ACLU Wins Establishment Clause Case in Louisiana

The State of Louisiana has settled a case in which the ACLU challenged an initiative that funneled taxpayer funds to churches. See Miami Examiner.

Another Section 230 Victory

When will plaintiffs learn? See Goldman.

Which Doll is Nicer?

We don’t usually write about racial issues here at the LS, mostly because I don’t think we’re all that qualified. I’ll just let this video speak for itself… or rather scream WTF for itself.

Well, and then think about the fact that we’re going to have a black president tomorrow.

I wonder if this experiment will be different in 10 years. I hope so.

R.I.P. – John Mortimer

John Mortimer: 1923 - 2009

John Mortimer, British civil civil liberties barrister.

Does Your Sex Life Need A Federal Bailout?

Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis say it does.

Flynt and Francis announced that they will be asking Congress for $5 billion in federal bailout funds. Because the porn industry is in the same financial crapper as the Big 3 auto makers and the banks? No. It’s not the industry that needs the bailout, they say, its the sex lives of Americans:

With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind. It’s time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly.

Is more porn for all the answer to America’s economic woes? Maybe not. But really, at least this way, when we pony up bailout money we’ll be getting screwed in a good way.

Young Guns Legal Panel at Adult Entertainment Expo

LAS VEGAS — It was strange to see an AEE legal seminar that had more attorneys in the audience than on the stage, but as Jennifer Kinsley, Marc Randazza and Cary Wiggins spoke on a variety of topics important to the adult industry, their mentors, including H. Louis Sirkin, John Weston and Lawrence Walters, looked on with approval. (source)

Blogging Slow…

I’m sorry that things have been slow lately. With the holidays, major illness, an argument at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the finalization of my promotion to partner in my firm, something had to give.

Now I’m speaking at the Adult Entertainment Expo on Section 2257 and intellectual property concerns for the adult entertainment industry.

When I get back, both me and the Satyriconistas will be kicking things into our regular revolutions per minute.

Well, Umm, Its Like My Religion, Man

An Arizona man’s claim that he was smoking marijuana as part of his religious beliefs is heading to the Arizona Supreme Court. Danny Ray Hardesty is a member of the Church of Cognizance – a group that believes that smoking shpata is a tool to reach a state of enlightenment.

The trial court and the AZ court of appeals denied Hardesty’s claim, holding that he has complete freedom of conscience, but the First Amendment does not give one the right to break the law and claim religious reasons for doing so.

[T]he Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not afford Defendant an exemption from these laws, even if they have the incidental effect of burdening his religious practices. Smith, 494 U.S. at 874, 890; see also Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 531 (acknowledging “general proposition that a law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice”). (Op. at 12)

However, there is some precedent in Arizona, which should apply to Mr. Hardesty’s situation, although the Arizona Court of Appeals disagreed. In State v. Whittingham, 504 P.2d 950 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973), the Arizona Court of Appeals allowed Native Americans to use peyote in their religious practices. However, in Mr. Hardesty’s case, the Court of Appeals distinguished Whittingham.

[In Whittingham] we determined that the State had not proven that peyote was addictive or that the quantities used were “sufficiently harmful to the health and welfare of the participants so as to permit a legitimate intrusion under the State’s police power.” Id. at 30, 504 P.2d at 953. We held that peyote’s use, as a part of a bona fide religious belief and “in a manner not dangerous to the public health, safety or morals,” id. at 31, 504 P.2d at 954, was a defense to prosecution that required reversal of the convictions. Id. at 32, 504 P.2d at 955. (Op. at 25)

The court also differentiated between peyote and marijuana by noting that there was a long history of Native American consumption of peyote, and Native Americans are a “discrete and well-defined group.”

Accordingly, the Ariz. Ct. of Appeals held that “the historically limited religious exception for peyote cannot be used to justify a similar exception for the use of marijuana.”

However, the Court left the door open to Mr. Hardesty or a similarly-situated defendant bringing a stronger religious challenge to the application of the state’s marijuana possession laws. The Court’s opinion relied upon what it deemed to be overwhelming precedent showing the nearly universal acceptance of the myth that marijuana is a harmful and addictive substance. However, it seemed to hint that it was bound by this long-standing precedent, but open minded to good evidence that could persuade it to set that aside.

