'2 girls 1 cup' producer sentenced to 4 years in federal prison | Hacker News Reader

'2 girls 1 cup' producer sentenced to 4 years in federal prison

cir.ca

38 pointsBrajeshwar48 comments

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]

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264024/Ira-Isaacs-F...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Isaacs

"During the trial, jurors were forced to watch hours of videos in which females engaged in sex acts involving human waste and animals."

Made me chuckle.

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.

Potential jurors would have been told during jury selection about the movies they would have to watch during the trial, and those who said they would have trouble watching would have been excused.

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).

That said, our society has bigger fish to fry.

[1] http://betabeat.com/2013/01/2-girls-1-cup-creator-sentenced-...

Yes but this conveniently distracts from the bigger fish...

> if all acts were between consenting parties (obviously, beastiality is inherently non-consentual)

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.

Disturbing, but valid point.

It's actually a fairly shallow argument, of the "it's hip to be libertarian" variety.

Does it apply to domestic animals? Does the argument extend to animal torture? If not, then why? Which animal cruelty laws should we strip from the books?

Note to self : when debating the legal and moral ramifications beastiality on HN at 2 in the morning, go to bed.

It can go the other way too. Should it be illegal to kill animals for food?

How is bestiality more cruel to an animal than how some pigs are raised in factory farms, or veal, or the frequent abuse of chickens that we've turned a blind eye to? What about animal testing in laboratories?

Not the OP but it should be (and generally /is/) illegal to be cruel to animals even if you're going to end up eating them. Pain is much more morally questionable than death; I'd vastly rather simply cease being alive than have some horrible suffering inflicted on me.

That we don't seem to care about enforcing those laws is one thing but simply saying "cruelty is illegal and rape is cruelty" doesn't sound inherently incompatible with eating meat.

Where does the argument stop? Why limit yourself to vertebrates, or even animals? Is it cruel to poison an ant nest in your yard? Is it cruel to eat wheat, cut down at the prime of its life? What about corn, which wouldn't exist without human intervention? Is sex with a flower, a plant sex organ, count as bestiality?

Humans can empathize with things which aren't humans, and with animals is relatively easy to empathize with pain. The laws are a function of, among other things, our level of empathy with a species and its use for other means. Dogs and cats, beloved by many, take a very special place in our laws, while tasty chickens are less so. Lowly wheat is neutral on the empathy scale, while most are decidedly not fond of roaches.

The balance of concerns changes over time. Should some day we be able to synthesize meat directly ("Panda meat while you wait!" "Put some tiger in your tummy today!"), then I predict there will be a larger call for "more ethical" treatment of animals currently raised for food.

The arguments against bestiality vary. Some just think it's squicky, which is likely an aspect of empathy. Others think that in human cultures, sex must be consensual (not rape), by people who can make an informed decision (not children, not unconscious), and without the taint of a power imbalance (boss/employee, teacher/student). Though even then, an adult child having sex with a parent is also squicky by many despite passing these rules.

Empathy with animals extends that view to animals, and it's hard to tell if an animal consents, and is not doing so from power imbalance.

I am not an ethicist, but I think this gives an outline of the factors by which we tend to say that sex with delicious pigs is a no-no while sex with pretty flowers is odd, but not specifically regulated.

You could argue that livestock farming for human consumption (i.e killing cows to eat one) is very different from raping cows. In fact, there are laws on how to treat and kill livestock (granted there are multiple documentaries showing how nobody cares about those laws...)

It is my understanding that artificial insemination is a very common procedure in modern livestock farming, and therefore one could argue that livestock farming for human consumption already encompasses rape at industrial scale.

How is it different when one can be perfectly healthy without eating animals ? Some find pleasure in raping cows, others in eating them. Is it a debate on whether it's more desirable to be killed than raped ?

I agree that the argument from non-consensuality does not hold water, but there is a different argument - interspecies sex carries the risk of contracting a disease. This carries the act from the land of consenting adults (plus a non-consenting-but-who-cares animal) to endangering the whole population - germs that cross the inter-species barrier tend to be nasty ones.

Well, in Germany, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden you can [1]. Germany even has a pressure group for it: Zoophile Engagement for Tolerance and Information - ZETA. (I think they could give NAMBLA a run for their money as "worst membership to put on your CV".)

They're taking the idea of "a nation of animal lovers" rather too literally.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20523950

Actually, Germany has recently (2012-12-14) changed the animal protection law to sex with animals illegal.

Oh man. ZETA must be, er, spitting feathers...

Personally, I think it's hypocritical bullshit. Causing needless pain to animals "unnecessarily" is already illegal. If someone wants to have sex with an animal in a way that doesn't cause it pain, why should that be illegal while there are dozens of very painful (but apparently "necessary") things people do to animals legally, some of which the recent law originally banned but which were removed from it after industry lobbying.

I don't think eating live cows is legal. Once they are dead I suppose you can legally do anything you fancy (apart from producing some some sort of bio-hazard or disturbance in the neighborhood).

Is this really a debate we want to have on Hacker News?

Disgusting as the video is, I'm pretty sure having a council of random citizens deciding what is and isn't "art" is the start of a slippery slope...

Even obscenity being a crime doesn't make any sense in free society.

You are absolutely right.

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.

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.

Haha, good point!

At least everyone on the internet either knew what they were getting into, or had the option to close their browser once they realized what was up. Those poor jurors.

I disapprove of your scatological pornography, but I will defend to the death your right to produce it.

defend to the death? What exactly will you do about it? Merely talking on HN doesn't qualify even remotely.

In her biography on Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs.[2] Hall's quote is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall

Perhaps I should have mentioned that I'm quite aware of the origin of the quoted sentence.

I was pointing out that talk is cheap.

> 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.

Oh. My. God.

The 3-step test is a farce. All it comes down to is whether jurors think it's art. Here's a test for whether something is music:

1) Is it an animal?

2) Is it detergent?

3) Does it lack any musical value?

He also produced bestiality films which may have prompted the obscenity conviction.

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."

Do not google "site:nl 2 girls 1 cup". Should you so google, do not click.

You have been warned.

If you're giving a warning, at least explain what the danger is!

(it's cheaply made scat/vomit porn)

But if you do watch it, be sure to stay on-trend and post a video on youtube of yourself while you watch it ala Joe Rogan, and more.

You can get convicted for that ?

WTF? Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?

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?

Because the SAW movies are about killing people and thus leave nobody alive to testify?

We seems to be entering reactionary times all over the world.

Free speech, freedom of expression and sexual revolution are downplayed to whatever random old mom won't find embarrassing.

This is bad.

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.

Do not google "site:nl 2 girls 1 cup". Should you so google, do not click.

You have been warned.

But I should add, even if you so click, the result is less obscene than Carmen Ortiz!

I prematurely up-voted for the warning; but regretted it when I noticed the completely unnecessary Carmen Ortiz part.

OK. So she wasn't involved in the instant prosecution.

But she nevertheless is employed by the same corrupt organization.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com