<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_03_0936200</id>
	<title>US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1246623300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"The husband and wife owners of a California company that distributed pornographic materials over the Internet <a href="http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/309771/couple\_gets\_prison\_time\_internet\_obscenity">have been each sentenced to one year and one day in prison</a>. Extreme Associates and owners Robert Zicari, also known as Rob Black, 35, and his wife, Janet Romano, aka Lizzie Borden, 32, pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " The husband and wife owners of a California company that distributed pornographic materials over the Internet have been each sentenced to one year and one day in prison .
Extreme Associates and owners Robert Zicari , also known as Rob Black , 35 , and his wife , Janet Romano , aka Lizzie Borden , 32 , pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "The husband and wife owners of a California company that distributed pornographic materials over the Internet have been each sentenced to one year and one day in prison.
Extreme Associates and owners Robert Zicari, also known as Rob Black, 35, and his wife, Janet Romano, aka Lizzie Borden, 32, pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572055</id>
	<title>Mary Beth Buchanan</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246638060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to be protected from people like Mary Beth Buchanan, not "lewd, lascivious or filthy material" -- which uhh can't actually hurt me?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to be protected from people like Mary Beth Buchanan , not " lewd , lascivious or filthy material " -- which uhh ca n't actually hurt me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to be protected from people like Mary Beth Buchanan, not "lewd, lascivious or filthy material" -- which uhh can't actually hurt me?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572009</id>
	<title>Wholly crap!</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1246637760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find this to be remarkable and unbelievable.  I had no idea we had such laws in effect as all sorts of porn if floating freely all over the internet.  I would seriously like to see how they define "obscene" as the term itself is VERY subjective.</p><p>This needs some supreme court time.  I thought most of this stuff was cleared by by Larry Flynt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find this to be remarkable and unbelievable .
I had no idea we had such laws in effect as all sorts of porn if floating freely all over the internet .
I would seriously like to see how they define " obscene " as the term itself is VERY subjective.This needs some supreme court time .
I thought most of this stuff was cleared by by Larry Flynt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find this to be remarkable and unbelievable.
I had no idea we had such laws in effect as all sorts of porn if floating freely all over the internet.
I would seriously like to see how they define "obscene" as the term itself is VERY subjective.This needs some supreme court time.
I thought most of this stuff was cleared by by Larry Flynt.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570597</id>
	<title>Hmm..</title>
	<author>inamorty</author>
	<datestamp>1246629180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are the implications for rule 34?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the implications for rule 34 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the implications for rule 34?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571089</id>
	<title>Crusading Attorney:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mary Beth Buchanan is the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling bongs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mary Beth Buchanan is the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling bongs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mary Beth Buchanan is the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling bongs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28575563</id>
	<title>Re:Over the line is over the line?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246619160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The legal tests for obscenity are extremely <b>liberal</b></p> </div><p>I do not think that word means what you think it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The legal tests for obscenity are extremely liberal I do not think that word means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The legal tests for obscenity are extremely liberal I do not think that word means what you think it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571103</id>
	<title>Thanks, libtards!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is what happens when you let fat ugly feminists roam free in the justice system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when you let fat ugly feminists roam free in the justice system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when you let fat ugly feminists roam free in the justice system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570595</id>
	<title>Back off People we've solved the worlds issues.</title>
	<author>Tiger Smile</author>
	<datestamp>1246629180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This case, no matter how vile the porn clips were, was not at all important. In today's cash strapped times where states cannot even afford to pay their police, we've got time for "protecting" people from the stuff they ordered in the mail to watch on their VCR. Amazing. I think these people are sick if they made a movie simulating rape. The people who watch it that is. But the people involved in this "investigation", which no doubt involved purchasing and watching the material over and over again, are part of a larger disease. Can we afford the morality police? Have we put away all the real rapists, pedophiles, killers, and Wall Street cheaters? We've found every missing child? We've fed the hungry? We fixed the federal budget and debt? Now you and I have to pay these idiot investigators, and pay for the 1 year and 1 day of the prison term. We're being punished for this "crime". So if you are proud of this victory make sure you remember it when you pay your taxes and notice what's missing from your paycheck. These people who stole from the federal budget to enjoy their porn and imprison the distributors should be put to work doing something useful. They should pay us back by looking for missing children for the next 1 year and 1 day.</p><p>There are three branches of government, which are controlled by a single more important branch of government, The People. We the people in the constitution are the only thing that gives permission to the branches of the federal government to have any power at all. A single overriding branch of government. So, why did you allow your federal government to be so stupid. After all it's only a reflection of your wishes. You need to fix this. We need to fix this. Well, then, back to work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This case , no matter how vile the porn clips were , was not at all important .
In today 's cash strapped times where states can not even afford to pay their police , we 've got time for " protecting " people from the stuff they ordered in the mail to watch on their VCR .
Amazing. I think these people are sick if they made a movie simulating rape .
The people who watch it that is .
But the people involved in this " investigation " , which no doubt involved purchasing and watching the material over and over again , are part of a larger disease .
Can we afford the morality police ?
Have we put away all the real rapists , pedophiles , killers , and Wall Street cheaters ?
We 've found every missing child ?
We 've fed the hungry ?
We fixed the federal budget and debt ?
Now you and I have to pay these idiot investigators , and pay for the 1 year and 1 day of the prison term .
We 're being punished for this " crime " .
So if you are proud of this victory make sure you remember it when you pay your taxes and notice what 's missing from your paycheck .
These people who stole from the federal budget to enjoy their porn and imprison the distributors should be put to work doing something useful .
They should pay us back by looking for missing children for the next 1 year and 1 day.There are three branches of government , which are controlled by a single more important branch of government , The People .
We the people in the constitution are the only thing that gives permission to the branches of the federal government to have any power at all .
A single overriding branch of government .
So , why did you allow your federal government to be so stupid .
After all it 's only a reflection of your wishes .
You need to fix this .
We need to fix this .
Well , then , back to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This case, no matter how vile the porn clips were, was not at all important.
In today's cash strapped times where states cannot even afford to pay their police, we've got time for "protecting" people from the stuff they ordered in the mail to watch on their VCR.
Amazing. I think these people are sick if they made a movie simulating rape.
The people who watch it that is.
But the people involved in this "investigation", which no doubt involved purchasing and watching the material over and over again, are part of a larger disease.
Can we afford the morality police?
Have we put away all the real rapists, pedophiles, killers, and Wall Street cheaters?
We've found every missing child?
We've fed the hungry?
We fixed the federal budget and debt?
Now you and I have to pay these idiot investigators, and pay for the 1 year and 1 day of the prison term.
We're being punished for this "crime".
So if you are proud of this victory make sure you remember it when you pay your taxes and notice what's missing from your paycheck.
These people who stole from the federal budget to enjoy their porn and imprison the distributors should be put to work doing something useful.
They should pay us back by looking for missing children for the next 1 year and 1 day.There are three branches of government, which are controlled by a single more important branch of government, The People.
We the people in the constitution are the only thing that gives permission to the branches of the federal government to have any power at all.
A single overriding branch of government.
So, why did you allow your federal government to be so stupid.
After all it's only a reflection of your wishes.
You need to fix this.
We need to fix this.
Well, then, back to work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570675</id>
	<title>Simulations gets you jail-time</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1246629780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the real thing doesn't.  Glad we have our priorities straight.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the real thing does n't .
Glad we have our priorities straight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the real thing doesn't.
