DA Continues to Attempt to Ruin the Lives of Defendants in the Name of Public Safety –
He ended up being convicted of two lesser charges, one a statutory rape charge because, as an 18-year-old adult he had sexual relations with his 16-year-old classmate. And the other charge was that of having contact with a minor for the purposes of having sex.
The question is now what will happen with Mr. Artz, who has no other criminal record, upon sentencing. Next Friday, Mr. Artz is possibly expected to take the stand for the first time.
Right now, we know that the probation department is recommending prison time based on the fact that they found a large quantity of legal porn on Mr. Artz’ computer. Some of this porn allegedly contained violent sexual act depictions, including rape.
Based on these factors, the probation department is claiming that Mr. Artz represents a threat to females.
The problem with that view is that Mr. Artz was acquitted on the only charge that alleged force, the forced oral copulation charge. As his attorney, Kathryn Druliner, would argue on Friday, there is no connection between violent rape fantasies and any of the facts of the case.
Ms. Druliner objected to evidence from the computer being examined by Judge Mock, as the pictures are legal porn. She argued based on Evidence Code 352, citing that they were cumulative, time consuming and irrelevant.
Judge Mock would overrule that objection.
Deputy DA Tiffany Susz argued that there were 154 images on the computer. They were able to track the porn to websites that she listed off, naming them in explicit detail, almost to the point of folly.
She argued that these images depict sexual acts that represent a partial diagnosis of Mr. Artz as a sexual sadist. She argued that his viewing of these images allows for Mr. Artz to partially match the criteria of sexual sadist.
Judge Mock stated that he will have to decide between the report from probation which recommends no probation, but prison time instead, and the report from a psychiatrist that argues that probation is in order.
He ended the proceedings by signing a forfeiture order for Mr. Artz’ computer – once they apparently sort out which of the computers the police seized was actually Mr. Artz’.
In the view of the Vanguard, this is an appalling intrusion of government into the private lives of citizens. For the department of probation and the DA’s Office to recommend prison time based on Mr. Artz’ consumption of legal porn – again, legal porn – is a dangerous overreaching of the government.
The idea that his viewing of such pornography makes him a “sexual sadist” or a danger to females is absurd. The idea that such criteria could be used to imprison a young man with an otherwise spotless record borders on thought crimes and the use of thought police to adduce some sort of motive and behavior.
Lest we forget, Mr. Artz was acquitted on the main crime and the only charge of any forcible sexual act. The two crimes that he was convicted of, which the jury has expressed discomfort with in this case of an 18-year-old and a 16-year-old, have nothing to do with a claim of forced sexual acts and there is no sustained charge of violence.
The most comical portion of the proceedings were when the Deputy DA read the long litany of porn sites Mr. Artz had frequented – all of them legal sites. It was like the scene out of the move “Clerks,” where the employee is placing an order at the request of a woman with her young child, but before he can get to the children’s movie, he reads off a long list of explicit porn movies.
This is Mr. Artz’ life. He is attending college. He has a chance to learn from his mistakes and lead a productive and law-abiding life. If he gets probation, he gets that chance. If he gets prison time, it has a good chance of turning him into a hardened criminal.
What the DA is doing is nothing short of attempting to ruin this young man’s life. In the view of the Vanguard, this is vindictive prosecution at its worst. They have already attempted to tarnish his image with a misleading press release that implied he was convicted of the forced oral copulation and some sort of “sextortion” claim that did not match the third charge, when in fact his only crimes as seen in the legal system were to have sexual relations with a slightly younger classmate, and to try to connect with her again when the opportunity arose to communicate with her.
The latter charge was, in the Vanguard’s view, a ridiculous application of a law that was intended to protect young minors from much older and predatory adults, and, instead it is being used as the wedge to the destroy this young man’s life.
This is not in the interest of justice, this is just about political agendas and vengeance.
One of the absurdities of it all is the forfeiture of his computer, as though that were some asset that the county could utilize. As though that were a gain from his crime. As though a computer seized over two years ago would have any real value.
Do we want to live in a society where people can be put in prison not for the acts they commit, but based on the images and shows that they watch? That is the territory that this is treading dangerously close to.
It would be one thing if they had found a host of child pornography images on his computer. Those are illegal and would show that his act was really about having sex with a minor. But that is not what they found.
Mr. Artz is facing prison time because he was a horny teenager. He made some poor decisions, but he has led a good and productive life, with the exception of this incident of having teenage sex with a classmate who had not yet turned 18. Our system should not be about punishing him, but about making sure the public does not face a threat from this individual. I see no reason why the interest of public safety and justice require anything more than probation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]I see no reason why the interest of public safety and justice require anything more than probation.[/quote]
Agreed!
BTW, where is the science showing a link/ nexus between viewing of porn and being a “threat” to females in the community?
I have seen the DA using this porn strategy before as a smoke and mirros way to prejudice a decision.
Ajay Dev was found innocent of porn charges, but the DA used porn found on his computer as a way to prejudice the jury and make them think he was “sick”. The DA spent three days showing disgusting porn even though later it was found out that the DA knew the porn was accidently imported through a music download done by the accuser. In fact, a computer expert mentioned that there are many times porn may get downloaded on someone’s computer, and they don’t even know it.
Of course, the DA knows this happens so they will use this tactic in almost all their sexual assault type cases. One of their first steps is to grab someone’s computer in a sexual assault case. In Ajay’s case it was found that he never accessed it. But that didn’t matter to the DA’s office. In addition, they listed all kinds of titles of porn that showed up in some file that no one knew was there. A file that couldn’t even be opened. But because the titles were disgusting, the DA used them too.
Keep in mind that this porn on the computer is a strategy used by the DA. Almost all computers unless they are cleaned regularly may have some hidden porn on them.
Also some people may ask why would the DA try to get jail time and use the porn. What is his motivation? I remember reading that Artz was bring a lawsuit against the county.
Since the DA didn’t get a conviction on the main charge, he needs something to make Artz look like he is a bad guy. Otherwise the suit will be tough for the county to win.
Maybe if the DA did more investigating or stopped pushing weak cases to trial. The county wouldn’t have to worry about defending so many lawsuits.
dmg: “BTW, where is the science showing a link/ nexus between viewing of porn and being a “threat” to females in the community?”
There are a plethora of articles and studies linking porn to sexual violence. See below:
From Minnesotaindependent.com: “Five Minnesota lawmakers — four Democrats and a Republican — are proposing legislation they hope will reduce sexual assault in Minnesota. The bill, introduced Feb. 25, would give preference when planning taxpayer-funded events to hotels and meeting facilities that do not show violent or exploitative pornography.
Sponsors of the bill include Sens. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud; Steve Dille, R-Dassell, Sandra Pappas, DFL-St. Paul; and Katie Sieben, DFL-Newport; and Rep. Larry Haws, DFL-St. Cloud.
Caroline Palmer, staff attorney for the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MNCASA), cautions that the bill is not a mandate, but a commitment by the State of Minnesota to reduce sexual assault.
“It simply directs the state to give preference to facilities that offer porn-free environments, and it gives the state the ability to make decisions based on reasonableness factors related to cost and geographic location,” Palmer told the Minnesota Independent. “Our focus is primarily on the relationship between how the state chooses to spend public dollars and the state’s commitment to preventing sexual violence.””
From contentwatch.com: “One research study analyzed the various arguments and data presented by other studies that contended the lack of reliable connections between pornography and aggressive sexual behavior. The study concluded that, in fact, there was existence of reliable associations between frequent pornography use and sexually aggressive behaviors, particularly for violent pornography and/or for men at high risk for sexual aggression (Malamuth, Neil et. al., 2000).
Another study collected from 100 survivors at a rape crisis center discovered that 28% of respondents reported that their abuser used pornography and that for 12% of the women, pornography was imitated during the abusive incident (Bergen, Raquel Kennedy, 2000).
In spite of these findings, others persist in their contention that there is little correlation between pornography use and causation of sexual deviant behavior. In part, they cite as evidence that, although many sex offenders do use pornography, there are just as many others who consume pornography who do not engage in sex crimes.
Regardless of your position, my experience indicates the majority of sex offenders have pornography consumption as an associated behavior. It is imperative that these individuals maintain abstinence from pornography as part of their effort to minimize possible risk factors for re-offending. But what about everyone else?
Consider the fraudulent message pornography teaches about healthy human intimacy. It portrays both women and men as objects with insatiable sexual appetites. Sexual relations with multiple partners are presented as normal and healthy, while monogamous relationships are depicted as cumbersome and undesirable. Distorted views of perverted sex acts are presented as exciting and acceptable, and in many instances, the viewer is exposed to otherwise unimaginable ideas about sexuality that they themselves would never have considered. These same acts are normalized by desensitizing the viewer after numerous exposures to the material. Other aspects of sexual intimacy, such as communication and tender affection, are usually omitted from pornography while consequences of promiscuous sexual behavior such as STDs and unwanted pregnancies are minimized. Surely, these ideas cannot be considered healthy. And yet, that is what many producers of pornography would have us believe.”
David , have you tried walking in the shoes of the victim ? When your daughter is 16 and this happens to her ,put yourself into the role of the the concerned parents , and then see if you feel the same way about this 18 year old boy .
Who by the way likes to fantasize about doing more sexual acts to his victim, while he is getting more ideas from legal porn .
This guy is a PERVERT and needs his you know what slapped .
I have already spoken to several researchers who argue otherwise. You are citing research from a decade ago presented by activists who have a clear agenda. The problem with such studies suffer from problems of correlation does not prove causation. It is the same problem with studies that argue that marijuana is a gateway drug based on statistical analysis that is flawed or incomplete.
Avatar: I’m not sure there is a victim here. I watched her testify. She contradicted herself all over the place – she seemed confused about her sexuality, about what happened, and she had ambivalent views about Mr. Artz to the point where I wonder if she is even aware of what is happening and whether she would be supportive of it.
I suspect when my daughter is 16, I will have adverse feelings towards any guy who has sexual intentions towards her. However, that said, I very much doubt I will be looking to ruin his life based on the facts of this case.
Nevertheless, there is a reason why we have an impartial judge and jury weigh the evidence, not the parents of the alleged victim.
David , “””””I’m not sure there is a victim here. I watched her testify. She contradicted herself all over the place – she seemed confused about her sexuality, about what happened, and she had ambivalent views about Mr. Artz to the point where I wonder if she is even aware of what is happening and whether she would be supportive of it. “””””””
You just described a scared minor who was being controlled by a adult male . Wrong is Wrong …
In actuality, I described two scared and confused kids, both classmates in HS. The laws here were designed to protect minors from people your age, not their peers.
Avatar: If you followed this case, you would know that this girl also was having sexual relations with another girl who was actually older than the boy in this case.
This is no innocent 16 year old.
dmg: “Do we want to live in a society where people can be put in prison not for the acts they commit, but based on the images and shows that they watch? That is the territory that this is treading dangerously close to.
It would be one thing if they had found a host of child pornography images on his computer. Those are illegal and would show that his act was really about having sex with a minor. But that is not what they found.”
Which brings us to a much larger issue – the mixed overtly sexual messages that media sends our youth. Children are gaining ready access to porn, and often acting out what they see – texting pornographic pictures of themselves engaging in overt sex acts over cell phones and the internet. Should it just so happen that one of the children in these pictures is underage, suddenly the sender can be charged with trafficking in child pornography. There was an article in the Davis Enterprise recently, about the DA’s Office discussing this very issue w teens at a local high school.
This is the new reality folks, like it or not. We are giving our children ready access to pornography – but doing that can lead them into a “whole heap ‘a trouble” w/o them even realizing it. Cell phones and computers are a conduit for transferring porn, either homemade or professionally made, but with such transferrence comes a high degree of risk in breaking the law. But kids don’t realize this, nor sometimes do their parents.
Additionally, the same sort of risks are associated w cyber bullying. Two very young teen girls are now facing serious prison time for putting the picture on Facebook of a classmate they disliked, depicting the victim’s head atop a pre-pubescent body placed next to that of a naked man. Prison time people!
But I have to ask a really hard question, and one which will probably cause a good deal of discomfort for many on this blog: Do you want to live in a society where children of all ages have free access to porn, are free to act out what they see, and are free to send pictures of themselves and/or other children acting out perverse sex acts over a cell phone or computer? There are no easy answers here…
The issues of cyber porn and cyber bullying in relation to our children is becoming a huge problem, as the Artz case shows. As a society we seem to be okay w our children being exposed to massive amounts of porn, don’t seem to have a problem with teens engaging in sex outside of marriage willy-nilly as just a part of growing up, yet when that leads to overly aggressive/overly sexed teens acting out and passing pornographic pictures of themselves around to each other and for all the world to see, we are somehow outraged and bring the hammer of the law down – BUT WITH GOOD REASON…
Remember the case of the little underage girl from Ireland who came to America, only to hang herself bc of bullying? Members of the male athletic team got a hold of this naive young female, at least two had sex w her (there is a question whether she was raped or not – there definitely was statutory rape involved). Members of the female athletic team became jealous, and both male and female members of the athletic team bullied the poor victim mercilessly, calling her a slut and all sorts of vile names. The victim was subjected to cyberbullying, physical assault, civil rights violations, stalking, just to name a few. At what point do we intervene? In this case the school did nothing…
I think we as a society have a lot of soul searching to do on the issue of porn, how much it is seeping into the mainstream of our lives, and how much havoc/corruption it is wreaking amongst our young people…
To say porn is not in any way harmful? Really? Think about it…
FAI: “Avatar: If you followed this case, you would know that this girl also was having sexual relations with another girl who was actually older than the boy in this case.”
Show me in the court testimony where that was ever proved.
Elaine:
First, you didn’t answer my question.
Second, I don’t see what your story relates to pornography.
Third, the Judge excluded depiction of their relationship as sexual, though I believe Ms. Druliner introduced or at least attempted to introduce evidence showing that it was. The lawyers were allowed to mention they had a relationship but they could not describe it as sexual.
The juror made the comment: “The girlfriend was 6 months older then Michael!! And it was made clear that the girls spent many weekends together! But she wasn’t charged!”
Also, another thing to consider about why the DA is trying to get jail time for this case. Remember, David wrote an article about this case being highlighted in a grant report for the DA.
If this was a case that was highlighted in a grant report, and the person only got probation, it would not be a very strong plug for new grant funding.
The agency funding this grant may want to give its money to districts that have more severe issues.
PORN ACTUALLY REDUCES SEXUAL ASSAULTS ON WOMEN. From a 2007 article: [quote]Since 1993, violent crime in America has dropped by 58 percent. But the progress in this one realm has been especially dramatic. Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent.
Even in the last two years, when the FBI reported upticks in violent crime, the number of rapes continued to fall.
Nor can the decline be dismissed as the result of underreporting. Many sexual assaults do go unreported, but there is no reason to think there is less reporting today than in the past. In fact, given everything that has been done to educate people about the problem and to prosecute offenders, victims are probably more willing to come forward than they used to be.
No one would say the current level of violence against women is acceptable. But the enormous progress in recent years is one of the most gratifying successes imaginable.
How can it be explained? Perhaps the most surprising and controversial account comes from Clemson University economist Todd Kendall, who suggests that adult fare on the Internet may essentially inoculate against sexual assaults.
