TOTALLY GEEKED!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

RE: Ohio Teacher Gets Felony Convictions for Showing Graphic Movie in Class

huskerbb · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Kids who more than likely are already having sex themselves.

The whole thing seems, I don't know, plastic. I wonder if these same parents actually know what their kids are doing in their own home.

Who cares?

You are one of the biggest advocates of teaching stuff like that at HOME.

Now, when a teacher crosses the line you don't care?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It's very easy to tell when someone has read only the last post or even just a partial post.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
Kids who more than likely are already having sex themselves.

The whole thing seems, I don't know, plastic. I wonder if these same parents actually know what their kids are doing in their own home.

What "same parents"? You are the one who doesn't sound like you read anything.

WYSIWYG · Guru

I think its that the sex is the biggest problem with what she did is the biggest problem our country faces.

Violence is acceptable, a breast is not.
Blood, guts, and gore is acceptable, two people making love is not.
People killing themselves by jumping the top of a high rise is acceptable, a vagina or a penis is not.

By "acceptable" I don't mean desirous, I mean if society had to pick one or the other to approve, and the remaining one would be censored, the violence always wins.

Was she wrong to show this in class? Yes. Absolutely. I don't argue against that point. I just see it as a sad reality that violence is more acceptable than nudity or sex.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I do not understand the "kids are probably already having sex" argument AT ALL.

I mean, damn, they probably SNEAK PORN - so let's just show it in school! I'm sure that pervert Mr. Veeder would love to watch the kids' reactions to that! evileye

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
I think its that the sex is the biggest problem with what she did is the biggest problem our country faces.

Violence is acceptable, a breast is not.
Blood, guts, and gore is acceptable, two people making love is not.
People killing themselves by jumping the top of a high rise is acceptable, a vagina or a penis is not.

By "acceptable" I don't mean desirous, I mean if society had to pick one or the other to approve, and the remaining one would be censored, the violence always wins.

Was she wrong to show this in class? Yes. Absolutely. I don't argue against that point. I just see it as a sad reality that violence is more acceptable than nudity or sex.

Well, that's been that way for a long time. Gangster movies of the 30s showed people being mowed down by machine guns. Kids can simulate murder and rape in video games. Prime time TV is full of violence. It's more acceptable because people are used to it. People are not used to turning on CBS and seeing explicit sex.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

However, I will point out that the jury didn't actually say if it was the sex or violence that got her convicted. Likely a combination of both.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"I do not understand the "kids are probably already having sex" argument AT ALL." - Lawyerlady

I do. This teacher was in a High School. I remember back to my High School days. Sex was not exactly what you would call "a rare thing" between boyfriends and girlfriends.

I don't see the argument as an endorsement of the kids having sex, so much as an acceptance that, like it or not, they are having sex. Kids will have sex when they think they are ready, not when their parents think they are.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"However, I will point out that the jury didn't actually say if it was the sex or violence that got her convicted. Likely a combination of both." - Lawyerlady

I understand that. I was just seeing the trend here on the thread, and thinking about it, as it applies in the real world, generally.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"I do not understand the "kids are probably already having sex" argument AT ALL." - Lawyerlady

I do. This teacher was in a High School. I remember back to my High School days. Sex was not exactly what you would call "a rare thing" between boyfriends and girlfriends.

I don't see the argument as an endorsement of the kids having sex, so much as an acceptance that, like it or not, they are having sex. Kids will have sex when they think they are ready, not when their parents think they are.

That is NOT a teacher's call to make. And even if they are having sex - it is not in any way appropriate to being showing 14 year old children a movie that they couldn't see in a theater even WITH a parent. There is absolutely NO justification for this - I don't care if they ****ed the entire basketball team - it appears the school is condoning such behavior when a teacher shows it.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Here is a description of the movie scenes from viewers -

Sex & Nudity

10/10

The film is heavy when it comes to sexual content/themes.

Many graphic depictions of heavy nudity of both genders.

The film contains several scenes of breasts, genitalia and all other male/female private body parts.

A man and woman have sex standing up against a window.

A police woman is seen with breasts and vagina fully visible (interior labia is shown).

A girl has her breasts exposed.

A woman opens her vagina quickly (you can see her labia completely).

Three Japanese men are fully naked.