Glad we have our priorities straight.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570801</id>
	<title>The only thing obscene...</title>
	<author>divisionbyzero</author>
	<datestamp>1246630440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is this verdict.  Between the First Amendment and the Fourth I'm not sure that this is remotely constitutional.  I could see the point if the person involved filed rape charges, but then it would be a case about rape, not obscenity.  Totally stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is this verdict .
Between the First Amendment and the Fourth I 'm not sure that this is remotely constitutional .
I could see the point if the person involved filed rape charges , but then it would be a case about rape , not obscenity .
Totally stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is this verdict.
Between the First Amendment and the Fourth I'm not sure that this is remotely constitutional.
I could see the point if the person involved filed rape charges, but then it would be a case about rape, not obscenity.
Totally stupid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28574085</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame the system</title>
	<author>TheStonepedo</author>
	<datestamp>1246651200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"[...] and they stack the <b>desk</b> against them [...]"<br> <br>
You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" [ ... ] and they stack the desk against them [ ... ] " You keep using that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"[...] and they stack the desk against them [...]" 
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570995</id>
	<title>Over the line is over the line?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246631940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a lawyer who cares about the first amendment, I have to say this prosecution does NOT bother me.  The legal tests for obscenity are extremely liberal, and basically require content that would shock the hell out of a jury anywhere in the country, not just in the more prudish, Bible thumping places.  Given how mainstream porn is now, this is NOT a threat to erotica or explicit porn in general.  Extreme has been making a business of rough rape/defecation videos, and seriously, if that's what it takes to get you off, maybe you should consider some counseling?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a lawyer who cares about the first amendment , I have to say this prosecution does NOT bother me .
The legal tests for obscenity are extremely liberal , and basically require content that would shock the hell out of a jury anywhere in the country , not just in the more prudish , Bible thumping places .
Given how mainstream porn is now , this is NOT a threat to erotica or explicit porn in general .
Extreme has been making a business of rough rape/defecation videos , and seriously , if that 's what it takes to get you off , maybe you should consider some counseling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a lawyer who cares about the first amendment, I have to say this prosecution does NOT bother me.
The legal tests for obscenity are extremely liberal, and basically require content that would shock the hell out of a jury anywhere in the country, not just in the more prudish, Bible thumping places.
Given how mainstream porn is now, this is NOT a threat to erotica or explicit porn in general.
Extreme has been making a business of rough rape/defecation videos, and seriously, if that's what it takes to get you off, maybe you should consider some counseling?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571845</id>
	<title>This woman is embarassing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246636800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who lives in Pennsylvania, I can confirm the fact that the woman who prosecuted this case is an absolute monster.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary\_Beth\_Buchanan</p><p>This is a small wikipedia summary, but if you ask around, you will find that this summary is very kind to her, and doesn't list several local controversies that came up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who lives in Pennsylvania , I can confirm the fact that the woman who prosecuted this case is an absolute monster.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary \ _Beth \ _BuchananThis is a small wikipedia summary , but if you ask around , you will find that this summary is very kind to her , and does n't list several local controversies that came up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who lives in Pennsylvania, I can confirm the fact that the woman who prosecuted this case is an absolute monster.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary\_Beth\_BuchananThis is a small wikipedia summary, but if you ask around, you will find that this summary is very kind to her, and doesn't list several local controversies that came up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573597</id>
	<title>As someone who was following the case...</title>
	<author>AceCaseOR</author>
	<datestamp>1246647720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to give some quick information on the kind of material Mr. Black was selling (aside from DVDs for his crappy wrestling promotion). The DVD's contained material depicting simulated rape that was <i>billed as actual rapes</i>, participants who were advertised as being minors (with the DVDs and web pages <i>not containing</i> the legally mandated text that said that they confirmed that the participants were of legal age to take part in the video), along with your standard 2 Girls 1 Cup level scatological stuff.</p><p>Oh and apparently there were some problems with how they were storing it as well (they were storing it in the building they'd leased for their promotion - the former ECW Arena/Viking Hall, then called the New Alhambra Arena). Apparently there was something wrong with that as well (aside from possibly being a violation of their lease).</p><p>As it is, Rob Black is a giant inflamed asshole, and I have no sympathy for him at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to give some quick information on the kind of material Mr. Black was selling ( aside from DVDs for his crappy wrestling promotion ) .
The DVD 's contained material depicting simulated rape that was billed as actual rapes , participants who were advertised as being minors ( with the DVDs and web pages not containing the legally mandated text that said that they confirmed that the participants were of legal age to take part in the video ) , along with your standard 2 Girls 1 Cup level scatological stuff.Oh and apparently there were some problems with how they were storing it as well ( they were storing it in the building they 'd leased for their promotion - the former ECW Arena/Viking Hall , then called the New Alhambra Arena ) .
Apparently there was something wrong with that as well ( aside from possibly being a violation of their lease ) .As it is , Rob Black is a giant inflamed asshole , and I have no sympathy for him at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to give some quick information on the kind of material Mr. Black was selling (aside from DVDs for his crappy wrestling promotion).
The DVD's contained material depicting simulated rape that was billed as actual rapes, participants who were advertised as being minors (with the DVDs and web pages not containing the legally mandated text that said that they confirmed that the participants were of legal age to take part in the video), along with your standard 2 Girls 1 Cup level scatological stuff.Oh and apparently there were some problems with how they were storing it as well (they were storing it in the building they'd leased for their promotion - the former ECW Arena/Viking Hall, then called the New Alhambra Arena).
Apparently there was something wrong with that as well (aside from possibly being a violation of their lease).As it is, Rob Black is a giant inflamed asshole, and I have no sympathy for him at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571031</id>
	<title>by international standards, this stuff is tame</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>dont let these law makers come to japan...their heads would asplode 10 minutes after leaving the plane.</p><p>that said, some of the shit here is fucked up and needs to be banned, but thats stuff like fake vaginas with a very young manga girl drawn on the front with "7 years style" written on it. my wife almost had a fit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>dont let these law makers come to japan...their heads would asplode 10 minutes after leaving the plane.that said , some of the shit here is fucked up and needs to be banned , but thats stuff like fake vaginas with a very young manga girl drawn on the front with " 7 years style " written on it .
my wife almost had a fit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>dont let these law makers come to japan...their heads would asplode 10 minutes after leaving the plane.that said, some of the shit here is fucked up and needs to be banned, but thats stuff like fake vaginas with a very young manga girl drawn on the front with "7 years style" written on it.
my wife almost had a fit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573159</id>
	<title>Not much for censorship and jailtime...</title>
	<author>KarlIsNotMyName</author>
	<datestamp>1246645020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But how about an official categorization of porn? I'm not much into the rape and other violence stuff, or the, well, crap. Apparently these guys know what kind of porn is what, so how about we get a government run porn search engine, with each image, video, story, and whatever else, clearly labeled? Then we can all search for the stuff we want to see, and not risk being offended by what we don't want to see.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But how about an official categorization of porn ?
I 'm not much into the rape and other violence stuff , or the , well , crap .
Apparently these guys know what kind of porn is what , so how about we get a government run porn search engine , with each image , video , story , and whatever else , clearly labeled ?
Then we can all search for the stuff we want to see , and not risk being offended by what we do n't want to see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how about an official categorization of porn?
I'm not much into the rape and other violence stuff, or the, well, crap.
