Slashdot Mirror
US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity
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."
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.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Since the summary didnt tell it: "Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable," 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."
It's nice that theres no problems killing people in movies, but once theres some titties you go to jail in usa :)
People are still getting porn delivered in the mail?
I was thinking to myself... why is this any different to any porn site out there? Is porn now prohibited in the US?
I thought there was child porn or something like that, but, after reading TFA, I can't see a problem at all.
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.
How we know is more important than what we know.
It's nice that theres no problems killing people in movies, but once theres some titties you go to jail in usa :)
'We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene! '
Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.
Unfortunately, they came to America.
----- Leghorn "Not responsible for program content"
I saw the documentary "Deep Throat" some time ago, and it said that there were still laws against porn in the US - I couldn't believe it, but it seems to be true. But I am not a lawyer and not from the USA - Can someone with an understanding of the US laws and legal system explain what exactly the crime was? Is producing and distributing porn really a crime for which you can get jail time in the USA?
I'm extremely confused... I don't see anything wrong here.
Is porn illegal in the US?
Did someone forget to tell the multi-billion dollar industry?
So they made kinky porn? Well damn, lock them up and throw away the key guys!
lol America
Apparently several "simulated rape" scenes in their film "Forced Entry" is what led them to be charged with committing a crime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Zicari#Obscenity_prosecution
Zicari asked for help from the rest of the Adult Entertainment industry and they declined- even Larry Flynt declined to help fight the charges.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-01-2009/0005053905&EDATE=
So the 1st amendment is dead.
Gunned down in the street by the 2nd amendment.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The crackdown on BD/SM websites started in late 2005. It's the same reason that Insex stopped producing clips. See also the following articles:
BD/SM Internet Sites Under Attack
Tortured Logic
It seems odd to me that pictures of naked people is censored, but, if I wanted, I could post videos of "zombies" killing mowing each other down with chainsaws with no public outcry whatsoever.
Carlin had it right: I'd rather my kids saw images of two people making love than of two people killing each other.
Those who have telepathy have no need to RTFA.
Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?
Meta will eat itself
Thanks for the extra info, though I still have to say it's a stupid law. I can't help but think that if the teenage girl had been graphically murdered they'd be nominated for Oscars rather than put in prison :\
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.
Paul Leader
The key factor appears to be the content of the pornography. The feds may have given up on prosecuting the tamest stuff, but they have not given up on prosecuting the most hardcore material. The Extreme Associates Wikipedia article gives you an idea of what they're being prosecuted for:
.
Similarly, Max Hardcore was put in the slammer early this year for similar material:
The short and long of the matter is that vague obscenity laws are still on the books, and technically all porn is still illegal because someone somewhere is going to find it obscene. The Feds know they can't win however, so they are choosing to prosecute whomever makes the stuff that offends them the most. Nothing has really been worked out since the 70s, the Feds just can't keep prosecuting everyone like they used to.
The American Taliban strikes again.
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
"Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable,"
I don't know about that. I've got a pretty good imagination.
If the teenage girl had been graphically murdered they'd be nominated for Oscars rather than put in prison.
And if she had been portrayed as being chained in a dungeon and having various body parts sliced off in slow motion, it'd be pretty much every third dvd now playing at Blockbuster.
So the lesson: Sex porn is illegal but torture porn is perfectly OK. Nice job assholes.
I have to agree, someone sitting over top of a female squatting and taking a dump, seems to violate some kind of law, but when a guy does it to another guy, no problem. Pooper films as I call them have been around for so many years, they are just NOW figuring out they exist?
Snuff films, rape, etc...you have all types, but they have been around for sooo many years, are they saying we can't publish them on youtube or are they saying the contents of the film are illegal, this is what I would like
better explained, as well, being so cryptic about what is going on in the movie, does not help the average joe follow any sort of precedent, if you need to tell us taking a dump on someone and filming it is criminal, then say it, stop indirectly saying some sort stuff happened, which should not have happened, but we think it was bad enough to prosecute.....sounds like that bit from Team America for christ's sake....or are we not allowed to swear anymore as well?
I saw the documentary "Deep Throat" some time ago.
"Deep Throat" is regarded as a documentary, now ? Shit, Linda Lovelace is now my favourite research scientist !
Squirrel!
