O/T: US Supreme Court ruling

[David J]

According to messages over on RAME, the US Supreme Court has just ruled that part of the Federal law against child pornography is unconstitutional. Under the ruling, it remains illegal to depict actual under-18s in sexual activity, but it will be legal (subject to general obscenity laws) to depict 'virtual' under-18s (e.g. anime or computer-generated images), or to use 18+ performers 'acting' as under-18s. (Hmm, who does that remind me of?)

Not very relevant to UK law, but it may have some effect on general porn industry practice, e.g. series like 'Barely Legal' may go more boldly for pseudo-kiddie setups, which in turn may give the BBFC some problems!

[jj]

..........this seems totally at odds with the AG's current action against Seymore Butts over 'Tampa Tushy Fest'.
Never consistent, the Yanks............

[joe king]

'Not very relevant to UK law' - when was it ever relevant to UK law?

[jj]

.....'Today America, tomorrow Britain'.
Well, next week, anyway.
Or the week after.

[david]

US law vs UK+European law, all is OK in porn if,

UK law, there is no porn or voilence.

In europe voilence is ok if it ends up in porn.

In the US porn is ok if it end's up in violence......period?

[magoo]

Just thought you might be interested to know that Seymore came to some sort of plea bargain which means he can now self his fisting tapes in California. The tapes confiscated by police have been returned and fisting is now legal in porn sold in California. Full story on

[magoo]

Obviously I meant to say "sell his tapes" not "self his tapes".

[marcusallen]

Sounds like a social comment on the average UK housing estate to me

[jj]

Fast food.
Crap gameshows/generally piss-poor telly.
Public emotional exhibitionism.
Analysis.
Corporate gobbledegook.
Fame for 15 mins.
Pride in naked greed.
Shall I go on?
And on?

[golostruda]

Um, that's not law, that's culture.