Non so se c'e un topic specifico dei problemi legali di questa coppia, ma AVN ha pubblicato un articolo indicando che Black e Borden sono stati condannati il 1 luglio 2009 a un anno di prigione ciascuno (per Max Hardcore la legge e' stata piu' severa: 46 mesi di prigione). Inoltre nessuna multa per la coppia o per la loro ditta e' stata imposta.
http://business.avn.com/articles/35737.html

PITTSBURGH, Pa. " Extreme Associates owners Rob Black and Lizzie Borden were sentenced this morning on one count each of "conspiracy to distribute obscene material." In a marked departure from the now-advisory federal sentencing guidelines, each was given one year and one day in prison. That extra day on their sentences means that the pair will be eligible for federal "good time" deductions from their sentences, and therefore, with good behavior, will be released in just over 10 months, after which they will undergo two years of "supervised release."

"He gets 54 days good time, so his actual sentence is actually 10 months and six days," advised the couple's attorney, H. Louis Sirkin. "And, of course, sometime before the end of that, he'll be eligible for a halfway house and so will she. It isn't overwhelming that way, but it's still disappointing, and it's still hard for me to take that somebody's going to jail for expression.

"I guess I thought that the worst that would happen is some period of home incarceration," Sirkin continued. "I'm a little disappointed. Obviously, he [U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster] deviated significantly from the guidelines. He did agree with us that the old guidelines from 2002 did apply to us, so we didn't get the enhancement for the use of the computer. But we started out at a level 16, which is a guideline sentencing range of 21 to 27 months for category 'criminal history 1' [i.e., no prior criminal convictions], but he departed down nine months, which is about 45 percent, which is a significant variance from the guidelines."

The judge, Sirkin added, "said a lot of things about how it was a victimless crime, how nobody got the material who didn't order it, and made reference to Karen Fletcher, who was given probation, and that Fletcher and this were the first obscenity prosecutions in that district of Pennsylvania in 20 years and stuff like that, and sort of got excited. There was no fine imposed, no fine against the corporation and no fine against them; they can self-surrender, and will have only two years of supervised release once they're released. That's fine. You can look at it as " and Jennifer [Kinsley, Sirkin's associate and co-counsel on the case] can look at it as " 'Well, we've gone from 46 months [in the Paul Little/Max Hardcore case] down to a year and a day.' "

Although Judge Lancaster denied the defense motion contesting U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's characterization that the material in question was "sadistic or masochistic" and therefore required a greater sentencing level, according to Sirkin, that loss made little difference in the final sentence.

"We anticipated that they would end up as a level 16," Sirkin explained. "We had hoped to win on that issue, but we lost it in [the Max Hardcore case in] Tampa " we still think we're right on that issue " but the bottom line is, we ended up with a sentence, even if we'd gotten the extra points off for that, in the range that they actually got sentenced on. The judge did come down to what would have been a sentence for about at a level 12 or 13."

"Our position was that in order for material to be obscene, it's got to be sexual depictions that are patently offensive," he continued, "and inherent in the second prong of the [Miller v. California] obscenity test is really the nature of the material, which was violent sex. So an enhancement for sadism or masochism is really double-counting, because it's already one of the elements that is part of the obscenity test; it's completely content based, and as Jennifer argued, there's no other content that would give you a further enhancement for the type of sex ... We really disagree with Judge Lancaster on that point, but to appeal it would open the door for the government to get pissed off and say the sentence they got wasn't reasonable, so we're not appealing the issue."

But while Black said little during the proceedings, Borden delivered what may have been an ironic recounting of her experiences.

"Lizzie talked about how she never thought she was doing anything wrong," Sirkin recounted. "She didn't realize that putting porn with violence was against the law. Rob was, I thought, pretty humble and expressed his feelings about the difficulty with the variations [in community standards] throughout the country and the difficulty with [complying with] it."

On the other hand, Buchanan had much to say about the history of the case and its implications, claiming that any jury in the country would have found the DVDs obscene under federal law.

