Gail Dines is Speaking about 2257 Issues?


This has got to be the funniest news I’ve heard in awhile. Gail Dines may be speaking at the Free Speech Coalition v. Holder trial today. According to AVN’s Mark Kernes, most of the plaintiff’s testimony has been submitted, with Judge Michael M. Baylson recommending each side refine their positions; that Attorney J. Michael Murray “consult with his clients to determine which sections of the 2257/2257A regulations they felt were most onerous and that they could not abide,” and that the defense team “consult with their superiors at the Department of Justice to see if changes could be made to the regulations that would prevent the current lawsuit from proceeding further.” He left it on a light note, that is until the very end:

“So cheer up, adult video fans: With the courtroom scheduled to be dark tomorrow, Friday might bring some very good news indeed—but if it doesn’t, it will bring the testimony of the final plaintiff, Barbara Nitke, and of the defense’s main expert, virulent anti-porn activist Gail Dines.” ~ Plaintiffs’ Testimony Nearly Completed in Day 3 of 2257 Trial

What? What could she possibly speak about where 2257 issues are concerned? I would think she’d be rallying on the industry’s side, considering she’s probably, herself, subject to 18 U.S.C. § 2257′s extremely burdensome laws every time she projects “lewd” and “lascivious” content through a college auditorium projector. Every image of sex and nudity must be documented meticulously. She would have to put a label on her pictures, right? A label of a certain type size telling everyone exactly where she keeps the records and cross-reference accounts of every single exposed person in her presentation? Oh wait… Does she get around that because she’s not reproducing it for sale? But she is reproducing it for sale. If she gets paid to speak, and other’s work is part of her presentation, she is, in effect, making money through the redistribution of “lewd” and “lascivious” (i.e. 2257 susceptible) content. She is a secondary producer in the literal sense.

pattonScreen shots of a Gail Dines seminar from Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!; Season 6: War on Porn

If she does speak, I am on pins and needles to find out what she has to say. Seriously!

You may quote this site's original content in incomplete excerpts with credit to © Julie Meadows Entertainment and a direct link to quoted material. Thank you!

Author: Julie Meadows

Francophile, oenophile, French Scrabble advocate and future zombie apocalypse survivor.


  1. I imagine Gail Dines ‘secret garden’ to be a rocky place… she’s a legal expert on what, again?

  2. That is the question!

    Every time there’s an adult industry issue they drag out these anti-porn fanatics to pose as “experts”. I read an incredibly amusing story yesterday about Shelley Lubben vandalizing Vivid’s sign last year. The woman with her was horrified and finally wrote a letter to Steve Hirsch explaining that Lubben did it. These are the experts? These are the people the DOJ and non-profits like AHF present to speak about porn. I find it quite interesting.

  3. Oh, this is rich.

    So, an anti-porn person (ex-madam), is accusing Shelley Lubben of vandalizing the Vivid Entertainment sign last year with fast food condiments and lipstick after she got drunk on wine. (lol) But someone is circulating pictures that both women were actually involved in vandalizing the sign. You can’t make this @#$! up. *facepalm*

  4. Hmmm… Boone’s Farm or Mad Dog 20/20, I wonder?

  5. Oh, are you baiting the snark in me!

  6. I wonder if anybody has informed Gail Dines that film camera photography, as we know it, did not really come into existence as was developed by George Eastman until the 1880s.

    And Motion Pictures as “Peep Shows” didn’t really begin until the Holland Brothers opened up a Kinetoscope parlor on Broadway and 27th Street in New York City of 10 film Peeps for 50 cents in 1894. Fairly expensive for the times. A year later in 1895 it would find “stiff” Peeps competition from the cheaper to run Mutoscopes for those of us who know about the infamous Mutoscope cheesecake cards so collectible today.

    Then it really wouldn’t be until the 1910s that silent film motion pictures reached a level of sophistication to make the marketing of pornographic entertainment films to the wealthy, only those who could afford to view them, available. Watching early silent movies of planes, trains and automobiles might be okay for the proletariat, but the wealthy wanted to watch sex. To see it in the Biblical “knowing her” way.