Apparently these guys know what kind of porn is what, so how about we get a government run porn search engine, with each image, video, story, and whatever else, clearly labeled?
Then we can all search for the stuff we want to see, and not risk being offended by what we don't want to see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570775</id>
	<title>Frontline episode</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1246630380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember that Frontline documentary episode. I believe these where the people that made videos of women being kidnapped, beaten, and gang raped. They did not show anything in the documentary, but they did show the Frontline camera crew that was filming the making of video had to stop in the middle because they could not watch anymore.  Now, it might have been shocking stuff at the edge of what is possible to do with actors, but it was still within the bounds of the law as far as consenting parties willing to be filmed.</p><p>At least it is the kind of thing that is not up to a judge to decide what they find repulsive, otherwise we are on the slippery slope back to the 70's where more conservative taste will make any portrayal of sex illegal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that Frontline documentary episode .
I believe these where the people that made videos of women being kidnapped , beaten , and gang raped .
They did not show anything in the documentary , but they did show the Frontline camera crew that was filming the making of video had to stop in the middle because they could not watch anymore .
Now , it might have been shocking stuff at the edge of what is possible to do with actors , but it was still within the bounds of the law as far as consenting parties willing to be filmed.At least it is the kind of thing that is not up to a judge to decide what they find repulsive , otherwise we are on the slippery slope back to the 70 's where more conservative taste will make any portrayal of sex illegal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that Frontline documentary episode.
I believe these where the people that made videos of women being kidnapped, beaten, and gang raped.
They did not show anything in the documentary, but they did show the Frontline camera crew that was filming the making of video had to stop in the middle because they could not watch anymore.
Now, it might have been shocking stuff at the edge of what is possible to do with actors, but it was still within the bounds of the law as far as consenting parties willing to be filmed.At least it is the kind of thing that is not up to a judge to decide what they find repulsive, otherwise we are on the slippery slope back to the 70's where more conservative taste will make any portrayal of sex illegal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571775</id>
	<title>Illegality</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1246636560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it illegal to perform the acts, record the performing of the acts or distribute the recorded performance of the acts?</p><p>I'll assume that performing it is not illegal at least in a private environment. These were not public performances (though if they were what might happen?)</p><p>The recording likewise is unlikely to be illegal (excepting recording without permission - inclusive of underage persons -  there are no laws covering the recording of anything).</p><p>SO it's really down to the distribution of such things. Where does morality, indecency, depravity, etc. come into the equation when we're discussing a law about distribution. We've already skipped past the parts where the content itself is at question - performance and recording are fine, just don't share it? or is it the money changing hands part?</p><p>If it is distribution, really, the prosecutor should have to prove that society or some individual was harmed by the distribution, in a concrete example. There needs to be a victim. Prove that the people purchasing the videos are going out and re-enacting the scenes with non-consenting persons or that it is influencing them to harm society in some way.</p><p>The length of the sentence underscores these sentiments. A year and 1 day is giving lip service to an overbearing authority figure and yet is still an abuse of the legal system. It's embarrassing really. Hypocrisy at it's finest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it illegal to perform the acts , record the performing of the acts or distribute the recorded performance of the acts ? I 'll assume that performing it is not illegal at least in a private environment .
These were not public performances ( though if they were what might happen ?
) The recording likewise is unlikely to be illegal ( excepting recording without permission - inclusive of underage persons - there are no laws covering the recording of anything ) .SO it 's really down to the distribution of such things .
Where does morality , indecency , depravity , etc .
come into the equation when we 're discussing a law about distribution .
We 've already skipped past the parts where the content itself is at question - performance and recording are fine , just do n't share it ?
or is it the money changing hands part ? If it is distribution , really , the prosecutor should have to prove that society or some individual was harmed by the distribution , in a concrete example .
There needs to be a victim .
Prove that the people purchasing the videos are going out and re-enacting the scenes with non-consenting persons or that it is influencing them to harm society in some way.The length of the sentence underscores these sentiments .
A year and 1 day is giving lip service to an overbearing authority figure and yet is still an abuse of the legal system .
It 's embarrassing really .
Hypocrisy at it 's finest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it illegal to perform the acts, record the performing of the acts or distribute the recorded performance of the acts?I'll assume that performing it is not illegal at least in a private environment.
These were not public performances (though if they were what might happen?
)The recording likewise is unlikely to be illegal (excepting recording without permission - inclusive of underage persons -  there are no laws covering the recording of anything).SO it's really down to the distribution of such things.
Where does morality, indecency, depravity, etc.
come into the equation when we're discussing a law about distribution.
We've already skipped past the parts where the content itself is at question - performance and recording are fine, just don't share it?
or is it the money changing hands part?If it is distribution, really, the prosecutor should have to prove that society or some individual was harmed by the distribution, in a concrete example.
There needs to be a victim.
Prove that the people purchasing the videos are going out and re-enacting the scenes with non-consenting persons or that it is influencing them to harm society in some way.The length of the sentence underscores these sentiments.
A year and 1 day is giving lip service to an overbearing authority figure and yet is still an abuse of the legal system.
It's embarrassing really.
Hypocrisy at it's finest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28575907</id>
	<title>THIS is what is really perverse!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246622280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That you go to prison for porn or nudity, in a supposedly modern, first-world state.<br>I'm sorry, but that is purest theocratic behavior!</p><p>And by the way: So they were forbidden to do it, because God forbid there might get any <em>porn</em> on the <em>Internet</em>?!?<br>Were they (the plaintiff, the judge, the jury) ever in their whole life on the Internet, or did they ever heard about it?</p><p>This is really sick and perverse... what religious schizophrenia can make people do to other people. I hope religion dies in its own hell!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That you go to prison for porn or nudity , in a supposedly modern , first-world state.I 'm sorry , but that is purest theocratic behavior ! And by the way : So they were forbidden to do it , because God forbid there might get any porn on the Internet ? !
? Were they ( the plaintiff , the judge , the jury ) ever in their whole life on the Internet , or did they ever heard about it ? This is really sick and perverse... what religious schizophrenia can make people do to other people .
I hope religion dies in its own hell !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That you go to prison for porn or nudity, in a supposedly modern, first-world state.I'm sorry, but that is purest theocratic behavior!And by the way: So they were forbidden to do it, because God forbid there might get any porn on the Internet?!
?Were they (the plaintiff, the judge, the jury) ever in their whole life on the Internet, or did they ever heard about it?This is really sick and perverse... what religious schizophrenia can make people do to other people.
I hope religion dies in its own hell!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570855</id>
	<title>Salo?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246630920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has Richard Ashcroft ever seen the Italian movie Salo?  It's available from Netflix.  Has all of these aspects (and I mean all of them).  Why hasn't Netflix been thrown in prison?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has Richard Ashcroft ever seen the Italian movie Salo ?
It 's available from Netflix .
Has all of these aspects ( and I mean all of them ) .
Why has n't Netflix been thrown in prison ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has Richard Ashcroft ever seen the Italian movie Salo?
It's available from Netflix.
Has all of these aspects (and I mean all of them).
Why hasn't Netflix been thrown in prison?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571167</id>
	<title>Damn</title>
	<author>grh\_angelone</author>
	<datestamp>1246632960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Now I gotta make my own dirty sanchez flicks...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now I got ta make my own dirty sanchez flicks.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now I gotta make my own dirty sanchez flicks...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570663</id>
	<title>Free publicity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246629660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, now that this has made slashdot, the number of people aware of the film will skyrocket. From what another poster describes as the content, it is sick. However, one should not forget the truism:</p><p>"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H L Mencken</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , now that this has made slashdot , the number of people aware of the film will skyrocket .
