What is pornographic in your eyes?

Comments

• how is that porn?

  • Report
  

  by goldpanner on October 6th, 2009

• The question said, "in YOUR eyes."
  .
  It is pornographic in MY eyes.
  .
  Thanks for the +3, to whomever gave them to me.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2009

Comments

• +6 for that.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on October 6th, 2009

• thanx , that should cover a few dr's. ;-)

  • Report
  

  by The Anonymous Witch on October 6th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I asked because a guy appealed his conviction for distributing dog fighting videos. The grounds for the appeal is it infringes upon his freedom of speech. There are a bunch of stipulations when it comes to free speech, on f them is pornography.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 6th, 2009

• if what is being recorded on the videos is illegal, then that is not protected by free speech as far as I know. I could get into a whole different argument on things of a "pornographic" nature being 1st amend. protected, considering there's no actual speech taking place.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 6th, 2009

• Well the thing about it is PETA along with, PBS, TLC, and the Discovery channel all show dog fighting. Each TV station intends to shock viewers into watching their programs and support their product through monetary donations or by viewing their commercials, because their sponsors pay them to air commercials on their stations during commercial breaks. PETA distributes information for a far more direct purpose, personal profit. Their intention is to get actual money and inform people, so they can have a greater sphere of influence. It is the marketing aspect of the tapes that got the gentleman in hot water. He didn' sposor the dog fights, he recorded them, then sold them as dog fighting videos for his own personal profit.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• As you can see he was monetarily motivated, with the only difference being his morals. I know dog fighting is bad. He may know dog fighting is bad, he may not, but does that really matter? Should the governement be able to tell you if dog fighting videos are bad? If they are deeme bad, then they should not be able to be utilized by anyone to generate a profit be it direct or indirect. He is just one man who may get off on dog fighting, he is a weak minority. The corporations, on the other hand, are an extremely powerful minority sect of society, with a far greater ability to influence the world. Whose interests are the courts going to uphold? The individual citezen's or the corporations'?

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• If we outlaw videos of animal death, how long is it before animal death of any kind becomes criminal? I don't hunt. People I know hunt, I watch people hunt on TV, I have seen dogs killed for food in foreign cuntries on TV. There is an agenda out there by PETA to stop the production of meat. This case could allow them to get one step closer to that goal. If we can't watch videos of animal cruelty,then the definition of cruelty needs to be specific to dogs, cats, hamsters, or pets in general. If there is a restriction on videos that display cruelty to animals, then that could be stretched beyond dog fighting, due to the vague discription of what animals are included and what "cruelty" is.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• Should there be dog fighting in America? No. Should we be able to buy videos of dog fights? Well, is that the question? No. Should anyone be able to sell videos which contain dog fighting? Should anyone be able to distribute videos of dog fighting? If not, why, and on what grounds? If yes, why, and under what conditions? Morals are what seem to be being forced on the man in question. Morals that he doesn't agree with, but he is a minority. Should his morals get stepped on because the vast majority of us don't agree with him? He didn't hurt anyone. He wanted to make a profit. He went to jail for spreading information, real actual factual information, isn't that what America stands for?

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• I am not calling this guy a hero, he is not a hero, he is just an American who got caught up into some technicalities. Do I want to pay for his incarciration? HELL NO! Should he get gobbled up into prison-industrial-complex for making and distributing dog fighting videos? NO! He should get a fine, if he can't pay the fine, or refuses to pay the fine, he should get community service. It is the community that punishes him, therefore it is the community he should pay back. He shouldn't get paid by the community to serve his time for making a video and selling it, that is ignorant.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• People who engage in dog fighting are not going to stop. As long as people are producing dog fighting videos we know that it is continuing, if we keep them from producing videos we limit our intel. We also shelter our eyes from an aspect of society, it creates ignorance. Is ignorance a posative thing? Usually ignorance causes us to do ignorant things, or it causes us to committ crimes and/or get hurt. This is where TLC, PBS, Dicovery, and PETA come in. Why is their brand of information somehow protected and the private citezen's is not? Reality can be much more revealing and influential when it is not skewed by a production team with a political agenda.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• If he was an undercover news reporter seeking to exploit dog fighting to shinenegative light on it, he would be up for a pulitzer, but because he just wants money he is a pig and a criminal. Why would someone want a pulitzer? Prestige, money, fame, and recognition. This guy didn't want anything but money. Because his motive was so basic he was punished. I thought we were capitalists. Seems like we are capitalists who judge the morality behind others professions. If morality should be taken into account when it comes to what we do for money, this guy is one of the smallest fish in this ocean of corruption that we live in.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• War mongers, police who brutalize citezens, DICK CHENEY, W, GHW, The Federal Reserve, and all people affiliated with these scum. They are the one's who deserve to be punished for their values, not this guy. This guy is a minnow. He insn't even a minnow he is plankton. Cheney is a far worse man, FAR FAR FAR worse man. Cheney walks free. This guy should too. We shouldn't be punished for the things that happen in our neighborhood that we are present for. Documenting life should not be a crime. Although he was documenting a crime, he committed none in the distribution and sale of his documentation.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• If he is a criminal so are all the journalists who have ever documented anything resembling dog fighting, or other crimes and attempted to profit from their documentation without contacting law enforcement upon their knowledge of the crime. This can't happen because the press is specifically protected in the constitution, it is right after the freedom speech is declared. Artistic expression is protected, like videos containing criminal acts to shed light on issues. Not saying the guy is a good person, but he doesn't deserve the wrath of the government for being a capitalist.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• Illegal things are shown to us everyday, but the mainstream media shows us so they get away with it. People who compete with their market are subdued by the FCC. Try to watch a dog fighting video on YOUTUBE, try to watch a street fight after that. Men fighting men is a crime, just as dogs fighting is. Why can you watch men fight but not dogs? Type in "Favela wars" you can watch people get shot and die. PEOPLE die, not an animal but people. Our morals are backwards if the death of a fellow human is tolerated and the death of an animal is not. We deserve to see as much as we wish, some things are sacred, such as children. Animal cruelty is bad, losing your personal freedoms is worse.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 7th, 2009

