|
Ira Isaacs Guilty
On all 5 counts
|
Isn't he facing something like 20 years then?
|
Really? Where's the link...?
:D |
Probably should have taken the deal.
|
Why don't we just have models throw in a 30 second rant about some political issue they care about at the end of every scene? Wouldn't that make it political propaganda?
|
Shitty day for him I guess.
|
???????? http://www.xbiz.com/news/147689 not guilt here in email blast? Cant get to it tho my internet is fucked.
|
Quote:
Admit it, faggots. :2 cents: |
ehh xbiz lol not exactly cnn :D email blast said not gult on 7 counts then went 404 lol and he's guilt on 5 :D fucking adult news media lol.
|
Quote:
Probably woulda have been a good idea given the Miller test, eh. Since under Miller, the government has to show that the work TAKEN AS A WHOLE has no artistic or social value, we used to have a "legal" page with copies of Supreme Court decisions on our sites. The prosecution would have a tough time arguing that Supreme Court opinions have no social value. Not to say that technique would be bulletproof, but it would certainly tourist the prosecution's argument. |
he is facing 25 years theres a backstory here to be sure one I am considering breaking...Ira wouldnt even have been on the DOJ radar except he made a fundamental mistake.
|
Quote:
|
Here's Ira's story, in his own words, something he wrote while he was waiting for the jury to come back in his second trial, the case that ended with the hung jury. He turned down many offers of a plea: http://business.avn.com/articles/leg...ys-467723.html
Mark Kernes' article at AVN says he was convicted on 5 counts. It's five years per count maximum. It sounds like the government also prevailed on the forfeiture of assets count as well. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines add points for BDSM, Internet Distribution, being head of an enterprise, and the revenues add points as well. It's unlikely in the extreme that he's eligible for probation. I read each of Mark Kernes's articles. It sounds like Roger Diamond did as good a job as any human could do in defending this kind of material. You should know that Ira ran out of money a long time ago. Roger did this third trial for nothing. It also sounds like this judge was fair and decent and gave Ira a fair trial, and that's not the case in most of the trials we've read about in recent years. The XBIZ mistake was a fluke. I got the email, too, only to find a prompt retraction without an explanation of how it ran in the first place. Not just a sad day for Ira. It's a sad day for all of us whenever censorship prevails. No matter what. Government should not be in the business of controlling what people can view, read, and buy, no matter how distasteful to how many people. |
Quote:
I was about to give a shot at explaining it myself, but me doing it would only serve to oversimplify and misstate the arguments, standards and case law at issue, and the discussion deserves better than that. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Works are judged as a whole under Miller, and something in the nature of slap-on label does not add to what the work fundamentally is. The most famous articulation of that is found in Kois v. Wisconsin, http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/kois.html a per curiam decision of the Supreme Court in 1972, involving a Milwaukee underground newspaper (one that I grew up with in Milwaukee) name Kaleidescope, which featured poems about sex next to pictures of people fucking. The Supreme Court considered the possibility of pretext to try to slip obscenity through, famously saying, "A quotation from Voltaire in the flyleaf of a book will not constitutionally redeem an otherwise obscene publication, but if these pictures were indeed similar to the one seized - and we do not understand the State to contend differently - they are relevant to the theme of the article. " They reversed the conviction without even requiring the defendant to file a brief. A "per curiam" decision means that no particular justice wrote it. It is the words of the whole court. You can read my observations about that case (and others) at http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/index.html. The question of just exactly a "work as a whole" is on the internet is a question not fully resolved, In both Extreme Associates and in Max Hardcore, individual clips were charged, under 30 seconds in duration, extracted from much bigger websites. The best insight into the subject comes out of a case involving magazines from the Fifth Circuit, McAuliffe. http://www.xxxlaw.com/cases/penthouse.html |
Quote:
However, you should've just chosen a username ending with "einer" or "sky". Trust me bro, -"berger" went out with UCJ. Perhaps even "witz" if you really wanted to pull in the big bucks, Mr. Well Educated Respectable Fully Qualified Legal Lawyer With Proven Track Record Who Gets Considerable Results. Sir. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Is it your opinion, then, that quotations from court opinions about the first amendment as it applies to nude photos, and commentary thereon, placed alongside examples of such works, would be thematically related and therefore (arguably) fall under Kois? Assuming that the scholarly work is thematically related as expressed in Kois, so the argument can made, do you believe that's better than not having that argument available at all? That is to say, which is easier to defend?: anal sex videos Court decisions about anal sex accompanied by anal sex videos Either could put you in jail, but which is better? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Any idea if Counts 7 and 8 were dropped? |
I dont understand you produce way out there material and you have a certain level of success.why not live in a country where they dont give a shit.no pun intended.
|
the land of the free has fewer freedoms.
the first amendment is not meant to protect agreeable speech. |
Quote:
Publisher took a government commission report on obscenity, printed by the US Government Printing Office and added tons of porn, reissuing it as the "Illustrated" Report of the Presidential Commission on Pornography, and send out circulars to advertise it via the mail. Lots of hard core images in that brochure, and on the back, a legitimate and strong political statement about that report and why its findings were being ignored. A genuine political statement along with an illustration of the book cover. He was indicted for numerous violations of obscenity law. The jury convicted on obscenity for the advertising brochure but could not reach an agreement on the Illustrated Report itself. On appeal, the convictions for the brochure were affirmed. Hamling was actually tried before the Miller case was decided, and earlier law, arguably more protective of defendant-publishers was applied to determine obscenity. Take a look at the text of the strong political argument set out in that brochure as set out in the opinion. It was not enough for that jury. |
Quote:
(Just as hunting guns that people don't mind don't need second amendment protection, so it's only meaningful if it protects the types of guns the majority would prefer to outlaw.) I wonder, what is "speech" and what is not? Really, is scat porn speech? I'd like to say it is. I'm not sure what the shit is trying to say, though. |
Quote:
Once everyone agrees that beastiality and scat should be illegal they'll move on to anal, bdsm, inter-racial - whatever represents the extreme of what's left. And they'll keep trimming it down till there's nothing left. It's not a question of whether scat is obscene or not, it's a question of whether grown ass adults need someone to tell them what is ok to jerk off to and what isn't. |
Quote:
|
ahhhhh poooo
|
For many simpleminded people, and Rick Santorum was pandering to these knuckle draggers, all porn is rolled up into one so when pornographers presuming to be "shock artists" present shit smeared body parts in a sexual context or cattle fucking women, which I am made to understand is the nature of the bestiality charges against Isaacs, of what socially redeeming value is that (Miller v. California (1973))? |
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc