pike | 1-Jul-08 1:34:14 PM
And what of the men and woman who are being depicted in the various porn media, Zeb?
Are they not as guilty as the producers or is it your opinion, Zeb, as epsilon is, that the "models" are exploited too?
And what of the men and women who go to a bar on "Ladies Night"?
Are the bar owners exploiting those women by using them as a blandishment for men to buy them drinks and what of the men?
Are men who buy drinks on "Ladies Night" at the local pub being exploited by the bar owner and the women who cadge drinks from these men?
Are we going to hold adults responsible for their own acts or not?
I say let's do and if they are responsible, then these adults have the right to freedom in their interaction with each other as long as there is informed consent from both parties to a transaction or interaction.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-07-01 5:01:15 PM
Perhaps the problem has to do with labels and definitions, such as libertarian, conservative and so on. I know that I do not completely fit any one of present day labels as they are defined.
Personally I support small government and very small bureaucracy, low taxation, little to no government interference/meddling in the lives of citizens, free enterprise/market and the return of government social programs to charities, religious and secular. Also there is a need for total protection of freedom of expression and of the press, freedom of association along with private property rights. It is evident we are no where near any of this even south of the border. They do have more freedom in general than we do but it is far from what I have described.
I agree with Speller that adults should be free to interact with each other as long as there is informed consent. As for the definition advanced by Snowrunner that one's freedom ends where another's begins, if I am not mistaken this is often the argument used by various control zealots, as the anti-smoking ones. I am not saying that Snowrunner is such a zealot; only that this definition leaves liberty/freedom open to abuse. I would argue that it should be up to the owners of private establishments to allow or not smoking just as a private club should be able to decide whom to admit and whom not to admit. Before anyone trots out the right of workers to a smoke free environment let me say they have the right to work elsewhere.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-01 7:03:34 PM
Alain wrote: "As for the definition advanced by Snowrunner that one's freedom ends where another's begins, if I am not mistaken this is often the argument used by various control zealots, as the anti-smoking ones."
We have to be careful about making all freedoms absolutely without limit, Alain. Otherwise we will have "Paradise Law"--you can do whatever you want to others, and they can do the same to you.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-01 7:40:37 PM
Snowy,
"Yes Grant, women who end up in this line of work have no idea what they are getting into. They just see the Dollar Bills and then all higher brain functions seize and they just beg to be exploited."
I think you need to re-read Grant's post with fewer hostile assumptions.
Please note his opening word "insofar" on his leading paragraph. Also note that his second paragraph seems to be in agreement with you...just not applied to him except by emoting bloggers...like you.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-01 8:10:49 PM
As for the definition advanced by Snowrunner that one's freedom ends where another's begins, if I am not mistaken this is often the argument used by various control zealots, as the anti-smoking ones. I am not saying that Snowrunner is such a zealot; only that this definition leaves liberty/freedom open to abuse.
Posted by: Alain | 1-Jul-08 7:03:34 PM
Any definition is prone to abuse, hence why I said this is a "sliding line" and clearly something that has to be decided individually.
My answer isn't a "here's the line", beacuse depending on circumstances it is shifting.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 8:24:13 PM
I think you need to re-read Grant's post with fewer hostile assumptions.
Please note his opening word "insofar" on his leading paragraph. Also note that his second paragraph seems to be in agreement with you...just not applied to him except by emoting bloggers...like you.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 1-Jul-08 8:10:49 PM
I am actually a commentator not a blogger. And misconstruing what other commentators say is actually expected on this blog comments section in order to be one of the team.
Just trying to fit in with the likes of you H2.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-07-01 8:25:35 PM
Shane, just where did I advocate such a concept of freedom that we should be allowed to do whatever we want to others? I did not as you will see if you read what I wrote.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-01 8:59:33 PM
Alain, you seem to be promoting a system of absolute or near-absolute freedom. Absolute freedom is Paradise Law. Think about it.
The notion that the exercise of your freedoms should NOT negatively impact others is, in fact, the doctrine that one man's freedom ends where another begins--the very concept you took issue with. Forgive me if I'm a little confused.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-01 9:51:26 PM
Snowy,
"Just trying to fit in with the likes of you H2."
You're welcome.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-07-02 1:01:38 AM
"Should there be no age restriction for consuming alcohol?"
Exactly.
When you put age limits on things, young people want them *more* not less. Young people are always trying to be *more mature*. Do a little research.
Posted by: K Stricker | 2008-07-02 10:17:53 AM
Well Shane I just read again my comments posted at 7:03 yesterday and see no where the promotion of Paradise Law. Unless you consider freedom of expression and of the press, private property rights, freedom of association, small government and smaller bureaucracy, low taxation and an end to government interference and meddling in our lives Paradise Law, then explain your comments. My point is that leaving it to one's freedom ends where another's begins without further clarification, we end up with exactly what we have to-day - private establishments (even vehicles) cannot decide how they wish to operate. Actually this is just one example.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-02 11:28:13 AM
K Stricker wrote: "When you put age limits on things, young people want them *more* not less. Young people are always trying to be *more mature*. Do a little research."
Fine. Let's reduce the legal age for driving or owning a firearm to five.
Just because kids want something doesn't mean they should have it. Breaking the law to acquire forbidden goods is not a "rite of passage" nor a normal part of adolescence; it's simply breaking the law.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-02 6:04:48 PM
Sorry, Alain, but I considered only your remark that the concept of "your freedom ends where mine starts" was a bad one. The leap from negating that principle to Paradise Law is not a large one.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-07-02 6:05:53 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.