In a paper presented at Stanford Law School last year, he reported that, after adjusting for other differences, states where Internet access expanded the fastest saw rape decline the most. A 10 percent increase in Internet access, Kendall found, typically meant a 7.3 percent reduction in the number of reported rapes. For other types of crime, he found no correlation with Web use. What this research suggests is that sexual urges play a big role in the incidence of rape — and that pornographic Web sites provide a harmless way for potential predators to satisfy those desires. [/quote]
What we have here is a case of a high school sexual relationship, with 2 years of age difference between the offender and victim. We are talking statutory rape — not child molesting, forcible rape and the like. We have an individual with no known previous criminal convictions. They determined the porn on the computer to be legal. There is no way this is a state prison case.
dmg: “First, you didn’t answer my question.”
I essentially did w another question; and you did not answer my question: “Do you want to live in a society where children of all ages have free access to porn, are free to act out what they see, and are free to send pictures of themselves and/or other children acting out perverse sex acts over a cell phone or computer?”
dmg: “Second, I don’t see what your story relates to pornography.”
The story of the Irish girl gets to the larger question of cyber porn transmittal/cyber porn bullying. If you give teens free access to porn, much of it violent/aggressive, such access can result in extreme cases of bullying of a sexual nature – as it did in the case I described. The result was at the very least statutory rape (I think the DA believes there may have been actual date rape) and teen suicide. Frankly I believe free access to porn played a part in the Artz case – he watched a lot of it, making him perhaps more aggressive than he ordinarily might have been.
dmg: “Third, the Judge excluded depiction of their relationship as sexual, though I believe Ms. Druliner introduced or at least attempted to introduce evidence showing that it was. The lawyers were allowed to mention they had a relationship but they could not describe it as sexual.”
In other words, there was absolutely no admissable proof there was a sexual relationship between the girl and her female friend.
dmg: “The juror made the comment: “The girlfriend was 6 months older then Michael!! And it was made clear that the girls spent many weekends together! But she wasn’t charged!””
A juror – emphasis on the word “a”… Furthermore, girls spending a weekend together does not necessarily mean they had sex together. Plenty of girls spend weekends together as just friends – it is the defense who implied a sexual relationship (which the judge would not admit as evidence)…
FAI: “Also, another thing to consider about why the DA is trying to get jail time for this case.”
Because the DA believes this 18 year old is a sexual predator?
Avatar: “David , have you tried walking in the shoes of the victim ? When your daughter is 16 and this happens to her ,put yourself into the role of the the concerned parents , and then see if you feel the same way about this 18 year old boy . Who by the way likes to fantasize about doing more sexual acts to his victim, while he is getting more ideas from legal porn.”
Good point…
“Do you want to live in a society where children of all ages have free access to porn, are free to act out what they see, and are free to send pictures of themselves and/or other children acting out perverse sex acts over a cell phone or computer?”
The question is how you propose to deal with it. I don’t believe that legislation/ sanctions are a good approach. I don’t think you can prevent people from getting porn over the internet either. So you are left to have parents and educators teach responsiblity.
“Frankly I believe free access to porn played a part in the Artz case – he watched a lot of it, making him perhaps more aggressive than he ordinarily might have been.”
I don’t see where the evidence is of that. Moreover, the vast majority of people who consume pornography commit no such acts. So to me the connection is not established.
“In other words, there was absolutely no admissable proof there was a sexual relationship between the girl and her female friend.”
No it just wasn’t relevant to the charges against Artz or at least Mock ruled that.
“Furthermore, girls spending a weekend together does not necessarily mean they had sex together. Plenty of girls spend weekends together as just friends – it is the defense who implied a sexual relationship (which the judge would not admit as evidence)…”
Sure, if you want to be naive about such things.
The DA is just trying to make sure they can get grant money. Who knows what they actually believe. You should have seen DDA Susz listing off the porn sites, that was worthy videotaping frankly.
Do you want to live in a society where all 18 year old high school males who have sexual relations with younger females have to fear prosecution and prison because of over zealous prosecutions? These two people were one grade apart in school and quite likely the girl was more mature than the boy.
