Assuntos que atraíram a atenção da Suprema Corte dos EUA e afetam até os SUD e BRASIL (como os que são capturados e levados aos EUA e/ou expulsos “sem lei”)

IN GOD WE TRUST (ACREDITAMOS NA JUSTIÇA TERRENA E NA DIVINA) e

SEPARAÇÃO ENTRE AS RELIGIÕES E O ESTADO/GOVERNOS É ESSENCIAL

http://pbs-newshour.virage.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=playprefs.html&query=%2A&squery=%2BClipID%3A3+%2BVideoAsset%3Apbsnh042004&inputField=%20&ccstart=1896454&ccend=2618168&videoID=pbsnh042004 (ESCOLHA OS MELHORES PARÂMETROS PARA RECEBER TRANSMISSÃO DE UMA ENTREVISTA DO SUPREMO-JUDICIÁRIO DOS EUA).

http://pbs-newshour.virage.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=play220asf.html&query=%2A&squery=%2BClipID%3A3+%2BVideoAsset%3Apbsnh042004&inputField=%20&ccstart=1896454&ccend=2618168&videoID=pbsnh042004 - ASSISTA O VIDEO (a transcrição completa dele está a seguir) SOBRE GUANTÂNAMO – PRISIONEIROS DA GUERRA DO AFGANISTAO FORAM TRAZIDOS PARA GUANTANAMO COMO “PRISIONEIROS TERRORISTAS” SEM DIREITO A SEREM JULGADOS SEGUNDO AS LEIS DOS EUA ONDE NÃO SÃO PROTEGIDOS EM SEUS DIREITOS HUMANOS, COMO TER DIREITO A HABEAS CORPUS E DE SEREM AUXILIADOS POR UM ADVOGADO e JULGADOS POR UM JUIZ. ELES ESTAO SENDO MANTIDOS COMO EM “ZONAS SEM LEI” (como o foram os CAMPOS DE CONCENTRAÇÃO NAZISTAS) ONDE PODERÃO PERMANECER PARA TODO O SEMPRE. PIOR QUE INFERNO (temporário) SUD. ASSISTA DEBATE LEGAL SOBRE OS EstadoUnidenses acreditam no JUDICIARIO. E em que decisões arbitrárias do Executivo dos EUA, BUSH, podem ser anuladas/revistas. E/ou acompanhem pelo texto correspondente, a seguir transcrito.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june04/gb_4-20.html# A ENTREVISTA ORIGINA-SE DESTE SITE DA INTERNET, intitulado: OnLine Focus WAR AND LIBERTIES - April 20, 2004 (A NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_bhed.jpg Início do site.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on behalf of Afghan war detainees held in a military camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba who want the right to challenge their detentions in the U.S. court system.

MARGARET WARNER: After the war in Afghanistan, US forces transferred some 650 captured foreign fighters to a US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. For two years, these enemy combatants have been held and interrogated without formal charges or access to American courts. (Como os JUDEUS em campos de Concentração NAZIS...).

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_warner.jpg

Today's cases involve more than a dozen British, Australian and Kuwaiti detainees who have asked for the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. civilian court. Two lower federal courts have said "no." Today was the first time the Supreme Court has heard a challenge to the powers asserted by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. High interest prompted the court to release audio tapes shortly after the hearing. We go into the courtroom now with Marcia Coyle of the "National Law Journal." Jan Crawford Greenberg is on maternity leave.

Welcome back, Marcia.

MARCIA COYLE: Thank you.

MARGARET WARNER: We should say at the outset that the issue before the court today was actually a rather narrow one.

What rights should the detainees have?

MARCIA COYLE (National Law Journal): Yes, it is. The court has agreed to decide whether federal courts have the power to hear claims by these detainees that they're being held illegally by the president. So basically it's a question of whether federal courthouse doors are open to these detainees.

MARGARET WARNER: Now the lawyer for the detainees, John Gibbons, went first. On what basis was he asserting that they have this right? Was this some constitutional right he said they had?

MARCIA COYLE: No. He actually claimed that the federal habeas corpus statute does give federal courts this authority. That federal law basically permits federal courts to review the legality of detentions by the executive branch. And he argues that the statute's language speaks of prisoners, not citizens, not non-citizens, not aliens, enemy aliens, or friendly aliens, just prisoners, and that's who his clients are.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_warner2.jpg

MARGARET WARNER: Now there was a little exchange with Justice Kennedy which Gibbons acknowledged that he wouldn't assert that this right to habeas corpus started on the battlefield.

MARCIA COYLE: No. I think Justice Kennedy was trying to probe how far the detainees' position goes. When Judge Gibbons said that habeas corpus applies to prisoners anywhere, he made a point of clarifying for Justice Kennedy that habeas corpus does not extend to the battlefield and never has.

MARGARET WARNER: So, of course, that raises the issue of, okay, what is Guantanamo Bay?

MARCIA COYLE: Exactly.

MARGARET WARNER: Is it essentially a battlefield moved a little closer to the states but still overseas, or is it sovereign US territory?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_coyle.jpg

MARCIA COYLE: Right. This is the key issue in this case - and Judge Gibbons says that Guantanamo Bay is U.S. territory and so habeas corpus should extend to the detainees, and he looks to the lease that the United States has with Cuba to make his point.

MARGARET WARNER: Now Justices Ginsburg and Rehnquist had quite an exchange with Mr. Gibbons on that point, let's listen.

JOHN GIBBONS: The court of appeals did rely on some mystical ultimate sovereignty of Cuba over, as we navy types call it, Gitmo -- treating the navy base there as a no law zone. Now Guantanamo Navy Base, as I can attest from my year of personal experience, is under complete United States control and has been for a century.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: We don't need your personal experience. That's what it says in the treaty. It says complete jurisdiction.

JOHN GIBBONS: That's exactly what it says in the lease, yes.

REHNQUIST: It also says Cuba retains sovereignty.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_gibbons.jpg

JOHN GIBBONS: It does not say that. It says that if the United States decides to surrender the perpetual lease, Cuba has ultimate sovereignty, whatever that means. For example, if one of the detainees here assaulted another detainee in Guantanamo, there is no question they would be prosecuted under American law because no other law applies there. Cuban law doesn't apply there. Cuban law has never had any application inside that base. A stamp with Fidel Castro's picture on it wouldn't get a letter off the base.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: Is it like a federal enclave within a state?

JOHN GIBBONS: Well, Guantanamo is, to some extent, unique. We have exclusive jurisdiction and control over civil law in Guantanamo, and have had for a century. So it's so totally artificial to say that because of this provision in the lease, the executive branch can create a no law zone where it is not accountable to any judiciary anywhere. Now, in some other places where the United States has a base, there may be other civil authority that can demand an accounting. What the executive branch is saying here is "we don't have to account to anyone anywhere."

The government's case

MARGARET WARNER: Alright, now that was pretty much right at the end of his presentation and then it was Solicitor General Ted Olson's turn. What was his basic counter argument?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_coyle2.jpg

MARCIA COYLE: Well, in terms of sovereignty he's claiming that this is not US territory; that Cuba is sovereign and so habeas corpus cannot extend to the detainees. But he is saying at the heart of his case is a 1950 Supreme Court case called "Johnson vs. Eisentrager." And this case involved -- this was a post War World II case involving Germans who were tried by a US Military tribunal in China for violating the laws of war by assisting the Japanese after Germany had surrendered.

And the Supreme Court in that case had held that enemy aliens have no access to federal courts and really have no constitutional rights to enforce if they are in federal court. Solicitor General Olson basically says our case is Eisentrager. These are enemy aliens, they're outside the territory of the United States; they have no access to our courts.

MARGARET WARNER: Which, of course, Gibbons had disagreed with earlier.

MARCIA COYLE: Yes, he did. He said that his clients are not the Eisentrager convicted enemy aliens. One, they claim they're innocent. Two, they have never been tried by any court.

MARGARET WARNER: And of course, Justice Breyer disagreed that the precedent was obvious. And he had another concern, didn't he? Let's listen to this exchange between Breyer and Olson with a brief interjection from Justice Scalia.