A woman dressed like a fox is shown. Her breasts are painted in white but yet, they are fully visible (she rubs them).

A few of the shorts feature a focus on sex, including sight of a man masturbating to online pornography, although the pornography he is watching is not seen by the viewer.

One of the films contains a series of close-ups of a man and a woman having sex. The man puts his head between the woman's legs, followed by a suggestion of asphyxiation with a leather belt during sex.

In one of the films it is implied that a young boy is being raped, although there is no sight of this happening.

Two men are encouraged to masturbate over what they are watching, although one of the men simply vomits in disgust at what he sees. There are 2 kids suggested having sex, but this is not seen only with the sounds.
Violence & Gore

10/10

Very extreme violence and gore throughout.

One of the most violent films of 2013. Note: The film required editing in Germany in order to get a release. The segments L, V, X, and Y were omitted.

Many of the subjects feature strong violence and gore.

Examples include: a woman chopping a man's hand in half, resulting in a gaping, bloody wound; a pan of boiling water being poured over a man's head; a samurai chopping off another man's head, with copious blood.

In one of the films a small child's head is ripped off, although the violence is shown only in darkened silhouette.

The severed head and the headless corpse are both seen later in the film.

The strongest gore occurs during a film about a woman who carves herself into her ideal shape. We see the woman set about herself with a knife, a razor and an electric carving knife, whittling herself down.

A man is then seen on a bed, being straddled by a woman wielding a chainsaw, who brings the blade down onto him, with huge blood-spurts.

In another film a woman wears a gigantic prosthetic penis. We see ejaculation from the fake penis and then a blade shoots from the tip of the penis. It is implied that the blade penetrates another woman, although nothing is shown other than a spurt of blood and blood on the woman's clothing.

There are plenty of blood-spatters and her raw flesh is covered in blood.

A claymation of a toilet eating a man and a woman. Very bloody, but it can seem mild for those who are not of faint of heart.

A man is killed by a dog.

A man has his head chopped off by a Katana. His head rolls down in a disturbing manner and we see it covered in blood.

A woman shoots three men at the same time in the face. We see their faces getting blown and all the flesh coming out exaggeratedly.

A woman slices a man to pieces with a chainsaw. Heavily disturbing.

A woman shoots robots.

A zombie turns into fire. Very sadistic, but brief.

A fox-prostitute electrocutes a man.

A school-girl's head is turned into fire.

A woman holes her own leg. Gory and bloody.

An animated segment that shows a woman having a broomstick shoved up her anus.

A clown is decapitated by another clown.

Scenes of a man punching a dog and a kitten being murdered by having its head crushed (offscreen, but still disturbing) may not sit well with some viewers.

Profanity

10/10

About 100 uses of ''****"

Many uses of "****", "bitch", "whore" and "slut".
Alcohol/Drugs/Smoking

5/10

There is some sight of drug use, including cocaine being snorted through a rolled-up note and sight of powder being cooked up and then injected through a syringe into a woman's arm.
Frightening/Intense Scenes

10/10

Extremely bloody and sadistic.

45/50 - The short subjects have some funny moments but it also has grisly/nasty moments of violence, just be open-minded when you watch the film, it has some hard-to-watch scenes, but it's often lightened by scenes of humor (for example T for Toilet).

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

It's violent porn. Just exactly what adult teachers should be showing their students. Hey, maybe they will try out auto-erotic asphyxiation - that's always such a fun thing to teach the teenagers to do - I'm sure only a few will accidentally kill themselves. Or hey - rape the little kids, why is that a problem? Let's show the kids how to rip children's heads off and crush some kitten heads.

I wish she'd gotten a much harsher sentence. Oh yeah, and her reasoning was pretty much "I'm sure they see worse at home".

I seriously doubt it.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"That is NOT a teacher's call to make. And even if they are having sex - it is not in any way appropriate to being showing 14 year old children a movie that they couldn't see in a theater even WITH a parent. There is absolutely NO justification for this - I don't care if they ****ed the entire basketball team - it appears the school is condoning such behavior when a teacher shows it." - Lawyerlady

My apologies, from the way I read your statement, and from what you've said so far on the subject in the thread, I though you weren't getting the argument in general, not that you were questioning the teacher's use of the argument.

I agree with you, for her, it's a pointless argument because, as a teacher, she should not have been showing it in class, and there's no legitimate justification a teacher can make for doing so.

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
It's violent porn. Just exactly what adult teachers should be showing their students. Hey, maybe they will try out auto-erotic asphyxiation - that's always such a fun thing to teach the teenagers to do - I'm sure only a few will accidentally kill themselves. Or hey - rape the little kids, why is that a problem? Let's show the kids how to rip children's heads off and crush some kitten heads.

I wish she'd gotten a much harsher sentence. Oh yeah, and her reasoning was pretty much "I'm sure they see worse at home".

I seriously doubt it.

I watched a small part of the trailer on You Tube. I don't think anyone sees worse at home, and all I saw was violence.

Blech!!!

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Lawyerlady wrote:
A 2012 horror anthology on an approved school list? You have got to be kidding.

Unfortunately not...

This thread has wandered into the Twilight Zone. I'm not sure what classic literature, like Tom Sawyer or the works of Shakespeare, has to do with THIS case.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

It's a rude awakening when kids hit high school. Hope you are ready for it.

As I said every single time, I do not think it should have been shown in class.

Let me say that one more time a little slower. Just so you actually get it.

I DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN CLASS.

The "same parents" is referring to the parents complaining in the OP.

And because of the media coverage a lot more of these 14 year old children have looked it up and watched it now.

Once more, I am NOT saying this should have been shown.

But I can comment on a broader scale than just this one thing and wonder how it fits into the grand scheme of these kids lives.

The first time I saw bondage porn I think I was 16. But I knew about it at 12. I had a really nice book collection. And who hasn't seen 9 1/2 weeks? And do you think this 50 shades of grey is going to go unwatched by the teen set?

This movie should NOT have been shown in class.

However it isn't like this stuff isn't seen or known about.

Not excusing it. Just aware it is out there. And a parent who wants to think a 14 year old doesn't know about this stuff is lying to themselves.

One last time. It should NOT have been shown in class.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
A 2012 horror anthology on an approved school list? You have got to be kidding.
Unfortunately not...
This thread has wandered into the Twilight Zone. I'm not sure what classic literature, like Tom Sawyer or the works of Shakespeare, has to do with THIS case.
flan

The point I was attempting to make is that there are lots of things that are not a problem until it becomes a problem.

Remember how upset everyone got over the "N" word in those books? We had all read them in school but all of a sudden it became a book of hate.

And the Scarlet Letter. The movie we watched showed them actually having sex. And yet it is on all the reading lists.

No. I am not comparing the material in the OP to these classics. But I am saying that until someone is offended, they are not.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
A 2012 horror anthology on an approved school list? You have got to be kidding.
Unfortunately not...
This thread has wandered into the Twilight Zone. I'm not sure what classic literature, like Tom Sawyer or the works of Shakespeare, has to do with THIS case.
flan
The point I was attempting to make is that there are lots of things that are not a problem until it becomes a problem.
Remember how upset everyone got over the "N" word in those books? We had all read them in school but all of a sudden it became a book of hate.
And the Scarlet Letter. The movie we watched showed them actually having sex. And yet it is on all the reading lists.
No. I am not comparing the material in the OP to these classics. But I am saying that until someone is offended, they are not.

THIS movie will ALWAYS be a problem. Common sense would tell anyone that.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
It's a rude awakening when kids hit high school. Hope you are ready for it.

As I said every single time, I do not think it should have been shown in class.

Let me say that one more time a little slower. Just so you actually get it.

I DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN CLASS.

The "same parents" is referring to the parents complaining in the OP.

And because of the media coverage a lot more of these 14 year old children have looked it up and watched it now.

Once more, I am NOT saying this should have been shown.

But I can comment on a broader scale than just this one thing and wonder how it fits into the grand scheme of these kids lives.

The first time I saw bondage porn I think I was 16. But I knew about it at 12. I had a really nice book collection. And who hasn't seen 9 1/2 weeks? And do you think this 50 shades of grey is going to go unwatched by the teen set?

This movie should NOT have been shown in class.

However it isn't like this stuff isn't seen or known about.

Not excusing it. Just aware it is out there. And a parent who wants to think a 14 year old doesn't know about this stuff is lying to themselves.

One last time. It should NOT have been shown in class.

The OP isn't about complaining parents. The SCHOOL found out what she was doing and called the authorities.

