Cambria list and community standards
General Schvatzkoph
any rhyme or reason to it. It's clearly just based on the experiences of
a relatively few successful prosecutions. A handful of cases don't provide
a statistically significant sample on which to make judgements. By analogy
imagine walking around a golf course in a thunderstorm and waiting to get
hit by lightning.If you were hit on the 3rd, 7th and 12th hole you
wouldn't then draw the conclusion the holes 3, 7 and 12 are dangerous and
that all the other holes were safe. By the same measure just because
someone has been convicted of obscenity for sticking a
whole hand into a pussy you can't then conclude that you won't be
convicted if you only stick four fingers in. The Miller test is based on
"community standards". What "community standards" means today is the crux
of the debate, is it what ever 12 jurors say it is or is it something
that can be defined in a more rigorous manner. The gist of the PBS
documentary was that porn consumption is pervasive, so much so that huge
corporations like GM and AT&T are the primary marketers not the mafia
owned smut shops of the past. In order to establish that a particular act
is not obscene it should only be necessary to show that a significant
minority of the population does not find it offensive. If 40% of the
population is consuming porn is some form or another (to pick a number
out of the air) and that group is not offended by something then that
something should be OK. What the porn industry needs to do is to fund a
very large scientfic study of attitudes towards porn to establish a real
basis for determining what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable to the
public in general and to porn consumers in particular. Then when these case
come to court there will be real evidence to present rather that relying
on the reactions of 12 old ladies from Lynching Tree Georgia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **
** internet adult film database at http://www.iafd.com **
Joey Bishop 36
potentially help the industry avoid obscenity cases but I disagree with the
no
black men/white women themes being on the list because I doubt that there'd
be
obscenity cases involving this due to the fact that it makes them look like
racists. Also, perhaps some of the lesbian-fisting scenes on trial for
obscenity could use gay rights and the fear of looking homophobic to beat
the
rap.
Mike Paul
> The more you look at the Cambria list the more you see that there isn't
> any rhyme or reason to it. It's clearly just based on the experiences of
> a relatively few successful prosecutions.
I never heard of a successful prosecution of a video for simply depicting
a Black guy having sex with a White woman...
Mike Paul
It's more like "We'll sell more videos if we cater to what the fewest
people will complain about", and since Community Standards are still
determined by the 12 people on the jury and *not* by the community,
leaving out stuff racists and homophobes would home-in on probably seemed
like a good idea, no matter what that did to the audience looking for the
stuff, or the actors who wouldn't be hired because of who they couldn't
work with...
Torris Bin Drinken
>In article <rame.1013215203p2324@linux>, schvan...@yahoo.com says...
>> The more you look at the Cambria list the more you see that there isn't
>> any rhyme or reason to it. It's clearly just based on the experiences of
>> a relatively few successful prosecutions.
>
>I never heard of a successful prosecution of a video for simply depicting
>a Black guy having sex with a White woman...
>
>Mike Paul
MIke,
since I've pretty much boycotted Vivid for a varieyt of reasons, do
they still pretty much hew the line against BM/WF sex? (not counting
half castes like Bobby Vitale Guy Da Silva)
Torris
Jim Yanik
<rame.1013271602p10663@linux>:
>On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 00:30:27 EDT, General Schvatzkoph
><schvan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> What the porn industry needs to do is to fund a
>>very large scientfic study of attitudes towards porn to establish a real
>>basis for determining what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable to the
>>public in general and to porn consumers in particular.
>
>why bother spending the money when you can just ask know-it-all p
>riley who says any cum shot above the waist violates community
>standards...according to p riley, all cum shots should be delivered to
>a chix kneecap.
I fail to see why 'community standards' even enters into this;watching
videos in the privacy of one's home.It's more of a matter of others
disliking the idea of people watching stuff THEY don't like,without
legitimate justification.I believe the Constitution is supposed to keep
that from happening.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
General Schvatzkoph
someones gut or on a summary of a handful of legal cases is worthless. It
doesn't provide any real guidance to the industry, it won't reduce the
number of prosecutions and it won't provide a basis of defense for those
that are prosecuted. The only way that you can generate a list of
acceptable standards is to do a large scale survey of attitudes towards
porn so that you can make an argument that certain acts meet the test of
community standards and certain acts don't. I think that it should be
possible to argue that something meets a community standards test if a
significant minority find it acceptable. Where you draw the line, i.e. is
a 10% acceptance rate enough, 20%, 30% ..., will be subject to debate
until the Supreme Court makes a ruling but at least you will have some
data to work with rather than making decisions on gut alone.
Mike Paul
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2002 14:37:27 EDT, Mike Paul <mp...@sc.rr.com> wrote:
> >I never heard of a successful prosecution of a video for simply depicting
> >a Black guy having sex with a White woman...