From what another poster describes as the content , it is sick .
However , one should not forget the truism : " The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one 's time defending scoundrels .
For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed , and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all .
" - H L Mencken</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, now that this has made slashdot, the number of people aware of the film will skyrocket.
From what another poster describes as the content, it is sick.
However, one should not forget the truism:"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels.
For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
" - H L Mencken</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570611</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246629300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did anyone else read that as internet obscurity?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did anyone else read that as internet obscurity ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did anyone else read that as internet obscurity?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570819</id>
	<title>Fascism is here...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246630560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see this as another example of how America is becoming fascist.<br>As amazingly distasteful as simulated rape porn, and simulated pedo porn is, I'm amazed it's not protected by free speech. After all isn't free speech to protect whatever people say assuming it doesn't directly hurt someone, (ie yelling fire in a crowd) even if I disagree so much I would rally against those beliefs my entire life?<br>This sort of fringe porn would have to be searched for and the people ordering it I'm sure are very aware of what they are getting. So to prosecute this as obscene in a different district from the accused, one the government figured would be easiest to get a conviction sounds like a witch hunt.<br>Along with the entire Bush era, and the AT&amp;T internet tapping case, and the digital copyright millennium act this is just another example of fascism coming to America.<br>Thank god I don't live there, not that Canada is always much better lately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see this as another example of how America is becoming fascist.As amazingly distasteful as simulated rape porn , and simulated pedo porn is , I 'm amazed it 's not protected by free speech .
After all is n't free speech to protect whatever people say assuming it does n't directly hurt someone , ( ie yelling fire in a crowd ) even if I disagree so much I would rally against those beliefs my entire life ? This sort of fringe porn would have to be searched for and the people ordering it I 'm sure are very aware of what they are getting .
So to prosecute this as obscene in a different district from the accused , one the government figured would be easiest to get a conviction sounds like a witch hunt.Along with the entire Bush era , and the AT&amp;T internet tapping case , and the digital copyright millennium act this is just another example of fascism coming to America.Thank god I do n't live there , not that Canada is always much better lately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see this as another example of how America is becoming fascist.As amazingly distasteful as simulated rape porn, and simulated pedo porn is, I'm amazed it's not protected by free speech.
After all isn't free speech to protect whatever people say assuming it doesn't directly hurt someone, (ie yelling fire in a crowd) even if I disagree so much I would rally against those beliefs my entire life?This sort of fringe porn would have to be searched for and the people ordering it I'm sure are very aware of what they are getting.
So to prosecute this as obscene in a different district from the accused, one the government figured would be easiest to get a conviction sounds like a witch hunt.Along with the entire Bush era, and the AT&amp;T internet tapping case, and the digital copyright millennium act this is just another example of fascism coming to America.Thank god I don't live there, not that Canada is always much better lately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570565</id>
	<title>what's the difference?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246628940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what's the difference between these films and simulated rape scenes in hollywood movies?</p><p>Both are artistic expression.</p><p>Why wouldn't they prosecute the filmmakers of "American Psycho" ?</p><p>Because some female U.S. Attorney got a bug up her cunt!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what 's the difference between these films and simulated rape scenes in hollywood movies ? Both are artistic expression.Why would n't they prosecute the filmmakers of " American Psycho " ? Because some female U.S. Attorney got a bug up her cunt !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what's the difference between these films and simulated rape scenes in hollywood movies?Both are artistic expression.Why wouldn't they prosecute the filmmakers of "American Psycho" ?Because some female U.S. Attorney got a bug up her cunt!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572707</id>
	<title>This is about a specific kind of porn</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1246642200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The vast majority of porn distribution on the Internet behaves by the "unspoken rules" about what's ok and what's not ok to show.  Long story short, you can't show a porn that implies one or more participants may not have given consent, i.e. it can't be a shot of sex with either party tied up.  If you see something like this, watch the camera work and you'll notice that they don't actually show sex and bondage at the same time.  If they do... that's what gets busted.  So besides real bestiality, incest, or anything that could be characterized as nonconsensual, pretty much anything else goes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The vast majority of porn distribution on the Internet behaves by the " unspoken rules " about what 's ok and what 's not ok to show .
Long story short , you ca n't show a porn that implies one or more participants may not have given consent , i.e .
it ca n't be a shot of sex with either party tied up .
If you see something like this , watch the camera work and you 'll notice that they do n't actually show sex and bondage at the same time .
If they do... that 's what gets busted .
So besides real bestiality , incest , or anything that could be characterized as nonconsensual , pretty much anything else goes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The vast majority of porn distribution on the Internet behaves by the "unspoken rules" about what's ok and what's not ok to show.
Long story short, you can't show a porn that implies one or more participants may not have given consent, i.e.
it can't be a shot of sex with either party tied up.
If you see something like this, watch the camera work and you'll notice that they don't actually show sex and bondage at the same time.
If they do... that's what gets busted.
So besides real bestiality, incest, or anything that could be characterized as nonconsensual, pretty much anything else goes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28576901</id>
	<title>GOSH!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246632060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gosh, if you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers got as enraged over infrignements on crapping in someones mouth as you did nationalizing industries, we might actually have a future to look forward too...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gosh , if you /.ers got as enraged over infrignements on crapping in someones mouth as you did nationalizing industries , we might actually have a future to look forward too.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gosh, if you /.ers got as enraged over infrignements on crapping in someones mouth as you did nationalizing industries, we might actually have a future to look forward too...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572477</id>
	<title>Re:This sort of attitude really bugs me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246640760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>May be it's a different group of people being protected here than what you think. There are great porn sites where the people involved provide titillation because they love doing it. "I feel myself" (NSFW) comes to mind. These are ladies who setup cameras at home, and appear to genuinely enjoy recording themselves getting off on pillows and rubber duckies. It's the meat and potatoes of sex though - nothing kinky or extreme there. However they definitely fail part of the Miller test - there is definitely no plot.</p><p>However when you make the type of violent porn mentioned here; things can get very gray very fast. May be simulating rape gets a little too costly, and film makers start trying to find cheaper ways to get the effect you want. May be we don't let the actress know exactly whats coming (excuse the unintentional pun there - I'm not trying to be funny).</p><p>If you build a demand, you are also building a market to feed it; and somewhere along the line, actors and actresses are going to start putting themselves in danger for the cash. It's fairly easy to simulate a guy's arm getting sliced off; and people do it in their back yards through Halloween. It's much more difficult to simulate an anus getting extended with six inch calipers.</p><p>Unfortunately, once you've gone a little off the beaten path, I don't think you can get the same sort of sympathy when things go wrong. A stunt man who breaks a collar bone gets workers comp. If you get permanent physical (or psychological) damage making violent porn, who is going to protect you?</p><p>Now that a precedent has been set, I don't know how prosecutors are going to use it; and whether they will go after others like Larry Flynt again; but I can't say I don't agree with the need to stop certain kinds of porn - even if it sets up a gray area which means that eventually the net gets cast a lot wider. I think its great that shooting a video with girls younger than 18 gets you sent to jail for a very long team (even if the girl lied about her age). I also think that given the kind of porn they are talking about here - I agree with the ruling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>May be it 's a different group of people being protected here than what you think .
