Ray A: A Mormon 'John'?

[_Jersey Girl]

Scratch, we need an investigative analysis into Jersey Girl's connections to the mafia ;)

I'm one quarter Italian, does that help?

:-)

[_Ray A]

Independent MP Dennis Stevenson told the ACT Legislative Assembly, the governing body of Australia's capitol city Canberra in April, 1991, that organized crime dominated the porn industry in Australia and America.

Stevenson said Australia's video market began in the 1970s when American pornographers shipped down under various porn tapes. These were copied and sold furtively.
Various organized crime figures, including Norman Arno and Theodore Gaswirth, visited Australia in the 1970s and several times in 1980 and 1981 to set up an organized crime porn industry.

While down under in 1980, Arno signed a deal with leading Australian porn company operating in Fyshwick, in Australia's capitol city. Arno and Gaswirth's main contact was Alexander Gajic, who, with his father Todor, served as directors of Sienna Pty. Ltd, a company formed in South Australia but now (1991) operating at Fyshwick in the ACT with Australian United Videos and Private Screenings Home Video.

Private was run by Alexander Gajic and Barry Taylor, who was arrested in Asia for drug trafficking. During the 1980 New South Wales state Royal Commission on Drugs, Justice Woodward named Alexander Gajic as a major drug trafficker along with Bruce "Snapper" Cornwell and Barry Bull. Gajic did business with Adivi Trading Nominees Pty. Lmtd., one of its directors being Cornwell. At the Australian inquiry into drugs in 1985, Justice Steward described Snapper as a drug baron. Cornwell was convicted for his crimes in 1988 and is serving a long jail sentence.

In 1983, Australia's Costigan Royal Commission named pornographers Joseph Shellim, Alexander Gajic and Gerald Gold as leading eastern States organized crime figures. They signed a deal through their company Sienna Pty Ltd with US organized crime company VCX for Sienna to pay $30,000 for the rights to duplicate and sell 12 pornographic videos in Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guina and the Antarctica. The three year contract, dated 10/1/85, was signed for Sienna by Todor Gajic under the name Tom Gadjic and for VCX by Norman Arno.

"We have learnt of the connections that Arno and Gaswirth made with criminals in Australia. These criminals, like their US counterparts, are also involved in drugs, prostitution, fraud, money laundering, tax evasion and control of both the legal and illegal porn video trade. Does anyone doubt that these same people control the illegal porn trade in Australia?

I'll only comment on this portion since I know a little about this. Porn has always been available in Australia, starting with the more benign Playboy and Penthouse magazines. Hardcore porn later became available only through Canberra, the ACT (Australian Capital Territory), which is the home of the politicians. All legal hardcore porn could initially only be obtained through mail order from Fyshwick, and that's why they made multi-billions of dollars. It eventually became legal in other states, thus depriving Canberra of obscene profits, which also benefitted the criminal element. It is not beyond possibility that corrupt politicians were involved in the Fyshwick industry, in fact it's very likely. Canberra, by the way, has privileges no other state has, for example alcohol can be bought at service stations, and other outlets, rights no other state has. It's a national joke that "everything is legal in Canberra because it's the home of the politicians".

As other states obtained these rights the concentrated criminal element was deprived of total control. No doubt they spread into other states, but it became a more open market. The fact is, however, that porn was in enormous demand, a multi-billion dollar industry, and the government knew there was no way to stop this, and thus tried to bring in more regulation, rather than complete banning, which did have a negative "voter effect". Child porn is a criminal offence, and even having child porn on your hard drive is a jailable offence. People accepted that porn was here to stay, but agreed it should be regulated. Child porn is not taken lightly, by the government or the public, and child molesters have to have special protection in jails. Here "slippery slopes" have to be considered, but I very much doubt Australians would ever agree to legalising child porn.

The government has "crackdowns" from time to time, banning certain types of hardcore porn, but policing this was next to impossible. The market for this is not large, however, and sex shops cannot legally sell certain types of porn, and the majority don't, because demand is small. This can be obtained from certain distribution points in Sydney at Kings Cross, which the law turns a blind eye to (because it's small), except for occasional crackdowns.