• Animal cruelty is a crime. Participating in animal cruelty for the purpose of recording and selling video of this illegal activity is a crime and immoral by most of the world's standards. If someone killed another human for monetary gain (via movie sales) that would also be illegal. That's what we call "snuff". You're sort of missing a big point here.
  -
  Crimes are not permissible because they are being committed as entertainment, that just makes them more contemptible. You have made so many muddled and misguided statements that I really don't know where to start.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• I'll just address your last 2 paragraphs. The news media is reporting on things. They are getting news out there. Let's say there's a genocide happening in Darfur. Journalists will travel there and report on the situation in order to tell the world what is going on. The journalists are not doing what they are reporting on. The journalists that reported on Nazi death camps were not put on trial at Nuremberg, and for good reason: they did not "do it". Understand that?

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• We are talking about the US use examples in the US.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• This guy didn't organize dog fights, he just recorded them.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• His objective was to make money on the film, like documentarians. He may not want dog fighting to stop because he makes money from the films. And comparing the murder of people and the fighting of dogs is contorting the issue. Animals are not people, killing animals is not murder. We can still do that here in America, for now.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• "Participating in animal cruelty for the purpose of recording and selling video of this illegal activity is a crime and immoral by most of the world's standards." This statement is not true. I have seen a documentary sponsored by HBO called "Dealing Dogs" where an animal rights activist, who is an undercover agent, participated in killing dogs, for no reason, other than to implicate the owner of the dog farm in animal cruelty. He did this to move up in his organization while shedding light on the issue of animal cruelty. Which means he did it to sell the video and make money, as well as stop cruelty.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• The only difference between the dude in Dealing dogs and our friend who is in jail is their political ideology displayed in their videos, other than that, there is no difference in what each has done. Actually, the guy who is in jail was not a part of a large cospiracy against anyone, whereas the Dealing Dogs dude was. They knew negative behavior was going on and recorded for over a year before they did anything. Then, they profited off of their videos as best as they could. Money, it all comes down to money. Morals right? Morals and money? They each want fame and money through displaying their morals. One of them people mostly agree with, the other most people don't.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Their motives are the complete opposite in only one aspect, their morals pertaining to animal rights. Why should the gentleman in jail be treated any different than the dude in Dealing Dogs? The Gentleman in jail just video taped dog fights. The dude in Dealing Dogs personally participated in animal abuse, he helped kill dogs. He participated in animal cruelty, personally, but because his motive was to stop animal cruelty it makes it ok? That doesn't make sense. One was just present, the other personally engaged in a crime while they video taped their offenses. It is a double standard.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• If you were able to read all of what I wrote and no just the final two paragraphs you would be able to deduce that I am not missing the big point. The big point is one has political conections so they get away with it and he other is just a poor man in the inner city tying to make a buck. His crime was turning on a camera, then trying to sell what he recorded. Where is the crime?

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Yeah dog fighting is bad, so bad it is illegal. Is recording what happens in your neighborhood then selling it a crime? Watch BUMFIGHTS, the producers have crack olympics, they get people to dive into a pool where crack is submerged and crackheads dive in and compete for the crack. Crimes all over the place. They get other crackheads to take them on car burglaries and record them. They get prostitutes to give blowjobs to bums on the sunset strip. All of these things are illegal. No human death.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Somebody records dog fighting videos and sells them and they are a criminal for what? Mike Vick goes to jail for dog fighting, all of the sudden we start to crackdown on dog fighting. The gentleman in jail went for that reason? Why does he go, if not for the negative publicity in the media? Because he video taped a crime for his own personal profit? No. People do that everyday. He was thrown in jail bcause puppies are cute and we are supposed to be evolved and not get off on the arcane practice of dog fighting. Well he wanted money and seemed to have found a market. Just like the BUMFIGHTS producers.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Whoever makes Bumfights should also be thrown in jail. I knew it was sick, but I didn't know it was that sick. That's appalling.
  -
  Anyone using the distribution of tapes featuring immoral and, further, illegal activity should be punished. Whether it is "Bumfights" or dogfights, it's wrong. Now there's a difference between displaying this stuff purely as entertainment for twisted individuals, and showing it in a specific context to educate the public on these crimes (that's what a journalist does.) There are some things I personally don't want to see regardless. That brings it back to your pornographic question. If it's being used as some type of "porn" that is different than a documentarian using it for educational purposes.
  -
  And stop saying "GENTLEMAN"!!! They are far from it!