> >
> >Mike Paul
>
> MIke,
> since I've pretty much boycotted Vivid for a varieyt of reasons, do
> they still pretty much hew the line against BM/WF sex? (not counting
> half castes like Bobby Vitale Guy Da Silva)
Bobby who?
Every week, Excalibur sends out a New Releases email, and that's about
all I see of Vivid. I'm not sure the online resources can reliably say
if any of the top-dollar movies Vivid cranks out have BM/WF scenes, but
I'm *fairly* sure they do them for the lesser productions.
I haven't asked lately about The Playboy Channel showing BM/WF either.
If they still rely heavily on Vivid, it might end up a good test of both
to review Playboy's schedule, if it's on their site...
> Torris
Mike Paul
Of course, what with guys like Jules Jordan lurking about, people who
know the answers are probably reading this anyway, and since the answers
might be bad they choose not to...
General Schvatzkoph
Community standards enters into this because the Supreme Court says it
does. Below are the Miller tests,
1. Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 , reaffirmed. A work may be
subject to state regulation where that work, taken as a whole,
appeals to the prurient interest in sex; portrays, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable
state law; and, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value. Pp. 23-24.
2. The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be:
(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community
standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals
to the prurient interest, Roth, supra, at 489,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual
conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value. If a state obscenity law is thus
limited, First Amendment values are adequately protected by ultimate
independent appellate review of constitutional claims when necessary. Pp. 24-25.
3. The test of "utterly without redeeming social value" articulated in
Memoirs, supra, is rejected as a constitutional standard. Pp. 24-25.
4. The jury may measure the essentially factual issues of prurient
appeal and patent offensiveness by the standard that prevails in
the forum community, and need not employ a "national standard." Pp. 30-34.
The complete text of the decision may be found at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=413&invol=15
When you actually look at the Miller decision you can see how difficult
it would be to defend most modern adult videos. The more liberal standard that
the was set up in Roth ("utterly without redeeming social value") is
directly overturned by Miller. Miller sets the bar much higher by
requiring that the work have serious literary, artistic, political,
or scientific value. Clearly virtually all modern porn fails this test,
frankly it's hard to see how any of it could even meet the Roth test let
alone Miller's requirement that the work have serious value. It's also
clear that the average person would find that the work appeals "to the
pruient interest". Of course porn appeals to pruient interests, that's
the whole point of the stuff. An adult video that didn't appeal to
prurient interests wouldn't sell a single copy. The only test that adult
videos have any chance of meeting in section 2.b, the phrase "in a
patently offensive way" allows for some leeway. The court leaves it up to
juries to determine what is offensive and what isn't. The key is to
convince a jury that a film isn't patently offensive to their community.
Prosecuters will of course want the jurors to go with their gut. The
defense needs something more concreate, which is why I'm suggesting that
the porn industry do a serious survey if for no other reason than to
figure out what juries are likely to let them get away with and what they
won't.
The Nameless Horror
<schvan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The only test that adult
>videos have any chance of meeting in section 2.b, the phrase "in a
>patently offensive way" allows for some leeway.
Note also the reference to sexual conduct defined in the applicable
state law.
The entire decision simply sets rules for when porn _can_ be made
illegal, should the voters of a particular state wish to do so.
The problem isn't that it is possible for the legislature to outlaw
porn, if that's what the people want it to do.
A picture of a naked woman doesn't "say" anything; it doesn't argue
for a particular political point of view; thus, even highly repressive
policies concerning pornography are not inconsistent with democracy.
The problem is that a flaw in the political system, the need for
elected representatives to pay lip service to public hypocrisy, may
lead to laws against porn and things like that even when the majority
of the public does not in fact favor such laws. Americans are not, by
and large, the kind of people who want anything even remotely
resembling the Taliban in their midst. But a powerful minority still
uses ridicule and ostracism to silence its opponents. After all, most
of us need to work for a living, and so we want to be able to get
along with all kinds of people, and not be known as being odd,
strange, or radical.
Jim Yanik
<rame.1013360405p4522@linux>:
Since when does the Constitution ban 'offense'? Or protect people from
being offended? I'd like to know where it says that in the Constitution.
This sounds like the basis for the entire 'politically correct' crap.
GlennGlenn
General Schvatzkoph <schvan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Miller sets the bar much higher by requiring that the work have
> serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Clearly
> virtually all modern porn fails this test,
Not if the producers and/or fans can make a case that themes related to
the quest for physical and psychological pleasure through various
avenues of erotic play in modern society suit such a standard. Has such
an attempt been made in this context?