And again - what you got away with in your childhood or what you let your kids get away with is irrelevant to whether a teacher should show it in school.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
A 2012 horror anthology on an approved school list? You have got to be kidding.
Unfortunately not...
This thread has wandered into the Twilight Zone. I'm not sure what classic literature, like Tom Sawyer or the works of Shakespeare, has to do with THIS case.
flan
The point I was attempting to make is that there are lots of things that are not a problem until it becomes a problem.
Remember how upset everyone got over the "N" word in those books? We had all read them in school but all of a sudden it became a book of hate.
And the Scarlet Letter. The movie we watched showed them actually having sex. And yet it is on all the reading lists.
No. I am not comparing the material in the OP to these classics. But I am saying that until someone is offended, they are not.
THIS movie will ALWAYS be a problem. Common sense would tell anyone that.
flan

Well, that's the problem then, isn't it?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
It's a rude awakening when kids hit high school. Hope you are ready for it.

As I said every single time, I do not think it should have been shown in class.

Let me say that one more time a little slower. Just so you actually get it.

I DO NOT THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN CLASS.

The "same parents" is referring to the parents complaining in the OP.

And because of the media coverage a lot more of these 14 year old children have looked it up and watched it now.

Once more, I am NOT saying this should have been shown.

But I can comment on a broader scale than just this one thing and wonder how it fits into the grand scheme of these kids lives.

The first time I saw bondage porn I think I was 16. But I knew about it at 12. I had a really nice book collection. And who hasn't seen 9 1/2 weeks? And do you think this 50 shades of grey is going to go unwatched by the teen set?

This movie should NOT have been shown in class.

However it isn't like this stuff isn't seen or known about.

Not excusing it. Just aware it is out there. And a parent who wants to think a 14 year old doesn't know about this stuff is lying to themselves.

One last time. It should NOT have been shown in class.
The OP isn't about complaining parents. The SCHOOL found out what she was doing and called the authorities.

And again - what you got away with in your childhood or what you let your kids get away with is irrelevant to whether a teacher should show it in school.

I said it 5 times. I don't know what else you want. I am not disagreeing with you, nor am I defending it.

There is a broader conversation that can be had here.

Oh well.

NAOW · Vette's SS

It sounds like you are arguing both sides lily. You can say that it shouldn't have been shown as much as you want but the rest of your comments sound like you are defending it. I don't think it matters what kids see or have seen at home, I might let my daughter watch something at home under my supervision and still not want her watching something similar at school.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

NAOW wrote:
It sounds like you are arguing both sides lily. You can say that it shouldn't have been shown as much as you want but the rest of your comments sound like you are defending it. I don't think it matters what kids see or have seen at home, I might let my daughter watch something at home under my supervision and still not want her watching something similar at school.

EXACTLY.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I guess I am. I see both sides of it. I don't know why that is a bad thing. Pit bull mentalities rarely change or grow or glean for anything.

Showing it was stupid.

Making it a criminal conviction with a felony is ridiculous.

I see both sides.

I can argue both sides.

Doesn't mean I don't agree that it should not have been shown.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
I guess I am. I see both sides of it. I don't know why that is a bad thing. Pit bull mentalities rarely change or grow or glean for anything.

Showing it was stupid.

Making it a criminal conviction with a felony is ridiculous.

I see both sides.

I can argue both sides.

Doesn't mean I don't agree that it should not have been shown.

So you think it's ok for adults in authority positions to show kids what is basically porn with no legal ramifications?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

This is the law she was convicted of -

(A) No person, with knowledge of its character or content, shall recklessly do any of the following:

(1) Directly sell, deliver, furnish, disseminate, provide, exhibit, rent, or present to a juvenile, a group of juveniles, a law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile, or a group of law enforcement officers posing as juveniles any material or performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles;

(2) Directly offer or agree to sell, deliver, furnish, disseminate, provide, exhibit, rent, or present to a juvenile, a group of juveniles, a law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile, or a group of law enforcement officers posing as juveniles any material or performance that is obscene or harmful to juveniles;

(3) While in the physical proximity of the juvenile or law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile, allow any juvenile or law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile to review or peruse any material or view any live performance that is harmful to juveniles.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

You seem to be stuck on one thing. The sex.