[A] defendant may successfully assert a religious freedom defense if he can present independent evidence that negates existing authority. Also, in areas in which case law and legislative history are not so well developed, the State must introduce evidence to support a restriction of a religious practice. Here, however, precedent is overwhelming, and Defendant has failed to proffer any evidence to counter that precedent establishing the dangers of marijuana.

Elle MacPherson’s Lingerie and Her Peeping Tom Adventures

By Tatiana von Tauber

What really turns you on?  Oh, come on.  We all have our little dirty minds.  Though mine can run into some risqué places, there are some erotic images that  just stop me dead in my tracks make me go “Wow!  That’s fucking hot!”  Then I sit back and let my mind go.  I don’t want to have sex.  I just want to enjoy whatever feelings it happens to ignite.

Sexy or offensive?

Several years ago, Elle MacPherson launched her Intimates lingerie apparel line and one of the wow-hot ads was the Rear Window series which depicted a peeping tom theme (above photo).  I’m not really into the peeping tom thing even though I explored the concept once in an erotic story but when I first saw these images the highest level of intimate sensuality just jumped out at me.  My husband’s mouth dropped open and his eyes bulged out like a cartoon character as he drooled and all I could think was, “Yeah, if you preferred lingerie to nudity, I could give you a private peep show!”  

It didn’t cause either of us to hop into bed to have sex or make us cringe with horror but rather it created an intimate flirtation, a  “so you wanna do a mock peep show” convo with some bashing eyelashes, raised eyebrows and sensual smiles Victoria Secrets never managed to accomplish with their freakin’ Angels strutting on a runway.  If we’d like to see a representation of stupified female objectification, look no further than “dirty girls” pretending to be Angels.  At least MacPherson’s ads represent women as respectably erotic opposed to borderline strippers upon which VC is trying to convince its audience that’s actually what’s sexy.  The way I see it, MacPherson is trying to sell eroticism; VC is simply selling sex, yet women flock to their local VC store.  Go figure.

There was a negative backlash to Elle MacPherson running this ad, of course.  They’re  mind-boggling to me:

 

• The ad was banned in the UK on the account of one (perhaps more, I don’t know) complaint that the above photo suggested the model was masturbating.  Of course a woman doesn’t put on or take off her panties with her hands so I can totally see how the model’s hand placement was an act of masturbation. 

 

• It was recently suggested at Contexts Blog that “this ad is [possibly] selling lingerie by trivializing peeping at women (or maybe stalking them)”.

 

• The Company manufacturer Bendon expressed that the images were inspired by Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window film, ”… important to remember that [they] are selling intimate apparel” while claiming the ads were not exploitative or degrading; yet such was unsatisfactory whereby leading ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) to rule Bendon not repeat the image in further advertising and “to seek advice before running similar ads in the future” as the supposed masturbation suggestiveness was “likely to cause serious or widespread offence”. Read Ananova, AdRants and Vogue.

 
Before I go on let me show you two other hot images from this series (one of which could arguably be met with a masturbation theme but to my knowledge it wasn’t printed, maybe because Bendon never got around to it after ASA’s ruling)

 

 

I realize these are very sensual.  Ok, they’re amazingly tantalizing.  They push the sexual envelope but that’s what I love about them.  As an erotica photographer, this is exactly the kind of work I strive for.  Elle MacPherson’s got the entire idea of eroticism down pat (or the masterminds of her campaign).  THIS is what true eroticism is about, not pole dancing.  It’s supposed to entice.  Eroticism is mental stimulant not a genital joystick.  Erotic images do not stimulate the level of sexual lust equal to pornographic images.  We’re talking apples and oranges here and placing them into the same category shows exactly how wrongly many people connect them simply because they’re both fruits off a “forbidden” tree.  This is tastful, artistic and provocative eroticism.  It rarely gets better than this.

