Monday, March 5, 2012

There's More at Stake Here Than Just Busting a Nut


OK, confession time: I like pornography. I have ever since I found that first nudist camp magazine under my dad’s bed at age seven or eight. I grew up looking at and being entertained by pornography, and I find it interesting and stimulating to this day.
I have been reading a lot about the industry in the mainstream press lately, particularly stories about Los Angeles’ new mandatory condom law and how the industry may have to leave L.A. because of it. All very alarming, all very disturbing news; seems the Land of the Free is shrinking …
Today I read about another trial that is about the end, the outcome of which will have major ramifications for not only the porn industry, but those of us citizens who buy it, watch it, and truly appreciate the artistic value in it (along with the stimulation is provides). The case I am talking about is United States v. Ira Isaacs.
If you aren’t familiar with Mr. Isaacs and his legal predicament, you can read all about it in detail in his Open Letter to the adult movie industry published just today on AVN’s website. In a nutshell, The U.S. Department of Justice prosecuted Mr. Isaacs for making porn that most would agree is outside the mainstream – his films, after all, feature people having sex with animals and people pooping and urinating on other people.
It’s called “bestiality” and “scat” for the unenlightened, and there are those among us who find these niches appealing. For the record, I am not a fan of either genre; there are plenty of other niches that draw my attention, including transsexual erotica. But reading about Mr. Isaacs’ obscenity trial got me thinking about the whole idea of pornography’s place in our society. And that got me thinking about one of the all-time great “B” horror movies, “Motel Hell.”
Did I lose you? Let me explain …
If you have not seen “Motel Hell” (1980, starring Rory Calhoun, a guy from “CHiPs” and the lady who played Miss Balbricker in “Porky’s”), here’s a brief description, courtesy of IMDb.com:
“Farmer Vincent (Calhoun) kidnaps unsuspecting travelers and is burying them in his garden. Unfortunately for his victims, they are not dead. He feeds his victims to prepare them for his roadside stand …”
Farmer Vincent, you see, makes jerky out of his guests at the little motel he and his sister operate. They are equal-opportunity ghouls, though; their gusts come in all shapes, sizes, and colors. It is, in fact, the couple’s motto that came to mind when I was reading about Ira Isaacs:
“It takes all kinds of critters to make Farmer Vincent’s fritters!”
Regardless of your opinion of what he does for a living, Mr. Isaacs has every right, under this country’s Constitution, to make whatever kind of porn he wants to make. The First Amendment guarantees it:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Unfortunately, the both the Bush and Obama administrations have been playing fast and loose with the Constitution, and where “W’ sought to take down the porn industry by going after the fringe element, such as Isaacs, Max Hardcore (who was convicted and imprisoned for his brand of erotica), and others, the goons from Barry-O’s DOJ are looking higher: they want to shut down the porn industry altogether.
Certainly the White House is involved in efforts to harass and harangue L.A.’s multi-billion-dollar porn industry, including the L.A. City Council’s recent ordinance requiring condoms on all porn sets within its jurisdiction.
What’s next? Mandatory birth control? State-sponsored sterilization? Thought police?
The jury has had Mr. Isaacs fate in their hands since last Friday. One can only hope those 12 individuals will agree that it does, indeed, take all kinds of critters. Otherwise, were heading for a scenario right out of “1984.”
And if that happens, we are all diminished by it. and it will mean one important thing:
George Orwell was off by about 30 years.




No comments:

Post a Comment