No brainer…it IS legal and should remain so. They will take my porno from my dead sticky hand!
Or, to put it another way, XT checks Strongly Agree with no further comment necessary.
-XT
Although a recent appelate ruling has cast some doubt on the Miller test, obscenity laws are still on the books and any porn other then vanilla intercourse may not be legal. Enforcement is spotty and arbitrary, though.
Strongly Agree
If the existence and circulation of robbery videos were the reason robberies occurred in the first place, then yes, they shouldn’t be protected.
As it stands, surveillance videos are made for their deterrent value against crime, and to serve as evidence in prosecuting offenders, which make them different than, for example, child pornography.
Strongly agree with the OP
my score was (-5.88, -4.10).
I feel like I’m in pretty good company with Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama.
There’s a cream for that.
Strongly agree.
This question is very timely… There’s some new book out about how loose morals and pornography are harming the new generation of youth, and advocates, among other things, direct government censorship as a solution (in the belief that pornography isn’t, and shouldn’t be, covered under the First Amendment).
(-5.88, -3.85)
Strongly agree.
Is there any debate (has anyone selected anything other than strongly agree)?
So “Bumfights” shouldn’t be protected by the first amendment?
Strongly disagree.
… with anyone who doesn’t strongly agree.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Filming a crime doesn’t provide a legal cover for the act. Distributing or possessing a record of a crime can be (in some circumstances) an accessory to that crime. This is doubly true when the crime was comitted specifically to film it (as in kiddie porn, or the snuff films of urban legend). There’s a public interest in halting the production of these films (and thus the crimes they show) by criminalizing their distribution and production. This does not exist in the case of mutually consentual sex between adults. And probably bumfights.
The only kind of child I’m aware of that can’t tell the people around it when it’s suffering is a fetus (and that’s stretching the meaning of the word “child”). Has there been a new kind of child discovered recently?
Several of the acts filmed in Bumfights were illegal, one of the producers plead guilty to conspiring to stage an illegal fight (for the Bumfights video).
Thus, we have a video of an illegal act that occured because of ‘Bumfights’. This meets your criteria of a film being the reason a criminal act occured.
So, should possession of ‘Bumfights’ be legal?
But posession shouldn’t be criminalized? 
I’ve maintained since my first post on the topic that production and commercial sale of pornography depicting an illegal act should be illegal.
(-8.25, -6.97)
Strongly agree. This one is a no brainer. I don’t even think many of the conservatives are going to disagree with this one (as long as those two key words, “consenting adults,” are applied).
And animals can also display physiological stress indicators just as the toddler can, or even no such indicators if the animal or toddler, to use Rat’s phrase, “digs” the sexual activity. It is still prudent to assume the precautionary principle that neither animals nor toddlers can consent to that activity since it may ultimately cause them suffering which they cannot verbalise.
Yes, this type of pornographic material, made available to this section of the population, shouldn’t be illegal. The problem is other types of pornography.
Sexual activity may also ultimately cause adults suffering which they can’t verbalize, and there’s evidence that “wanted” sexual relationships between adults and minors are unlikely to cause harm[sup]1[/sup]. But that’s a separate issue… “children cannot tell us they’re suffering” was a much more exaggerated claim than “toddlers can’t consent to sex”, especially if by “children” you meant everyone under the legal age of consent, and I hope I’m correct in concluding that you meant it as hyperbole.
[sup]1[/sup] cite upon request; I’ve posted it before, but I lost my bookmarks in a recent hard drive crash (Maxtor sucks)
Yes, yes, alright - I think in the context of my reply to Sage Rat it was not so unforgivable a parallel to draw, but of course I’m not saying that specific verbalisation is the only way that toddlers and animals can “tell us things”.
This is an interesting aspect to the issue–what about photographs that were manipulated in Photoshop or other computer programs to make it look like people were having sex with animals/children? No original crime would have been committed, since the actors involved might be thousands of miles away from the animals or children they seem to be having sex with. It wouldn’t even have to hurt the reputation of a child model, because using technology we have now, we can create a totally random human face that doesn’t look like any specific person. You don’t even have to use technology; there are some artists who can create works that are totally photo-realistic. Would/should these pictures of illicit sex acts that never happened be protected?
Oh yeah, and strongly agree, of course.
Yes, they are protected, as IMO they should be.