"We heard reference in the government spiel about how horrible this material is, and how far it crossed the line," Sirkin stated. "We were reminded once again, out of their mouths, about the Cambria list " that this stuff was well beyond what a well-respected person who represents this industry set forth in the Cambria list as safe. She also made some comment in Rob's sentencing about how he reduced his wife to having to work as a stripper."

Today's sentencing marked an end to America's longest-running obscenity case, with the defendants having been indicted in August 2003 on several counts of both mailing obscene material to the Western District of Pennsylvania and posting obscene content to Extreme's website. The case was thrown out entirely by Judge Lancaster in January 2005, but reinstated by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals about a year later. Today's plea, to a conspiracy rather than an obscenity charge, may mean that neither defendant will have to register as a "sex offender" upon completion of their sentences.

"It's our position that it's a conspiracy conviction, but we don't know what effect that will have on their offender status," Sirkin said. "That's something that we currently have undergoing a challenge in Ohio; we hope that we can maintain our position of standing in that, and this may be a case where we'll be able to make that argument, but I don't know. Registrations are determined by the state laws where they live, and whether they travel and whether they work, and I don't think California has expanded its registration, as supposedly required under the Adam Walsh Act, to sellers of obscene material, so we don't know that, but it's something that we have certainly made a big point of to the industry."

Sirkin also had some thoughts regarding how Judge Lancaster arrived at the final sentences.

"I really think Judge Lancaster may have given consideration to how, if the government was upset with his sentencing, if they appealed it, would his variation on the guidelines be sustained by the 3rd Circuit," Sirkin explained. "And I think that that may have been some consideration, but I don't think the political climate really had any effect on him with that. I really don't. I think on the one hand, he said he believes that it was victimless and it was the government that went out and sought this stuff and so on, but district court judges can do variances and they can justify them and all that, but there also are some constraints that come about from decisions that have come from the appellate court, and appellate courts have reversed very lenient sentences that have been given to defendants, so he may have " that may have played a part in his decision."

Although the sentencing took place today, it is unclear where the defendants will be serving their time, and Sirkin said he plans to make recommendations on that subject within the next few days.

"I don't know where they'll be going," Sirkin said. "Max was recommended that he go to a low-security facility, and we know Rob will go to low security, but whether he'll be [prison] camp-eligible, I don't know. We run into that same thing, that 'public safety' factor that Max ran into because of 'obscenity.' Now, this is a conspiracy plea, whereas Max's conviction was on obscenity, but we don't know. We did not ask for a recommended facility yet " we will follow up with something to the court " because we want Rob to decide whether he maybe wants to go to a facility that's close to where his parents' home is, by Sanibel Island in Florida, or California. There's a facility in Sarasota which is very close to Rob's parents' home. So this is something he and the family want to talk about, and he'll let us know in a couple of days."

And what about Lizzie Borden?

"They would not be in the same facility, though they would like to be," Sirkin noted. "[Lizzie] has family in Northern California " a grandmother lives up that way " but there's a push that Rob's mom would like to have both of them in an area close to her, so we want [Lizzie] to make a decision."

Sirkin also had some final words of caution for the adult industry itself.

"The hard part is trying to make people in this industry realize [it's] like that old saying: First you start somewhere, and there's always somebody else that wants to silence someone else," he opined. "And it keeps going back, and all these people who've been saying Max's stuff is extreme, Rob Black is extreme " well, John Stagliano's stuff is a little bit different, certainly, than Rob and Janet's, but he's facing obscenity charges as well, so people should start remembering when they start denouncing other members of their own industry, it has a ripple effect, and it's working its way up and it's giving the government exactly what they like hearing. They come back and they regurgitate it, and we hear it."

Black è un povero coglione, la Borden una mignotta sfasciata

in un annetto magari si disintossicano

Super Zeta ha scritto:Black è un povero coglione, la Borden una mignotta sfasciata

in un annetto magari si disintossicano

Come e' stato indicato la condanna e' stata meno severa di Max Hardcore.
Sta ora a vedere come si risolve il problema delle accuse di "oscenita'"contro John Stagliano e Evil Angel per materiale che e' considerato meno estremo di quello prodotto da Black/Hardcore.

Sentenza esemplare di un paese esemplare.

Il 13 luglio 2010 e' iniziato il processo il processo (a riguardo delle accuse di oscenita') contro Stagliano e la Evil Angel.
Il giudice Richard J. Leon ha rigettato le accuse criticando le autorita' giudiziare per mancanza di prove e per aver depositato le accuse nel distretto di Colombia

http://business.avn.com/articles/Indust ... 03885.html

Industry Reaction to the Stagliano Ruling Dismissing All Charges
Clyde DeWitt: A handful of jurors said they would not have convicted anyway
Posted Jul 16th, 2010 06:35 PM by Tom Hymes
CHATSWORTH, Calif.—As news spread that all obscenity charges against John Stagliano and his companies had been dismissed by Judge Richard J. Leon, reactions have begun to be expressed by members of the industry.

Christian S. Mann, general manager of Evil Angel Video, issued the following comment a short time after the ruling was announced.

“Words fail to express how happy I am for John and for his wife, who has been going through this ordeal with him,” he said. “The spouses and families share the risk and yet they receive precious little acknowledgment. Additionally there are a lot of employees (myself included) whose livelihoods depend on this company. Trickle it down to directors and their crews and casts who derive some part of their living from John Stagliano/Evil Angel ... and it's evident the impact of this decision is significant. We're all very grateful for the expertise of the legal team, for John's willingness to stand behind his principles and to all who offered support and encouragement.”

Paul Fishbein, chairman of AVN Media Network, also provided a comment on the noteworthy news of the day.

“First,” he said, “I want to express how pleased I am for John, Karen and their family; They have had to go through something that no one should ever have to go through, because John never broke the law. I have a lot of respect for John; he is a man of strong character and principle, and he would have never backed down or agreed to settle with the government.

“On another level,” he continued, “it was extremely significant that the judge saw fit to dismiss these charges because of the incompetence of the government, and I only hope that we have seen the last case in which an innocent person is dragged into court to face this sort of persecution. If anyone in the industry doesn’t understand the significance of what happened today, or understand what John has done for all of us, they don’t belong to be in it. We all owe John and his family a profound sense of gratitude for standing up to the government and fighting so decisively for our rights.”

AVN also has contacted a number of industry attorneys for comment, and received the following initial observations regarding Leon’s ruling from AVN legal columnist Clyde DeWitt.

“What a Rule 29 motion does is to provide the defense an opportunity, at the close of the government’s case, to move to dismiss on the grounds that there is not enough evidence to support a conviction,” he told AVN. “For example, I defended a federal mail fraud case years ago where the government failed on half the counts to prove that the letters were sent in the U.S. mail. (It was Federal Express, which then was not a violation of the statute.) The judge granted my Rule 29 motion on that ground. Here, I gather that the nub of the Rule 29 motion was that the government failed to prove that the defendants had anything to do with shipping the materials to the District of Columbia.

“If I correctly understand that the ruling was that the government failed to prove that the defendants had anything to do with sending the materials to the District of Columbia, the ruling sort of reinforces what the judge said to the government when the case first was filed, which was something to the effect of, ‘What’s this case doing here in the first place?’”

“Importantly, then, the judge correctly disagreed with a horrible Fifth Circuit case involving Great Western (United States v. Investment Enterprises, Inc., et al.). That case essentially held that, once a defendant has been shown to have been involved in introducing the materials into interstate commerce anywhere, the evidence is sufficient for a conviction anywhere else that the materials wind up. Thankfully, the Fifth Circuit governs only Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

“The judge really barbecued the government here,” continued DeWitt. “Had he withheld ruling on the motion until after the jury verdict, the government could have appealed unless the verdict was guilty. By ruling before the defense put on its case and jury deliberations, jeopardy attaches and there can be no appeal or retrial. The case is over!

“I would like to think that this is an object lesson for the government as to what a colossal waste of time these cases are. My heartfelt thanks go to John and Karen—who are wonderful people—for standing up to the government. They put at risk their freedom and everything they had worked for.”

DeWitt also told AVN that an unnamed source at the trial relayed a very revealing incident that occurred at the conclusion of the trial, shedding some light on the mindset of the jury.

