[thoughtomator]

That's some dangerous thinking. A lot of things could be said to feed sexual violence. What adults choose to do with their own bodies is their own business, and the government has no place meddling with it. (Emphasis on 'adult' and 'their own', so no obfuscatory child porn or abortion arguments, please).

[Congressman Billybob]

It is well established that child pornography feeds the habits of pederasts. They watch it to persuade themselves that their sickness is normal, and they use it to persuade their victims to accept such behavior.

The evidence is there, though not as strong (less research) that watching rape movies feeds the habits of rapists, and snuff movies feed the habits of killers. If 10,000 people watch one of these movies, and 5 of those viewers are "inspired" to go out and rape and murder a woman, is that a "fair price to pay" for defending the First Amendment?

I practice First Amendment law. The Supreme Court has tap danced around the issue of pornography for five decades. They have said that pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. And from the description of these three films, wherever the boundary might be between pornography and free speech, these turkeys are beyond it.

I would be concerned if the City Council of Elephant Breath, Nebraska, outlawed Playboy as obscene, I would be concerned. However, that case is NOT this case.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "In the Justices We Trust?" posted on FR, other publication to come.

[Houmatt]

No thinking could be more dangerous than the misogynistic attitude that produces such hateful garbage.

If you have no quarrel with the repeated onscreen depiction of rape and murder in a film created for a specific audience (those who view sexually explicit material), I can only wonder about you.

[weegee]

While it has been alleged by a number of people that Clintigula was a serial rapist and a sex addict, there haven't been the allegations that he is a consumer of porn nor violent porn/horror movies.