Vogue stated (link above) that because the first of the three pictures was run on a commercial break during the Toy Soldiers movie at 7:45pm (family tv time), it “could have an adverse effect on impressionable teenage boys”.  An angry complainant asked “What are the advertisers trying to create – more sex criminals?”  Of course!  Because masturbation, women in lingerie and “peeping tom” ads aka ads-a-la-eroticism equal boys who can’t control their dicks and so they objectify women and eventually are lured down the dark hall into sexual crimes.  Give. Me. A. Break.  This confusion between the sensuality of the erotic and the non-controlling lust of porn creates assumption and judgment when eroticism comes too close to “innocent” teens (and fearful adults).  Never mind that they’re already sending nude photos of themselves via cell phones while they play I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.

Are MacPherson’s ads sexually suggestive?  Sure.  Isn’t that part of the point when it comes to lingerie?  Otherwise, stick with Hanes cotton underwear.  Who the hell wants that for a Valentine’s gift? I find the ads erotically tempting and sensually pleasing and that’s what I like and why I’d buy MacPherson’s line opposed to VC, the mass market bimbo panty/bra line where I have play angel.  If there’s one place I’d like to shed those freakin’ wings its in my bedroom.  

Are the ads revealing too much?  More than a bikini on a beach?  More than Britney Spears in her Womanizer video? Ah, no way; therefore, where is the potential crime here, the mere fact that the vignettes suggest a peeping tom activity?  The crime was in ASA’s hands by censoring something that was merely unsuitable to someone’s personal provocative taste. 

Contexts blog stated the top photo might be intended as an intimate interlude between a couple but damn those advertisers anyway for even suggesting that a little peep show – stalking (?!)  is trivialized:  ‘Cause, you know, that’s sexy’.  Actually, the blogger missed the point, as many do. What’s extremely sexy isn’t the dissected interpretation but the mere visual itself and anyone who welcomes the erotic into his/her life wouldn’t so easily classify the photograph as yet another subtle approach to harm the female but would find the beauty within it.  The pictures are very sexy if one pulls away from the feminist craze of reading into everything erotic as a form of harm to women.  Some forms of eroticism can aid women in the way they are viewed, make them look sensual in a respectable way rather than what women are used to and so defensive about.  We’ve got to give a little room for play, for exploration if we are to redefine how women and sex go together but to eliminate sexuality from women simply because the false notion is that sexual imagery primarily objectifies us is absolutely Dworkin! 
 
These photographs ooze eroticism, stir our very erotic nature and sexual curiosities and if they give a teen boy a little erection, so what?  He’s got to figure out how to use that thing one day anyway.  A little jacking off material to stimulate his mind won’t hurt him and it won’t hurt women either.  That’s second wave feminist fear.  It’s annoying that something this sensual has to be made into a big deal, labeled as perverse, potentially criminal activity inducing and banned yet we’ve got asses and tits shaking on MTV, Britney Spears naked touching herself in a sauna in her videos (though she don’t know a damn thing about motherhood or responsible sex) and we don’t hear this kind of stink about it.

Sexuality is natural.  Young boys wanting a peek is even more natural.  Grown men wanting a keyhole to look through is fantasy and Elle MacPherson Intimates is a line of lingerie intended for those mature enough to want a little erotic fantasy in their lives, who understand it’s seduction, who are not be afraid of being caught enjoying whatever eroticism they could get in their lives as they live among conservative immaturity.  In fact, I commend MacPherson and Benton for their attempt to create a mood story for its audience by showing that lingerie isn’t just something to wear, it’s something to experience.  So is our erotic imagination.  Let it go and just enjoy.

I suggest a visit to Elle MacPherson’s website.  “Rear Window” contains stunning photography.  “What the Butler Saw” is pretty damn hot as well.  Especially that first picture of the model on her knees.  And yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s “objectifying” women.  Whatever.  It’s fantasy and fantasies are about exploration.  Plus, I’d really like that outfit and wouldn’t mind getting on my knees for it – or the experience it could offer.  Take that Dworkin!

Free Speech Victory For Man Forced to Cover Arabic T-Shirt

An airline passenger forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed Arabic script has been awarded 240,000 dollars in compensation (source)