The site is a little unclear: it appears he wasn't prosecuted for the "2 girls" video, but rather "hours of videos in which females engaged in sex acts involving human waste and animals." [1] His Wikipedia page lists some of the titles that suggest that a horse (horses?) and dogs were involved, as well as "evidence suggesting Isaacs' provided controlled substances to the actresses in his films to compel them to perform." [2]
This definitely puts the original article in a different perspective. It also answers my question whether the jurors were forced to watch the material.
Governments solution to a man producing movies that sexually violate animals? Sexually violate 12 random jurors.
I don't understand this at all. Why would one get sentenced to prison for producing an obscene video? Isn't all porn obscene? Aren't all horror movies obscene?
Don't get me wrong... I don't approve of the "artistic" qualities of the film, I find it very disturbing and disgusting, but that's not a reason to send someone to prison!
I guess if this is how the law works... let's imprison all the coprophiles in the world. Why not make a huge prison and put everybody in it because if you think about it, we are all twisted and sick in our own little ways.
It's worth noting this is not the producer of "2 girls 1 cup", however he invoked it in his defense during the proceedings [1]
Not exactly sure what this gentleman "produced", but I won't complain if I never see it.
However, I'm a little torn (in principle) on "obscenity" laws if all acts were between consenting parties (obviously, beastiality is inherently non-consentual).
Worth mentioning that the court probably didn't take the consent of those random citizens into consideration before making them watch the material either. If that were the case, the government probably committed a bigger crime than the producer did.
Although I disagree with the verdict, I couldn't help but snicker at this part:
> "The jurors in the trial, as is the case with all obscenity trials, had to sit through Isaac's films to determine if they merited any artistic value."
I snickered at this part: "Two previous cases involving Isaac's videos have resulted in mistrials. One trial ended because of publicity regarding the judge, who was found to have posted sexually-explicit material to a publicly accessible personal website."
This is nothing new: In the 20's Ulysses, considered by some to be the greatest novel in the English language, was banned for obscenity in both the US and the UK for decades. As long as people keep getting offended, people will keep banning things. It sucks and it's wrong, but let's not forget that the past was not some golden age where everything went without question.
[+] [-] slapshot|13 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264024/Ira-Isaacs-F...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs
[+] [-] n3rdy|13 years ago|reply
Governments solution to a man producing movies that sexually violate animals? Sexually violate 12 random jurors.
[+] [-] salmanapk|13 years ago|reply
Made me chuckle.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RutZap|13 years ago|reply
Don't get me wrong... I don't approve of the "artistic" qualities of the film, I find it very disturbing and disgusting, but that's not a reason to send someone to prison!
I guess if this is how the law works... let's imprison all the coprophiles in the world. Why not make a huge prison and put everybody in it because if you think about it, we are all twisted and sick in our own little ways.
[+] [-] coldarchon|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] doktrin|13 years ago|reply
Not exactly sure what this gentleman "produced", but I won't complain if I never see it.
However, I'm a little torn (in principle) on "obscenity" laws if all acts were between consenting parties (obviously, beastiality is inherently non-consentual).
That said, our society has bigger fish to fry.
[1] http://betabeat.com/2013/01/2-girls-1-cup-creator-sentenced-...
[+] [-] cynwoody|13 years ago|reply
Consuming a filet mignon is non-consensual (as it regards the late beast, that is).
IOW, it should be at least as legal to fuck a cow as to eat one. After all, in the former case, the cow gets to keep chewing its cud.
[+] [-] meaty|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dorkitude|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glogla|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n3rdy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cynwoody|13 years ago|reply
Plus, the greasers of the slippery slope cost money, which comes out of those boxes on your paycheck, for which you get less than nothing.
[+] [-] tlrobinson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lake99|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rohanprabhu|13 years ago|reply
Oh. My. God.
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|13 years ago|reply
1) Is it an animal?
2) Is it detergent?
3) Does it lack any musical value?
[+] [-] logn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] micheljansen|13 years ago|reply
> "The jurors in the trial, as is the case with all obscenity trials, had to sit through Isaac's films to determine if they merited any artistic value."
[+] [-] greenyoda|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qznc|13 years ago|reply
You have been warned.
[+] [-] pubby|13 years ago|reply
(it's cheaply made scat/vomit porn)
[+] [-] conradfr|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rorrr|13 years ago|reply
This is an idiotic law that should be overturned. I hope they appeal and take it to the supreme court.
Why aren't the producers of SAW movies charged then?
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|13 years ago|reply
Free speech, freedom of expression and sexual revolution are downplayed to whatever random old mom won't find embarrassing.
This is bad.
[+] [-] acabal|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heroks|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cynwoody|13 years ago|reply
You have been warned.
But I should add, even if you so click, the result is less obscene than Carmen Ortiz!
[+] [-] galaktor|13 years ago|reply