Not Again...

Well, it looks like Max Hardcore, scumbag cum laude, is being indicted on federal obscenity charges. I hate it when this happens.

Extreme pornographers like Max Hardcore or Rob Black function as the canaries in the figurative coal mine of the adult film industry. They are the first to be prosecuted and persecuted when the feds start to crack down. This puts people like me in an awkward position: On the one hand, I despise Max's work. His pornography is degrading, violent, angry and everything that the anti-porn nutcases say that all porn is. I find it personally repugnant and I hate that he and I work in the same industry.

On the other hand, Max isn't doing anything that ought to be illegal. He uses adult actresses who let him do what he wants to them in exchange for payment (and yes, I've heard all the stories as well, but until someone can prove in court that he illegally coerces girls into making his movies, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt). He sells his product to paying customers that presumably want to see the content that they have purchased. There's no unwilling victim here, no children despoiled or houses burnt down. He has a right to his freedom of expression, and my personal tastes shouldn't affect the limits of what he can do.

So people like me are forced into a bad spot, where they have to support people like Max despite their personal feelings because of the very real slippery slope that threatens us if Max and his ilk get taken down. Once the federal government decides to arbitrate what does and does not constitute illegal content, who knows where they're going to draw the line?

Faugh. I have to tolerate necessary evils, but I don't have to like it.

Is "Hobonanism" A Word?

The right-wing Christian blogosphere is all abuzz with the shocking news that Sacramento's Public Library Authority voted to affirm the right of their libraries' patrons to access pornography on library computers. Now, in general, when forces friendly to the 1st Amendment triumph over the paternalistic, prudish people that would prohibit the proletariat's access to pornography (see what I did there?), I cheer. But this case... well, I'm still cheering, but it's a small, highly qualified sort of celebration.

Obviously a public library is designed to be a source of both educational and entertaining media, and I'd be lying if I said that in my misspent youth I didn't avail myself of some of the more explicit, salacious examples of that media. But I didn't, ahem, avail in the library. I did so at home, in private, where such behaviour typically belongs.

Listen, if someone wants to look at porn in a library (with headphones, if there's sound!), I have no problem with that -- so long as all they do is look. If they want to print it out or record it, take it home and avail, more power to them (hopefully they're availing to a legitimately purchased copy of The Bi Apple). But what if... what if they don't have a home?

Yes, that's right: While protecting our rights as adult citizens to access the full spectrum of media from a platform which we pay for with our tax dollars, the Sacramento Public Library Authority has also made their educational edifices a haven for masturbating hobos. Now look, I know that some of you might be very pleased by the thought of hobos pleasuring themselves, and I'm not going to judge you for doing so -- but I am saying it's wrong for hobos to manually pleasure themselves in a public library.

More seriously, this is a bit of a sticky (no pun intended) issue. Should adults be allowed to access pornography? Yes, absolutely. But the primary purpose of a public library is not to help its patrons get off, and I don't see an easy, cut-and-dry way of balancing the rights of the individual grown-up to look at whatever disgusting filth they desire with the library's stated purpose of maintaining a a safe, welcoming and comfortable environment for the public.

Hm. If only any professional librarians read this blog. I bet they'd have something insightful to say on the topic!

The latest in Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales

If you're involved in any way in the production of pornography, and you haven't read up on the recent happenings in the Free Speech Coalition's attempt to challenge 2257 record-keeping laws in the Colorado District Court (aka Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzales), you may want to do that now. IANAL, and reading this article is no substitute for good legal advice from someone who IAL, but it's in all of our best interests to keep current.

On its face, this recent ruling is a setback for the FSC's efforts, but Judge Walker Texas Ranger D. Miller did clarify certain previously-contentious parts of the new 2257 regulations. The highlights:

• "A copy of the URL" means a simple link, not a copy of the site itself.