Yet you cant back up and see that I am not disagreeing with you.

I am asking bigger questions.

Yes. There was a case and it brought a conviction.

I don't think it should have gotten to that point.

Why? I just don't.

I have given all kinds of bigger than this one day reasons and the only thing that is being focused on is the sex.

You don't see that we are not disagreeing with each other.

Whatever. I am done with it.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

I want to know who has the "pit bull mentality?"

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
You seem to be stuck on one thing. The sex.

Yet you cant back up and see that I am not disagreeing with you.

I am asking bigger questions.

Yes. There was a case and it brought a conviction.

I don't think it should have gotten to that point.

Why? I just don't.

I have given all kinds of bigger than this one day reasons and the only thing that is being focused on is the sex.

You don't see that we are not disagreeing with each other.

Whatever. I am done with it.

Yes, because the sex is what makes it obscene and makes it a felony. By law.

ed11563 · Guru

I didn't see any sex in the part of the trailer I watched, but the VIOLENCE was totally completely DISGUSTING!!!

No one should have to sit through that cr@p.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

ed11563 wrote:
I didn't see any sex in the part of the trailer I watched, but the VIOLENCE was totally completely DISGUSTING!!!
No one should have to sit through that cr@p.

That's because the sex parts were too graphic for a trailer.

ed11563 · Guru

The movie can be viewed on You Tube, for $3.99.

No thanks.

Blech.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Yes, because the sex is what makes it obscene and makes it a felony. By law." - Lawyerlady

Is there a statute that sex is obscene and that sex is a felony? The statute you quoted shortly before this didn't include any mention of sex.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Yes, because the sex is what makes it obscene and makes it a felony. By law." - Lawyerlady

Is there a statute that sex is obscene and that sex is a felony? The statute you quoted shortly before this didn't include any mention of sex.

Yes. I only quoted the first 3 sections of the law - there are sections all the way down to (F). But it still doesn't say "sex" - it says "obscene", which, legally - usually refers to sex.

Here you go - section F -

(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of disseminating matter harmful to juveniles. If the material or performance involved is harmful to juveniles, except as otherwise provided in this division, a violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree. If the material or performance involved is obscene, except as otherwise provided in this division, a violation of this section is a felony of the fifth degree. If the material or performance involved is obscene and the juvenile to whom it is sold, delivered, furnished, disseminated, provided, exhibited, rented, or presented, the juvenile to whom the offer is made or who is the subject of the agreement, or the juvenile who is allowed to review, peruse, or view it is under thirteen years of age, violation of this section is a felony of the fourth degree.

She's lucky none of the kids were 13. That would have been worse.

The entire law, so you don't have to google - http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907.31

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973). The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

WYSIWYG · Guru

So, no. Sex is not obscene. From a legal standpoint.

Point 1 is dubious, at best.
Point 2 is in how the sex itself is depicted or described, but doesn't outright rule all sex as obscene.
Point 3 is in the eye of the beholder. Literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to one person is garbage to another.

tlc · Regular

Wow, and to think our English teacher was worried about showing "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" at school during class.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
So, no. Sex is not obscene. From a legal standpoint.

Point 1 is dubious, at best.
Point 2 is in how the sex itself is depicted or described, but doesn't outright rule all sex as obscene.
Point 3 is in the eye of the beholder. Literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to one person is garbage to another.

No, not all sex is obscene. But the sex in this obviously was. The jury considered this obscene after viewing it - without needing any time for delibertation. What is obscenity? The Supreme Court's response has basically been "we can't truly articulate it, but we know it when we see it".

Why don't you watch the movie and get back to us? The jury had to. I have no desire to - the previews and descriptions are quite enough.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
So, no. Sex is not obscene. From a legal standpoint.

Point 1 is dubious, at best.
Point 2 is in how the sex itself is depicted or described, but doesn't outright rule all sex as obscene.
Point 3 is in the eye of the beholder. Literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to one person is garbage to another.

We have charges called "Corruption of minors". So, yeah, that is what she did.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Why don't you watch the movie and get back to us? The jury had to. I have no desire to - the previews and descriptions are quite enough." - Lawyerlady

I may give it a shot if I have some free time. NOt because I am interested in the movie, mind you, but to put this argument to rest, or to reinforce my opinion of my side of the "is the sex obscene" argument.

