HOLLYWOOD, FL — Being bilaterally symmetrical animals, humans tend to see things in twos, either in synch or at odds with one another. Anyone paying even the slightest attention during the summer Internext “Good vs. Evil” panel noticed that, although the title proposed two polar opposites, the issues surrounding “good” vs. “evil” content are complex and many.The expert panelists were seated on the stage in a “good” to “evil” continuum of sorts, beginning at one end with New Destiny Internet Group’s Spike Goldberg and Club Jenna’s Jay Grdina effectively claiming the role of defenders of “good” content and its alleged industry-wide saving graces. Mitch Farber of NetBilling found himself sitting somewhat uncomfortably in the center; a kind of innocent third party or panel bystander in some ways. On the other end of the table and, presumably, other end of the issue, was infamous pornographer Max Harcore and YNOT.com assistant editor, AVN reviewer, and industry pundit, Darklady, pinch-hitting for the absent and equally nefarious Rob Black.

Panel discussions, especially on topics as emotionally charged as whether “extreme content” is “evil” and “softcore” content is “good,” can hardly be expected to result in definitive answers – although Goldberg and Grdina often seemed to suggest that the answers were, indeed, quite simple. Grdina repeatedly called upon content producers and providers to engage in “responsible” behavior, although he never defined the term. Goldberg, for his part, frequently confessed an utter disinterest in finding himself in a position to defend content that he finds personally objectionable and professionally inconvenient. Quite accurately, the two men pointed out that given the demographics of jury panelists, explaining so-called “extreme” content can be exceptionally tricky. Nonetheless, Darklady, waving the flag of what presumably qualified as “evil,” was equally adamant that the right to free expression both implicit and explicit within the First Amendment must trump any professional awkwardness and personal distaste. Goldberg and at least one audience member brushed aside First Amendment concerns, calling them “bullshit.”

Once the three most vocal panel participants – and an impressive number of audience members – had made their views on various kinds of contents beyond crystal clear, the discussion began to change direction.

Goldberg and Grdina proposed that the mere existence of “extreme” content – and its resulting controversy – does harm to the adult industry as a whole. Both men, associated with high quality, wildly popular content, were understandably concerned that the work of such individuals as the mostly silent Hardcore and the absent Black – as well as companies such as JM Productions with its one-hit blunder, Donkey Punch, result in increased condemnation of the entire industry, resulting in greater government oppression, a misrepresentation of the majority of content, and a weakening bottom line.

Although never articulated as such, both men seemed to envision an ideal future where content viewed as “extreme” would simply not exist or, as Grdina proposed, those who create it would start “their own industry.” The two blue-shirted panel members clearly were unable to comprehend why such material would appeal to anyone’s healthy interests and desires and suggested that its creators might consider simply create for the sheer love of creating and make it available for free, thus separating it from the for-pay segment of the adult industry. Grdina was particularly scathing in tone when addressing extreme sexual minority focused content providers whose work originates from a more alternative lifestyle oriented source, as opposed to pure mass appeal. Hogtied.com was mentioned by one audience member representing Klixxx Magazine as such a provider, creating exceptionally high quality images of intense and complex bondage made for and by bondage enthusiasts.

Issues of morality aside, Farber weighed in early to support the “good” side’s contention that perceptions surrounding “extreme” content do affect non-providers. Billing companies including NetBilling must deal with the concerns, both rational and irrational, held by credit card companies and other entities involved in the mundane process of charging for website membership and associated issues. Farber also cautioned against assuming that government persecution would end with the removal of “extreme” content and proposed that the bar would merely be lowered and what is now on the “good” side of it would likely find itself being defined as the new “evil.”

Other than somehow forcing those who create “extreme” content to stop doing so or hoping that a miracle will cause a complete lack of interest in creating or viewing such material, what can be done to create a more secure professional environment? One audience member asked whether the panelists would prefer to see government or self-imposed regulation. All agreed that the preference is self-regulation but all also agreed that the likelihood of consensus on what those should be was unlikely.

Darklady proposed that instead of focusing exclusively upon the ambiguous and changeable term “extreme,” the industry might be better served by engaging in more consistently professional business practices. Ensuring that all involved in video productions are of age, are consenting and capable of giving meaningful consent, in addition to companies having appropriate paperwork in proper order and efforts made to keep disinterested or inappropriate individuals from viewing their content were proposed as more productive areas of focus, instead. Farber agreed that behind the scenes footage and interview segments wherein performers are able to explain why they do what they do and what they get out of it would provide greater context for viewers and help remove some of the associated fear about possible abuse.

Additionally, the increasingly vocal solo female panelist took issue with the idea that content deemed “extreme” must automatically accept the label and its associated alienation or even condemnation. For instance, she pointed out that nearly every woman who has ever lived has menstruated approximately once a month during their fertile post-adolescent/ pre-menopausal years and that many of them have engaged in sexual activities during their menses – so how can imagery that shows menstrual blood be considered “extreme” and worthy of censor, especially while now-standard porn clichés including external pop shots on women’s faces, breasts, and asses have become standard signs that sex scenes are officially completed? Grdina’s claim to eschew activities deemed humiliating to women seems at odds with a practice that most mainstream women consider a bit bizarre, if not downright disgusting and demeaning.

Ultimately, few minds were likely changed, although some were hopefully expanded during the spirited hour-long debate. Moderator and First Amendment attorney Larry Walters observed that the session had included some of the most animated and involved audience participation that he had ever seen. The conversations didn’t stop when the panelists stepped down from the stage either, but continued late into the night, with Darklady being frequently approached by members of the audience who had not spoken up during the session.

Given the importance and long-ranging impact of decisions made about this exceptionally complex and nuanced topic, the discussion is guaranteed to continue for some time. The Free Speech Coalition’s plan to work with industry leaders in developing fair and productive Standards and Practices will help resolve some issues, but as long as the government holds its persecution of the adult entertainment industry up as an example of its continuing war on “indecency,” the battle between profit and civil liberties will continue.

Hopefully, passions can be set aside long enough for industry members to do what Humanists often urge their non-secular opponents to do during debate and discussion: Come, let us reason together.