Let me throw out some thoughts-
There are likely a number of people in the DA’s office who have watched far more porn than this defendant.
also
Around 30% of the males in the DA’s office likely had sex with underage girls while they were in high school – somewhere I read 30% of teenagers are sexually active so that is where the 30% figure comes from.
This case failed to prove forced sex so all that is left is statuory rape and making illegal contact to with the pupose of having sex. I’m sure we could “get” 30% of the Davis High Senior males on those two charges. The motivation for this case was likely Grant Money ( Not Justice) and all of the porn evidence is just a face saving effort. They went after this kid because laws can be streched to entangle just about anyone the DA wants to pursue.
Does anyone truly believe the defendant and the community will be better off by sending this defendant to prison? Is concern over the tarnished reputation of the DA’s office more important than simply doing the right thing?
dmg: “The question is how you propose to deal with it. I don’t believe that legislation/ sanctions are a good approach. I don’t think you can prevent people from getting porn over the internet either. So you are left to have parents and educators teach responsiblity.”
The schools cannot even teach the three R’s or get a handle on bullying, and now you want them to teach responsibility in regard to porn, computers and cell phones? LOL
dmg: “I don’t see where the evidence is of that. Moreover, the vast majority of people who consume pornography commit no such acts. So to me the connection is not established.”
Research and common sense says otherwise. Porn is not supposed to get into the hands of those under the age of 21 for good reason. What Artz did would be an example of why not…
dmg: “Sure, if you want to be naive about such things.”
Are you trying to tell me if girls spend a weekend together for a sleepover, that it will inevitably lead to the girls having sex w each other? I think you’ve been watching too much porn! And there was not any evidence admitted of such between the two girls in question… and continually repeating innuendo does not make it so…
“Research and common sense says otherwise. Porn is not supposed to get into the hands of those under the age of 21 for good reason. What Artz did would be an example of why not… “
After I posted the last comment I to look up the % of men who have viewed porn. I found a story about a Univ of Montreal study on under 20 year old males who had never watched porn. The problem they encountered was they were not able to find any under 20 males who had not watched porn so they had to change the focus of the study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relationships/6709646/All-men-watch-porn-scientists-find.html
“The schools cannot even teach the three R’s or get a handle on bullying, and now you want them to teach responsibility in regard to porn, computers and cell phones? LOL”
So you want to punt on the issue because it’s difficult? Or you would rather expend $47000 per year to put a guy in prison or several at that rate?
“Research and common sense says otherwise. Porn is not supposed to get into the hands of those under the age of 21 for good reason. What Artz did would be an example of why not… “
That’s conjecture. The only evidence you have offered is 11 year old research cited by an activist trying to make the same point you are. You have no idea if Artz is or not a good example of why not.
“Are you trying to tell me if girls spend a weekend together for a sleepover, that it will inevitably lead to the girls having sex w each other?”
LOL. I’m suggesting people in a romantic relationship (he did allow it to be characterized as such) going away for a weekend are likely to. Or so I’m told.
[i]”Porn is not supposed to get into the hands of those under the age of 21 for good reason.”[/i]
What is the basis for this statement? Where did you come up with age 21?
Some good comparative static points raised in this article by Reason Magazine from 2007 http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s:
They point out that rape has dropped immensely over the last two decades even as the availability of porn on the internet has spiked.
“Since 1993, violent crime in America has dropped by 58 percent. But the progress in this one realm has been especially dramatic. Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent.”
They also, I think convincingly argue that these drops are not likely due to underreporting:
“Nor can the decline be dismissed as the result of underreporting. Many sexual assaults do go unreported, but there is no reason to think there is less reporting today than in the past. In fact, given everything that has been done to educate people about the problem and to prosecute offenders, victims are probably more willing to come forward than they used to be.”
