Join 3,377 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The Porn Crackdown Begins:
January 18, 2001 11:41 PM   Subscribe

The Porn Crackdown Begins: They're making lists of porn no-no's. Remember, they know what's good for you. Makes me wish for the good 'ole days.
posted by owillis (39 comments total)

 
There goes the 1st amendment...that sucks.
posted by Bag Man at 11:47 PM on January 18, 2001


"No black men white women"? Excuse me? I can understand why you wouldn't want to see pain inflicted but no interracial sex? What?
posted by davidgentle at 11:50 PM on January 18, 2001


"If Ashcroft brings American Family Ass'n director to Justice, 'that's all she wrote.'"

Ass will still be tolerated within porn films, but only within the context of healthy, upstanding American Families.
posted by grimmelm at 11:51 PM on January 18, 2001


Does anybody else notice Johnny Depp having a very intimate moment with a chocolate candy in the ad for 'Chocolat' immediately next to this article? "No food as sex object" indeed!
posted by JimmyTones at 11:54 PM on January 18, 2001


Check out the rule that starts "no degrading dialouge" near the bottom. Hilarious.
posted by mathowie at 12:45 AM on January 19, 2001


I will give up my copy of "Interracial Gangbang" when you pry my cold, dead fingers from around it....

um, IT being the tape, of course....
posted by Optamystic at 1:06 AM on January 19, 2001


And this is only the beginning...
posted by ed at 1:08 AM on January 19, 2001


Um, what is bukakke?
posted by DragonBoy at 1:17 AM on January 19, 2001


Oh...

"the most vulnerable porn genres will be extreme material such as the notorious ''bukakke'' -- in which several dozen men masturbate onto a single woman"
posted by DragonBoy at 1:20 AM on January 19, 2001


in which several dozen men masturbate onto a single woman

Well, at least she's single.
posted by Optamystic at 2:05 AM on January 19, 2001


I don't see why films can not depict bukakke. We do this all the time at family gatherings.
posted by Postroad at 2:53 AM on January 19, 2001


Wait a minute! This list was created by the adult film industry. Read the article. The list isn't coming for Bush, Ashcroft, or the AFA. They made the list themselves.

What a load of crap.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:01 AM on January 19, 2001


I think a list of porn no-no's should include poor lighting, bad focus, and that chicka-chicka music.
posted by kindall at 7:17 AM on January 19, 2001


Good fucking luck trying to enforce this. The pervert constituency won't stand for it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:57 AM on January 19, 2001


I was under the impression, from the title of the image, that it's relating to box covers, and not necessarily to the films themselves. I'm so easily confused...
posted by cCranium at 8:05 AM on January 19, 2001


The problem, Son, is and always has been that the pervert constituency, as you so eloquently phrase it, hasn't ever had the balls (no pun intended) to stand up for itself... Tom Lehrer excepted.

If, indeed, we *did* stand up for our rights, maybe we'd win.
posted by baylink at 8:18 AM on January 19, 2001


cCranium...thats exactly how I read it too! It mentions nothing about whats on the film itself (the list that is).
posted by Princess Buttercup at 8:24 AM on January 19, 2001


What about Larry Flynt? He even got a movie an' stuff.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:25 AM on January 19, 2001


No S.O.S. Larry's pervert and scum. I want a nice respectable pervert standing up for my right to kink.
posted by Mick at 8:39 AM on January 19, 2001


Um, they don't usually put dialogue on the box cover, do they? And the title: "Box Cover Guidelines / Movie Production Guidelines." It's both.

Too bad they can't spell... "Menstration"?

And I agree, davidgentle, no interracial? That's just weird. Is anyone [in the government] allowed to consider that obscene these days?
posted by whatnotever at 8:44 AM on January 19, 2001


Just the fact that the porn studios have had to begin a preemptive strike says volumes about the incoming administration's agenda.
posted by owillis at 8:47 AM on January 19, 2001


"Just the fact that the porn studios have had to begin a preemptive strike"

Will somebody please tell me what we're talking about here? This conversation doesn't seem to be related to the article. Who says they need to begin a preemptive strike? Who? Why?

"says volumes about the incoming administration's agenda"

What agenda? Where is it? What are you talking about? This is all made up.

Look....... I would love to jump all over the Bush administration for pissing on free speech. But there's nothing here. This isn't even hearsay.

The article even says that none of the studios are taking any action. No changes are being made. Please explain to me what the issue is.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ?????? !!!!! ??????
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:55 AM on January 19, 2001


y6y6y6: THIS IS NO TIME TO THINK! JUST START FREAKING OUT! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
(thirteen sets garbage can on fire)
posted by thirteen at 9:11 AM on January 19, 2001


"The sinister fact about literary censorship...is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without any need for any official ban." -- George Orwell, quoted by Chomsky

I think Orwell's describing perfectly what's going on here. There is no reference to an Agenda in the article by Shrub's minions, it's mainly speaking of a preemptive effort to curry favor with law enforcement and state legislatures. The interracial ban, by the way, is by far the most scary of all the items on the list and the article points out it's also the one that most draws the ire of legislative committees etc.