STEPHEN BREYER: It's obvious that there is language in Eisentrager that supports you and also language that is against you. If we go with you, it has a virtue of clarity, there is a clear rule. Not a citizen, outside the United States, you don't get the foot in the door. But against you is that same fact. It seems rather contrary to an idea of a Constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check. That's problem one. Problem two is that we have several hundred years of British history where the cases interpreting habeas corpus said to the contrary, anyway. So if it's that choice, why not say "sure, you get your foot in the door, prisoners in Guantanamo, and we'll use the substantive rights to work out something that's protective but practical."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_olson.jpg

TED OLSON: Well, Justice Breyer, there are several answers to that. You started with the proposition that there is no check and the executive is asserting no check. This is the interpretation of the scope of a habeas statute. Congress has had 54 years with full awareness of the decision to change it. Indeed, as we point out in our brief, eight months after the Eisentrager decision, a bill was introduced that would have changed that statute -- HR-2812 which would specifically changed the statute to deal with the Eisentrager situation. So there is a check --

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: It could have been just clarifying, General Olson, as you well know, the fact that a bill was introduced and not passed carries very little weight on what law that exists.

ANTONIN SCALIA: Well, you are not using it to, to say what law was. You're using it to show that there was available and is available a perfectly good check upon the executive branch. If the people think that this is unfair, if Congress thinks it's unfair, with a stroke of the pen they can change the habeas statute.

TED OLSON: That's precisely correct. Congress has also dealt with the habeas statute in a variety of other ways and has seen fit in no way to change the decision required by this court with respect to the statute.

STEPHEN BREYER: I'm still honestly most worried about fact that there would be a large category of unchecked and un-checkable actions dealing with the detention of individuals that are being held in a place where America has power to do everything.

MARGARET WARNER: So at the end there was Justice Breyer suggesting that even the government might-- it might be a good idea to let this get into federal court and let it get decided on the merits rather than the constitutional argument which is so arcane?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_coyle3.jpg

MARCIA COYLE: He did seem to be suggesting that Justice Breyer has a wonderful way of summing up both sides of an argument, and then leaving you hanging as to where exactly he would come out. But yes, and I don't think the government wants that at all because they are concerned about micromanagement of the war on terrorism by the federal judiciary, and feel that the political branches, the executive and Congress, have always made decisions in terms of war and the federal judiciary for very good reason, should just stay out.
The rights of non-citizens
MARGARET WARNER: And bottom line, how much of this, at least from the government's side, their view of the rightness of this, does it rest on the fact that these detainees are not US citizens? It was very obvious that when they discovered they had one U.S. citizen at Guantanamo, this Mr. Hanby, they got him out of there. MARCIA COYLE: I think the government's argument rests on that very strongly. During the argument today, the question of American citizens did come up. And as you know, next week, we are going to be hearing arguments in two cases involving American citizens designated enemy combatants. Solicitor General Olson said that the protections of habeas corpus do extend to citizens. Our citizens have a special relationship with the government and so there is... there probably would be habeas corpus jurisdiction for American citizens.
	Predicting an outcome
	MARGARET WARNER: You're a long time court watcher. Based on the questioning today, are you willing to hazard a prediction? MARCIA COYLE: I almost never hazard on the basis of oral arguments but I can say that there seem to be four justices: Souter, Ginsburg, Stephens,.... Is that three our four? MARGARET WARNER: I guess Breyer.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/images/law/jan-june04/0420_court_coyle4.jpg

MARCIA COYLE: Yes Breyer, exactly, who have concerns about what the government is doing. Just as Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist are leaning the other way. It may come down again as it often does, to O'Connor and Kennedy.

MARGARET WARNER: Marcia, thanks so much.

MARCIA COYLE: Thank you.

