I would think some of these pornographic actors and actresses would fall under the same category as stuntmen and women, who are indeed paid to take risks for the sake of realistic entertainment.
That's a good point, and, you know, of course there are dangerous jobs out there (the most fatal ones are mostly held by men, too). I don't think that the law requires that we regulate or prevent the making of violent porn, but what I was trying to show was that it could be done in such a way that it jives with the right to free speech, and that there is a precedent for such regulation, not to mention the ethical reasons. The Constitution doesn't demand that we not allow any animals to be harmed during the making of this picture, but according to internal industry regulations as well as some local laws, it's still forbidden.
They linked back to you from Pandagon.
And so the blogging circle-jerk is complete. I kind of noticed when my traffic more than tripled from its normal rate.
Commenting by HaloScan
