the porn industry is a plastic money card with a pretty picture of a bird, a lion, or electro-windmill on it.

http://docs.eurorevenue.com/custodian.html

The stuff that fled the US to stash their money in Switzerland, you can leave that to Reisman/MIM/Hughes etc.

We just need help re: mainstreaming, stop Playboy stationary in schools, bad-mouthing the Tate gallery, keeping Harriet ‘punternet’ Harman in a place that is halfway sensible.

http://www.maxhardcore.com/

This website has been forfeited to the Unites States Government

pursuant to the conviction of Paul F. Little, a.k.a “Max Hardcore”

and Max World Entertainment for violations of 18 United States Code

§§ 1461 and 1465

The time for celebration is when the entire porn industry, in all its forms, bites the dust.

I live in hope….

Let them eat HIV: Who failed Lara Roxx?
Warning: graphic descriptions in this post.

Gee, who would have thought that having two strange men jam their un-condomed penises into a woman’s rectum at the same time might give her a whopping case of HIV?

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/000873.html

‘Roxx’s interview with AVN itself shows the fluidity of “consent” in these matters. “I told [my manager] I wasn’t interested in anal at all, and I was a little freaky about the no-condom thing too,” she said. On arriving at the film shoot, she was pressured into performing the “double anal” scene by the director, Marc Anthony. She says: “So I get there and Marc Anthony tells me it’s a DA, which stands for double anal. And I’m like, ‘What? I’ve never done a double anal’. And he was like, ‘Well, that’s what we need. It’s either that or nothing’. And that’s how they do it… I think that sucks, because he knew double anal was dangerous.” Later, she says, she was in pain and could not sit down.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/22/iraq.comment

Because at least the *legit* performers get paid, whereas I very much suspect the “free” (or even darker, paid for) online porn doesn’t feature actors.

“Gross’s lawyers argued that his photographs could not further damage Shields’s reputation because, since they were taken, she had made a profitable career “as a young vamp and a harlot, a seasoned sexual veteran, a provocative child-woman, an erotic and sensual sex symbol, the Lolita of her generation”. ”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/03/brooke-shields-nude-child-photograph

The Tate Gallery imported child pornography and thought it could get away with it.

Dear Gregory,

Thank you for your original email sent in early October.

In consultation with the artist, Richard Prince, Tate has replaced Spiritual America 1983 with a later version of the work made by him in collaboration with Brooke Shields, Spiritual America IV 2005. The room reopened to the public on Tuesday 13 October 2009.

Tate is in ongoing discussions with legal advisors about the catalogue.

Tate temporarily closed the room displaying Spiritual America following a visit by the police from the Obscene Publications Unit on Wednesday 30 September 2009. The police advised that the work was ‘indecent’ under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and that they considered Tate had committed an offence under that Act. They advised that if the work were not taken down and if the catalogue were not removed from sale a prosecution would be likely. In the circumstances Tate decided that they would withdraw the work from display. The work has now been returned to the lender at his request

Kind regards,

Charlotte Ashworth

Information Manager | Tate Modern

0207 401 5179, 07816 138 908

charlotte.ashworth@tate.org.uk

Thanks for posting this, its a great piece.