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

http://cir.ca/story/ira-isaacs-sentenced/all

by Brajeshwar • 14 years ago

38 48 14 years ago

cir.ca

cynwoody4• 14 years ago

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!

galaktor• 14 years ago

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

cynwoody4• 14 years ago

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

But she nevertheless is employed by the same corrupt organization.

dorkitude2• 14 years ago

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...

glogla• 14 years ago

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

cynwoody4• 14 years ago

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.

n3rdy4• 14 years ago

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.

dorkitude2• 14 years ago

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.

doktrin2• 14 years ago

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-...

meaty• 14 years ago

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

cynwoody4• 14 years ago

> 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.

n3rdy4• 14 years ago

Disturbing, but valid point.

thomasjoulin• 14 years ago

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...)

praptak• 14 years ago

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.

gadders2• 14 years ago

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

scotty79• 14 years ago

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).

rdl• 14 years ago

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

logn• 14 years ago

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

RutZap• 14 years ago

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.

slapshot• 14 years ago

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

salmanapk• 14 years ago

"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.

n3rdy4• 14 years ago

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.

tzs• 14 years ago

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.

qznc• 14 years ago

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

You have been warned.

pubby• 14 years ago

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

(it's cheaply made scat/vomit porn)

Gilly_LDN• 14 years ago

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.

conradfr• 14 years ago

You can get convicted for that ?

guard-of-terra• 14 years ago

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.

acabal• 14 years ago

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.

erikpukinskis• 14 years ago

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?

rorrr• 14 years ago

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?

tptacek• 14 years ago

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

tlrobinson• 14 years ago

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

lake992• 14 years ago

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

ochiba• 14 years ago

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

rohanprabhu• 14 years ago

> 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.

micheljansen• 14 years ago

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."

greenyoda• 14 years ago

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."

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

Related Stories