
'2 girls 1 cup' producer sentenced to 4 years in federal prison - Brajeshwar
http://cir.ca/story/ira-isaacs-sentenced/all
======
slapshot
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...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2264024/Ira-Isaacs-
Fetish-porn-producer-sentenced-years-federal-obscenity-case.html)

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

~~~
n3rdy
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
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.

------
RutZap
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.

------
doktrin
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-...](http://betabeat.com/2013/01/2-girls-1-cup-creator-sentenced-
to-4-years-in-jail-for-grossing-out-entire-internet/)

~~~
cynwoody
> 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.

~~~
thomasjoulin
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...)

~~~
noste
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.

------
dorkitude
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...

~~~
n3rdy
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.

~~~
dorkitude
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.

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

~~~
lake99
defend to the death? What exactly will you do about it? Merely talking on HN
doesn't qualify even remotely.

~~~
ochiba
_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>

~~~
lake99
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.

------
rohanprabhu
> 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.

------
erikpukinskis
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?

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

------
micheljansen
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
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."

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

You have been warned.

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

(it's cheaply made scat/vomit porn)

~~~
Gilly_LDN
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
You can get convicted for that ?

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

------
guard-of-terra
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
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.

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

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

But she nevertheless is employed by the same corrupt organization.