Im not very familiar with the laws, but as a US resident I can say:
Yes, laws against porn exist. Basically, its only 'obscene' porn that the laws target. Exactly what that means is very subjective, but since almost everyone looks at porn, 'obscene' porn is usually regarded as porn that most people dont look at. A few decades ago, bondage was obscene and was targeted by the government (not to good effect, however, as afterwords it became more mainstream). A few years after Bush became president a crackdown happened on porn sites, basically things that where overly rough where targeted (and produced by small-ish time porn makers, rather then large companies). This site was just one that was targeted.
So, to wrap up the US laws on porn production/distribution: anything thats popular enough to get noticed, yet niche enough not to cause a backlash if they are targeted, is fair game. If your looking to make porn and want to avoid being targeted: dont do anything that pushes the limits, especially (or perhaps, specifically) in areas that could be regarded as degration/humiliation by whoever happens to be in power.
I saw some movies worse than that! This dude keeps kidnapping people and hooking them up to machines that they can't escape from. The only way to survive is to admit something about yourself and sacrifice part of yourself or do some kind of other horrible act like cut the key out of somebody elses stomach. The worst one for me was a reverse bear trap on somebodies head which ripped their head in half when the timer went off. Needless to say I don't think anybody actually ever survived any of it.
Oh yeah these movies were called Saw. And I saw it in the cinema. The realism and gore was extreme. If these people were put away for making similar movies and selling them on the net then how can Amazon and Play.com sell the Saw movies? Surely every horror movie should be illegal and the directors and distributors arrested?
Fat lot of good it did. Same with George Carlin. For all of the insight they had, all they did was make people laugh at their own idiocy.
I wonder why they didn't say, half way through the show "Why are you laughing? What's funny about what I'm saying? Here's a petition stating that we want this shit sorted out. Sign it. It's going in this envelope on stage, and that envelope is going to Congress. I'm tired of this shit, and the fact that you're paying to hear me talk about it means you are too! Do something about it! Put your name down."
Instead, he said a few rude words in a sentence and the sheeple giggled.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.
While I think the Miller Test replaced "I know it when I see it" at the SCOTUS level, the fact of the matter is that the Miller Test is "I know it when I see it", just applied at a lower level. If this gets appealed, I'm sure the SCOTUS will just say "well, after the most dire of voires, the prosecutors managed to find 12 stuck-up prudes that were offended by your movie, so it's obscene". The real problem is that the government has managed to convince everyone that "obscenity" isn't speech. Since they control the definition of obscenity, they control the definition of speech.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan
That explains it. Buchanan was the zealot who (selectively) prosecuted Tommy Chong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beth_Buchanan#United_States_vs._Tommy_Chong_.282003.29
I'm not an American but I can recognise a genuine American patriot when I see one. Larry Flynt famously admits to being guilty of bad taste but in my book the man is a hero and has the wounds to prove it. Before his landmark case against Falwell there was no protection of parody and you could be sued for "hurting someones feelings".
He was appalled by the hypocricy of the Clinton blow job thing and took out a full page ad in the Washington Post offering a million dollars for anyone who could prove they had an affair with a congressman or senator. The ad produced sex tapes and a scandal that embarased the FBI and forced the speaker of the house to quit. When sentenced to three months for refusing to name his sources he threw an orange at the judge and shouted "You fucking pussy, is that the best you can do".
When facing 25yrs for "organised crime" ( ie: publishing Hustler ), he was asked by the judge if he had anything to say before sentencing, he replied "You haven't made one intelligent decison in this case, I don't expect you to start now".
He also took on the Bush administration for the right to report from the battlefield after they went against 200yrs of journalistic tradition and made it illeagal at the start of the Afghan war, he set another important precedent by winning that one too.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Here's the rub, though; while there are certainly women in the porn industry with full knowledge and understanding and even enjoyment of what they are doing, a large amount of porn is nothing like that. A friend recently told me a story about a girl he knew from his hometown, and I will share the anecdote with you now: This girl's girlfriends got her to come down to LA to do "modeling" which then turned into drinking and drugs on a scale she wasn't used to, which then became "modeling with titties", then "modeling with a cock out", etc etc. She then wound up having violent sex she wasn't at all in to, then the tape got sold out of gas stations everywhere, and she couldn't show here face in her home town, now she's some kind of shut-in.
Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn. There's nothing happy about that story.