I would peg the chances of the whole porn industry sticking to these guidelines as a ratio of jack over shit.
posted by norm at 9:22 AM on January 19, 2001


y6y6y6: By W's first strike of nominating Ashcroft, the anti-porn, pro-censorship groups are beginning to feel empowered. Porn's an easy target, but what happens when it's your speech that's being silenced?
posted by owillis at 9:51 AM on January 19, 2001


"what happens when it's your speech that's being silenced?"

When my speech is silenced I'll hit the streets in protest. Just like I'm doing this Saturday.

But that isn't what's happening here. The only agenda that the article mentions is that of the studio's lawyers. If Bush wants to take a position against interracial porn then I'd love to argue about that.

But I don't see the point in inventing an issue, then inventing an agenda, and then getting all worked up over that. Give me something to protest. This is just a waste of time.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:12 AM on January 19, 2001


I'M FREAKING OUT !!!
(teradome sets thirteen on fire)


but seriously, norm nailed the issue. sure, there's no policy now, but does anyone really doubt they're not going to try? so why not make yourself even less of a target through self-censorship? they're "turtling," if that's a word, and hoping to stick their necks back out when the coast is clear, i'm sure. though i agree, that interracial sex is on there really bugs me...
posted by teradome at 10:18 AM on January 19, 2001


I doubt they're going to try. I mean, why? Porn is at least as accepted culturally as guns, and they're not going anywhere for at least 10yrs, so...
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:22 AM on January 19, 2001


When my speech is silenced I'll hit the streets in protest. Just like I'm doing this Saturday.

Part of your speech being silenced means getting beat up and tear gassed for daring to hit the streets in protest.

-Mars
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:12 PM on January 19, 2001


This calls for another song:

"...The graphic pictures I adore, indecent magazines galore I like them more if their hardcore. Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, necktiessamplers, stained glass windows, tatoos, anything... more more I'm still not satisfied."
posted by john at 12:54 PM on January 19, 2001


Smut. [33kb/s RealAudio]
posted by baylink at 1:12 PM on January 19, 2001


"Part of your speech being silenced means getting beat up and tear gassed for daring to hit the streets in protest."

My apologies if I'm misunderstanding your point. But.....

I strongly disagree that my free speech rights are nullified by a police force that might attempt to arrest me for civil disobedience. They have their job to do, I have my rights to protect. That will be an eternal conflict. And the fact that it exists doesn't constitute a lack to free speech rights.

Some people would rather we didn't have any police or that the police always agreed with them. This seems rather simpleminded to me.

My experience has been that well attended street protests tend to lead to change. Free speech is meaningless if we all fearfully sit at home and avoid confrontation. I've been in several protests and haven't been beaten or gassed once.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:03 PM on January 19, 2001


Byte freaks out and sets people walking by one fire.
posted by bytecode at 5:13 PM on January 19, 2001


y6y6y6: If you can resist the temptation to freak out (i'm finding it difficult myself) I would point out that in my original post what I was talking about was the fact that someone (whoever it may be) considers interracial sex to be something worth censoring. Just being clear.
And now...setting light to ones own trousers! [BURN BURN BURN!]
posted by davidgentle at 5:46 PM on January 19, 2001


By the way -- any problem with black woman/white man? Or just vice versa?

Ugh.
posted by argybarg at 6:00 PM on January 19, 2001


Meanwhile, some are getting sued for not being hard core enough [via NeoFlux]
posted by Neale at 6:19 PM on January 19, 2001


Okay... Okay..... fine - setting my hair on fire..... woohoo..... freaking out! ah ah ah fire...... burn mother fucker burn.... woohoo....

ouch! damn.....

Now what do I do?
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:33 PM on January 19, 2001


I don't know. Emit a high pitched buzzing sound? That's what i'd....[interference crackles across the transmission accompanied by the sound of a radio being tuned into a given frequ...]
Agent 1: Hmm. Stumpstoth seems to have coughed up a live kitten.
Agent 2: Oh Wow! Will the alien love insectoids use it to make another Ju Ju?
Agent 1: Calm yourself Agent Cunulk. We have work to do.
Agent 2: Sorry Agent Smamp. I got a bit hyper...
[...and then we all moved back into the big caravan were we lived out our days in degradation! Ohhhh! The End]
....do. Or maybe fly to another landmass on the back of a gazelle.
posted by davidgentle at 8:42 PM on January 19, 2001


I'm still trying to work out why on earth they think a black man / white woman scenario would be offensive. Surely there aren't that many loonies left against interracial couplings?
The use of food during sex being banned is another puzzling one. Isn't that the basis of nearly half the sex scenes in movies? (Perhaps they think it will cause offense to the food)
posted by underpantsgnomette at 2:38 AM on January 21, 2001


« Older Kadd Stephens, organizer with the Justice Action M...  |  Revolution in the Philippines!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments