You are going to cover the trial for BB, right?

I hear either four sets of apocalyptic horse hooves beating, coming closer and closer, or is that Nero fiddling(?). Hard to tell which.

Well i guess we're all aristocrats, aren't we?

CWahlers = funny.

Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, you've heard the prosecutor's testimony. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is "2 Girls 1 Cup". These two girls are moderately attractive, but they have chosen to spend their time eating poop out of a cup. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would two good-looking girls want to eat poop out of a cup? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. A man's life is on the line, and I'm talkin' about 2 Girls 1 Cup! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If two good-looking girls eat poop out of a cup, you must acquit! The defense rests.

As The Onion reported in February:

WASHINGTON— Jaded by the sight of what it deemed "run-of-the-mill" orifices, the nation's pornography-saturated populace released a statement Monday demanding a new bodily opening to leer at. "At this point, staring at an anus, vagina, or beckoning mouth has become so commonplace that it is no more titillating than ogling, say, the human elbow," the statement read in part, its list of demands specifying that the new orifice, wherever its location on the body, must be concealed by some sort of clothing or shroud during the majority of the day, so that the viewer grows more eager for its eventual revelation when its covering is seductively removed. "If at all possible, we'd prefer some sort of self-moistening orifice that grips tightly enough to constrain fingers and foreign objects, but also gapes wide enough to fit a human head." According to pornographic historians, there hasn't been a public outcry like this since 1989, when the nation's mainstream pornographic-film industry pacified its audience by unveiling the first penetrable asshole.

Last night's rerun of Family Guy was edited to put "Stewie's reaction to 2G1C" back in.

Disgusting, yes, but I can't see how shocking it is if you can make jokes about it on broadcast TV.

@#5 ROFLMAO. ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO. KUDOS.

The 2G1C defense, while intriguing, is not, alas, novel.

In United States v. Gugliemi (819 F.2d 451), the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals considered the legality of bestial pornography, sided with Alan Dershowitz' contention that the grossness of the events depicted in the defendant's film, "The Snake F**kers" was so extreme as to not appeal to the prurient interests demanded of the pornography standard. In short, it was so gross it was beyond pornography, which is what the defendant here is arguing.

As an interesting sidenote, the judge who decided this case was notoriously lazy, content to give his verdict to his clerks and let them write the decisions, which he would just automatically sign off on. The clerk for this case wanted to test the boundaries and so transcribed in pretty specific detail what was going on in the movies and, sure enough, the judge signed off on it, forever enshrining it in legal pantheon. The case is notorious enough that it was routinely assigned to a writing class at BU's law school for a bunch of years.

That and In re Satan and his Minions, in which the court denied plaintiffs argument that Satan was responsible for his misdeeds, reasoning that personal jurisdiction couldn't be secured over the dark lord...

Can any legal beagles here define "the prurient interest" in the context of the Miller Test? It seems interesting that concept of "prurient interest" is (seemingly) completely divorced from that of the producer and that of the consumer. Just whose prurient interests have to be appealed to here?

Never seen it. Never will.

the 2 girl, one cup is actually quite mild compared to many other beast and scat films out there.

Still, it should be an OSHA issue, not an obscenity issue.

#5 deserves to be enshrined in the comments hall of fame. Imagine if he was actually showing the video to the jurors as he was talking. They would be transfixed on the video with jaws agape, unable to comprehend the outside world, yet still listening to the closing arguments by the late John Cochran. Who knows, one juror's head might explode. But then everyone would snap out of their trance when he turns off the TV just as he says, "Acquit!" And they all would.

You can have my porn when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand. Uh...better make that the other hand.

Oh, dear God. Stay off my side, Isaacs!

Is pornography becoming more hardcore because porn-aficionados demand it be more hardcore, or is it for some other hidden reason? I'm thinking of the recent post here on BB where starlings in the UK were ingesting contaminated worms and thus altering the pitch of their voices-- the chemical mimicked a hormone in the birds. We know that phthalates in common plastics mimic human hormones, and may pose dangers to infants (even causing genital abnormalities)-- what if there were other man-made chemicals in our food or water supplies that we assume are harmless but are actually making us more "sexed-up?" Maybe pornography isn't a multi-million dollar business because of loosening sexual attitudes, but rather both are tied to an increase in some substance we are exposed to.

Just a thought.

there's a defence for 2G1C???

> prurient interest to masturbate

A truly magnificent phrase. Now, to find some laydees who are into dirty lawyer roleplay...

Please assume that the above is a malicious link.

I've reported it for removal.

whaddya think? virus?

Ill Lich, I think it's the sorting function of the web. Pornography used to have to aim at a general audience, so you got middling treatments of a few major fetishes and interests. Now it's become easier to identify minority fetishes and market to them. Also, there's a lot more semiprofessional stuff (having no need to have a distribution deal makes it easier), and those productions can get as particular and specialized as they want.