This is by no means the worst casualty of pornography, either. Most of the low-rent, low-pro videos you see which are about degrading women really are degrading women. That is in fact part of their appeal for their particular audience. I have nothing against pornography, but getting off on not-really-consensual sex where women were coerced and/or deliberately tricked into having it is sick, and it's wrong, and it's harmful to society.
Again, I'm not saying porn is bad. The Nixon administration even commissioned a report which was TRYING to find a link between consumption of pornography and harmful behavior, and failed. What I'm saying is that pornography which is designed to be degrading really is degrading in most cases, and furthermore it is often literally a form of rape. I know NOTHING WHATSOEVER about this particular case, but it is not at all impossible that this couple acted reprehensibly. There are numerous institutions producing pornography in California and distributing it over the internet, some of them much larger than this. If the point were to stamp out internet porn, then they would have gone after one of those, and made a larger dent.
With all that said: To see words from "U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan" saying that the public needs to be protected from lasciviousness truly makes me sick. The English kicked the Puritans out, and I think it's time for Americans to do the same.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.
You must not have looked very recently - protected speech does not include anything that falls under a Chaplinksy test(Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568) and while erotic content does not nessessarly fall under that list, obscene material does - and that is what the federal law is dealing with "obscene erotic content"
but last I looked that was still protected speech..
If they're doing prison time for it, apparently it's not protected speech... maybe it should be, but it's apparently not.
Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn.
No, she was ruined by her own stupidity. Throughout your little anecdote, there's one thing you neglected to point out: she was a free actor who made her own choices. Were they *stupid* choices? Hell yes. But they were her choices to make. Now she gets to live with the consequences.
Yet that is not what he said - he said last time he looked it WAS protected speech - and obscene content is not - and trying to ignore that and live in a fantasy land gets you no points either. Like all portions of the Bill of Rights, the 1st amendment has its limits, and obscenity is one of them.
Bullshit. Now we all get to live with the consequences. We're all on this planet together.
Really ? Because I haven't had any consequences of her drinking and going into porn. That's the point. She made dumb choices, now she lives with the consequences. Legislation should not restrict everyone's freedoms based wrong choices an individual might make that only affects him/her. No where in your story do you attribute any of her downfall to anything but peer pressure. That's too bad for her that she was weak willed and couldn't see what she was getting into until it was too late, and even then, she couldn't get out before it got worse (the modeling with titties should have clued her in if that's not what she wanted to do).
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech
The Miller test, established by the Supreme Court in 1973, is that something is obscene if all of the following are true:
Things like Eyes Wide Shut aren't obscene because they have a plot.
Why are you laughing?
I know what you are saying, but Bill Hicks did this in some of his material:
By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.
Sure they do. Course, here in the States, you can go to jail for 'possession of kiddie porn' for having copies of certain animes laying around, on the theory that some child somewhere was exploited to make it, even though, as anime, no children whatsoever were involved. Talk about victimless crimes, if no kids are involved, how can it be kiddie porn?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Nixion is no example to live by, the man probably had some form of undiagnosed paranoid schitzophrenia "But the voices told me to bug his home without a warrant really they did!"...
The issue with "Consentual vs. Non-consensual" is this; Because the drugs are illegal your friend would have come forward and charged said person and people with rape however since she faced jail time her right to justice was revoked under the American war on drugs. Now if the drugs were legal, she could have charged them with rape and conspiricy but that's her business not yours, she choose to hang her head in shame.
I've been held at knife point because somone I knew thought it might be a good idea to deal, because it was home invasion and this is Canada they went to jail / juvie. But you see my point?
I'm of the mind that in a free society, you don't get to decide what other people enjoy, providing whatever they enjoy does not involve minors or other people that cannot provide reasonable consent.
If these people want to drink bodily fluids, I have no problem with it. It's not my business.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That prosecution has to be about the worst use of government funds ever. It makes the Iraq war look like a responsible use of government money.
Do you think she goes home at night and talks to her family about her tireless sacrifice in the never ending struggle against evildoers?
I think he meant, "Inside Deep Throat." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Deep_Throat). I've seen it as well; it's not pornographic in and of itself and the subject (since it was a little before my time) cast light onto a secretive aspect of our culture. Porn has a long history in the U.S. and with Deep Throat, porn almost became mainstream (as in, your local theater would play shrek, batman, and "Journey to the center of the Bertha" or something). This documentary covers the rise and fall of the 'actors', the government scandal, and the changes it wrough on the industry.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
I personally think all porn is fake.