• "A copy of the depiction" can be the DVD which is the final product, or a copy of the website on which is the final product, as applicable. Hmmm. Would a VHS work? I don't see why not. I could see some pornographers keeping their "copy of the depiction" on Betamax, just to spite the FBI. "You want to see it? Here you go. Hey, it's not our fault you don't have a Beta deck!"


• The date that appears on the 2257 compliance statement can be the date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication, reproduction, or reissuance -- any one will do. That makes things easier for, say, compilation DVDs, or websites which archive lots of content.


• And here's the biggie: While producers do have to keep copies of the IDs of performers on file, they're allowed to blot out the day and month of the performer's birthdate and the performer's SSN and home address on those copies. That's a huge deal -- otherwise, think of the potential for identity theft and stalking if and when those records are released to "secondary producers", including retail outlets -- and I think it'll make the new 2257 regs a lot more palatable to people.

Obviously, this case has a ways to go, so keep your ear to the ground. Staying informed protects yourself and all the rest of us, too.

ETA: The FSC has released a statement on this ruling, saying pretty much exactly what you'd expect, here.

GOPorn: Smut and the American Conservative

I just posted over at Viv's about Marine Cpl. Matt Sanchez, aka gay pornstar and escort Rod Majors (aka Pierre LaBranche). A homosexual in the Marines is hardly big news, even one with as storied a skin-flick career as Cpl. Sanchez, but this particular homosexual Marine is also a conservative media darling, appearing on Fox's Hannity & Colmes and O'Reilly Factor. Of course, now that he's been outed, this will likely change.

The story got me to thinking about the intersection of porn and politics here in the States. Specifically, why do we (or we, if you prefer) derive such satisfaction from seeing the Matt Sanchezes and Jeff Gannons and Ted Haggards exposed as something other than what the Family Values crowd wants them to be? I mean, yes, there is the visceral pleasure of seeing your foe embarassed and discombobulated and exposed as (at least in Ted Haggard's case) a hypocrite. But in the end, isn't using the fact that Matt Sanchez is a former gay escort and pornstar as an anti-Republican political tool ultimately counterproductive? If their gayness or sex-workerness is seen as a liability, won't that just drive any other red state gays or sex workers even deeper underground?

See, from our point of view it's easy to see that when we wag the finger at gay escort Republicans, it's the "Republican" descriptor that we most object to (and this coming from a guy that regularly wears a Ronald Reagan T-shirt in a totally non-ironic way -- the party ain't what it used to be). But to most folks, any criticism and disapproval will be attached immediately to the words "gay escort", regardless of our original intention.

It's simple to see the Republican Party as one large homogeneous mass of red state NASCAR dads that love Jeebus and hate the queers, but just like any other political party, most Republicans don't actually agree with the whole official party platform. I know I sure as hell didn't, back when I could still stomach being a GOP supporter. Many Republicans are even trying to work within the system to change things for the better. It's easy to call gay Republicans or right-wing pornographers hypocrites, but honestly, what do you do if you're a hardline neoconservative male who just happens to enjoy taking it up the ass from well-endowed gym bunnies? Joining the blue-state side would make you a much bigger hypocrite than signing up with the GOP, but if you come out, you're a liability to your political allies -- especially when the other side finds out. After all, they're just going to use your past predilections and peccadilloes as ammunition against the people you support.

When greeted with the news that hatemongering cunt Anne Coulter and her CPAC fan club (and I use the c-word with all of the approbation, hatred and negativity that the word can possibly contain in its most base and puerile sense) publically embraced a gay escort and pornstar, I think that instead of pointing and laughing, it would be a lot more useful to celebrate the fact that the neo-cons are finally loosening up and accepting elements of our society that they had previously hated and shunned.

Of course, that's not what they're doing. They were duped, and we can laugh at them for it on the inside. But publically, we should instead praise them for the tolerance that we wish they had. After all, if you say something enough, people will eventually start to believe it, and with enough time it becomes the truth.

Plus, I bet that would piss off those neo-con assholes even more.