Just wonderin'
--
Glenn -- Lost somewhere in Hollywood, periodically seeing double
-------------
SPAMBAIT tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com ab...@yahoo.com u...@ftc.govabuse@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com
ab...@mindspring.netab
use-no...@uu.net ab...@dialsprint.net ab...@earthlink.compostmaster@attglobal.net abuse@bells
outh.net abuse@sympatico
.ca
belg...@charter.net
news:rame.1013265605p9951@linux...
> I never heard of a successful prosecution of a video for simply depicting
> a Black guy having sex with a White woman...
>
Exactly! What is going on in Mr. Cambria's mind when this is protected by
the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Is he saying that White guy with a Black
Woman OR White guy with an Asian woman are perfectly OK to be on videobox
covers? If so, that's completely bullshit!
--
Belgalen
e-mail: belg...@charter.net
Red in GA
>> serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Clearly
>> virtually all modern porn fails this test,
>
>Not if the producers and/or fans can make a case that themes related to
>the quest for physical and psychological pleasure through various
>avenues of erotic play in modern society suit such a standard. Has such
>an attempt been made in this context?
>
>Just wonderin'
>
I think the whole topic is idiotic. Why is it that most entertainment starts
at "OK" and must work its way down to "NOT OK", while porn is supposed to
start
at "NOT OK" and then justify itself?
When you get to "community standards" - I've never lived in a "community" in
my
life. Everyone is different. Besides, if we are going to use that standard
then everyone's home and life should be turned inside out so we don't have to
endure hypocrisy.
S. Andrew Roberts
<rame.1013401203p11716@linux>, said about "Re: Cambria list and
community standards":
>Since when does the Constitution ban 'offense'?
To turn the question around on you... where in the Constitution is
privacy protected? Privacy and offensive are both words and concepts
that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
>I'd like to know where it says that in the Constitution.
The Constitution is not a set of laws. Rather it was written as a set
of rules defining how the government is structured. The Constitution
also stipulates the duties and responsibilities of the federal
government versus the state governments. Finally, the Constitution
outlines the rights of individuals.
Laws are found in both federal and state statutes.
>This sounds like the basis for the entire 'politically correct' crap.
The list is neither PC nor crap. It is the result of an attorney doing
his job! The Cambria list is merely a set of guidelines offered by
*one* attorney to *his* clients outlining what he feels may not be
defensible conduct in adult movies.
--
posted and mailed
========================================================
S. Andrew Roberts <shamu613 at yahoo dot yada yada yada>
Mike Paul
> The list is neither PC nor crap. It is the result of an attorney doing
> his job! The Cambria list is merely a set of guidelines offered by
> *one* attorney to *his* clients outlining what he feels may not be
> defensible conduct in adult movies.
Not to argue a lot, but that BM/WF thing came up as *in*defensible
*WHERE*? What judge would let some DA bring a case in based on race
alone?
Most of the rest seem to qualify as "things the rubes and civilians might
consider smarmy", but BM/WF (and no other combination) just doesn't seem
to qualify outside the kind of places that Asia referenced in
http://www.mikepaul.com/Asia.htm a while back. Those being the cushy
offices of people you work for, even if indirectly...
> S. Andrew Roberts <shamu613 at yahoo dot yada yada yada>
Mike Paul
Any lawyer who stepped all over the rights of one race to work with
another (the Frontline report claimed The List *was* being followed
without any given exceptions) doesn't sound like a lawyer worth hiring...
Jim Yanik
<rame.1013548817p7165@linux>:
>On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 04:05:34 EDT, jya...@kua.net (Jim Yanik), in
><rame.1013401203p11716@linux>, said about "Re: Cambria list and
>community standards":
>
>>Since when does the Constitution ban 'offense'?
>
>To turn the question around on you... where in the Constitution is
>privacy protected? Privacy and offensive are both words and concepts
>that are not mentioned in the Constitution.
>
>>I'd like to know where it says that in the Constitution.
>
>The Constitution is not a set of laws. Rather it was written as a set
>of rules defining how the government is structured. The Constitution
>also stipulates the duties and responsibilities of the federal
>government versus the state governments. Finally, the Constitution
>outlines the rights of individuals.
Yes,the Constitution is a limitation on the -powers of government-
,not a limitation on people.Certainly,people have a right to privacy.
Life,liberty,and the pursuit of happiness,as mentioned in the
Declaration of Independence.Also,the 4th amendment.Government
should only act when there is clear evidence of harm to the
public,not merely on what some folks -believe- is harmful.The
govenrment's job is to secure the people's FREEDOM,not restrict it
without good reason.Also,the Constitution does not GRANT
rights,but enumerates some of them(but not ALL of them).Read
Amendment IX.
With regards to offenses,one could be 'offended' by another's
manner of dress,or their body odor,or virtually anything. Offense is
in one's own mind. Just because -some- people don't like what you
do,is no justification for restricting it.You may have heard the
saying "your rights end where mine begin". If I'm doing something
that brings no harm to others,in the privacy of my own
home,(btw,the courts HAVE ruled that people have reasonable
expectations of PRIVACY in their own homes) then the gov't has
no business intruding.They have to demonstrate there is an
overriding reason for intruding.Not just because somebody 'feels'
it's necessary.