It is not possible to stop the porn industry now, but I have noticed that with more availability the attraction has actually diminished. Sex shops aren't exactly going out of business, but they cater for a minority, and the availability of porn on the Internet has no doubt given them diminishing returns. Policing porn on the Net is next to impossible. Federal police look for porn rings on the Net, to nail the providers of illegal porn, but individuals are only caught when, for example, they take a hard drive for repairs and are reported to police by computer repair technicians.

In the '70s and '80s porn had an enormous attraction because it was illegal. Everyone wanted to find out what Fyshwick was selling, and the mail order business flourished. This is now almost ancient history, because of deregulation, and presumably, the loss of control for the major providers, which included criminal elements, and corrupt politicians with interests in money-laundering.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with corruption at all levels, not just porn. Police sometimes do deals with drug dealers. I know this for a fact, in my area (I do get around and find out things), because I have talked to police personally. I am not only concerned about corruption in the porn industry, but more so at the political and law-making levels, in all areas. For example, the government has still not acted to abolish the iniquituous imbalance in divorce and child-custody laws. I think that deserves far more attention than porn.

[_Coggins7]

The mafia controls a lot of things. There is no compelling reason why "sin" industries have a natural link to crime outside of historic context. If drugs were legalized tommorow, guess what? It would still be criminals for a very long time if not indefinitely, who controlled the drug industry. It's hard to say that alone factors into how "bad" they are, beyond the links to people being forced to do things that violate them. And while I'm sympathetic to that, to be consistent, it's also true that Americans benefit from child sweatshop labor.

If Gad had read the essay, he would have seen that the Periano's, and other porn kingpins poured much of their profits, not only into more porn, but into garbage collection, legitimate film making, restaurants, you name it. Gad's claim that there is "There is no compelling reason why "sin" industries have a natural link to crime outside of historic context" is simply silly. Let's take three: porn, gambling, and drugs. There are three primary reasons, to my mind, why these three industries attract organized crime, while car washes don't (at least, most of the time). The first is the incredible profits that can be realized from doing it underground in a criminal fashion. Another is the addictive nature of all three; one's clients tend to become dependent on the product, even though the product has no inherent value or necessity. Thirdly, pornography is inherently exploitative; while some woman may, for various psychological reasons, believe they enjoy participating in such an industry, to an overwhelming degree, those who find themselves in that industry are woman who are fleeing or running away from home environments or backgrounds in which sexual abuse or a breakdown of sexual boundaries in their personal lives have created a sexualized self image or a self concept in which sexual boundaries have been thinned or erased to the point that allowing oneself to be exploited sexually is not experienced as a major violation of internal inhibitions or self respect.

The rest are slaves. The problem is that pornography is utterly vampiric; it feeds off of the basest, most primitive, self focused passions and organismic drives of which humans are capable, while at the same time pouring gasoline on the emotions and feelings associated with sex. A vampiric culture or industry is, very obviously, going to attract vampires. Most woman in such an industry are going to have to be forced, either directly, or indirectly (by appeals to say, a teenage runaways vulnerability, immaturity, or need to survive), to participate in it. Yes, there will always be the Angelina Jolie's or Raquel Welche's using softcore porn vehicles like Playboy to make a putative jump to Hollywood, but the core of the industry is founded in the exploitation of the vulnerable or unwilling.

What few in our society want to admit, so domesticated and mainstreamed has pornography become, that at its base lies exploitation, debasement, and degradation. The fact of the matter is, contra Gad, if the Italian, Russian, and East European mafias were to magically disappear tomorrow, most hardcore pornography would disappear with them.

[_Coggins7]

Well, now, that's very interesting. And I think it is really interesting. It just doesn't support your allegation that the 60's contributed in any way to this breakdown of society. That is what I was trying to get you to document. I have no doubt that there sex slaves exist, that pornography is run by the mob (in it's many disguises), or that there is TONS of money in it. I just want to see you connect those facts with your initial allegation that the sexual revolution of the 60's were the underlying cause of it all.

I think you'll have a bit of a problem with that, since the sex slave industry and pornography has been around for thousands of years, and money has always been the driving factor in any underground operation.

Let's see something that ties what you're referring to as the downfall of our society to these latest manifestations of the world's oldest problems.

