Ghetto Gaggers

I have not seen these videos, and so I will just assume they are as objectionable as you say. But the US guarantee of freedom of speech, no matter how offensive, is very important. Extraditing US citizens who violate a foreign country's laws would effectively gut our bill of rights.

I haven't seen these videos and I according to what you described them to be, I don't think I want to even bother looking up the definition for myself. I doubt U.S. can easily extradite these videos, because it's upon private domains and they are all for the freedom of speech as you said. And try as they might in the past, with SOPA and other internet control programs, the American citizens have proved time and time again that their voices will be heard to keep freedom of speech in all forms and fashion.

As for Canada, I don't know squat shit about their policies, but if it's anything like the U.K.'s, and they seem to have a dissatisfaction with these sorts of videos, I'm sure they could pull a megaupload shut down if they really wanted to. But then wouldn't they have to do so if suspected of illegal pornography laws and such? I don't know myself, but I would assume so, since this doesn't seem to be theft sharing sort of thing.

I'm not into that stuff at all. But it's probably better that the people that are into it can watch and maybe scratch the itch instead of acting on it.

There are a lot of people that get off on weird shit, as long as its done by consenting adults I say let them do what they want. I don't know or care about S&M but isn't the point that people get off on having power and others about giving it up?

Illby just because you don't like it doesn't mean shit, don't watch it, and maybe stop judging everyone all the time. I don't have any interest in it so I don't watch it. Stop trying to dictate what other adults like.

Doesn't sound fun to watch

Films sound pretty disgusting, but they're freedom of speech.

Different folks draw the line different places. Some folks find all porn disgusting, other draw the line at DPs, etc.

Then there's Juice...that dude produces some KA-RAY-ZEE AZZ shit. Sodomizing chicks with XXXtra KRIS-pay chicken and all dat. Would you want to infringe upon Juice's freedom of speech? NO FUCKIN' WAY!!!

I've seen some of those vids, and they are disgusting, however I'm wondering if you got a dance from the babe?

So in these videos you watched, was there any indication that the girls were there involuntarily? If so, I'd agree with you about the death squads, just as I would for any other rape. Well, except for the fact that death is too quick for rapists.

If not, then you essentially advocate banning consensual sex because you don't happen to like that form. That makes you no better than the pricks who ban prostitution, or gay sex or blowjobs. If it bothers you so much, try not watching it.

People have been making movies, videos and pictures in bad taste since the beginning of time. I think by viewing it perpetuates the habit like picking at a scab until you stop it will not go away. People like Michael Moore and the Connecticut elementary shooter just want attention "look at me I'm an asshole" for their 15 minutes of fame. Ignore them, do not purchase what they are selling and they may just go away. ( the elementary shooter should be tried and (if convicted) sentenced without his name becoming infamous like he wants.

Tired.... you are correct with all of these things with Michael Moore and School/mall/movie theatre shootings. I know the acts are done and they are horrid. But I blame the media for making them front and center.

I mean they have to report things so fast that they get information wrong. Look at the shooting that just happened in Hawaii. When it first was reported it was a student doing the shooting and multiple injured by gun fire... Yet it was a cop who shot a kids with a knife...that is it!!! But the first reporting is what most people go by. I can't remember the stat but it is that most people don't read more than the title of an article. So in the title or first few sentences is where people get most of the info. yet you don't see retractions with big titles saying that they were wrong. Anyways I could go on and on about this.

But I believe that it is our right for free speech. Yet I think we should be held more accountable for it if you print mis-information or wrong info.

@sofa no I didn't get a dance from her.

@GMD if that's an absolute principle, then it's OK to make a snuff film with an actress who's suicidal. Also, saying "If someone will kill George, I'll give them a hundred dollars" is definitely not protected free speech. If you say something with the intent of causing a crime to occur, you are guilty of conspiracy.

How is it misogyny though? They got PAID for it, signed a contract and knew what they were getting in to.

I'm certainly with ilbbaicnl on the "there are limits", though I suspect we disagree on where the limits are. The snuff film example is clear. Murder and even assisted suicide are illegal. Even if assisted suicide is legalized, I suspect it will be tightly limited.

The "ghetto gaggers" stuff is different, though I could see a desire to really make sure the girl knows exactly what she's doing before hand. I suspect fetish stuff is actually pretty scrupulous about getting girls to sign contracts that spell out expectations though. The last thing some of those producers want is a ton of attention due to some girl going to the news with "they expected me to be tied up and facefucked when the contract just said to give a BJ". The producers might go the way of ol' Max Hardcore (who is a sick puppy).

I'm certainly with ilbbaicnl on the "there are limits", though I suspect we disagree on where the limits are. The snuff film example is clear. Murder and even assisted suicide are illegal. Even if assisted suicide is legalized, I suspect it will be tightly limited.

The "ghetto gaggers" stuff is different, though I could see a desire to really make sure the girl knows exactly what she's doing before hand. I suspect fetish stuff is actually pretty scrupulous about getting girls to sign contracts that spell out expectations though. The last thing some of those producers want is a ton of attention due to some girl going to the news with "they expected me to be tied up and facefucked when the contract just said to give a BJ". The producers might go the way of ol' Max Hardcore (who is a sick puppy). @crsm27 -- you're being impractical. What you seem to suggest would go to the heart of free speech. Opinion programs on both sides routinely engage in clear exaggeration even if they don't outright lie.

Shit, imagine Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke. Like Rush or hate him, he was saying shit about birth control that indicates either that he: 1) doesn't know how birth control works (so he's stupid); or 2) was outright lying (more likely). Should he forced be off the air? No way. Freedom of speech.

The right way to deal with dudes telling lies is to 1) turn them off; and 2) if you feel strongly, use YOUR freedom of speech to organize a boycott of advertisers.

The Hawaii shooting thing is just the 24 hour news cycle and pressure to say something without all the info. If you don't like news programs that put unverified shit on the air you can see above about how to deal with it.

Well OK, there are really two different issues here:

1. There are some acts which are so extreme that, the simple fact that a person give consent that the acts be done to them is proof that they are inherently incompetent to consent, temporarily incompetent to consent, or under such duress that makes their consent invalid.

2. Even if the women are merely acting and suffer no harm, if the movies are soliciting acts of violence against Black women or women in general, making them is an act of criminal conspiracy.

@ilbbaicnl: " if that's an absolute principle, then it's OK to make a snuff film with an actress who's suicidal."

Depends. Is that person going to "snuff" him or her self, or is someone else going to do it. If the former, then as long as he or she is mentally competent to make that decision, yes. If somebody else is going to do it, no, that's not suicide.

"Also, saying 'If someone will kill George, I'll give them a hundred dollars' is definitely not protected free speech."

Looks like a straw man argument to me. I didn't see anywhere in your original post about anybody soliciting that behaviour be done on a non-consensual basis. If you're suggesting that depicting such things is equivalent to "soliciting" them, you're going to have to prove it. Otherwise, all those movies depicting the assassination of public figures, acts of terrorism and hate crimes will need to be banned as well.

Juries often have to make judgement calls as to which witnesses are lying and which are telling the truth. Likewise, they can make judgement calls about when a book or video is depicting criminal behavior and when it is soliciting criminal behavior. Given the very high rates of sexual assault and attempted sexual assault, I don't think it's reasonable to allow the fomentation of sexual assault, just because it's thinly veiled as merely portraying sexual assault.

So then, given the very high rates for drunk driving, murder, shoplifting, prostitution, etc neither is it reasonable to allow fomentation of those, just because it's thinly veiled as merely portraying them.

This is the same idiotic argument that some want to use to ban certain video games.

Now you're just getting desperate George. Can you show me one video that is intended for the vicarious enjoyment of drunk driving or being a prostitute?

There is that Jane's Addiction song about shoplifting. But it's reasonable to give it the benefit of the doubt that it's portraying the state of mind of many teenagers, rather than trying to encourage anything. If teenagers were obsessively watching clips of people stuffing CDs in their pants, that would be different.

It's hard to deny that people get some sort of vicarious satisfaction from portrayals of homicide. But natural empathy and socialization keep this in check. Even with gangsta rap, any reasonable person can see it is not simple, pro-crime propaganda (except for its misogyny). If actual "murder porn", even with faked murders, was as prevalent as ghetto gaggers, that would be a a serious problem. We all think "yes!" when Micheal Corleone puts a bullet in the head of the guy responsible for attacking his father. But then there's another hour of the movie, about the negatives of giving oneself over to revenge. Using a little judgement makes it obvious "The Godfather" is not really simple pro-murder propaganda.

I've never played GTA, so I can't say personally whether it's clearly trying to encourage hatred and criminal behavior.

There will always be cases where it's hard to say what is and isn't conspiracy. But that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as criminal conspiracy. Saying that you're an adult when you're 18 is very crude and inaccurate. But that would be a really dumb reason to conclude that the law should treat a 10-year-old the same as a 30-year-old.