“After the judge ruled, he instructed the lawyers that they were not allowed to talk to the jury unless they [the jury members] approached them. But a reporter apparently corralled a handful of jurors, and what the reporter said was that the jurors said that they would not have convicted Stagliano anyway. That is from a very reliable source, the identity of whom I am not allowed to disclose. I got the impression he was talking about maybe five jurors; not two but not as many as seven.

"Jurors are not allowed to deliberate until instructions are read to them and they adjourn for deliberations. The judge instructs them at the beginning of the trial not to talk to each other about the case until they’ve heard all the evidence and the arguments and until he’s given them their instructions. At that time, they elect a foreman and can deliberate. But this jury never got that far.

“So we don’t know that these comments were reflecting the sense of the whole jury, but they were certainly reflecting the sense of the jurors who were talking. Now, it’s possible that after the judge said they were excused, they might have talked to each other, but we don’t know that. So the only thing you can surmise is that at least this handful of jurors would not have convicted. Of course, they had not heard the closing arguments, but that was their sense of things at that point.”

Noted industry attorney Lawrence G. Walters of the Florida-based Walters Law Group sent in the following comment: "Obviously this is a great day for Mr. Stagliano as well as the First Amendment. He did not back down, and put the government to its proof. Obscenity trials are generally very uncertain, and in this instance the right side won. It sounds as though the government lawyers were sloppy in shoring up the details of their case."

AVN will provide more reactions to the ruling from members of the industry in the coming days.

Stagliano is scheduled to appear at The AVN Show to discuss his experiences, along with members of his legal team. The AVN Show takes place Aug. 5-8 at the Westin Diplomat Resort & Spa in Hollywood, Fla.

Non capisco che sta succedendo a Rob Black (scracerato nel mese di giugno 2010) e Lizzy Borden, che hanno causato tanti di problemi all'industria e immagine del porno americano.
Black e' apparso questi ultimi mesi in parodie porno (Spider Man XXX diretto da Axel Braun per Vivid; e Captain America XXX, Iron Man XXX, Justice League Of Pornstar Heroes, Supergirl XXX diretti da Black stesso per Exquisite).
Nel mese di ottobre 2011, e' stato annunciato
http://business.avn.com/articles/video/ ... 51698.html
che Braun si era associato con Black per produrre 6 film per Axel Braun Productions (distribuiti da Vivid Video). Ecco come qualifica Braun la sua associazione con Black e i elogi che gli fa: "I've known Rob for 15 years, and he is first and foremost a true artist and a passionate filmmaker, and it's an honor and a pleasure to have him part of the ABP family". Cioe' lui considera un onore lavorare con Black.

E ora veniamo a Lizzie Borden. Si apprende che Tom Byron (vecchio socio di Black/Borden nella defunta Extreme Associates) ha lavorato con Borden
http://business.avn.com/company-news/To ... 59311.html
nella produzione del film CREEPER, che dovra' uscire la fine de gennaio 2012, in cui partecipano Gracie Glam, Nora Skyy, Lizzy Borden, Gia Steel, Chanel Preston, Shyla Jennings, Kiara Diane, Georgia Jones, Brooklyn Lee.
La memoria nel porno e' molta corta.
E ora lasciamo la parola a Mike South
nel suo blog: http://www.mikesouth.com/ del 29 dicembre 2011 disse
The Village Idiot Award goes to:
The village. That means the people in porn who are embracing the return of Rob Black, just another example of porn eating itself from within, reward the people who got us in the mess we are in....idiots...

Carissimo LEN, verrei riattivare questo Topic, per un paio di precisazioni su Rob Black e Lizzie Borden.
Leggendo le loro schede su Wikipedia, Lizzy e Rob, ho visto che sono stai inquisiti e condannati per un Documentario sul porno (del 2002) che riproduceva stupri simulati, ragazze che vomitavano, e altre schifezze o sto sbagliando? L'EXTREME ASSOCIATES è stata chiusa, ma su internet ho trovato questo che forse avrai già notato, in cui Rob Black polemicamente si mette a fianco dei, defunti per fortuna, più ricercati d'America, e mette in evidenza i film oggetto della causa e la mia domanda riguarda l'assenza del documentario del 2002 citato da Wikipedia. Ma questi 2 sono stati condannati per il loro modo di fare film, o per determinati film?
Lo chiedo perchè, per quanto mi riguarda, la roba della KINK.COM specie quella su Bound Gangbangs e Hardcore Gangbangs non mi sembra molto lontana dagli stupri simulati.
Poi, correggimi se sbaglio, Rob Black ha fatto Wrestling, o ha solo organizzato riunioni di incontri di questo tipo, coinvolgendo anche Wrestler di rango come "The Messiah".
Mah, altri strani personaggi ho scoperto grazie a voi.....

lider maximo ha scritto:Carissimo LEN, verrei riattivare questo Topic, per un paio di precisazioni su Rob Black e Lizzie Borden.
Leggendo le loro schede su Wikipedia, Lizzy e Rob, ho visto che sono stai inquisiti e condannati per un Documentario sul porno (del 2002) che riproduceva stupri simulati, ragazze che vomitavano, e altre schifezze o sto sbagliando? L'EXTREME ASSOCIATES è stata chiusa, ma su internet ho trovato questo che forse avrai già notato, in cui Rob Black polemicamente si mette a fianco dei, defunti per fortuna, più ricercati d'America, e mette in evidenza i film oggetto della causa e la mia domanda riguarda l'assenza del documentario del 2002 citato da Wikipedia. Ma questi 2 sono stati condannati per il loro modo di fare film, o per determinati film?
Lo chiedo perchè, per quanto mi riguarda, la roba della KINK.COM specie quella su Bound Gangbangs e Hardcore Gangbangs non mi sembra molto lontana dagli stupri simulati.
Poi, correggimi se sbaglio, Rob Black ha fatto Wrestling, o ha solo organizzato riunioni di incontri di questo tipo, coinvolgendo anche Wrestler di rango come "The Messiah".
Mah, altri strani personaggi ho scoperto grazie a voi.....

Oggi Rob Black e' molto arrabbiato, perche (1) nessuno lo ha voluto aiutare quando lo hanno processato per oscenita (2) Kink e altre ditte oggi producono materiale che e' molto spinto (piu di quello che faceva Extreme Associates). Inoltre Black si lamenta che nel caso di Kink.com il propietario non e' nemmeno americano, ma uno straniero che usa una fabbrica d'armi dove gira quel prodotto.
Come indica Wikipedia, i problemi per Black e Borden iniziarono con la produzione di FORCED ENTRY.

Cito un articolo pubblicato a quell tempo su
GeneRossExtreme.com che ti fa capire meglio cosa venne filmato :

Lizzy Borden's latest work for Extreme Associates called Forced Entry has...cutting edge violence mixed liberally with porn. In it, Luciano plays a Hollywood stalker/strangler modeled on [the nightstalker] Richard Ramirez.

Luciano says: "Surewood gets out and grabs her. He holds a switchblade up to her f---ing neck. I come out we grab her, rip her shirt off, throw her in the back of the van and peel off. Some people that were living in the apartments nearby were out there watching. I was like, great, they think we hurt this girl.

"...[H]e's fighting her and it looks for real. It's captured like this is really happening. Then we drag her by her f---in' throat to this brick-lined room with wires hanging and open ceilings. It's filthy-looking like a dirty, f---ing bad thing. We threw her in and we were screaming and yelling and talking to the camera, all psychotic and s---. And just the way it's shot with the killer and a knife and the blood...I put a picture of Richard Ramirez on her after we kill her. [But not before Surewood and Luciano f--- her in the ass.] And we use a real knife, too... The whole effect is the yelling and the hitting. Veronica, mascara running, was really distressed at times and had to chill. She didn't expect it to be that bad or that horrible.

"In a scene I did with Jewel De'Nyle I actually give her a bloody nose. It was bad. Then with Taylor St. Claire we were really punching her stomach, me and Mickey G. We were beating her. If anything's gonna get you busted, this is the movie. Zupko's is like a Disney production, believe me. It'll be the hardest thing you've ever seen in porn. It's very real."