They cite some controversial research:
“Perhaps the most surprising and controversial account comes from Clemson University economist Todd Kendall, who suggests that adult fare on the Internet may essentially inoculate against sexual assaults.
In a paper presented at Stanford Law School last year, he reported that, after adjusting for other differences, states where Internet access expanded the fastest saw rape decline the most. A 10 percent increase in Internet access, Kendall found, typically meant a 7.3 percent reduction in the number of reported rapes. For other types of crime, he found no correlation with Web use. What this research suggests is that sexual urges play a big role in the incidence of rape — and that pornographic Web sites provide a harmless way for potential predators to satisfy those desires.”
They add, “That, of course, is only a theory, and the evidence he cites is not conclusive.”
However, I think a convincing point is made that as the access to internet porn and thus porn overall has increased dramatically, rape numbers continue to fall. I’m not suggesting porn makes it less likely that someone will commit a crime, but there is no evidence right now that it makes them more likely to.
“once they apparently sort out which of the computers the police seized was actually Mr. Artz'”
Just interested to learn if there was perhaps an admission on the part of Mr. Artz that he had legal porn on HIS COMPUTER. From the way the above sentence from Dave’s article sounds, there seems to be some doubt as to weather the porn was actually on Artz’computer.
Can somebody fill us in on the computer possession issue?.
Another example of the Government playing both sides, This so called victim (any age 13) could go to any of a number of facilities and get an abortion or get on the pill with no questions asked, no parental notification and the condoms, the pill and the abortion would all be accomplished by ADULTS to help this child/minor/victim conceal her sexual actions. No crime there!
But a kid, 18, barely an adult by less than a year has entire life ruined for this? come on people, this is hypocrisy at it’s best.
David, look at my 11:06 AM post. Then look at your own post at 1:13 PM (two plus hours later). They look similar to me.
I think Roger Bockrath makes a good point.
What specifically do we know about the porn on the computer. Is it even the right computer? As I said before in an earlier post. With Ajay Dev’s case, the porn was all smoke and mirrors–and the DA knew it.
They made these claims to get people all riled up. Once a computer expert got involved, it was made clear that the DA’s claims about porn were unsubstantiated.
Rifkin: “What is the basis for this statement? Where did you come up with age 21?”
From Wikipedia: “Some areas of legal concern regarding adult pornography are:…Preventing those under the legal age (for most this means a minor under 18 or 21) from accessing pornographic content….With the exception of child pornography, the legal status of accessing Internet pornography is still somewhat unsettled, though many individual states have indicated that the creation and distribution of adult films and photography are legally listed as prostitution within them. The legality of pornography at the federal level has been traditionally determined by the Miller test, which dictates that community standards are to be used in determining whether a piece of material is obscene. Thus, if a local community determines a pornographic work to meet its standard for obscenity then it could be banned. This means that a pornographic magazine that might be legal in California could be illegal in Alabama. This standard poses a problem when it comes to the Internet because restricting the communities some pornographic material is available in is much more difficult over the Internet. It has been argued that if the Miller test were applied to the Internet then, in effect, the community standards for the most conservative community would become the standard for all U.S.-based Web sites. The courts are currently examining this issue….The production of sexually explicit materials is regulated under 18 U.S.C. 2257, requiring “original” producers to retain records showing that all performers were over the age of 18 at the time of the production for inspection by the Attorney General.”
From Wikipedia: “What age can you watch porn?
It depends on what state you live in. The majority of states say you have to be 18 years of age or over.
A handful of states say you must be 21 years of age or older. However, these states don’t really enforce the law, for because of the discovery of the Internet, it’s impossible to stick with the age of 21. But, anywhere in the United States, you must be at least 18 years of age to watch porn.”
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_age_can_you_watch_porn#ixzz1BtBZHIQc
From washingtontimes.com: “SAN DIEGO—Jan. 23–MTV’s latest provocative show “Skins” has come under fire for promoting alleged child pornography, underage sex, and illegal drug use.