There are great porn sites where the people involved provide titillation because they love doing it .
" I feel myself " ( NSFW ) comes to mind .
These are ladies who setup cameras at home , and appear to genuinely enjoy recording themselves getting off on pillows and rubber duckies .
It 's the meat and potatoes of sex though - nothing kinky or extreme there .
However they definitely fail part of the Miller test - there is definitely no plot.However when you make the type of violent porn mentioned here ; things can get very gray very fast .
May be simulating rape gets a little too costly , and film makers start trying to find cheaper ways to get the effect you want .
May be we do n't let the actress know exactly whats coming ( excuse the unintentional pun there - I 'm not trying to be funny ) .If you build a demand , you are also building a market to feed it ; and somewhere along the line , actors and actresses are going to start putting themselves in danger for the cash .
It 's fairly easy to simulate a guy 's arm getting sliced off ; and people do it in their back yards through Halloween .
It 's much more difficult to simulate an anus getting extended with six inch calipers.Unfortunately , once you 've gone a little off the beaten path , I do n't think you can get the same sort of sympathy when things go wrong .
A stunt man who breaks a collar bone gets workers comp .
If you get permanent physical ( or psychological ) damage making violent porn , who is going to protect you ? Now that a precedent has been set , I do n't know how prosecutors are going to use it ; and whether they will go after others like Larry Flynt again ; but I ca n't say I do n't agree with the need to stop certain kinds of porn - even if it sets up a gray area which means that eventually the net gets cast a lot wider .
I think its great that shooting a video with girls younger than 18 gets you sent to jail for a very long team ( even if the girl lied about her age ) .
I also think that given the kind of porn they are talking about here - I agree with the ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>May be it's a different group of people being protected here than what you think.
There are great porn sites where the people involved provide titillation because they love doing it.
"I feel myself" (NSFW) comes to mind.
These are ladies who setup cameras at home, and appear to genuinely enjoy recording themselves getting off on pillows and rubber duckies.
It's the meat and potatoes of sex though - nothing kinky or extreme there.
However they definitely fail part of the Miller test - there is definitely no plot.However when you make the type of violent porn mentioned here; things can get very gray very fast.
May be simulating rape gets a little too costly, and film makers start trying to find cheaper ways to get the effect you want.
May be we don't let the actress know exactly whats coming (excuse the unintentional pun there - I'm not trying to be funny).If you build a demand, you are also building a market to feed it; and somewhere along the line, actors and actresses are going to start putting themselves in danger for the cash.
It's fairly easy to simulate a guy's arm getting sliced off; and people do it in their back yards through Halloween.
It's much more difficult to simulate an anus getting extended with six inch calipers.Unfortunately, once you've gone a little off the beaten path, I don't think you can get the same sort of sympathy when things go wrong.
A stunt man who breaks a collar bone gets workers comp.
If you get permanent physical (or psychological) damage making violent porn, who is going to protect you?Now that a precedent has been set, I don't know how prosecutors are going to use it; and whether they will go after others like Larry Flynt again; but I can't say I don't agree with the need to stop certain kinds of porn - even if it sets up a gray area which means that eventually the net gets cast a lot wider.
I think its great that shooting a video with girls younger than 18 gets you sent to jail for a very long team (even if the girl lied about her age).
I also think that given the kind of porn they are talking about here - I agree with the ruling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570517</id>
	<title>Thanks for protecting the public...</title>
	<author>jaypifer</author>
	<datestamp>1246628520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The American Taliban strikes again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The American Taliban strikes again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American Taliban strikes again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573403</id>
	<title>How did this happen?!</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1246646460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can go to jail now for making a video?!  That's censorship plain and simple.  I though that the government didn't do that here (at least not for private citizens).  I can see sending someone to jail for crimes they committed which happened to be videotaped, but not for producing and distributing the videos themselves.  This is insane.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can go to jail now for making a video ? !
That 's censorship plain and simple .
I though that the government did n't do that here ( at least not for private citizens ) .
I can see sending someone to jail for crimes they committed which happened to be videotaped , but not for producing and distributing the videos themselves .
This is insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can go to jail now for making a video?!
That's censorship plain and simple.
I though that the government didn't do that here (at least not for private citizens).
I can see sending someone to jail for crimes they committed which happened to be videotaped, but not for producing and distributing the videos themselves.
This is insane.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28576125</id>
	<title>Good thing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246624080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Repubs aren't in power so that they can't hold us hostage to their right-wing uptight beliefs.

Oh, Wait. Never mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Repubs are n't in power so that they ca n't hold us hostage to their right-wing uptight beliefs .
Oh , Wait .
Never mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Repubs aren't in power so that they can't hold us hostage to their right-wing uptight beliefs.
Oh, Wait.
Never mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573261</id>
	<title>Mary Beth Buchanan is a NAZI CUNT.</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246645620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AMERICA is about freedom, you stupid cunt.</p><p>Simulated RAPE, is not RAPE.</p><p>Is it wrong to rape your girlfriend if she enjoys to be fucked that way? If she is a consenting adult who enjoys rape fantasies and rape play.... is that obscene?</p><p>Wall Street does far more obscene things than any CONSENTING ADULT IN PORNO.</p><p>Mary Beth Buchanan's pussy must be so precious that we're all in awe of her majesty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AMERICA is about freedom , you stupid cunt.Simulated RAPE , is not RAPE.Is it wrong to rape your girlfriend if she enjoys to be fucked that way ?
If she is a consenting adult who enjoys rape fantasies and rape play.... is that obscene ? Wall Street does far more obscene things than any CONSENTING ADULT IN PORNO.Mary Beth Buchanan 's pussy must be so precious that we 're all in awe of her majesty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AMERICA is about freedom, you stupid cunt.Simulated RAPE, is not RAPE.Is it wrong to rape your girlfriend if she enjoys to be fucked that way?
If she is a consenting adult who enjoys rape fantasies and rape play.... is that obscene?Wall Street does far more obscene things than any CONSENTING ADULT IN PORNO.Mary Beth Buchanan's pussy must be so precious that we're all in awe of her majesty.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573593</id>
	<title>A day late and a click short</title>
	<author>Brad Eleven</author>
	<datestamp>1246647660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dang! Why is it that I only hear about these bitchen sites after they've been shut down?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dang !
Why is it that I only hear about these bitchen sites after they 've been shut down ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dang!
Why is it that I only hear about these bitchen sites after they've been shut down?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487</id>
	<title>This sort of attitude really bugs me...</title>
	<author>NoNeeeed</author>
	<datestamp>1246628220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."</p></div><p>
In what way is this protecting people?  Presumably they were only supplying this stuff to people who paid for it, not projecting it onto the side of schools or posting it to small children.
</p><p>
I don't understand this attitude of protecting people from things they want to do, and I don't see why the state should intervene (assuming all the parties involved consented).
</p><p>
It seems to be the same logic as used by opponents of gay marriage, who claim that it will somehow destroy the institution of marriage.  How will someone else getting married to someone of the same sex, in any way change yours or anyone else's marriage?  In the same way, how does the production of this material (again, assuming consent on all sides) "degrade us all"?  It doesn't degrade me, I had nothing to do with it, don't watch it, and am unaffected by it.  This whole idea of "someone's doing something I don't like, therefore I can object and stop it" is just narrow minded control-freakery.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan , of the Western District of Pennsylvania , said in a statement .
" These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene , lewd , lascivious or filthy material , the production of which degrades all of us .
