Monday, October 6, 2008

The Unjust Prosecution of Torture Porn

Last week, a California pornography producer by the name of Paul Little was brought to court in Tampa, Florida to answer for – of all things – making and distributing a porn film. Now, I know better than to assume that all obscenity cases had been decided in 1933, but this still strikes me as something our country should have gotten over decades ago. Consenting adults? Check: the film enacted a torture sequence, but to quote the actress in question, "Judge, this was a beautiful part of my life." No one harmed in the making? Check: while it might be cool if commercial pornography was real, to simply assume a 1:1 correspondence between things that happen in porn films and real life is beyond idiotic.

Case closed.

But no, actually the judge ruled the other way. Mr. Little was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison on the grounds that the film was "clearly degrading," which for some reason is the legal standard for outlawing pornography. Course, the fact that the film's primary actress was willing to testify under oath that she had "a beautiful time" during its production would seem to make it far less degrading than is usual for pornography, but for some reason her testimony didn't count. I mean, I'd personally find it more degrading to be publicly called a liar by a federal judge than to willingly participate in a sex act, even though the particular acts in question are quite a bit beyond my usual taste. But what do I know, I'm not a judge. I'm not even a porn star, and clearly their very relevant opinions don't matter.

But as Glen Greenwald points out, the really interesting legal tidbit is the fact that this "degradation" does not come close to the definition of torture used by the Bush Administration, and Little's lawyer tried to use this in his defense. Here's Greenwald's characterization:

So, to recap, in the Land of the Free: if you're an adult who produces a film using other consenting adults, for the entertainment of still other consenting adults, which merely depicts fictional acts [sic] of humiliation and degradation, the DOJ will prosecute you and send you to prison for years. The claim that no real pain was inflicted will be rejected; mere humiliation is enough to make you a criminal. But if government officials actually subject helpless detainees in their custody to extreme mental abuse, degradation, humiliation and even mock executions long considered "torture" in the entire civilized world, the DOJ will argue that they have acted with perfect legality and, just to be sure, Congress will hand them retroactive immunity for their conduct. That's how we prioritize criminality and arrange our value system.


Why is it that we are not allowed to pretend to be in pain on film in this country, even when we enjoy it thoroughly, but we are allowed to torture people in real life, so long as they're, I dunno, bad people or something. Like, MUCH worse people than porn actresses. Whom we must protect. But not listen to.

Christ, what a stupid ruling. I wish it wasn't going to cost a man several years of his life.

5 comments:

  1. This is pretty unbelievable stuff. Greenwald is a beast, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  2. did you just compare pornstars to POWs? John McCain is gonna chase you to the ends of the earth, or the end of the earth, whichever comes first...under his administration.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i could make a really crude joke about spending a lot of time in a box... well it looks like i just did

    ReplyDelete
  4. i could make a really crude joke about spending a lot of time in a box... well it looks like i just did


    Zing!

    ReplyDelete