====================
insomma si cercava di mischiare violenza (abbastanza realistica) e sesso, che nel porno NON vanno.
La rete televisiva PBS giro un documentario nel 2002 per il programma "Frontline". Black fu intervistato per il documentario e sprono le autorita di arrestarlo per oscenita. Infatti cosi fecero. Ci furono circa 4-5 film implicati in quel processo prodotti e distribuiti da Extreme Associates.
Si verso la fine Rob Black organizzava certi incontri di wrestling (1999-2003).

Len, gentilissimo come sempre, premetto che non ho mai visto e mai vedrò, forse, un film di Rob Black, ma avendo visionato qualche cosa della KINK.COM (del tipo che ti accennavo prima) che reputo, non so se si possa chiamare obscenity, ma schifezze con violenza inutile e gratuita, per niente arrapante.
Si è discusso, con la mia partecipazione, di questo in altri Topic, e molti ritengono che se esiste il consenso esplicito dell'attrice di turno (molte addirittura esordiscono con scene simili; vedi Remy La Croix) non si dovrebbe porre alcun problema; bene, ma allora Rob Black è stato usato come capro espiatorio per la battaglia di qualche personaggio, magari politico, con lo scopo di elevarsi a paladino della "Buon costume" e farsi pure un pò di pubblicità?
Se mi dici che le scene sono più o meno della stessa pasta, prima non andavano bene ed ora si, quindi, in poche parole si sono usati due pesi e due misure, a quanto pare.
Aggiungo, e le scene BDSM? L'altro giorno, senti qua, ero sulla categoria lesbian, e becco un filmato della QUEENSNAKE.COM, che sì vedeva protagoniste 2 donne, ma non aveva niente a che fare con una classica scena lesbo, anzi è stata una delle cose più assurde che abbia mai visto, non so se questa casa di produzione la conosca, ma se ne hai voglia prova a dare una occhiata ma fa attenzione perchè è per stomaci forti e soprattutto a digiuno!

lider maximo ha scritto:Len, gentilissimo come sempre, premetto che non ho mai visto e mai vedrò, forse, un film di Rob Black, ma avendo visionato qualche cosa della KINK.COM (del tipo che ti accennavo prima) che reputo, non so se si possa chiamare obscenity, ma schifezze con violenza inutile e gratuita, per niente arrapante.
Si è discusso, con la mia partecipazione, di questo in altri Topic, e molti ritengono che se esiste il consenso esplicito dell'attrice di turno (molte addirittura esordiscono con scene simili; vedi Remy La Croix) non si dovrebbe porre alcun problema; bene, ma allora Rob Black è stato usato come capro espiatorio per la battaglia di qualche personaggio, magari politico, con lo scopo di elevarsi a paladino della "Buon costume" e farsi pure un pò di pubblicità?
Se mi dici che le scene sono più o meno della stessa pasta, prima non andavano bene ed ora si, quindi, in poche parole si sono usati due pesi e due misure, a quanto pare.
Aggiungo, e le scene BDSM? L'altro giorno, senti qua, ero sulla categoria lesbian, e becco un filmato della QUEENSNAKE.COM, che sì vedeva protagoniste 2 donne, ma non aveva niente a che fare con una classica scena lesbo, anzi è stata una delle cose più assurde che abbia mai visto, non so se questa casa di produzione la conosca, ma se ne hai voglia prova a dare una occhiata ma fa attenzione perchè è per stomaci forti e soprattutto a digiuno!

Rob Black/Extreme Associates e Max Hardcore a quel tempo erano i ribelli del porno. Tutti e due hanno pagato il prezzo e sono finiti in galera per oscenita.
Secondo loro, tutto quello che loro producevano era protetto dal "freedom of speech" (liberta di parola) e la Costituzione Americana.
Per Black, si deve andare indietro di circa 10 anni. Le cose erano diverse. E Black in quel documentario dichiaro che quello che lui produceva era osceno e invito le autorita a arrestarlo. E cosi fecero. Nessuno lo aiuto datosi che aveva causato problemi per l'industria porno. Inoltre Black aveva una brutta reputazione che non pagava i suoi fornitori ne gli attori/attrici. Dunque c'era e c'e ancora oggi poca simpatia e molta ostilita per lui. Credo che il solo amico che gli e'rimasto e il suo vecchio socio Tom Byron.
Oscenita nel USA non ha una definizione precisa in legge. Fa parte del "community standards" (norme della communita). Cioe quello che puo offendere una piccola communita in un piccolo paese del sud, non e' la stessa cosa se viene accusato e processato per esempio in Chicago o New York.
Non e' che Black o Max Hardcore erano dei capri espiatori, loro se li hanno cercati quesi problemi nel modo che producevano quei tipi di scene. Max con ragazze che fingevano essere minorenni, e lui che le sodomizzava, li fistava e gli piscava sopra. Black facendo un prodotto molto spinto e violento.
Sono d'accordo che quello che Kink fa oggi va oltre di quello che Max o Black facevano una diecina d'anni fa.
Ma Kink produce/distribuisce questo materiale tramite internet, e come avrai notato le regole sono un poco diverse. Ma questo non vuol dire che se la passeranno sempre cosi liscia. Il propietario Peter Ackworth (42) fu arrestato nel mese di febbraio 2013 per possesso di cocaine. Non sono al corrente come e' andata finirequesta storia.
Nel cinema porno Americano il SM/BDSM e' sempre stato problematico, nel senso che se ci sono scene di tortura/violenza (fustigazioni, stupri, ecc) e sesso, anche se tra persone adulte e consenzienti, per le autorita non e' loro possibile di determinare con esattezza se c'e stato consenso.
Altri atti come fisting, pissing sono anche problematici e non vengono girati da produttori/distributori di film (VHS, DVD) perche sono considerati atti estremi. Ma Kink e altre ditte americane le producono per siti internet. Double standard? Si fino a un certo punto, e finche le autorita li tollerano. Ogni tanto quando l'FBI, un president meno tollerante, o il capo del Ministro della Giustizia desiderano fare un poco di pulizia e fars un poco di pubblicita, processarano questi siti/individui.

La Kink adotta anche la precauzione di mostrare un'intervista pre-scena ed una post-scena con le attrici protagoniste belle sorridenti che esprimono il loro piacere nell'avere girato la scena/esaudito quella loro fantasia.

skinner ha scritto:La Kink adotta anche la precauzione di mostrare un'intervista pre-scena ed una post-scena con le attrici protagoniste belle sorridenti che esprimono il loro piacere nell'avere girato la scena/esaudito quella loro fantasia.

e spesso questa intervista di scena viene proiettata in un riquadro durante la parte più violenta e aberrante dell'atto. è un espediente che serve a far capire quanto sia valido il consenso dell'attrice e che in fondo è come se si stesse assistendo a un incontro di wrestling.

IMHO

ci sono enormi differenze, ossia Max Hardcore l'ho sempre trovato ripugnante da tutti i punti di vista --> il suo personaggio, il suo sembiante, la declinazione/sfumatura al concetto di violenza nel sesso che mi sembra semplicemente "Bieca". gli Anthrax, per capirci

Al contrario le poche cose che sono riuscito a vedere della extreme associates le ho sempre trovare interessanti e (per)turbanti. mi sembrava che ci fosse una ricerca più profonda del senso della violenza, o forse semplicemente faceva risuonare in me qualcosa di più significativo. un po' l'effetto che mi facevano i film di richard kern con lydia lunch. la violenza non era solo una rappresentazione 'fallica' maschile ma trovava una componente masochista più o meno consapevole nelle partner femminili. poi che lizzie borden mi causasse degli incubi e dei turbamenti assurdi aiutava il tutto. i Throbbing Gristle, per capirci.

la Kink è na cosa che mi piace vedere, è innegabile. ma è tutto abbastanza pop, alleggerito (come giustamente ha detto qualcuno) dalle interviste e dallo svelamento dell'inganno filmico (o sua moltiplicazione?? chissà). mi eccita, mi fa masturbare ma non turba per niente. Marylin Manson, per capirci.

my2cents