    But I think if Gail Dines would do her Sociology homework she might discover:

    Before 1870 in the United States a husband had the “right” to”Physically chastise an errant wife” in order to keep her within the bounds of “duty.” That’s State sponsored (and Biblical) “wife beating” for the slow among us, Gail. That’s also before movies, and television, sometimes with morals…at the end of the story.

    You ever read the Bible Gail? It’s before film, porn and TV. It’s full of rape and violence against women. How much of that has been an influence on young Sunday School suggestible minds? “For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses plundered and the women raped…”–Zechariah 14: 2. “Their little children will be dashed to death before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked, and their wives will be raped.”–Isaiah 13:16. I’m sure this doesn’t give the young aspiring sociopath any ideas.

    There was probably more violence on a per capita basis going on against women before 1880 before there was ever film, porn and TV. Actually film, porn and TV reflect what the “capitalistic market” will pay to watch, because if people are not paying for it in Big Enough Numbers there is no reason to try to market film, porn and TV or try to get backers and sponsors.

    If there is no vast enough market…it don’t get made. Or if it does get made, there is no sequel to a losing monetary proposition.

    Film, porn and TV reflect what the public audience is demanding to see. And the wealthy corporate owners are always doing what they lust for and money can buy them well ahead of the public curve.

    Production is almost always a reflection of what society wants to watch based on their true (compared to their stated or polled) Mores, because it is just too damn expensive for for Production Companies to speculate “Outside The Box.” People buy the products advertised on the violence of the Professional Wrestling they want to watch or it wouldn’t be on the Syfy Channel.

    Wake up Gail, it’s a market of violent Stupid Dancing Naked Bipedal Hominids who outnumber and surround you. Like the one observing from behind you in the ATM line. I’m surprised the “superego” keeps us in check as well as it does making us afraid to get caught mugging each other.

    It ain’t the film, porn or TV Gail. It’s the Id and the Libido!

    Gail Dines might know these things if she had not gotten her Sociology degree at No Name Tech in Manchester, England and didn’t teach Sociology at a Boston college specializing in turning out kindergarten and elementary school teachers:

  7. Even in australia ms dines seems extreme. I once her her talk on the effects of shaves virgins lol

  8. U have good reason to laugh lydia

  9. Between this and the revelation of Shelley Lubben’s latest tax returns, I have enough irony to blow up the Empire State Building.

    I especially love how Gail attempted to claim that “barely legal” porn, even with its explicit claim of using LEGAL-aged girls, nevertheless amounts to “pedophilia” because it plays to the alleged desires of the male viewers to engage in sex with minors. Riiiiiiight, Gail…as if real pedophiles need porn to motivate their desires. And what about the fact that many male consumers of “barely legal” porn may themselves be “barely legal”, as in 18-22 year olds pursuing fantasies with girls similar to them?

    I suppose that Gail would also call “Cougar/MILF” porn “pedophilia”, too, since they play to women’s desire to go after young boys? Oh, wait…..Gail doesn’t believe women are supposed to even HAVE such dirty desires, because that’s what “the capitalist patriarchy” and The Pornographic Corporate Complex imposes on women artificually by brainwashing men into “porn culture”!! That, osmosis, and erotoxins!!!

    All smack aside, though…..if the Obama/Holder DOJ is using Dines the way the Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales DOJ used Lubben and the Reagan/Meese DOJ used Dworkin and MacKinnon, then we are in a world of trouble. Then again, given recent events, it probably shouldn’t be surprising.

  10. Some linkage for ‘ya today, Lydz:

    Malrk Kernes’ review of Gail Dines’ testimony:

    Part 1 of my personal review comparing the testimony of Gail with Nina Hartley earlier:

    Part 2, where I analyze Gail’s cross examination, is forthcoming. :-)

  11. Thank you, Anthony! I did read Mark’s article on Dines’ testimony and found it sickening/amusing.

    –She also began to describe production companies as “sweatshops,” but Judge Baylson cut her off, saying that “sweatshops” was not a helpful metaphor.

