Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,net.legal,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Grey Porn (Re: Re: Re: Commission on Pornography -- reply to GWSmith
Message-ID: <418@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Sep-86 20:15:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.418
Posted: Fri Sep 26 20:15:37 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 01:21:32 EDT
References: <1487@mtx5a.UUCP> <15487@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 50
Xref: linus talk.politics.misc:392 net.legal:4852 soc.singles:227
Summary: Porn as evidence

In article <1577@cwruecmp.UUCP> rynes@cwruecmp.UUCP (Edward M. Rynes  Esq.) writes:
>In article <391@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>>
>>Although I oppose regulation of the distribution, I do agree with the
>>premise that those who film crimes should be accountable for those crimes.
>>
>>If someone filmed the beheading of a hostage, I would hope that the
>>people who committed the crime would be convicted, including the
>>film itself as evidence.  This by the way, has happened in cases of
>>criminally negligent acts involving stunt men.
>
>I don't mean to pick nits but there is a flaw in the way this is worded.
>
>There is a very famous picture of Lee Harvey Oswald being shot to death.
>"Murder is serious crime, Max."  Is the man who took this picture guilty
>of a crime?  Should the picture be banned?  Should anyone looking at the
>picture be locked away to protect society?  <It doesn't take any research
>to see that anyone who acts in the manner portraed in this picture would
>cause great harm to society>
>
>The picture is not the crime.  The photographer is not the criminal. (unless
>they were involved in the crime)  The criminals should be punished, not the
>photgrapher, not the witnesses, and not the people who watched it on the
>11 o'clock news!  The same is true for pornography.  If no crime is commited
>in the production of a film, then why should we stop people from seeing it?
>

Well, we have three issues here.  I originally meant when someone "stages"
a crime for the purpose of filming it, not a newsman lucky enough to film
a crime.  There is a side issue of how to draw the line.

Second, use of the film in criminal prosecutions.  It should be easy to
prove that a sex-crime such as rape was committed.  The testimony of the
victim, combined with full-color videos, should be enough to get a sentence.
In the case of "snuff movies", the issue of "is it real or is it staged"
could actually be the burdon of the producer.

Third, the continued distribution and marketing of the film.  Proceeds
to the victim, anyone who felt they were underpaid could file a complaint.
Proceeds to the perpetrator?  He sits in jail while he collects the profits?

In addition, the question of filmed crimes for the purpose of entertainment
in spite of the source.  There are reporters who listen to police calls
in hopes of getting a good picture of grizzley, maimed bodies of murder
victims, and publishers who print them.

There are video tape prints, 8mm prints, and photographs of the Kennedy
assasination which are considered pornographic.  They show his brains
scattering in 3 different directions.  Censorhip?  Pornography? or
News?