Faked intimacy, faked excitement, etc.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
They fed her drugs with the intent to impair her judgement, which is illegal; they obtained bogus consent when she was unable to provide informed consent, which is illegal. So why is it illegal for me to feed a chick booze until she passes out, then fuck her? Same shit, slightly different setting.
You're not seeing this right. All these things you say render her consent null and void and thus would mean that she should head to a Police station and file for rape charges. Not some kind of "distribution of obscene" material charges. Do you get it now ? If like you say she was forced into it, by being forced fed drugs and alcool AGAINST her consent, then the movies that were shot are not the crime itself, the rape is. Since you've changed the story around so much since people have started to call you on it (started out as a stereotypical girl from a rural area gets into the city and into porn) I'm inclined to think you're just full of shit and trying to play Devil's advocate here.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
And then we had no porn, and no one came for me.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Fat lot of good it did. Same with George Carlin. For all of the insight they had, all they did was make people laugh at their own idiocy.
I wonder why they didn't say, half way through the show "Why are you laughing? What's funny about what I'm saying? Here's a petition stating that we want this shit sorted out. Sign it. It's going in this envelope on stage, and that envelope is going to Congress. I'm tired of this shit, and the fact that you're paying to hear me talk about it means you are too! Do something about it! Put your name down."
There are millions of angry men out there. These particular ones manage to make you laugh at things, which drains your anger of its potency and makes you accepting, and thus makes apathetic about what you were angry about. They made nihilism seem like it really wasn't so bad even as they shoved it in your face.
Because these particular men had that particular quality, they were given a voice that can reach billions where others were not given such a voice.
Does that answer your question?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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.
Lack of empathy has nothing to do with this. We can think it's sad and pity her, but that doesn't mean we're going to tolerate her poor choices being used as an excuse to foist laws and regulations on us.
It was HER POOR CHOICE, IT DOESN'T EFFECT US.
Even if we feel sorry for her.
STFU or learn to not argumentum ad hominem
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
you can call someone an idiot and be sympathetic at the same time
"That was REALLY fucking moronic bro, let me take you to the hospital to get that broken arm taken care of"
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Great men with a poignant message, but ultimately totally ineffectual.
I wouldn't say so. They implanted critical thoughts into peoples minds and connected them to their pleasure centers. I think that's more powerful than signing a petition or going to a political rally. Next time something happens which is in some way connected to that thought, it will pop up again in these peoples minds and will have a major influence on their opinion.
I totally disagree. If you only stand up for free speech when people are saying things you like or have righteous causes then you don't really believe in free speech. You believe in SOME free speech, which is really not free speech at all.
...no two people are not on fire.
We can't let it be swept out of sight if we want a rational, complete conversation on the topic. There is a human cost here, and too many people want to ignore it.
Agreed. But it has nothing to do with porn and, as you've already pointed out, everything to do with money and the semi-underground nature of the industry. The simple fact is that if you stigmatize the industry, all you do is push it *further* underground, which is precisely the opposite of what you should be trying to do if your goal is to protect those who participate in the industry.
Look, it's simple: porn exists, has always existed, and always will exist. So you have a choice. You can stigmatize it and push it underground, or you can work to increase societal acceptance and bring it out into the light of day. I prefer the latter approach. Then, if a women is victimized, she can feel free to go to law enforcement and demand justice. Meanwhile, the state can work to regulate the industry more effectively so that these sorts of things don't happen in the first place.
As an aside, I also hold the same beliefs regarding the sex and drug trades. Here, like the more extreme forms of pornography, you have free actors participating in victimless crimes, activities that are driven underground thanks to a society that stigmatizes those that choose to participate. And because they're driven underground, they can no longer be effectively policed and regulated. So, once again, there's two choices: stronger laws and stronger law enforcement, thus pushing these activities further and further underground, or a move toward normalization. I favour the latter, as I believe it would result in reduced crime and better protection for those involved.
I'm all for standing up for free speech and freedom in general but this is not the fight you should take it to. Don't defend some fucked up porn stars for their 'freedom of speech'. If there is a case where free speech really matters, stand up for it then and there.
