Paris, Porn, the Press, and Profits

The big "news item" earlier in the week was how NBC had offered Paris Hilton $1 million for her first post-jailhouse interview. The talking heads were outraged - outraged! - and most of the creeps along the foodchain demanded - demanded! - she donate whatever money she got from this interview to some charity or another. And I said bullshit.

Yeah, it's unethical for the press to pay celebrities - or anyone else (even "experts") - for interviews, because that compromises the entire piece. The same should be true of expert "witnesses" in court cases, lobbyists to politicians, and so on, but "that's the world we live in," let's move on.

The real issue, these haircuts claim - mouthpieces for the corrupt government which serves their corporate masters - was that Paris was attempting to profit from her crime. Which isn't really true, since Paris was not really profiting from her crime, simply bartering on the popularity the corruption of our legal system gave her when it railroaded her; had she been treated like anyone else charged with this crime, there would have been no story to tell - just excuses for why it happened.

And you need to recall that we recently discussed the case of one Michael Alig, who has been accused of doing much the same for his discussing possible job offers and opportunities he has when he is released from prison. In his case, cops tried to use his artwork to prove premeditation of the crime he committed, regardless of the fact that no direct correlation could be drawn and that his artwork, produced over a year prior to the crime, should have been protected by the First Amendment. (Alig plea-bargained and worked out a deal with the mob-run pigs to avoid a possible death sentence, which is extortion - except for when the cops do it.)

O.J. Simpson recently lost his civil case to publish his memoirs of the killings for which he was found not guilty and that is more than fair for so many reasons, the primary one being that Simpson spent all his money buying his way out of jail, but lost a civil case and hasn't paid on that. Had he been found guilty, he could not have written the book; since he was found not-guilty, he has every right to pen his confession, but if he is able to pay on his debt to the Goldman family, he is legally obligated to do so. That's an open-and-shut case which we can use as a contrast, since Simpson is still indebted, while both Alig and Hilton have paid their debts.

To keep either Hilton or Alig from making money after serving their time in jail is tantamount to a credit card company you have paid off coming along years later and demanding even more money because you can now pay them more. They have no right to that money because you are no longer indebted to them and they can suck it.

So, if profiting from one's crime is so bad, and art is freedom of expression protected by the very Constitution on which this country was founded, we must turn our eye to pornography, for it puts everything into perspective:

The mainstream media, politicians, judges, police, and pornographers like to use the First Amendment to protect pimps' rights to turn your little boys and girls out like cattle to a pasture. Sure, they may be strung-out On Dope, drunker than Papa Hemingway on a Wednesday, lured by promises of fame and fortune, or even extorted into it, but so long as they are 18 years old, they are old enough to be sold into the sex trade or killed for the interest of Big Business - fuck or fight, kids; "nobody said life was fair." Besides, if they are drinking or using drugs, "they got what they deserved."

Now, the word, "pornography," actually means "love letters," and came about because a certain ruler sought to limit lovers' rights to write titillating missives to their mistresses, wives, and young laddy lovers. Of course, pornography in the written or rendered (drawn, painted, etc.) form really can be construed as Art because it takes time, effort, and talent to produce them. The best way to determine which is Art and which is porn is by the quality of the work, how much it is concerned with sexual matters in a prurient nature, and the overall style in which it is done.

But the real measuring stick here is whether or not the explicit nature of the sex "scene(s)" benefit the work in any higher manner. These dummies use "penetration" as the measuring stick, to the extent that even stabbing scenes cannot show perceived penetration beyond a certain number of inches and/or for longer than a specific number of seconds (true, it's damn true!). The real question is: does the scene add to the overall work in any way - even if that scene's only point is to titillate the audience. Even if the entire work's main purpose is to arouse the viewer or reader, if higher meaning or purpose can be garnered from the work, it can be argued to be Art.

Pornography is made to masturbate to. It has no higher value or aspirations, real or imagined.

The only difference between pornography filmed in an alleyway and a prostitute turning a trick in the same place is that one involves a camera and, sometimes, a contract. Of course, both can involve an oral contract and both involve an implied contract, but one is legal only because it is filmed... well, that and the fact that the industry pays-off the right people. And that mainstream America likes porn, so... you know, "if it feels good, do it."

A direct correlation can be made thusly: if I tell someone, "I'm going to kick your ass," and then I do, I would be guilty of assault. If they tell me, "Come on - do it," I could argue that an oral contract was made. I would probably be laughed out of court and still found guilty of assault. I could argue that the assault was me "expressing myself" and is thus protected by the First Amendment. If I film the fight, market it, and distribute it, it then becomes Art. The guys who did Bumfights were found guilty of inciting violence for doing just this.

Why aren't pornographers found guilty of slavery, as are pimps? Why aren't porn "performers" guilty of prostitution, as are any other whores?

Something like 90+% of all porn "performers" also work as "escorts," meaning they have sex for money off-camera, which is also known as prostitution. Prostitution has a 70% recidivism rate; the only crime which has a higher rate of relapse is meth addiction, at over 90%. Meth and cocaine use within the pornography industry is rampant and well-documented - even by the industry itself. 100% of all female porn "performers" were sexually molested as children. The average career of a porn "star" is 1-2 years. The American porn industry has been shut down twice in the last 15 years due to AIDS outbreaks; performers are encouraged not to wear condoms; in gay pornography, it is a niche market which pays the "performers" a higher wage. Authorities in Waco, TX, recently arrested nearly 100 prostitutes and johns, due to a Gonorrhea outbreak. A British man was recently arrested for running a child pornography ring because he "saw a gap in the market."

Prostitution is not Art; prostitutes are not "actors," except in the legal sense; pornography is prostitution. The "actors" in the Bumfight videos were homeless drug-addicts who were "victimized" even though they agreed to do what they did on camera for money... which makes me wonder how they are any different from porn "actors."

Non-celebrity sex tapes can be distributed because they are protected by the First Amendment, celebrity sex tapes can be distributed because they are "newsworthy," thus the distribution outlets are protected by the Second Amendment. A celebrity can either allow the tapes to be distributed and take a cut of the proceeds or publicly denounce them and have them distributed for free because they are "newsworthy" - that's extortion, except when the press does it. (Thankfully, there have been some recent precedents set which curb this to some extent, paid for by celebrities - neither the legal system nor the press had the "ethics" to be trusted to actually uphold the law.)

Now, what's this shit about profiting from crime?