4 ms·
What's interesting is that while some porn does have artistic elements, a lot of newer porn does not: it is literally just people fucking. In the case of the la
by RexRollman 15y ago
What's interesting is that while some porn does have artistic elements, a lot of newer porn does not: it is literally just people fucking. In the case of the latter, I think the producers would be hard pressed to argue that anything creative or expressive is taking place.
- jarin 15y agoGenerally when determining obscenity the determining factor of the Miller Test is the community standards. When I worked at a porn company, I remember hearing about a case where the defense proved community standards by getting statistics about pay-per-view porn on local cable providers.
- redthrowaway 15y agoSo a big-budget knockoff of a Hollywood movie (a la Pirates XXX) would be protected as art, but backroom casting couch wouldn't? Similarly, Star Wars Kid wouldn't be covered, but Tosh's show on it would be? I'm simply fascinated by the possible ramifications of a court deciding this issue.
- ars 15y agoThose things are not obscene. What he's saying it that to rise above obscene, porn would/could add extra artistic stuff to it.
- pron 15y agoI don't know. On occasion, "just people fucking" could be quite creative and certainly expressive.
- Jun8 15y agoI think this issue is much more general than porn (although it does make it more interesting). I can declare: "Writer X's (e.g. X=John Grisham, substitute your own bad writer) novels are worthless, so I can freely share them". This would be ridiculous statement (cf. Grisham's net worth ~ $200M).
- alan_cx 15y agoCould make the same sort of point about music, movies and TV these days. What is the artistic merit of Desperate Housewives, The Transformers, and Britney Spears? Hell, much of that is sold on titillation alone. Sounds like artless porn to me.