Thursday, March 8, 2012

Ewwwww not Ohhhhh!

They're Hung!

Ira Isaacs
Sure it's a sex blog, but the sub-title isn't about gargantuan genitalia, instead it's about about a jury . . .

In case you hadn't already heard, I'm here to report that the recent obscenity trial of porn purveyor Ira Isaacs has ended in a mistrial.  The jury (deadlocked 10-2 to convict) was unable to agree upon an ultimate verdict.

The Los Angeles obscenity trial hinged on Isaacs' production and distribution of movies that portrayed bestiality and scat fetish.  We're talking movies with titles like Hollywood Scat Amateurs 7 and Japanese Doggie 3 Way.

The kind of crap (literally) this guy is pushing is repulsive, disgusting, not to mention unsafe for everyone concerned.  I believe both of those activities are very much hard limits for the vast majority of the individuals who make up the BDSM community.

So, it might be easy for even dedicated perverts like myself to end up on the same side as the government.

I don't think so.  As disgusting as I may find the content of Isaacs' material, in my mind it's obvious that US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration are 100% - totally - absolutely wrong.  This is a freedom of speech issue.

In China, I wouldn't be free to blog about alternative sexuality, because that nation's citizens do not enjoy freedom of speech.  The Chinese government decides what material is suitable for it's citizens, and it uses Internet filters to block sites and subjects it deems unsuitable for public consumption.

Is that a power you'd like to give to any President?

Censorship is a slippery slope.  When we give any government the right to decide what we can watch or read, we eventually lose our basic individuality.

Child pornography should be prosecuted, the government's responsibility to protect children being greater than any individual's right to watch such a thing.  But for anything else, and I do mean anything, it's all about individual freedom, and our protected and guaranteed freedom of speech.
Eric Holder

If, for instance, the government believes a crime was committed, let them prosecute the criminal and the crime, not the film.  My right to read (or watch) who and what I choose is fundamental, not to mention constitutionally guaranteed.

In a world where justice and individual rights actually matter, Eric Holder, in upholding the constitution as he is sworn to do, would prosecute anyone who attempts to prevent the legal expression of Ira Isaac's right to freedom of speech.  In other words, he'd throw himself in jail.

I know such a thing is never going to happen, but a Dom can dream!

For material to be found criminally obscene, it must lack serious artistic, scientific or political value in addition to appealing to prurient interests and being patently offensive.

4 comments:

  1. Our freedoms have been slowly chipped away slowly and rather methodically.

    Most people are complacent about those losses, because they feel they don't apply to them. Eventually, tho they do apply. And those same people end up surprised...and people like us, are left shaking our heads wondering where was the outrage before?

    Hugs,
    mouse

    ReplyDelete
  2. Amen!

    big hugs (because I'm a big guy)
    Michael

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think this begs the larger question: What do we want government to involve itself in? And what not? Do we want prying federal or state authorities looking into what we can look at; what we can do; who we can associate with; what sort of intimate relationships we can create for ourselves...? Was it Benjamin Franklin that said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"?

    Sue (swan)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Benjamin Franklin was certainly one of the most interesting of the founding fathers, especially from a sexual viewpoint . . .

    I'm a quote guy (I collect them) so I am familiar with the quote you reference. I think the original was, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." It's been paraphrased and restated in a number of different way, and in every one of those it's really valid.

    Ben also said . . .

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

    Thanks much for the comment Sue (swan)! :)

    ReplyDelete