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• What is pornographic? That is the only part where the guy in jail is stuck, if dog fighting is found to be pornographic he can be held legally. Not pornographic in the sense that it causes sexual excitement, but just excitement. And labelling can be changed if that is what the issue boils to. He just has to call the video something else. The title would then dictate the legality behind it's contents. Should that be something we need legislation on?

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• If the object (or situation) being displayed is the only thing of significance in the video that makes it pornographic. Also, if it's main purpose is provoke a physiological response.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• "Now there's a difference between displaying this stuff purely as entertainment for twisted individuals, and showing it in a specific context to educate the public on these crimes (that's what a journalist does.)" Horrors movies serve the purpose of entertaining through displaying immoral activities, and porn is real. Morals are what keep people from watching certain things. Should the morals of some be the morals for all in regards to videos. Like gay porn and Mormons. Would Mormons approve of gay porn, no, they don't allow openly gay men in their congregaton. So, why should people who don't like dog fighting get to say what videos about dog fighting are legal and which one's are not legal? They are biased.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• This is a free speech issue, an issue outlined in the constitution, which has been altered by legal proceedings over time, it is not up to us to say what free speech is acceptable and what is unnacceptable. It is up to the courts. The courts get to decide if this guy violated a law by selling his recordings. This is a big thing, if we can only sell videos of crimes when we are only against the crime being committed, we will not be able to display injustice committed by the Government. This type of action by the state against an individual effects what we see and how we see it. I don't agree with this guy's morals either, but he is free to say/show how he feels.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• So should child porn be legally acceptable? Does that deserve protection under the 1st amendment?

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• Children are not adults.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• 18 and over is what makes you of legal age to consent.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• So dogs are able to consent?

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• Dogs are property.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• You're a fool, and we have laws to protect what dull people like you don't care about or understand.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• They are not human. They attack each other, they are trained and bred to fight.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Ok. It sounds like you have some growing to do. Intellectually, spiritually, and emotionally.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• Insulting me doesn't allow you to win the discussion, if I am standing on the constitution and you are standing on your merits who is discussing the law and who is being ignorant. You obviously don't understand how the law works, you don'tget to tell people how to feel. The law specifically protects both your and my opinions. You have obviously not researched the topic nor have you read all of what I have written. People you disagree with are not wrong because you say so, that isn't law, that is your visions of grandure. Spit on the constitution if you would like, I would rather use it to defend the rights we were promised.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Yeah I need to grow up, that is why I used insults to prove a point.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• I wasn't trying to insult you.
  -
  There are things much higher than the Constitution.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• Maybe you should actually read all of what I write instead of pulling out pieces to make you get an image of me that allows you to be an adversary. Give me a break, I have never once said I agree with dog fighting. Never once. You are trying to say we ae morally obligated to snd this guy down, you may be, but we don't have to follow what you say, we follow the constitution. The same constitution that says we are allowed the freedom of speech and press. Maybe you are the one who should learn something here. I did my homework.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• For you there are things higher than the constiution, yo are not everyone. Your views are not the country's views, and definately not the views shared by all citezens. Which is why we follow the constitution.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Wh would you call me a fool if you were not attempting to insult me?

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Use your integrity and answer me that?

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• Oh, I forgot about the comment where I called you a "fool" and "dull". That was an emotional knee-jerk reaction. I apologize for insulting you. :) :)
  -
  The Constitution does not protect illegal activity, even if it's under the guise of free speech. That's the bottom line.

  • Report
  

  by N I C K on October 8th, 2009

• Apology accepted.
  
  In response to your response, I have given multiple examples where the opposite is true. I hope we can agree that dog fighting is bad, and filming others commit crimes and not enabling them to do so is not a crime. Exposing injustice can be just as pornographic as the selfish motives exhibited by the man in jail. Feeling repulsed by something is what some associate with arousal, we cannot control that, even documentaries that seek to expose injustice can illicit those feeligs of arousal in the wretched.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• It is up to the individual to determine their stance on the images they see. We can choose to look or look away. The social implications for liking things bar people from institutions all the time, being a fan of dog fighting could be that barrier that keeps people from gaining your friendship, for others it may be the standard. It will be interesting to see what comes out of all of this.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

• You want to read something that will make you see how moral our government is? Read this article, http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=297031639&blogId=508198542
  
  This article is one of the most sad articles I have ever read. It is written by a government employee, the same government that says dog fighting is against the law. The issue at hand is animal rights. This shows they have no rights on their own, we grant them rights by having ownership. It is messed up. But that is the way it is. Very sad.

  • Report
  

  by Chad1983 on October 8th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments