Reverse Cowgirl also calls our attention to a comment on Boing Boing that provides a legal precedent for Isaacs' defense: "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 {Isaacs} is arguing."

I believe in free speech where art and legitimate cultural expression are concerned. However, this is *not* art; it's simple obscenity, and it's entirely right that it should be prohibited.

I had to edit my response. When re-reading, I noticed that Dave said it was packaged as porn, but intended as art. If this is so, that's a mixed message.

On the other hand....

I'm not arguing for or against, but I am asking the question "why is it indecent and PR is not" to cement why it should be prohibited. We are, after all, on a poop humor site. There are people who think WE'RE indecent and gross. Are they right just because it's their opinion, these people who post about once a day stating we're freaks? And why is Herbert's opinion what's legitimate and what's not important in the scheme of things, or mine, for that matter? While I'm all for having common sense and being pragmatic, this concept that we determine what others do seems mighty egotistical. I think alot of performance is stupid, but it's not my favorite type of art.

Is it obscene because it's a behavior that is illegal in public? Toxic? Unhealthy? If so, I want to see that type of thought, the rationale, the follow up, instead of just the initial knee-jerk reaction. I may have to check out these links closer later on today.

This is a slippery slope. Slippery. What makes it slippery is obviously apparent, but slippery still.

Oh, one last thought........ there is a worse case of performance art going on right now. Some 'artist' has chained up a skinny dog and is not feeding him as performance art in South America. I think it's cruel, and he's come under the fire of many groups. I want to kick the guy in the balls. However, is he saying "you see this in the yard next door and do nothing - why is this different?" and if so, is the dog going to make people think why one thing is OK and the other is not? If it's all supposed to make you think or be shocked, as much as I hate it, I cannot deny performance art has a goal to the artist that might not be so obvious as first glance. It took me a few days to come to the conclusion that many people who are totally off the hook about the dog might not be so concerned with dogs chained up in their own neighborhood, and those people could use a little shock value to get them to take action in their own areas.

_______
.....hugging bunnies since 1969
www.daphneszoo.com

The adage that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" couldn't be more true, at least for me. I dislike most "art" just because somebody else tells me it IS art. I don't even like some of the classic stuff...Mona Lisa is one ugly bitch, in my opinion, and Picasso can't hold a candle to my brain damaged, retarded nephew, who is a whizz with a blue crayon. TG1C can be what ever the hell the viewer wants it to be. Scat films, same, but I'm not gonna look at 'em, they don't turn me on, nor do they inspire any other emotion other than disgust, from me. But thats simply my opinion.

They disgust me, too, and I totally agree with your point of view. And yet as always, I want to know why something is banned, or labeled, or charged with 6 obscenity counts. The moment we stop caring why things are labeled the way they are - not appropriate - even if it's shit art - is the moment our freedoms start to disappear. Question authority.

_______
.....hugging bunnies since 1969
www.daphneszoo.com

That's sick, I agree with Dave in that if its packaged to look like porn it is porn.
_______
"I'll shit when I please, not when you tell me to." Nelson Mandela

Gang Bang Horse (Pony Sex Game)... Uh, from the sound of the title, this doesn't sound like art to me. It sounds like animal abuse.

Sorry I don't have any long, witty speech about it (because daph, Bilge, and Dave have already said much of what I might). I don't have a problem with two consenting people doing whatever the hell they want to each other (as long as I don't have to watch), but when you bring animals or kids into it, I have a problem.

_______
Born right the first time.

Ms. Biko, are you related to the man S. Biko?

Did I just fart?.... hope so!

I'm with The Shit Volcano on this one- Two consenting people doing whatever...
However, if I catch any Poop reporter's watching any of this revolting filth, I will have to call your mothers and have you grounded for a month.

Dave
your common sense approach to the first amendment is a nice thought
However would not be let into this trial because the "Obscenity" law is not on trial
but whether Isaacs broke the law with his films.

I came across this site, when I was googling the Isaacs trial
There are many web blogs discussing this trial and most support Isaacs

The funny and maybe ironic thing is that- Your site which promotes pooping in your own pants
as fun and important. would be so against this Isaacs guy

I think most of you should reexamine your relation with shit - at least Isaacs makes money
with his art

Trialjunky, if you investigated this site as much as you claim to have studied this trial, you would find that outside of a few anonymous trolls, NO ONE here promotes shitting their pants as fun or important. You probably ought re-examine your own line of bullshit.

Bilgepump
I'm sorry I insulted you
But notice, you had nothing to say about the substance of my post
Could it be. you were pooping in your pants while writing your post
and meaningful comments will follow as soon as you wipe your
ass

Trialjunky. Folks on this site are constantly examining their relationship to shit, but not only shit. I know I frequently think of all the money I could earn if I used the time I spend here making doilies or pornographic movies. But I fail to see how this has anything to do with whether I regard Isaacs work as art or not or whether I think he’s broken some law. (Oh, hi Bidge. Want to have another pants pooping contest?)

Oh right, the season is coming up, we really should get back into training, LJ...I'm thinking we could take the tag team titles this year. It is important, you know?

It's important AND fun. I also think we should re-examine our relationship.

I'll get on that as soon as I re-examine the toe nail fungus I'm battling, its also important, and fun.

I've had that fungus shit for years. I'm holding out getting the anus bleached until I get the toe nails looking good again.

I'm right with ya. Oh, I got some really cool new beads for my ass corn rows...its gonna look great with my spangly thong during the pants shitting competition.

We do have to remember this year to save something in case we have to go extra rounds. I was humiliated last year to walk out of the ring after round 3 with perfectly clean pants. I could have died right on the spot.

Boys, let's not forget the spanking competition that will (this year) directly follow the pants shitting. I'm so excited.

Spanking. Wow. So Di must be on the organizing committee this year. (I thought it was unfair when they banned her for 2 years for videotaping signals from the competition.)

Yup, she's working on a pantathlon. Who needs to go to Bejing.

Trialjunkie, so, let me get this straight. Making money makes Isaacs' "art" okay. Making money butt-raping a horse.

If I were to be paid five thousand bucks to rape a child and call it performance art, would that make it okay?

_______
Born right the first time.

Ouch! TSV, on the money, as usual.

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

first no horse got hurt. just a blow job from a beautiful girl.
I can't say that much form the horse that was killed at kentucky derby

Second,. Isaacs did not make the film, just sold it

What makes it art is a lot of people are discussing the subject mater
asking question, examining ideas,

I think a lot of peoples thing that if its art, it must be good art
Art can totally be tasteless but its still art if it challenges the viewer.
even in a negative way

Also
everyone in these films were consenting adults
child rape is not

trialjunky (not verified) -- 05.10.2008

What makes it art is a lot of people are discussing the subject mater
asking question, examining ideas,

I'm sure this makes for interesting discussions in whatever avant garde circles you run in, trialjunky, but all the discussion I've heard on the subject seems limited to "Ooooh, nasty! She's eating poop!/blowing a horse!"

How does that further the scope of artistic development?

Not art.

just because you don't like the idea being discussed ( which again is so
ironic to me, since this is a site devoted to people pooping )
or you feel its not art doesn't make it so.

This site POOPREPORT could be charged with obsenicty as well
Would you then scream its art if it was your 1st amendment speech
was taken away and you were put in prison

It all comes down to if you think its offensive then don't watch it. Its all consent and staged. Its just another attack on our freedoms and censorship. PR may be next.

trialjunky,

Poopreport.com is not necessarily dedicated to people pooping. It is dedicated to the intellectual appreciation of poop humor. It's the concept that everyone poops, from world leaders to rubbydubs to New Zealand bushmen, that this website strives to express, and topical observations - like yours at the moment - are exactly the type of mentality we want to challenge, and hopefully change.

Please consider that this site is more than just a "poop site".

_______
.....hugging bunnies since 1969
www.daphneszoo.com

Amen to that!
_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

PoopReport is not obscenity in any sense, so Trialjunky's purported comparison above is ludicrous. It's debatable where the line should be drawn between legitimate expression and obscenity, but under US law the relevant test is that laid down by the Supreme Court in Miller v California (1973). The test has three parts:

1. "Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest" - in other words, would Joe Average consider it to be porn?
2. "Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law" - self explanatory
3. "Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" - this is a question of fact for the court to decide, so it's difficult to determine in advance.

The Supreme Court has made clear that obscene material which meets the "Miller test" is NOT protected by the First Amendment, and that federal and state obscenity laws ARE enforceable. Freedom of speech is very important for political, religious and cultural expression, but it is also necessary to protect society from the detrimental effects of porn. If you disagree with federal obscenity laws, contact your local Senator or Congressman, or vote for someone who will change them; don't blame the authorities for enforcing the law as it stands.

I like it, although I doo have one minor problem

".... detrimental effects of porn..."

That statement in itself is an assumption.
Porn, per-say, is arguably the same as poop. Accepted in some cultures, and not in others.
Yet, sex, the act, and nakedness are a common human pursuit.

If the above is true, then by way of default, you argue that poop is detrimental.

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

That's a legitimate point of view; however, the fact remains that the US does have obscenity laws at both the federal and state levels, because its democratically elected legislatures have determined that hardcore porn is detrimental to the interests of society. As I said, if you disagree with that you are free to complain to your senator or congressman. But it isn't, and shouldn't be, a constitutional issue.

Personally I am against porn. I may be something of a hypocrite on this issue, since I will admit to having looked at porn in the past. However, on reflection I do feel that it's morally wrong and exploitative, and that it shouldn't be encouraged as an industry.

I think your statement that "porn is arguably the same as poop" is a false analogy. Defecation is a function of the human body which everyone MUST perform, whether they like it or not; thus it cannot be morally wrong in itself, and no society would make that claim. The issues surrounding poop are to do with social etiquette and public decency, not morals. With porn, on the other hand, the issue is a moral one; is it morally acceptable for people to download/look at porn in the privacy of their own homes? The answer, according to the moral consensus of US society, is evidently No.

BVC, if they taught math equations like that when I was in school, I would probably be a nuclear physicist by now......or a pervert.

Post Script: (kinda)The very concept of a offloading a butt spud being a detrimental act, is causing me great mental anguish, IBS would dictate that offloading is an urgent requirement.

However, if I offload, am I being detrimental to myself, or worse, others.

This very thought, only serves to worsen the IBS and therefore increase the need to offload now.

But given this scenario, am I now at risk of being even more detrimental to myself (or others- 'detrimental' effect was unclear in the original post)

We now find ourselves in a position worsening at every synaptic pulse.

Something has got to give.

Doo I reach for a cup, a cork, the nearest copy of the Enquirer?

This, to a large degree re-enforces a previously posted theory regarding getting something from nothing.

Steve got it right, Quantum theory does it every time.

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

Herbert, surely though, the sex act is also a 'must', after all, if we all elected on mass not to indulge, then we would rapidly negate the need to poop, given that there would be none of us left. We, by that premise, should, and in-fact, are obligated to 'bonk like rabbits' so poopetuating the need for toilets. The link between the two is irrevocable. Regardless of the law (and a countries law helps define, yet is driven by its culture) of any one country, poop and sex are, again, bodily functions that varying cultures view in different ways. I am not for on second suggesting that the two are connected in the same time space, or as one single event, more so that the attitude to both, across cultures varies needlessly. We all do both at some point. I find it difficult to conceive that any one person on the planet has not at some point in their lives, shoved their hand down the front of their pants and had a private eureka! moment._______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

ooh! and

"is it morally acceptable for people to download/look at porn in the privacy of their own homes? The answer, according to the moral consensus of US society, is evidently No"

If this was the case, then why has sex been the biggest industry on the planet since God was a boy?

I'm off to read this months Playboy!

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

I'd dearly like to know how Herb, a conscript in the Queen's Army, had the time and wherewithal to take a moral consensus of the United States.

Nice comments youz guys! And thanks, Herbert, for posting that information. I'm glad you did. I haven't had time to read it in depth, but you can be sure I will later.

I don't have much to add, except to comment on baron's post above mine, that the moral consensus of US society says it's not OK to download porn. Let me tell you what I saw on tv about 2 years ago that makes me think this statement may be flawed.

This guy who owned a porn shop in Utah was under attack because his shop was considered to be an affront to the community and town in which it was located. The Mormon community composed roughly ninety percent of that particular population, and they were wicked pissed at this store owner. They said "He should go, because this is not a porn community."

Want to know how the porn store combated this attack and won? It was enlightening.....

The cable company couldn't give him names and account information, but they could give him anonymous percentages. At a town meeting, he and his lawyer showed that, according to the cable company, over fifty percent of the town's population was buying late night porn on their cable accounts. And that meant even if the ten percent of the community that wasn't Mormon was in the fifty percent of those buying porn, forty percent of the population absolutely livid at this guy for having a public porn store were buying porn themselves. His response? He would leave if the community wanted him to, but then that meant the cable company would also have to withdraw porn availability to that area due to what they were attempting to vote on, that porn should not be available within the city limits.

He stayed, obviously. No one was willing to vote the cable company take porn away.