I don't recall making the claim that the sixties were the "cause" of the modern pornography industry or that pornography has not existed for thousands of years (when a liberal makes that assertion, you know the argument has already gone into overtime).

What the cultural shifts the sixties, and more importantly, seventies, did for the already existing pornography phenomena was to legitimize, mainstream, and domesticate it. Pornography came out the shadows and greasy little downtown sex shops between the early seventies and the mid eighties, and is now utterly ubiquitous; easily available on satellite TV and the Web. It was the alteration in moral values and norms that allowed this to happen, not just the invention of the VCR or the influx of mafia dollars into the industry during the early seventies. The demand side was there when the supply side was ready to expand the industry, and the demand side came to prominence, in no small measure, as a response to the ideological massaging of the culture by intellectual elites in the media, arts, and academia.

[_harmony]

I don't recall making the claim that the sixties were the "cause" of the modern pornography industry or that pornography has not existed for thousands of years (when a liberal makes that assertion, you know the argument has already gone into overtime).

What the cultural shifts the sixties, and more importantly, seventies, did for the already existing pornography phenomena was to legitimize, mainstream, and domesticate it. Pornography came out the shadows and greasy little downtown sex shops between the early seventies and the mid eighties, and is now utterly ubiquitous; easily available on satellite TV and the Web. It was the alteration in moral values and norms that allowed this to happen, not just the invention of the VCR or the influx of mafia dollars into the industry during the early seventies. The demand side was there when the supply side was ready to expand the industry, and the demand side came to prominence, in no small measure, as a response to the ideological massaging of the culture by intellectual elites in the media, arts, and academia.

I don't know where you live, Loran, but where I live, sex stores aren't right on Main street. They're out in the boonies, where people have to drive a ways to get to them. I don't remember seeing sex shops in downtown San Diego when I was there a few weeks ago, although I saw some in some pretty obscure neighborhoods, when we got lost. XXX movies aren't shown at the neighborhood multiplex theater. You'd have to buy a room at the Marriott in order to find XXX movies easily on demand (oh, the irony!)

What I'm saying is I'm not sure your basic premise is accurate.

You still haven't connected the 60's with what you're saying is the downfall of civilization as we know it. Find a study or two that shows what you're saying is true, backed up with appropriate sources. Until then, it's your opinion, and your opinion isn't worth much.

[_karl61]

at age twelve (about 1973); when I was a deacon, my home teacher drove me around and I went to the door to pick up money from people in the ward. They called it the fast offering but I really wasn't sure what it was all about.

[_Trevor]

I don't know where you live, Loran, but where I live, sex stores aren't right on Main street. They're out in the boonies, where people have to drive a ways to get to them. I don't remember seeing sex shops in downtown San Diego when I was there a few weeks ago, although I saw some in some pretty obscure neighborhoods, when we got lost. XXX movies aren't shown at the neighborhood multiplex theater. You'd have to buy a room at the Marriott in order to find XXX movies easily on demand (oh, the irony!)

I live in a large town in the South. We have porno shops sprinkled throughout town on the major streets. I can think of six or so off the top of my head (is that a telling sign?). We do not, on the other hand, have strip clubs.

You still haven't connected the 60's with what you're saying is the downfall of civilization as we know it. Find a study or two that shows what you're saying is true, backed up with appropriate sources. Until then, it's your opinion, and your opinion isn't worth much.

Whether he can actually prove the connection is one thing, but he will not be shy about repeating his diatribe against the 60s ad infinitum no matter how tenuous the connection. And if you don't like it, well you're just a liberal, postmodernist, feminist ninny-muggins.

By the by, I am now a GOD.

[_Ray A]

An article worth considering:

[24] A key argument for censorship of pornography relates to its effects on the participants. Pornography involves more than ‘mere fantasy’ or ‘mere speech’ – it is real.[47] For example, pornography is often said to involve acts of prostitution; if prostitution is simply the exchange of money for sex,[48] pornography should arguably be regulated in the same manner as prostitution. If this argument is accepted, this suggests that a society that prohibits prostitution, or imposes time, place or manner restrictions on prostitution, should similarly prohibit or restrict pornography. Moreover, various commentators report acts of rape, assault[49] and even murder occurring either in front of the camera or behind the scenes because of the typical environment in which pornography is produced.[50] The producers, directors and consumers of pornography are largely men, monopolising information and media, with a tendency to characterise women as objects in their pornographic material.[51] The harm suffered by children in pornography is of particular concern. Whereas a woman involved in pornography can consent to her involvement, a child, by definition, cannot. This means that ‘[e]very piece of child pornography ... is a record of the sexual use/abuse of the children involved’.[52] These children are typically poor, and often from third world countries.[53] Our revulsion at child sexual abuse relates to the powerlessness of children, and the notion of childhood as an innocent and peaceful time when we are protected from the worst of the world.[54]

[25] The real-life experiences of women and children involved in pornography constitute both an important motivator for anti-pornography feminists, as well as a significant part of their arguments. These feminists often rely on presenting graphic details of scenarios contained in pornographic materials,[55] and of the experiences of women in those materials,[56] to get their message across. In contrast, free speech advocates typically steer away from such vivid descriptions. Indeed, Strossen has been criticised for not facing the reality of pornography:


She approaches the pornography issue theoretically, never delving into the realities of pornography or the real injuries it creates. Strossen comments that antipornography feminists often include in their works detailed accounts of pornographic pictures or films, insinuating that this is so because they like pornography and need a reason to view or talk about it. This ludicrous insinuation demonstrates Strossen’s own discomfort with facing pornography.[57]
[26] It is easy to channel the horror one feels at the experiences of women involved in pornography into a conviction that the state should prohibit pornography in its entirety. No one would dispute that women should not be subjected to physical or sexual abuse, whether from strangers, employers or family members. Yet these things really happen, and not only in the context of pornography or prostitution. Exposing these experiences to the public for the purpose of condemning pornography is akin to showing a jury, in a murder trial, photographs of the victim’s bludgeoned body: the prosecution intends to focus the jury’s minds on the bloody aftermath rather than on how the accused is actually linked to the crime. It is understandable, then, that Strossen chooses not to focus on the sordid details of pornography, while Dworkin constantly restates them, since the two advocates view the role of pornography in producing these outcomes very differently.

[27] Putting to one side the question of child pornography, it is simplistic and paternalistic to suggest that adult women involved in making pornography are invariably forced into the industry (for example, through physical or financial coercion), or that no women enjoy making pornography. Depending on the woman’s individual perspective, she will not necessarily be harmed simply by participation in pornography. Moreover, the more pressing question is not whether women are ever mistreated in society or in pornography (as they undoubtedly are), but whether restricting or prohibiting the production of pornography will prevent or minimise that mistreatment. This question will be further discussed below in Part IV(E) of this article.......

[72] The conflict between freedom of speech and pornography has produced some strange bedfellows. Dworkin and MacKinnon accuse the American Civil Liberties Union of having economic ties with pornographers.[214] Strossen cautions against the alignment of feminist anti-pornographers with right-wing conservative and fundamentalist Christian groups.[215] The current US approach to online pornography may be less than ideal, and should not necessarily be followed in Australia. However, it is clear that if Australia is to reach a defensible position on online pornography it must give further thought to issues of free speech and harm. The reasons for protecting speech – based on ideals of democracy, autonomy and equality – apply equally in Australia, despite the lack of an equivalent to the First Amendment. The importance of this freedom must be compared to the lack of evidence of a direct causal relationship between pornography and physical, emotional and social harm. More importantly, even if such a relationship could be established, banning pornography is unlikely to remove, and may well intensify, any harms it presently causes. Criminal conduct associated with pornography would be better dealt with under laws directed specifically at that conduct rather than by censorship.

[73] The Online Services Act imposes a strict regime limiting access by adults and children alike to material considered offensive by a group of moral conservatives. This approach conflicts with the rights of individuals to determine what is appropriate for them and their children to see. Further, in the context of the Internet, there is even less reason to attempt to regulate pornography than in other media. The nature of the Internet means that, at least at present, it is extremely difficult to stop people accessing material they wish to see. The likely impact of the legislation is therefore to move pornographic material offshore without preventing it being accessed from Australia. While it may fail in its goal of ridding Australians of online pornography, it is still a step in the wrong direction. The Internet offers a uniquely open forum which should be embraced and nurtured rather than strangled, as the Online Services Act seeks to do.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/U ... 01/15.html



About the author, Tania Voon:

BSc (Melb), LLB (Hons) (Melb), LLM (Harv), AmusA; Solicitor, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, Melbourne. I submitted an earlier version of this article as part of a Graduate Diploma in International Law at the University of Melbourne. I would like to thank Gigi Sohn, Andrew Mitchell, the Journal’s Editors and the anonymous referees for their helpful comments in the preparation of this article. The views expressed herein, and any errors, are mine.

[_Moniker]

The Marriott has XXX movies? Does soft porn count as triple X?

[_Coggins7]

I don't know where you live, Loran, but where I live, sex stores aren't right on Main street. They're out in the boonies, where people have to drive a ways to get to them. I don't remember seeing sex shops in downtown San Diego when I was there a few weeks ago, although I saw some in some pretty obscure neighborhoods, when we got lost. XXX movies aren't shown at the neighborhood multiplex theater. You'd have to buy a room at the Marriott in order to find XXX movies easily on demand (oh, the irony!)

You're off by a couple of decades. I lived in San Diego from 1974 to 1981, and that city, being a Navy town for one thing, was saturated with pornography. Downtown, on E, F, and G streets, were the tiny sex shops and peep shows, quite a few of them. There were at least, from memory, five major theaters showing porn, including a Pussycat theater in downtown San Diego and one in El Cajon. Three of the theaters were well outside the downtown area, and hardly in the boonies.

Add to this scores of other book stores showing "loops" and selling magazines and sex toys, a number of strip clubs, and the porn sold in the liquor stores and delis, and the entire place was swimming in this media. But that was nothing, nothing compared to Piccadilly Circus, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands in the early seventies. Absolutely amazing. I still cannot believe what I saw there as a 12 year old.

What I'm saying is I'm not sure your basic premise is accurate.

I believe it is, and I think a strong logical theoretical argument can be made for it (and has been for quite sometime by the best conservative intellectuals in North America).

You still haven't connected the 60's with what you're saying is the downfall of civilization as we know it. Find a study or two that shows what you're saying is true, backed up with appropriate sources. Until then, it's your opinion, and your opinion isn't worth much.

Stop copping out. This is a theoretical and philosophical argument in support of an interpretation of historical social events and phenomena. The biggest joke Harmony, the biggest joke of the Enlightenment was the idea of social science; that human behavior, social evolution, and the human condition generally can be studied as other natural phenomena can be studied. I think your requirement that there be a study "showing" my thesis to be true is either terribly naïve or terribly disingenuous. There is, of course, a mountain of social science data showing strong correlations between the rise of the social pathologies of the last 40 years and the ideological shifts of those decades. Correlation, of course, does not demonstrate cause, but it is highly suggestive. What is then needed is a strong understanding and creative and rigorous synthetic application of some other areas of knowledge, such as history, philosophy, and psychology, to flesh out the lacuna that data cannot provide.

Numerous intellectuals have been making my cases for decades, but there are no studies "showing" their positions to be true, just as there are no studies showing the left wing position to be true. This is a battle of ideas and philosophical merit, not data. Data correlates, but does not prove. And both sides in such cultural theoretical battles can use the same statistics in their own favor. Dry data can be manipulated. Close, critical reasoning combined with deep reflection invite rebuttal, but are not as ambiguous and massagable as social science data tend to be. Your position is nothing more than jumping ship and declaring the debate won by default.

You'll have to engage the ideas at some point, at not run and hide behind the safety of professional journals and sourcing, which is fine for Climatology and Social Psychology, but quite difficult for historical, philosophical, and social analysis that seeks to make sense of the human conditions at a deeper level.

You're the kind of person who would ask Immanuel Kant for journal articles and sourcing for his theory of the metaphysics of morals. What he might very well tell you in reply is to start thinking and engage the ideas. The Left and Right have radically different interpretations of the same historical events. Both use the same studies to support or defend those different interpretations. At the end of the day, it is the strength of the arguments and the evidential linkages within them that will persuade, not bar graphs or pie charts. Too much schematizing is the realm of the positivist in a lab coat, not the engaged social philosopher, and "social science" has been wrong so much of the time regarding human behavior precisely because it has attempted to study and understand it in this way.