With a culture that stems from the embrace of one-night stands, debasement of values, and lack of personal responsibility, it is no surprise that MTV capitalizes on this behavior.
In this publicity image released by MTV, James Newman portrays Tony, right, and Sofia Black-D’Elia portrays Tea, are shown in a scene from the adolescent drama “Skins.” (Photo: Associated Press/MTV)
Nevertheless, major advertisers like GM and Taco Bell have pulled their ads from the show in wake of this controversy. MTV admitted to using two GM ads without permission, but later apologized for the mishap. Shortly afterwards, GM put the show on its “do not buy list.”
“Skins” is a testament to what’s wrong with American culture today. Cheap, tasteless shows that encourage bad behavior and violence have become commonplace. Those who fall prey to its influence will mold themselves after the reality stars portrayed. Behaving like Jersey Shore’s Snooki is not laudable; it is downright embarrassing.
Why do shows like “Skins” continue to afflict Generation Y?
Generation Y’s definitive culture is problematic. From entitlements to disrespect for authority to hookups, my generation has successfully drifted away from the past.
For example, who wants their generation to be classified by historians as a “sexually-charged, irresponsible and doomed” one? Instead, shouldn’t my generation desire recognition for medical breakthroughs, for delivering professional commentary, and for finding solutions to today’s problems? Frankly, it is daunting to see my peers waste their lives away. Instead, they should aim to be productive in society.
The premiere episode of “Skins” highlights characters engaged in lewd behavior commonly found in this culture. If you think this behavior is “harmless,” think again. For example, my sister and I (along with other people) hear classmates recount stories about them propositioning themselves for sex here at UC-San Diego. As a result, our generation is doomed if this behavior persists.
Now that parents, advertisers, and television watchdogs have expressed outrage over “Skins,” one can expect further efforts discouraging debauchery, violence, and exploitation on T.V. Nevertheless, there will be great challenges to changing today’s given culture.
A press release issued by the Parents Television Council (PTC) calls on feds to further investigate alleged child pornography and exploitation featured in “Skins.””
“What this research suggests is that sexual urges play a big role in the incidence of rape — and that pornographic Web sites provide a harmless way for potential predators to satisfy those desires.”
Just as child porn is a way for pedophiles to harmlessly act out there fantasies? LOL at the reasoning here…
[i]”Just as child porn is a way for pedophiles to harmlessly act out their fantasies? LOL at the reasoning here …”[/i]
There are two dramatic differences which make that analogy fail.
First, the children depicted in child pornography are not consenting participants (by law they are not capable of consent), and in all probability they are victims of sexual acts up to rape and worse.
By contrast, the adults who choose to participate in pornographic films or who model for pornographic pictures are consenting participants who are making money from the activity. They are not victims by dint of choosing this lifestyle (though I concede it is my understanding that most women who go into porn were secually abused as girls).
Second, the adults, usually men, who attain sexual pleasure by viewing sexual depictions of children are psychologically abnormal ([url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/pedophilia[/url]) and often are dangerous predators who pose a some kind of threat to children in general.
By contrast, the (very large percentage of adult) males who view pornography which depicts consenting adults are not (by dint of that) abnormal or sexual predators or a threat to women in general. It is simply a normal aspect of male psychology to obtain pleasure in seeing sexual depictions of attractive women. (For gay adult males I would imagine it is just the same, but they get pleasure out of seeing sexual depictions of other men.)
[img]http://www.goodlogo.com/images/logos/playboy_logo_2598.gif[/img]
Rifkin: “By contrast, the adults who choose to participate in pornographic films or who model for pornographic pictures are consenting participants who are making money from the activity. They are not victims by dint of choosing this lifestyle (though I concede it is my understanding that most women who go into porn were secually abused as girls).”
Many, many underage girls get sucked into porn…
The porn industry is not a “nice” business, no matter how much the porn industry tries to tell the public otherwise…it is corrupting our youth, dehumanizing woman, and encouraging irresponsible behavior…