" In what way is this protecting people ?
Presumably they were only supplying this stuff to people who paid for it , not projecting it onto the side of schools or posting it to small children .
I do n't understand this attitude of protecting people from things they want to do , and I do n't see why the state should intervene ( assuming all the parties involved consented ) .
It seems to be the same logic as used by opponents of gay marriage , who claim that it will somehow destroy the institution of marriage .
How will someone else getting married to someone of the same sex , in any way change yours or anyone else 's marriage ?
In the same way , how does the production of this material ( again , assuming consent on all sides ) " degrade us all " ?
It does n't degrade me , I had nothing to do with it , do n't watch it , and am unaffected by it .
This whole idea of " someone 's doing something I do n't like , therefore I can object and stop it " is just narrow minded control-freakery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.
"These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us.
"
In what way is this protecting people?
Presumably they were only supplying this stuff to people who paid for it, not projecting it onto the side of schools or posting it to small children.
I don't understand this attitude of protecting people from things they want to do, and I don't see why the state should intervene (assuming all the parties involved consented).
It seems to be the same logic as used by opponents of gay marriage, who claim that it will somehow destroy the institution of marriage.
How will someone else getting married to someone of the same sex, in any way change yours or anyone else's marriage?
In the same way, how does the production of this material (again, assuming consent on all sides) "degrade us all"?
It doesn't degrade me, I had nothing to do with it, don't watch it, and am unaffected by it.
This whole idea of "someone's doing something I don't like, therefore I can object and stop it" is just narrow minded control-freakery.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28580349</id>
	<title>The real reason</title>
	<author>Paul Johnson</author>
	<datestamp>1246724700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From the linked article:<blockquote><div><p> <i>Extreme Associates was the subject of a PBS Frontline documentary entitled "American Porn," </i></p></div> </blockquote><p>
I suspect this is the real reason they went to prison.  You can enjoy your odd habits, as long as you keep them out of sight.  Its telling other people about it that is the real crime.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the linked article : Extreme Associates was the subject of a PBS Frontline documentary entitled " American Porn , " I suspect this is the real reason they went to prison .
You can enjoy your odd habits , as long as you keep them out of sight .
Its telling other people about it that is the real crime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the linked article: Extreme Associates was the subject of a PBS Frontline documentary entitled "American Porn,"  
I suspect this is the real reason they went to prison.
You can enjoy your odd habits, as long as you keep them out of sight.
Its telling other people about it that is the real crime.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573845</id>
	<title>Re:Don't blame the system</title>
	<author>moxley</author>
	<datestamp>1246649340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you have to understand is that the entire system is geared towards a plea bargain - most people in the US have no idea of how the criminal justice system really functions - forget all that shit you learned in school about "fair trials" and shit.</p><p>They bring a huge amount of pressure to bear on these people, and set things up in a way where it's going to cost them so much money to continue to fight and they stack the desk against them and set it up in a way so that they really can't win. Then, likely their lawyer has a conversation with them that sounds something like the following:</p><p>"Look, I know it's not right, but you should take the plea bargain - if you take the plea bargain and agree to plead to these charges there will be no trial - your legal bills will cease, you can get your affairs in order then do your time and you'll be out in 4 months - should you choose to go to trial you'll face 35 times the amount of time and a very large fine, the trial and perparation will cost obscene amounts of money and I cannot say that your chances are even 50-50 - this is a politicized trial and they will be doing every little trick they have to ensure that you lose, and when you lose they will take you straight to jail - if you want to be a martyr for the cause, I fully support that and will be right there with you as long as you can continue to pay me - but my best advice to you, as your lawyer, is to take the plea bargain,"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you have to understand is that the entire system is geared towards a plea bargain - most people in the US have no idea of how the criminal justice system really functions - forget all that shit you learned in school about " fair trials " and shit.They bring a huge amount of pressure to bear on these people , and set things up in a way where it 's going to cost them so much money to continue to fight and they stack the desk against them and set it up in a way so that they really ca n't win .
Then , likely their lawyer has a conversation with them that sounds something like the following : " Look , I know it 's not right , but you should take the plea bargain - if you take the plea bargain and agree to plead to these charges there will be no trial - your legal bills will cease , you can get your affairs in order then do your time and you 'll be out in 4 months - should you choose to go to trial you 'll face 35 times the amount of time and a very large fine , the trial and perparation will cost obscene amounts of money and I can not say that your chances are even 50-50 - this is a politicized trial and they will be doing every little trick they have to ensure that you lose , and when you lose they will take you straight to jail - if you want to be a martyr for the cause , I fully support that and will be right there with you as long as you can continue to pay me - but my best advice to you , as your lawyer , is to take the plea bargain , "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you have to understand is that the entire system is geared towards a plea bargain - most people in the US have no idea of how the criminal justice system really functions - forget all that shit you learned in school about "fair trials" and shit.They bring a huge amount of pressure to bear on these people, and set things up in a way where it's going to cost them so much money to continue to fight and they stack the desk against them and set it up in a way so that they really can't win.
Then, likely their lawyer has a conversation with them that sounds something like the following:"Look, I know it's not right, but you should take the plea bargain - if you take the plea bargain and agree to plead to these charges there will be no trial - your legal bills will cease, you can get your affairs in order then do your time and you'll be out in 4 months - should you choose to go to trial you'll face 35 times the amount of time and a very large fine, the trial and perparation will cost obscene amounts of money and I cannot say that your chances are even 50-50 - this is a politicized trial and they will be doing every little trick they have to ensure that you lose, and when you lose they will take you straight to jail - if you want to be a martyr for the cause, I fully support that and will be right there with you as long as you can continue to pay me - but my best advice to you, as your lawyer, is to take the plea bargain,"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571023</id>
	<title>Re:Back off People we've solved the worlds issues.</title>
	<author>tjonnyc999</author>
	<datestamp>1246632120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MOD PARENT UP!</htmltext>
<tokenext>MOD PARENT UP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MOD PARENT UP!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572277</id>
	<title>Mary Beth Buchanan is a bitch</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1246639380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is the same bitch prosecutor who tried to convict a doctor for prescribing pain medication.  She is a holdover from the previous administration who has refused to step down.  There is word she is on the way out though, and not soon enough imo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the same bitch prosecutor who tried to convict a doctor for prescribing pain medication .
She is a holdover from the previous administration who has refused to step down .
There is word she is on the way out though , and not soon enough imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the same bitch prosecutor who tried to convict a doctor for prescribing pain medication.
She is a holdover from the previous administration who has refused to step down.
There is word she is on the way out though, and not soon enough imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570333</id>
	<title>Privacy?  Huh?</title>
	<author>QuantumG</author>
	<datestamp>1246626960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In August 2003, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates for violating federal obscenity statutes. In January 2005, a district court judge dismissed the indictment, saying that the federal obscenity statutes were unconstitutional. The government appealed, and Buchanan argued the case in October 2005 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.</p><p>In December 2005, the appeals court reversed the decision of the district court and held that the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity do not violate any constitutional right to privacy. The case was then remanded back to the district court.</p></div><p>Wow.. just Wow.  What the fuck has happened to the US?  What happened to free speech?  Wasn't all this shit worked out in the 70s?  Why the hell was the unconstitutional finding to do with privacy and not freedom of speech?</p><p>Please tell me the next stop is to the supreme court where this will be sorted out.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In August 2003 , a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates for violating federal obscenity statutes .
