Obscenity Laws Suck

LiberatingPorn's picture

It's illegal to produce pornography outside of California. You, dear readers, probably think this law is as asinine as we think it is. Grounded in obscenity laws, the illegality of producing pornography outside of California and distributing it is one of those wacky anti-American laws that most people, especially rookie adult filmmakers, don't know about...at least until they get locked up.


Producing porn outside of California will help you meet new friends.
Producing porn outside of California will help you meet new friends.

We're not talking about child pornography or sickening rape videos, nor any smut that's particularly nasty. Your average run-of-the-mill, good old fashioned multiracial gangbang in a pile of poo will totally get you locked up if you film that bitch outside of California. Mind you, this isn't because your video somehow depicts illegal scumbaggery, like forcing women into sexual acts against their will or using underage performers. Simple, harmless pornography featuring no illegal actions filmed outside of California can totally result in you sharing a cell with a happy-go-lucky member of the Aryan Brotherhood.

Obscenity laws in America are fucking stupid. We at Lib Porn don't hold this belief because we disagree, per say, but because those laws aren't held to any particular standard. What is considered obscene and, thus, brought to a court of law in Philadelphia can be different from what can be considered obscene in Kansas City. Obscenity laws have goofy loopholes, such as how “artistic” footage of sexual penetration is usually considered non-obscene while a Tera Patrick video is considered smut, and that's ridiculous because if Miss Patrick's body isn't a work of art, well fuck man, we don't know what is.

Of course, some obscenity laws enforce basic decency, such as keeping adult video stores away from schools. That's cool with us because children should learn about sexual activity in a thoughtful and well-informed setting, and although we all love a good POV facial scene, I'm sure we can agree that children shouldn't learn about the birds and bees from a sperm splatterfest.

However, in keeping the production of pornography outside of California illegal, our government is effectively policing our not only what we watch, but what we can say and think. How can it be that blubbering idiots such as loudmouth Christian fascists, idiotic college liberals, The Jersey Shore, and Glenn Beck can rip-roar across our airwaves without impediment while images of super sexified men and women swapping bodily fluids are technically outlawed? If pornography is to be filmed only in California by law, well, we demand that Mr. Beck's show be produced only in a basement in Camden, New Jersey with a large, angry black man filming the fucker with a hand-cranked camera.


Shes considered obscene...
She's considered obscene...
...but he isnt? What the fuck?
...but he isn't? What the fuck?

Silencing the speech, thoughts, and images of those the 'majority' don't agree with is as anti-American as firing an AK-47 into the air to celebrate your birthday. (Those Arabs do it all wrong; in America, we celebrate our birthdays with M4 carbines.) Yet sometimes we Americans support ideas that are totally contradict our core beliefs. For an example, dig out your 5th grade school history book and look up the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, when some jerkoff Federalists figured that Americans would think it was super duper if we weren't allowed to openly criticize our president and government.

Now, some of you might say, “Well obscenity laws can be really stupid, but c'mon now, courts never convict people of obscenity crimes!” But they do. Filmmaker Rob Zicari was convicted of peddling “obscene” material across state lines, which is to say he sold very, very, very dirty porn (in traditionally very socially conservative Western Pennsylvania). Zicari produced several films that portray simulated rape. Liberating Porn thinks that kind of porn is absolute garbage (and we think Zicari is a scumbag), but Zicari's films didn't show actual rape. While we agree with just about everyone else that we shouldn't watch such garbage, that doesn't mean dirtbags like Rob Zicari shouldn't have the right to create such trash.

When a person has an idea or work of art (a term that, in Zicari's case, we'll use very loosely) that doesn't hurt anyone, even if it does offend many people, that person has (or should have) the right to say and create what they want. This is the nature of free speech; you might not agree with what that person is saying and that person may indeed be a scumbag. However, disagreements over what we may or may not find obscene shouldn't lead to laws that, mostly arbitrarily, deny a person the right to freedom of expression. Because the majority may find a certain word or image or movie to be very offensive, but using a 'majority rule' approach to censorship can and will eventually bridge out to other forms of expression.

If we're not hurting anyone, nobody, not even the government, has the right to censor us. After all, if we let scumbags like Rob Zicari rot in jail over a certain idea, image, or film, that means we're all privy to the subjective decisions of a majority that doesn't always value freedom. In America, we're inching toward a future that won't tolerate the rights of individuals who wish to videotape themselves taking part in a 30-person poo orgy. And that, my friends, will only lead to more restrictions on our right to free speech, free expression, and free ideas.

Your rating: None
Syndicate content
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system