Sex In The Public Square - 2257 - Comments

Very well formulated

Visitor — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:43:00 -0800

I though your analysis was very thorough and logical. In the middle of this rather serious dilemma, I remembered a parody I once saw (don't remember where) that dealed with this issue. There was a mock news channel that was making a story on "repulsive porn", and of course they had to show some of all that juicy material. An right before they where to roll the clip the person they where interviewing said: "Hang on a second, so that people have time to switch on their video recorders". That was all a joke of course and no porn was actually shown, but I think it illustrated the same point you made about the hypocrisy of it all.

Recent Screening

Viviane — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:29:32 -0800

AVN had two stories about a showing this weekend of the film:

http://avn.com/law/mark-kernes-mental-floss/33047.html

http://avn.com/law/mark-kernes-mental-floss/33156.html

Diana Rusell's take on use of copyrighted material

Elizabeth — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:55:04 -0700

Anthony Kennerson at Blog for Pro-porn Activism has this post today about an article that anti-porn activist Dr. Diana Russell wrote explaining why she does not feel like it is wrong to publish, without permission, copyrighted pornography. Kennerson's post includes long excerpts from the Russell article, and both are well worth a look!

Re: Password protected?!

Iamcuriousblue — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 00:48:29 -0700

Yup – same here.

I wonder if this means our criticism actually had an effect?

They might have figured out that, whatever the ambiguous legal status of 2257, laws around exposing minors to porn are being enforced, and there's plenty of people out there who are going to damn well try to hold SPC to the same laws as anybody else who displays porn.

I think if they want to elevate the level of debate beyond legal technicalities and on to matters of substance, they ought to simply play by the rules – make due dilligiance to conform to the very laws they support and create what critical media they can within such strictures.

I Hope So

JanieBelle — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:40:17 -0700

It sure seems like they weren't expecting someone to look behind that curtain of righteous indignation they employ to disguise their porn show booths.

Maybe they should just stop being hypocrites if that makes them uncomfortable, and toss the curtain into the recycling bin. I'll bet James Dobson would be happy to reuse it.

Password protected?!

Elizabeth — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:13:01 -0700

That is a change. I did download the slideshow a few days ago. Now when I go to the SendSpace page where the file is kept I see that password box too, with this message: This file has been password protected by the uploader*

Do you think this is a result of the pressure or the arguments being applied at BPPA and here?

I Might Be Confused

Chris — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:12:00 -0700

Have you actually been able to download it, Elizabeth? I get a screen asking for a password when I click the "Clicking this link will...." text.

I thought so too at first, but no

Elizabeth — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:56:00 -0700

I had thought so too at first, but actually it isn't taken down. If you click on the Slideshow tab and follow the age-screening link then you can't get the show. Perversely, if you click on the Toolkit link (the only age screening is this statement: "(Clicking this link will re-direct you to a third-party server and by doing so you acknowledge that you are at least 18 years old.") you can get both the script and the powerpoint file.

WOW

JanieBelle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:24:09 -0700

If that's what happened, that's pretty damned cool.

Slide Show Taken Down

Chris — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 13:14:00 -0700

Interesting, this:

The slideshow has been temporarily taken offline. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Are we getting through? Are they embarrassed to be caught distributing porn?

Hypocrisy and unclear law

Iamcuriousblue — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:23:20 -0700

I've just posted at BPPA about this as well.

I think a lot of this debate is confused by the unclear legal status of 2257 at the moment.

Basically, the earlier version of 2257 was fairly lax when it came to distribution, as opposed to production, of porn. Last year's amendments to 2257 greatly expanded the definition of "secondary producer" to include anybody distributing or showing pornographic images. In fact, one of the reason the amendments were so strongly opposed by free speech advocates is because of the effect that it might have on sexual expression, particularly the sex-related blogosphere who were suddenly all "secondary producers" of pornographic images they might make use of under normal fair-use provisions. The Sixth Circuit Court decision last year has left all of 2257 in legal limbo.

As it stands, I don't think they're in violation of 2257 right now, though I think when it comes to laws about potentially exposing such material to minors. On one hand, there are an awful lot of internet sites that violate this, however, John Stagliano is facing jail time for this, which is a clear signal that such laws are in effect. I really don't think there's an "educational" exception for allowing minors to see outright porn, so I think Stop Porn Culture is clearly in violation of the law here. What's particularly galling as that these are the kinds of laws that Stop Porn Culture is very likely to support when enforced against others.

I do think they need to be called out on the hypocrisy of this, in any event. If porn is really so harmful, both to the viewer and those being viewed, then surely what they're doing is further victimization. (I've even seen some anti-porn folks claim that viewing porn makes you a rapist by extension. So what are these people doing?) I don't believe this, of course, and I think their actions help undermine their case.

More importantly, its really rather disgusting the way they use the performers in the images as poster children for their political views on porn, on sex, and on gender. I'd put money on the likelihood that if there was some way of finding an polling the women on whether they agreed with the views of Stop Porn Culture, you'd see very little agreement.

hypocrisy & self-righteousness

Averroes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:23:22 -0700

nice well rounded discussion. Free speech and regulation of free speech are not supposed to be dependent on the identity,affiliations, popularity or political influence of the speaker, or in this case distributor/publisher. A hallmark of these groups is their flouting of laws, justified by a stated higher purpose, while seeking harsh law enforcement against others based on their subjective moral judgment. We must fight this hypocrisy and bring it to light to educate the general public regarding these tactics.

Stop Porn Culture and 2257

Renegade Evolution — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:24:33 -0700

Elizabeth-

First, thanks for writing this!

-When a porn company compiles images and footage from other films for a new film ( a best of, as it were) it counts as new product…I figure the same law should apply. Also, it's been a long time since I was in school, yet, for something to be considered educational in a scientific sense, there is a hypothesis, testing, data collection, proof…in SPC, we merely have a hypothesis, none of those other stages. Even Dines herself states "there are no good studies" (Penn & Teller, Bullshit). In other educational realms, debate is also used as a way to formulate opinions, and they do not allow that in any sense. On the legal front, currently John Staglinao is embroiled in a court case because a trailer for film made by his company "might be" viewed by minors on the Internet. The Slide Show might also be viewed by minors on the Internet (or in person). This seems to be a valid legal matter to me.

As for challenging them on their hypocrisy…I do that every day, as much as possible. More people really need to.