In January 2005 , a district court judge dismissed the indictment , saying that the federal obscenity statutes were unconstitutional .
The government appealed , and Buchanan argued the case in October 2005 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.In December 2005 , the appeals court reversed the decision of the district court and held that the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity do not violate any constitutional right to privacy .
The case was then remanded back to the district court.Wow.. just Wow .
What the fuck has happened to the US ?
What happened to free speech ?
Was n't all this shit worked out in the 70s ?
Why the hell was the unconstitutional finding to do with privacy and not freedom of speech ? Please tell me the next stop is to the supreme court where this will be sorted out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In August 2003, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates for violating federal obscenity statutes.
In January 2005, a district court judge dismissed the indictment, saying that the federal obscenity statutes were unconstitutional.
The government appealed, and Buchanan argued the case in October 2005 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.In December 2005, the appeals court reversed the decision of the district court and held that the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity do not violate any constitutional right to privacy.
The case was then remanded back to the district court.Wow.. just Wow.
What the fuck has happened to the US?
What happened to free speech?
Wasn't all this shit worked out in the 70s?
Why the hell was the unconstitutional finding to do with privacy and not freedom of speech?Please tell me the next stop is to the supreme court where this will be sorted out.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572983</id>
	<title>SAW and KINK.COM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246643760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking of Saw the whole time.  I'm surprised it took so long for Saw to be brought up.  That was the first thing that came to my mind as I started reading about this.  It is such a double standard.</p><p>Another thing I was thinking of is http://kink.com/<br>This site started up a few years ago.  Peter Acworth was going to get a PHD in finances from Columbia University, but he dropped out of grad school.  He wanted to get into the online porn industry so he bought the State Armory and Arsenal building in San Francisco which was last used by the military in the 1970s.  It is a huge dungeon like building.  Peter uses this building to make online fetish porn films (S &amp; M) for websites that are linked to kink.com.  There are 60,000 suscbribers that are paying $30 a month for this service.  Many of the films show depicted rape, and other extreme things that I'm sure would be seen in this movie that we have been discussing.</p><p>I am all about free speech as well.  I wouldn't watch these films myself, but people should have the freedom to produce and purchase such material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking of Saw the whole time .
I 'm surprised it took so long for Saw to be brought up .
That was the first thing that came to my mind as I started reading about this .
It is such a double standard.Another thing I was thinking of is http : //kink.com/This site started up a few years ago .
Peter Acworth was going to get a PHD in finances from Columbia University , but he dropped out of grad school .
He wanted to get into the online porn industry so he bought the State Armory and Arsenal building in San Francisco which was last used by the military in the 1970s .
It is a huge dungeon like building .
Peter uses this building to make online fetish porn films ( S &amp; M ) for websites that are linked to kink.com .
There are 60,000 suscbribers that are paying $ 30 a month for this service .
Many of the films show depicted rape , and other extreme things that I 'm sure would be seen in this movie that we have been discussing.I am all about free speech as well .
I would n't watch these films myself , but people should have the freedom to produce and purchase such material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking of Saw the whole time.
I'm surprised it took so long for Saw to be brought up.
That was the first thing that came to my mind as I started reading about this.
It is such a double standard.Another thing I was thinking of is http://kink.com/This site started up a few years ago.
Peter Acworth was going to get a PHD in finances from Columbia University, but he dropped out of grad school.
He wanted to get into the online porn industry so he bought the State Armory and Arsenal building in San Francisco which was last used by the military in the 1970s.
It is a huge dungeon like building.
Peter uses this building to make online fetish porn films (S &amp; M) for websites that are linked to kink.com.
There are 60,000 suscbribers that are paying $30 a month for this service.
Many of the films show depicted rape, and other extreme things that I'm sure would be seen in this movie that we have been discussing.I am all about free speech as well.
I wouldn't watch these films myself, but people should have the freedom to produce and purchase such material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570645</id>
	<title>Streisand Does Dallas</title>
	<author>pieterh</author>
	<datestamp>1246629480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most likely consequence of this sentence is that clips of Jesus having sex with an angel will soar in popularity and previously uncool notions of what to put where, and with whom, dressed how, will become cool and fashionable.</p><p>Having one's product banned for being immoral is usually very good for business.</p><p>They'll probably earn more by being in jail for a year and a day than if they were found innocent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most likely consequence of this sentence is that clips of Jesus having sex with an angel will soar in popularity and previously uncool notions of what to put where , and with whom , dressed how , will become cool and fashionable.Having one 's product banned for being immoral is usually very good for business.They 'll probably earn more by being in jail for a year and a day than if they were found innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most likely consequence of this sentence is that clips of Jesus having sex with an angel will soar in popularity and previously uncool notions of what to put where, and with whom, dressed how, will become cool and fashionable.Having one's product banned for being immoral is usually very good for business.They'll probably earn more by being in jail for a year and a day than if they were found innocent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28579485</id>
	<title>Re:Wholly crap!</title>
	<author>Cytotoxic</author>
	<datestamp>1246715580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I would seriously like to see how they define "obscene" as the term itself is VERY subjective.</p></div><p>They define it subjectively, of course.  Reasonable jurors applying contemporary standards.  All VERY subjective. The supremes have weighed in on this, and this (paraphrased) is the standard they chose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would seriously like to see how they define " obscene " as the term itself is VERY subjective.They define it subjectively , of course .
Reasonable jurors applying contemporary standards .
All VERY subjective .
The supremes have weighed in on this , and this ( paraphrased ) is the standard they chose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would seriously like to see how they define "obscene" as the term itself is VERY subjective.They define it subjectively, of course.
Reasonable jurors applying contemporary standards.
All VERY subjective.
The supremes have weighed in on this, and this (paraphrased) is the standard they chose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573601</id>
	<title>Can someone please explain this to me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246647720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't live in American so can someone please explain this to me?<br>How can someone be prosecuted for making porn? Since when has it been illegal in America?<br>Unless I'm missing something and there were raccoons involved or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't live in American so can someone please explain this to me ? How can someone be prosecuted for making porn ?
Since when has it been illegal in America ? Unless I 'm missing something and there were raccoons involved or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't live in American so can someone please explain this to me?How can someone be prosecuted for making porn?
Since when has it been illegal in America?Unless I'm missing something and there were raccoons involved or something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572613</id>
	<title>Re:This sort of attitude really bugs me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246641720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you honestly think changing the definition and meaning of centuries old instituion won't have severe reprocussions, let alone think it's the same as filiming pure smut, then you have more issues and shit to think about.  You aren't going to find your answers on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/., you need to think about your life more than just the few moments you did in your puberty.  Please, grow up and think through actions and not just the immediate benefit gained by you.</p><p>Changing the definition of marriage essentially allows anyone to add to the definition.  You want gay marriage?  Fuck, I want polygamist marriage.  You want gay marriage, well shit, I want to marry my dog.  You want gay marriage--I want to marry myself.  Can you accomodate those requests as well?  No?  Well then, your gay marriage proposal is not fair, and you are descriminating, sir.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you honestly think changing the definition and meaning of centuries old instituion wo n't have severe reprocussions , let alone think it 's the same as filiming pure smut , then you have more issues and shit to think about .
You are n't going to find your answers on /. , you need to think about your life more than just the few moments you did in your puberty .
Please , grow up and think through actions and not just the immediate benefit gained by you.Changing the definition of marriage essentially allows anyone to add to the definition .