I still think she was wrong to show it in class though. On that we definitely agree.

WYSIWYG · Guru

"We have charges called "Corruption of minors". So, yeah, that is what she did." - Lady Gaga Snerd

I wasn't questioning that. I was questioning whether sex, by itself, in any variation, and in all cases can be called "obscene" or not. According to the law I don't believe that it can't be.

cadiver · Senior Member

WYSIWYG wrote:
"We have charges called "Corruption of minors". So, yeah, that is what she did." - Lady Gaga Snerd

I wasn't questioning that. I was questioning whether sex, by itself, in any variation, and in all cases can be called "obscene" or not. According to the law I don't believe that it can't be.

I wonder if the movie it self would rise to being obscene, or if it was more that it was shown to minors. Is this movie more obscene than all the other hardcore porn out there?

ed11563 · Guru

cadiver wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
"We have charges called "Corruption of minors". So, yeah, that is what she did." - Lady Gaga Snerd

I wasn't questioning that. I was questioning whether sex, by itself, in any variation, and in all cases can be called "obscene" or not. According to the law I don't believe that it can't be.
I wonder if the movie it self would rise to being obscene, or if it was more that it was shown to minors. Is this movie more obscene than all the other hardcore porn out there?

Just from the violence I saw in the first minute of the trailer, I'd call it obscene.

WYSIWYG · Guru

So, over the weekend I managed to suffer through the movie.

There were a couple of "letters" that almost made me throw up due to the amount of gore in them.

There was one extremely sick letter (can't remember which one) that included inferred (but didn't actually show) homosexual sex with what looked like a 10 year old boy.

There was nudity in a few of the letters, showing full frontal of both men and women, but no actual visual penis into vagina sex shown.

There was one scene of a man doing a woman against a window, but it was filmed from the point of view of someone on the street watching them on an upper floor, and only her breasts pressed against the glass are visible, but the people's motions make it clear what they are doing.

There was one letter ( "F" ) where it was death by fart, and the girl that died was sucked into (kind of like "Genie" in the TV show "I dream of Genie", gets sucked into her bottle) the butt of the woman who's fart killed her.

My summation of the movie: If the actual shown nudity and sex is what they were worried about, then they have more problems than being prudes. The violence, gore, and (inferred) kiddie porn was DISGUSTING. Just thinking about some of it is making me nauseated right now.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Inferred kiddie porn is enough to make it obscene by most community standards.

ed11563 · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Inferred kiddie porn is enough to make it obscene by most community standards.

I'm surprised that no one is being prosecuted for that.

cadiver · Senior Member

ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Inferred kiddie porn is enough to make it obscene by most community standards.
I'm surprised that no one is being prosecuted for that.

Inferred? Such as kid and adult in a room and the door closes? Sounds like a Lifetime movie.

Mellow Momma · Sniff...sniff, sniff. Yay! A Bum!

cadiver wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Inferred kiddie porn is enough to make it obscene by most community standards.
I'm surprised that no one is being prosecuted for that.
Inferred? Such as kid and adult in a room and the door closes? Sounds like a Lifetime movie.

I think they meant simulated sex acts not actual visible sex acts with minors. I could be wrong. Either one repulses me.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

WYSIWYG wrote:
So, over the weekend I managed to suffer through the movie.

There were a couple of "letters" that almost made me throw up due to the amount of gore in them.

There was one extremely sick letter (can't remember which one) that included inferred (but didn't actually show) homosexual sex with what looked like a 10 year old boy.

There was nudity in a few of the letters, showing full frontal of both men and women, but no actual visual penis into vagina sex shown.

There was one scene of a man doing a woman against a window, but it was filmed from the point of view of someone on the street watching them on an upper floor, and only her breasts pressed against the glass are visible, but the people's motions make it clear what they are doing.

There was one letter ( "F" ) where it was death by fart, and the girl that died was sucked into (kind of like "Genie" in the TV show "I dream of Genie", gets sucked into her bottle) the butt of the woman who's fart killed her.

My summation of the movie: If the actual shown nudity and sex is what they were worried about, then they have more problems than being prudes. The violence, gore, and (inferred) kiddie porn was DISGUSTING. Just thinking about some of it is making me nauseated right now.

Which is why the jury convicted her.