    –When it came Murray’s turn to cross examine, he delved right into the subjects Schwartz had avoided, asking Dines outright if she were “anti-porn,” which she agreed she was, and about her website describing her as an “anti-porn activist,” which she agreed was accurate, especially since she had been instrumental in forming the 2010 conference at Wheelock titled “Stop Porn Culture,” which is also the name of her site. However, Dines claimed the organization was educational rather than activist. Murray also questioned Dines about comments she had made on her blog that porn was full of “misogynistic and racist images,” a product of our “pornified culture.” He also questioned her about some articles she had written, including one for the Houston Chronicle where she described Hugh Hefner as “Society’s Most Influential Pimp.” He also noted that she had lost a debate at Cambridge University in 2011, and that critics had described her latest book, Pornland, as “poorly researched.”

    –Murray and Dines then got into a discussion of the differences between qualitative and quantitative sociology, noting that the latter specialty deals with hard data, and that Dines had never held herself out as a quantitative sociologist—and had also never been qualified as a “porn expert” by any court.

    –When Murray’s examination was complete, Judge Baylson asked Dines some questions for clarification, since he stated that, “She has not been consistent throughout this in my opinion.” Some further testimony established that Dines had no expertise in fine-art photography, sexting or social networking sites.

    Good stuff there.

  12. I couldn’t read Anthony’s link to the Mark Kernes’ review of the 2257 Trial because I was informed the AVN site needed me to download Java, and I’m simply not going to download Java again after past problems unless there is a very better reason than just reading one web site’s article. Apologies.

    But I could read Anthony’s own personal link.

    Found it interesting that Gail Dines tried to pull some sort of anti-porn-feminist smoke and mirrors rabbit out of the hat by referencing the now ex-Minister of the Interior of Iceland.

    ​ Thought you might like to know that Gail Dines no longer has her pro anti-porn-feminist pal as Iceland’s Minister of the Interior.
    Iceland’s previous Minister of the Interior, Ögmundur Jónasson , of the LGM Party is out.

    Iceland’s New Minister of the Interior is now the Lady Hanna Birna Kristjánsdóttir of the Independence Party who has just been in office since 23 May 2013. She was a former Mayor of Reykjavik.

    Let’s see, new Minister of the Interior on 23 May 2013, and what day was Dines 2257 Trial testimony quoting a past Minister who the Icelanders got rid of? Smoke and mirrors rabbit pulled out of a hat; more like blowing smoke up the court’s ass!

    Of all countries for Dines to pick an ex-politico ally, Iceland (unlike here in the U.S. with Wall Street Bailouts) has recently been going after and prosecuting all the corrupt politicians and their fraud filled and thieving Banker friends:

    Just in case anyone wants some further Icelandic reading.

    2008–2012 Icelandic financial crisis

    Something that bothers me is that some people have a problem with “selected” forms of motion pictures they want the courts to not call expressions of Freedom of Speech (and bottom line is it always on religious grounds no matter if they state their justifications have to do with promoting under-age lust or STD health hazards), and yet they let the Supreme Court get away with saying Foreign stock owned Corporations are legally exercising their “Fictional Personhood” Freedom of Speech by spending as much political propaganda money as possible. Bribery equals Free Speech, but specific theatrical Art & Craft doesn’t. All You Need is Ca$h!

    Strange Days Have Tracked U.S. Down, indeed!

  13. I just posted the followup to Dines’ testimony and the cross examination this morning:

    Also, for Dawson…one of the grand ironies is that one of the main reasons that the Left-Green alliance fell in Iceland was that after initially following the path of aggressive prosecution of bank fraud and a more progressive economic policy, they dramatically shifted direction and actually embrased IMF-style austerity, even going so far as to recommend that Iceland join the European Union and adopt the Euro. That allowed the more conservative Independence/Freedom alliance to play themselves as the refomers and outflank them. Basically, they tacked further to the Right than the Right themselves, and that cost them dearly; the old “better real conservatives who believe in their policy than faux liberals attempting to play conservative” meme.

  14. Good point Anthony!

    Too bad The People here haven’t yet figured out the Spin-doktor’s buzz word “Sequester” is just an economic synonym for “Austerity,”

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.