You want gay marriage ?
Fuck , I want polygamist marriage .
You want gay marriage , well shit , I want to marry my dog .
You want gay marriage--I want to marry myself .
Can you accomodate those requests as well ?
No ? Well then , your gay marriage proposal is not fair , and you are descriminating , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you honestly think changing the definition and meaning of centuries old instituion won't have severe reprocussions, let alone think it's the same as filiming pure smut, then you have more issues and shit to think about.
You aren't going to find your answers on /., you need to think about your life more than just the few moments you did in your puberty.
Please, grow up and think through actions and not just the immediate benefit gained by you.Changing the definition of marriage essentially allows anyone to add to the definition.
You want gay marriage?
Fuck, I want polygamist marriage.
You want gay marriage, well shit, I want to marry my dog.
You want gay marriage--I want to marry myself.
Can you accomodate those requests as well?
No?  Well then, your gay marriage proposal is not fair, and you are descriminating, sir.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573303</id>
	<title>Happy 4th of July!</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1246645800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be sure to buy your hot dogs and illegal fireworks so that you too can celebrate Independence Day!</p><p>Lets all get out there and eat our dick shaped shitty meat tubes and pretend we have freedom. GOD BLESS AMERICA... May she fucking die soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be sure to buy your hot dogs and illegal fireworks so that you too can celebrate Independence Day ! Lets all get out there and eat our dick shaped shitty meat tubes and pretend we have freedom .
GOD BLESS AMERICA... May she fucking die soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be sure to buy your hot dogs and illegal fireworks so that you too can celebrate Independence Day!Lets all get out there and eat our dick shaped shitty meat tubes and pretend we have freedom.
GOD BLESS AMERICA... May she fucking die soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570679</id>
	<title>Speaking of degrading us all...</title>
	<author>DarrenBaker</author>
	<datestamp>1246629780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0629/p02s07-usju.html" title="csmonitor.com">http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0629/p02s07-usju.html</a> [csmonitor.com]</p><p>The fact that they censor this act between consenting adults, made for consenting adults, where nobody is injured, and they allow these people to propagate their hate speech is abhorrent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.csmonitor.com/2009/0629/p02s07-usju.html [ csmonitor.com ] The fact that they censor this act between consenting adults , made for consenting adults , where nobody is injured , and they allow these people to propagate their hate speech is abhorrent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0629/p02s07-usju.html [csmonitor.com]The fact that they censor this act between consenting adults, made for consenting adults, where nobody is injured, and they allow these people to propagate their hate speech is abhorrent.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570873</id>
	<title>Don't blame the system</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1246631040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>These idiots pled guilty.  It's their fault.  They should have fought it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These idiots pled guilty .
It 's their fault .
They should have fought it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These idiots pled guilty.
It's their fault.
They should have fought it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28577331</id>
	<title>Re:This sort of attitude really bugs me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously gays shouldn't be allowed to do anything that normal people can. Unfortunately, they already can do most of those things, but I'll be damned if we let them go one inch further!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously gays should n't be allowed to do anything that normal people can .
Unfortunately , they already can do most of those things , but I 'll be damned if we let them go one inch further !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously gays shouldn't be allowed to do anything that normal people can.
Unfortunately, they already can do most of those things, but I'll be damned if we let them go one inch further!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573115</id>
	<title>SAW and KINK.COM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246644660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was thinking of Saw the whole time. I'm surprised it took so long for Saw to be brought up. That was the first thing that came to my mind as I started reading about this. It is such a double standard.</p><p>Another thing I was thinking of is http://kink.com/This site started up a few years ago. Peter Acworth was going to get a PHD in finances from Columbia University, but he dropped out of grad school. He wanted to get into the online porn industry so he bought the State Armory and Arsenal building in San Francisco which was last used by the military in the 1970s. It is a huge dungeon like building. Peter uses this building to make online fetish porn films (S &amp; M) for websites that are linked to kink.com. There are 60,000 suscbribers that are paying $30 a month for this service. Many of the films show depicted rape, and other extreme things that I'm sure would be seen in this movie that we have been discussing.I am all about free speech as well.</p><p>I wouldn't watch these films myself, but people should have the freedom to produce and purchase such material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking of Saw the whole time .
I 'm surprised it took so long for Saw to be brought up .
That was the first thing that came to my mind as I started reading about this .
It is such a double standard.Another thing I was thinking of is http : //kink.com/This site started up a few years ago .
Peter Acworth was going to get a PHD in finances from Columbia University , but he dropped out of grad school .
He wanted to get into the online porn industry so he bought the State Armory and Arsenal building in San Francisco which was last used by the military in the 1970s .
It is a huge dungeon like building .
Peter uses this building to make online fetish porn films ( S &amp; M ) for websites that are linked to kink.com .
There are 60,000 suscbribers that are paying $ 30 a month for this service .
Many of the films show depicted rape , and other extreme things that I 'm sure would be seen in this movie that we have been discussing.I am all about free speech as well.I would n't watch these films myself , but people should have the freedom to produce and purchase such material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking of Saw the whole time.
I'm surprised it took so long for Saw to be brought up.
That was the first thing that came to my mind as I started reading about this.
It is such a double standard.Another thing I was thinking of is http://kink.com/This site started up a few years ago.
Peter Acworth was going to get a PHD in finances from Columbia University, but he dropped out of grad school.
He wanted to get into the online porn industry so he bought the State Armory and Arsenal building in San Francisco which was last used by the military in the 1970s.
It is a huge dungeon like building.
Peter uses this building to make online fetish porn films (S &amp; M) for websites that are linked to kink.com.
There are 60,000 suscbribers that are paying $30 a month for this service.
Many of the films show depicted rape, and other extreme things that I'm sure would be seen in this movie that we have been discussing.I am all about free speech as well.I wouldn't watch these films myself, but people should have the freedom to produce and purchase such material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571941</id>
	<title>Why "and one day in prison"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246637460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, no one care about one year in prison.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , no one care about one year in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, no one care about one year in prison.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28574819</id>
	<title>Re:As someone who was following the case...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1246613520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> The DVD's contained material depicting simulated rape that was billed as actual rapes, participants who were advertised as being minors</p> </div><p>So charge them with false advertising or conspiracy to commit rape, conspiracy to distribute child pornography and child abuse.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The DVD 's contained material depicting simulated rape that was billed as actual rapes , participants who were advertised as being minors So charge them with false advertising or conspiracy to commit rape , conspiracy to distribute child pornography and child abuse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The DVD's contained material depicting simulated rape that was billed as actual rapes, participants who were advertised as being minors So charge them with false advertising or conspiracy to commit rape, conspiracy to distribute child pornography and child abuse.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573597</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28576109</id>
	<title>The point of free speech</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1246623900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point of free speech is not to protect what you agree with, but what you don't agree with.   If free speech didn't offend someone, you wouldn't need the amendment .</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of free speech is not to protect what you agree with , but what you do n't agree with .
If free speech did n't offend someone , you would n't need the amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of free speech is not to protect what you agree with, but what you don't agree with.
If free speech didn't offend someone, you wouldn't need the amendment .</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28575563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572477
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28577331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28574085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28574819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_03_0936200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28579485
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570595
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28577331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570597
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28574819
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28574085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28579485
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570517
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28573601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570565
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28571775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28572983
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28575563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_03_0936200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_03_0936200.28570775
</commentlist>
</conversation>