The point is that the moral consensus most likely has dogshit for credibility. We say one thing in public, but in the dark, private, depths of our tv caves and computer rooms, we whack it like mad bastards, pulling our puds and fapping for all it's worth. We just don't want to tell anyone or admit it. For this reason, I don't believe in the concept of moral consensus because you can't prove the polls are accurate or truthful.

_______
.....hugging bunnies since 1969
www.daphneszoo.com

(To Bilgepump) Let me clear a couple of things up. Firstly, I am not a "conscript in the Queen's Army". I am an Officer Cadet in the Officers Training Corps, a British Army-sponsored organisation which teaches basic military skills to university students. ( See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Officers_Training_Corps ) I'm not a professional soldier or anything close to it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with anything I'm saying here.

Secondly, I did not purport to "take a moral consensus of the United States". I was pointing out that Americans have elected legislators at the state and federal level who have seen fit to enact obscenity laws which limit the availability of porn. One of these is the law which prohibits the sending of obscene material through the post, under which the operators of www.girlspooping.com were prosecuted a few years back (as PoopReport reported at the time).

Show some of those laws purportedly enacted, junior. Porn is available every where I turn, I just don't have much use for it. Might do you some good though, tell me where to send it.

I just cited one. Read my post again: "One of these is the [federal] law which prohibits the sending of obscene material through the post, under which the operators of www.girlspooping.com were prosecuted a few years back (as PoopReport reported at the time)."

Many US states also have obscenity laws on the books. In Miller v California (which I cited above), the relevant provision was California Penal Code 311.2(a), "knowingly distributing obscene material".

Unfortunately, in Reno v ACLU, the Supreme Court struck down (on First Amendment grounds) obscenity-related provisions of the Communications Decency Act, which would have been a valuable weapon in fighting the flood of Internet porn. Online porn is also difficult to ban or regulate because of the nature of the Internet itself. Thus, though the Internet has done many good things for society, it's also dramatically increased the availability of porn, which is a bad thing.

Herbert, I'm being very serious, I applaud your efforts and diligence in your argument, and make some valid points, but I'm not sure you have a full understanding of the 1st Amendment, (that you cite refering to Reno vs ACLU), nor do I think you have a grasp of the morality, or lack thereof, regarding porn, obscene materials, art, et al. At least the morality of this country, which, in my opinion, should never be legislated, since my morality will never equal yours, or Daphne's, or prarie Doggin's or Log Jam's, (well, maybe Log Jam's :). Morality is unique in every individual, and while society (in the US) loosely blankets a basic, simple, moral code that is easy enough for MOST folks to swallow, there are still those who screech religious persecution for what I deem morally wrong (ie: the fundamentalists of the Mormon Church that find bigamy and child marriages ok, in fact encouraged). This is, perhaps, a poor example, because we DO, in fact, have laws against that very behavior, but I hope it makes my point, sort of. Not beating on you, at all, you actually seem to be an intelligent young man, and are willing to do some homework to back up your statements. I like that, and respect it, alot.

Thanks for standing behind me Bilge...I think.

I think there is something we are missing here,

Just because America feels that something is correct or not, does not make it so.

No one nation has a blanket decision on any topic of debate.

Quoting American law in a forum that is basically engineered to 'standardise' a certain basic bodily function, is narrow minded at best.

Or, was it that the whole point of the PR has been overlooked?

Somebody send him a freebie copy of Dave's book for being such a good sport, and for having more than a few braincells to rub together!

Good stuff (I'd send him one but I'm broke!)

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

BVC, I hate to say it, but America is always right and you're just jealous.

I'm telling my mam on you!

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

*The Grand Baroness enters the room, to find poor little BVC on his knees and crying*

'Boy?, Ay said Boy?'

'Yes mam?'

'Why would you cry so?'

'Its... Its... Its him'
*Points virtual finger*

WHOOO? HIM?

'Yes mam, he's been a'pickin awn me'

'What?!! speak English boy' *Clip around the ear*

'Ouch! thanks mam'

'Who? this little rapscallion calling himself PD?'

'Yes mam'

'Stop being a softie and get on with it boy'

*other ear now clipped*

'I must apologise Mr. PD, my son has a weak way about him, here, take this threepence and get yourself a kebab and a beer'

'But mam...'

'Shut up boy, you have embarrased me enough, now what chance do I stand with PD, now that your father has moved in with Daphne?'

'Butt mam, Daphe only looks after animals.'

'EXACTLY - now shut up and pack your bags, you are off to Blackpool for a week with uncle Baron, and don't forget the wet wipes, you'll both need them'

Boy? BOY?......

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

Does this mean I'll soon be royalty?

By the way, your father's litter box was filthy.

_______
.....hugging bunnies since 1969
www.daphneszoo.com

Daphne, sorry about dad's litterbox, the servants refuse to help out anymore, something about '..a hazmat suit..'

*whispers*

Pst, PD, I think you could be in luck here, almost in Camilla Parker-Bowels kinda way!

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

Daphne,

"The point is that the moral consensus most likely has dogshit for credibility. We say one thing in public, but in the dark, private, depths of our tv caves and computer rooms, we whack it like mad bastards, pulling our puds and fapping for all it's worth. We just don't want to tell anyone or admit it. For this reason, I don't believe in the concept of moral consensus because you can't prove the polls are accurate or truthful."

Nothing less than brilliant.

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

Google Kermit the Frog reacts to 2 Girls one Cup

BVC, Camilla parker Bowels??? I may be a lowlife, but I'm not a horse thief!

There is a porno star with that name prairie? Would be a great name for someone into scat. I don't know,its one thing to watch girls peeing. But this is a little over the top. However what people do in the privacy of their own home is their business. I dont want someone to come into my house and judge me BASED on the PORN I watch. I dont think I watch anything REALLY abnormal I am NOT into scat OR barnyard animals or anything like that. BUT if they crack down on ONE group then who is to say they wont come after everyone. Its just like taking away a nude beach because you have people who can't control themselves and leave condoms and porn magazines littering the beach.
_______
The Thunderous Crapper 63 Enjoying home toilet advantage since 2004!

Thunder, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm on my way now to clean up my litter.

CC, I just watched the Kermit video. Aagh! Thank you so much, that was hysterical! Did you see the video after that where he showed it to Rowlf? It's not as funny, but it still made me laugh.

_______
.....hugging bunnies since 1969
www.daphneszoo.com

Goddammit! watched it, hilarious!
My childhood however has just been ruined._______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

I'm a dog.I eat my own shit all the time.Woof!
The hysterical aspect of The Kermit video is their use of profane language destroys the pristine image we had of them.It was almost like seeing Pamela Sue Martin and and the late Dana Plato pose for Playboy.Imagine how funny it would be if Daffy Duck cursed out Bugs Bunny.

ironically the largest pornographers are huge corporations like General Motors, Verizon, hotel chains, etc.
The phone books are filled with escort service ads, the phone company gets a percentage of 900 calls and allows them to be billed on regular phone bills, hotels offer dirty movies on their tvs. and General Motors owns the station. You would be amazed at to local business that own the building where strip joints, dirty movie theatres, and porn shops are, and have no problems collecting the rent money. A lot of people make money in the pornography business, so to be against some little guy strikes me as odd. No one goes up against the phone companies or hotel chains about their making big bucks.

Interesting point. Perhaps this is a case of corporate conspiracy.

_______
Born right the first time.

spandexman, you have hit the nail on the head, so to speak. Your comment re-affirms the premise that porn is a massive, yet as Daphne indicated, 'behind closed doors' industry. Butt, again, its all about peoples attitude toward that which is perfectly natural. By design we are engineered to look, ponder etc. the female form (and vice versa) just as 'by design' we all poop. Funny that we, and I use 'we' loosely, given cultural variants, seem to have the same attitude toward the 'act' as we do poop.

"I would never doo that!"

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

Well, I think porn is a major problem for society. It's an exploitative industry, just like prostitution. It's also worrying how easy it is for kids to get hold of porn in these days of the Internet.

Pooping, on the other hand, is an essential function and there's nothing wrong with it (though there are still plenty of times when it isn't socially appropriate to talk about it; but that's an etiquette issue, not a moral issue).

Herb, you just ain't getting it are you. sure, kids & porn need to be policed, butt thats not what we are talking about. The issue is peoples attitude to poop, we all doo it, and it can be analegous to our attitude towards porn/sex etc.

Plainly you have an objection to porn.

That objection is the very thing or concept, that PR aims, through humour, to dispell, not, I stress about porn, butt about poop.

"It's an exploitative industry, just like prostitution"

the only exploitation, is that the 'artists' inflict on those that choose to pay for it.

*thumbs through a copy of porn stars turned prostitutes weekly* (or even strongly)

_______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

BVC, don't forget the "silent victims" here. I'm speaking of our little brown friends. They do a service of ridding our bodies of wastes and toxins. They often cause us enough pleasure upon exit to make us scream to the heavens. Ok, an occasional rogue one or two trys to cause us embarrasment or discomfort, but we profit hansomely from these ruffians right here in PR. And what, may I ask you, do we do with our little friends? We literally flush them down the toilet! Talk about exploitation! I need a drink.

Yep, I know, the poor little shits never get a mention.

*where is the Glenfidic*

______
Did I just fart?.... hope so!

Spandexman makes some nice points, but they don't really refer to the guy in question in the newswire. He's not being persecuted because he's the little man, he's being prosecuted because he's trying to pass off his scat porn as art. These two points are different.

_______
.....hugging bunnies since 1969
www.daphneszoo.com

I know this post is old and so are the arguments, but I just needed to add my two cents, so to speak.

The Supreme Court held long long ago that obscenity was not protected speech under the First Amendment. Herbert correctly stated the Miller test as the current test for whether a particular act is obscene. As for me, I am a radical feminist completely opposed to pornography as it exists today, but I think it should be protected speech just like PR is. I don't think there should be any obscenity exception to freedom of speech. The government should limit all regulation of porn to the criminalization of child pornography, and leave the rest alone.

But I digress. I wanted to add a few interesting tidbits on obscenity and the Supreme Court. In the 60s and 70s, the Court heard many obscenity cases. There were hundreds and hundreds of writs of certiorari on obscenity cases, and they included the actual evidence used for the obscenity prosecutions -- like the pornographic film or magazine. Every year, on one day all the justices and their clerks would gather in the basement of the Supreme Court building to watch each and every film (to determine whether to grant certiorari, presumably). They'd actually watch all this porn. A few of the justices didn't like it so much, but others, like Justice Marshall, cracked jokes the entire time. At one point during this period, one of the justices (can't remember which one) pointed out how ridiculous it was that 9 really old men had the authority to decide what material was morally acceptable for the entire country.

(I read this all in The Brethren.)

My brother is a lawyer, and a very fundamental concept about law, he continually refers to, thus; "The law is an ass"

Now in the UK that means a Donkey hybrid, very stubborn and usually wrong.

In the US people tend to think the law is infallible. Unfortunately history shows that this is not true. Infact you can apply that comment to the law of any land, butt it was more about Americans attitudes to infallibility.

The law is an arse?

_______
Did I just fart?.... Oh shit! NO!!

In many ways, baron, the law is what nine Justices say it is. Yes, stare decisis is a major factor in each decision handed down, but sometimes it's overlooked for various reasons. I think Bush v. Gore was the worst Supreme Court decision since Korematsu v. US (WWII Japanese-American internment camp case). Bush v. Gore is the ultimate example of five justices deciding the fate of our country based on political affiliations. The Court completely disregarded all of its previous jurisprudence on refusing to hear cases involving a "political question."

What pissed me off more than anything was a statement made by Kennedy within the last two years or so. The justice admitted he CRIED over the decision and later realized his mistake, or questioned his vote, or placed some major doubt on his vote (can't find the article after searching the internet for a bit, sorry). His publicized statements on this made it clear he was trying to manipulate the public into feeling sorry for him and the difficult decisions one has to make as a Supreme Court Justice. The public doesn't care about a justice's personal anguish over a decision that destroyed our country; we (well, at least I do) care about what motivated him to vote in the majority in the first place!!! It was entirely POLITICAL. The justices were well aware that their decision essentially replaced a democratic election, and yet they disregarded the Court's own rules on authority to hear certain cases. I was pissed off for days after I read the news article on Kennedy's self-pitying mistake.

Yeah, this is a rant on Bush v. Gore and completely off-topic, but whenever that case pops into my head, I have to bitch about it. Studying the case in law school was infuriating just to get through the opinion, and it's even worse seeing the case on the bar review materials I'm currently studying.

In many ways, baron, the law is what nine Justices say it is.

Not in the UK! (or anywhere else as far as I know)

Butt I appreciate your rant.

_______
Did I just fart?.... Oh shit! NO!!

Perhaps I am confused. Were the participants over 18? Was anybody or anything harmed? Any threats or coercion involved? Will I, or anybody else, be forced to watch it? If the answer is no, then why would there be a trial? Sounds like it is just in bad taste. (and probably taste bad)