You don't wait until they come after something you care about. You defend all speech, even if you find it disagreeable. If you sit around and say "it's OK to throw the pornographers in jail, or break up the Illinois Nazis when they try to parade" you leave them too much weasel room. The government must be held to a standard that allows only such specific bans on speech as the classic "fire in a crowded theater". Once you grant them leave to start judging free vs prohibited based on notions like "decency", they'll go all over the fucking place with it.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
"Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable,"
Shouldn't there be a "CONSENTING WOMEN" in there somewhere?
Whats wrong with sexually degrading material? Whats wrong with OBSCENE material?
Some women like to be degraded. Hell most of them like when a men takes charge and tells them what to do in bed. Some women like to dominate men. IS that ok? What the fuck does it matter?
I fucking hate this shit land of oppressive laws known as America. Why is it that my "FREE" country continues to fail its own test at ever fucking opportunity. America is dead.
You know what truly is obscene? THE EVENING NEWS. That is obscene. Its not even news. Its not even real. Its complete bullshit designed to distract you with entertainment while the criminal politicians and corporations run away with murder living off the wealth of this country.
This country is a fucking vampire draining itself financially and ethically and dracula is telling you it will all be ok... just sit back and take it.
The war in iraq is fucking obscene. The politicians are obscene! The state of health care is obscene!
Reboot America please.
You really did stick up for criminals and rapists, repeatedly. It took a lot of detailed explanation before you finally got that you were sticking up for criminals and rapists, in fact I don't think you really get it even now. Even when you finally admit some validity for the other guy's point, you're still throwing back terms like meatbag. You earned it, the person you're throwing it back at didn't. You're being just as bad as those ignorant people on juries who bought the "She was asking for it by the way she was dressed" argument.
I hope I still have some empathy for you. I won't call you names, and I hope you get empathy as painlessly as possible. Here's a hint though. When you really get that you really did all the things people are accusing you of, it's time to get a little humility and figure out how to appologise in a way that proves you learned something, not throw insults back. The insult just says you don't really think you were wrong at all.
Who is John Cabal?
You are referring to an adult woman making her own decisions as "Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn.".
AND THEN you go on arguing about how porn is degrading towards women? Mind bending!
Do you also refer to your mother as Top Shelf Pussy or does she not live up to that quality standard?
I would like to propose that it is not porn or sexist commercials that degrades women. It is our (both mens and womens) attitudes that does. You just gave us a great illustration of this. Women are not body part nor decorations.
You do know that the law lets us charge the shooter, and then charge the people who pressured him to do it too? I mean that's basic to English and American common law, and if you're arguing that standard law somehow isn't treating personal responsibility properly, I've got to ask just what you want to substitute. In court, the 'coerced into porn' cases usually involve assigning personal responsibility to everyone, and it's quite possible for a jury to hold the young woman responsible for her own decisions, and the film producers for theirs, at the same time.
You might also want to be careful about the 'so full of it's and 'high school's. You're in the extreme minority position if you want to argue that personal responsibility overrides all related common law. When you're defending an unusual or unpopular viewpoint, with possibly extreme consequences, is no time to descend to personal attacks.
Who is John Cabal?
Let's assume there was nothing actually slipped into her drink. Professional filmmakers, including a lot of XXX, don't get a model's release signed by anyone who has used drugs or alcohol in the hours before. They don't allow booze or drugs actually on the set. They take the time to check proof of age and consent, because they have to take the time to check a current HIV test anyways. They are regulated by laws, not just ones for the adult industry, but ones that apply to all film studios or professional photographers. The laws that say you check HIV status are part of workplace safety laws that affect, for another case, any stuntperson who might get a bleeding injury. The laws about booze and drugs are film industry wide, although I recall Nina Hartley once explaining that the adult industry had more incentive to stay squeaky clean on them than anyone, so nobody used them as an excuse to shut a production down. This isn't just about a few people conducting a normal private transaction (like me taking a date out to a bar). On one side, we have a business, bound by special regulations that affect all such businesses and not just the adult subset.
Who is John Cabal?
I doubt they'll do prison time. I suspect this because they copped a plea to get their sentence down to a year and a day, and a sentence of a year and a day is typically imposed (rather than something shorter) because this is the minimum sentence that makes the defendant still qualify for alternative punishment (I forget the federal term of art, but it something evocative of the more famous "parole"--there is no parole for federal law, however).