I wish my job would make me do that haha

Unsurprising. It happens in children porn cases often. Unpleasant, and I think more likely to bias a jury than anything else possibly could (which in some cases is a good thing).

I had to 'examine' packets of crack as a juror. All things considered, I think I'd prefer porn.

When I read the headline I thought, " I wish I'd get picked for jury service". Then I read the article.....

Not too big of a chore as long as the prosecutor doesn't bring in a "2 Girls 1 Cup" video.

So it is perfectly legal for two consenting adults to do the acts portrayed in the video, the crime is filming it?



Darn you tigertony for making me think of "2 Girls 1 Cup".

Pee and puke is erotic? Whatever blows your skirt up, I guess.

I think the distribution is what made it illegal, not the filming.

Glad I wasn't on that jury!

That is part of the problem with "obscenity". It has to be one of the few laws that is not really defined. It is purely subjective and can differ from area to area.

What is obscene in Ottumwa, Iowa might not be obscene in San Francisco. Even what is "obscene" is up to the arbitrary opinions of a handful of people.

Don't want to sound like a freak or a pervert but those videos didn't sound all that bad to me. Maybe it's because I've seen my fair share of stuff out of Germany and Japan that trumps that stuff by a longshot. It's a curiosity thing and not something I actually get off from. What scares me is the audience that actually does.

/"Welcome to the world of Dino Velvet!"

You've got that right. There are some old odd sex laws all over the place.

"SEX LAWS.....

--Most Middle Eastern countries recognise the following Islamic law:

"After having sexual relations with a lamb, it is a mortal sin to eat its
flesh."

--In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the
animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is
punishable by death.

--In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but
is forbidden from looking directly at them during the examination. He may
only see their reflection in a mirror.

--Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also
applies to undertakers; the sex organs of the deceased must be covered
with a brick or piece of wood at all times.

--The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.

--There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside
and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilege of having sex
for the first time. Reason: under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden
for virgins to marry.

--In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her
adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. The husband's
lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.

--Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in
tropical fish stores.

--In Cali, Columbia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the
first time this happens her mother must be in the room to witness the
act.

--In Santa Cruz, Bolivia it is illegal for a man to have sex with a
woman and her daughter at the same time.

--In Maryland, it is illegal to sell condoms from vending machines with
one exception: prophylactics may be dispensed from a vending machine
only "in places where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the
premises."
"

This is total BS, I don't know about the others but laws in Britain don't vary from one city/town to the next.

Seriously, do you think that by the time that tropical fish shops were around that this law would have been passed?

Oh sure, kill one of the great myths of aquarium keepers!

And you'd be surprised--tropical aquariums aren't a recent invention.

Such is the problem with taking legal advice from junk emails.

Agree 100%. I personally feel that censoring something as "obscene" is in violation of an individual's freedom UNLESS it is unlawful (child pornography).

Again, what is obscene in one place is not considered obscene in another. You can even break it down by individuals. I might find something to be totally ok, but my neighbor could find it extremely offensive. Who is right? Basically we both are. It's a matter of opinion which everyone is entitled to, which is again why I think that unless something is beyond extreme it shouldn't be censored.

Well, the line, for me, is when the porn causes harm(real, physically evident harm) to the participants. This includes such things as child porn, snuff films, and rape videos.

To me, it depends on how desensitized you are as to what you will find pleasurable. The more desensitized, the more extreme your porn needs to be. If you find yourself so desensitized that you need to watch others suffer in order to gain pleasure, you need to take a break, maybe even get help.

If they are willing, I fail to see how "harm" should be considered illegal. If they want to do something to their own body or have someone else do something to their body no one else has the right to say that they can't.

As long as they're only harming willing people, it really shouldn't matter.

Exactly. If you're of age and consenting to producing "harm" videos I do not think it should be considered illegal (unless maybe there is some permanent physical damage involved). When you start making things illegal because some people are offended by it then you're censoring people's freedom (and right) to express themselves.

From the comments:

I completely agree. I find chop-em-up horrer movies to be just as disgusting and obscene as some of the more vile porn movies. Why is horrid violence okay but sex not?

Erm... they do... They're called Bylaws.

There are thousands of them ranging from how much council tax is to whether or not you can have a fire on the beach in June.

The fish shop law one is BS though. That much is true. But these laws aren't necessarily archaic. If there were anything to this one, it would be an attempt to circumvent an existing law to create loophole topless bars.

Much like 10 pin bowling being invented because there were laws against the more traditional 9 pin bowling on a Sunday.

I think it's the fact that the horror films are fake (I'm assuming you mean the Hollywood ones), while the scat/necrophilia/etc in porn films is generally real.

Such is the problem with pornography...if you build an addiction to it you may also build a tolerance to things you may have otherwise thought wouldn't turn you on.

I personally don't see the difference. Does this mean that these pornography films should be labeled as not obscene if a little special effects are used so that it's not entirely real?
I'm more curious as to why western society so readily embraces violence but openly repels sex (the fact that porn is so popular tells me that this society secretly embraces porn as well, but that it's shameful to be open about it).
I'd rather watch this porn than some disgusting movie in which we see someone's brains get pulled out of their eyesockets.

I'll argue almost the same about violence.... some people have such high tolerances for it they find more and more violence to be entertaining instead of repulsive.