Our country is NOT a Democracy,where the majority rules in all
cases.It's a democratic Republic,where rights and freedoms are
protected.Or supposed to be protected.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
remove X to contact me
Joey Bishop 36
>*WHERE*? What judge would let some DA bring a case in based on race
>alone?
Exactly, and the same people who hate blacks hate Jews as well, I wonder why
''No Jewish men, white(Christian) women themes'' wasn't put on the list as
well...maybe because it'd be a pain in the ass removing Ron Jeremy from all
their videos?. Or because there's plenty of Jews in the jizz biz making
decisions as opposed to moulan yans?.
''I told the doc I need a change in sickness
and gave a girl herpes in exchange for syphilis
Put my LP on your Christmas gift list
You wanna get high, here bitch just sniff this'' Eminem from ''Cum on
Everybody''.
S. Andrew Roberts
<rame.1013566803p9583@linux>, said about "Re: Cambria list and
community standards":
>Not to argue a lot, but that BM/WF thing came up as *in*defensible
>*WHERE*?
That question would best be posed to Cambria. I won't speculate on his
reasons for advising his clients.
>Most of the rest seem to qualify as "things the rubes and civilians might
>consider smarmy", but BM/WF (and no other combination) just doesn't seem
>to qualify outside the kind of places that Asia referenced in
>http://www.mikepaul.com/Asia.htm a while back.
Frankly Mike, your fetish with interracial sex has turned into an
unhealthy obsession long ago. So much so that I stopped reading your
messages years ago.
--
posted and mailed
========================================================
S. Andrew Roberts <shamu613 at yahoo dot yada yada yada>
Druber
news:<rame.1013320817p22525@linux>...
> I think that it should be
> possible to argue that something meets a community standards test if a
> significant minority find it acceptable. Where you draw the line, i.e. is
> a 10% acceptance rate enough, 20%, 30% ..., will be subject to debate
> until the Supreme Court makes a ruling but at least you will have some
> data to work with rather than making decisions on gut alone.
I am quite puzzled about this community standard discussion. I always
though the U.S. saw themselfs as a spearhead of free market economy
(and free sexpression). So why should it be important if 10 %, 1%, 0,1
% accept some depiced acts, as long as some people will buy the
product?
(Of course there is one cutting point/no go aerea: child porn, we all
agree - but all the rest should be no problem to whatever community as
long as it is clearly marked)
Druber
General Schvatzkoph
original founders. Periodically the Puritans decide to try and make life
miserable for the rest of us. In the 18th and 19th centuries this meant
things like Sunday closing laws (in Massachusetts the blue laws weren't
repealed until the late 1970s). In the 20th century it also involved the
banning of pornography. In the 18th century there was no such thing as
mass produced porn. There were a couple of books like Fanny Hill
available but they were expensive and thus only available to the rich. No
doubt several framers of the constitution owned a copy of Fanny Hill but
it wouldn't have occured to any of them that anyone might want to ban it.
When they wrote the bill of rights it was political speech that they were
trying to protect. After all King George had never hanged anyone for
distributing Fanny Hill, he had hanged men for distributing treasonous
pamphlets. It wasn't until the 20th century that governments got
interested in banning pornography, or for that matter banning
prostitution. There were two things that happen in the 20th century that
made porn an issue. First there was womans sufferage. Prostitution was
everywhere legal at the turn of the 20th century. By the 1920s,
immediatly after woman got the right to vote, prostitution became illegal
almost everywhere. The second thing that happened was the introduction of
various technologies that made the production of porn much cheaper and
therefore it's distribution much wider. In the late 19th century the
paperback book was introduced. In the 20th movies became widely
available. By the 1930s porn had become illegal. In the 1960s America
took a wide swing to the left and the restrictions on porn were eased a
bit. The way this was done was by extending the free speech protections
of the constitution to cover other forms of expression including sexual
material. A very liberal standard was put in place in the Roth decision,
the concept that something was obscene only if it was "utterly without
redeeming social value". By the 1970s the country was starting to swing
the other way. In the 1973 Miller decision the Supreme Court
reversed itself and held that obscenity was not protected by the 1st
amendment and that the definition of obscenity was what ever the local
community said it was. Thus the importance of "community standards", the
Miller decision says that what is and what is not acceptable can be
decided by juries applying the standards of the community in which they
live. Because there is no specific mention of porn in the constitution
it's possible that the court will change it's mind again. We can only
hope that when the court next revisits the issue it's Clarence Thomas who
ends up writeing the majority opinion.