The NewsHour is funded, in part, by:

Online NewsHour Special Report:
Supreme Court Watch Ver abaixo (um site sobre GUANTÂNAMO: está copiado). http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme_court/

April 20, 2004:
Update: Supreme Court Hears Appeal on Guantanamo Detainees

Feb. 13 , 2004:
Experts discuss the government's decision to allow the alleged al-Qaida and Taliban fighters being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to apply annually for release

Jan. 12, 2004:
Update: Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on Secret Sept. 11 Detainees

Jan. 9, 2004:
Update: Supreme Court Accepts Case Testing Enemy Combatant Detention

Dec. 18, 2003:
Experts debate a ruling that increases the rights of foreign detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Nov. 10, 2003:
Update: Supreme Court to Hear Guantanamo Detainees' Challenge

Oct. 14, 2003:
A reporter takes a look inside the US Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

May 26, 2003:
A discussion on possible military tribunals for those held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

May 1, 2002:
Legal experts debate what the US should do with the detainees in Camp Delta.

Browse the NewsHour's coverage of Terrorism, Law and Federal Agencies

The Supreme Court

US Department of Defense

National Institute of Military Justice

The US Federal Judiciary

*****************

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme_court/

DETENTO DO CAMPO DE CONCENTRACAO DOS EstadoUnidenses em GUANTANAMO mantido entre soldados dos EUA:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme_court/images/guantanamo_prisoner.jpg

do site: SUPREME COURT WATCH

April 20, 2004
Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Guantanamo Detainees' Challenge
The Supreme Court entered the debate over which rights should apply to those held in connection with the U.S. war on terror Tuesday, hearing arguments in two cases questioning whether foreign fighters captured abroad and held in a military camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba should be able to challenge their imprisonments in the American court system.

Margaret Warner reviews the day in the high court and key portions of the arguments with Marcia Coyle, Washington bureau chief for the National Law Journal.

Update: Supreme Court Hears Appeal From Guantanamo Detainees

Audio of the Supreme Court Arguments
The high court decided to immediately release audiotapes of its arguments in Rasul v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, cases that represent the combined appeals of two British, two Australian and 12 Kuwaiti nationals held in Guantanamo.
RealAudio: Part I: Attorney John Gibbons, representing the detainees
RealAudio: Part II: Solicitor General Theodore Olson, representing the government

Background on the Detainees' Challenge
Read the full text of a lower court ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the Guantanamo cases. (Requires Adobe Acrobat)

Access the petitioners' briefs and the response of the Bush administration on the legal questions presented to the high court on the detainees. (From the American Bar Association; Requires Adobe Acrobat)

Background Update: Supreme Court Decides to Hear Guantanamo Detainees' Challenge

March 24, 2004
High Court Weighs Pledge of Allegiance Dispute
Update: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a case involving a dispute over the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. Gwen Ifill discusses the case with National Law Journal Washington bureau chief Marcia Coyle, who attended the argument session.

Read the full text of the lower court ruling in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. (Requires Adobe Acrobat)

AS ORGANIZAÇÕES RELIGIOSAS (COMO A BYU, ORGANIZAÇÃO de A Igreja de Jesus Cristo dos Santos dos Últimos Dias, sediada nos EUA e propriedade da Igreja) precisarão de fato exercer a EFETIVA SEPARAÇÃO ENTRE “ESTADO” e “RELIGIÃO”. Com o ESTADO não favorecendo/ajudando as RELIGIÕES e com as RELIGIÕES “não favorecendo ou se intrometendo ou abençoando o ESTADO”.

February 25, 2004
Supreme Court Upholds State Ban on Religion Scholarships
Update: The Supreme Court upheld Wednesday government scholarship restrictions that bar any taxpayer money for college students who pursue a degree in theology, an important legal marker in the rules of church-state separation.

Marcia Coyle, Washington bureau chief for the National Law Journal, discusses the decision on state-funded scholarships.

Read the full text of the Supreme Court's ruling in Locke v. Davey. (Requires Adobe Acrobat)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

LOCKE, GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON, ET AL. v. DAVEY

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 02–1315. Argued December 2, 2003—Decided February 25, 2004

Washington State established its Promise Scholarship Program to as-sist academically gifted students with postsecondary education ex-penses. In accordance with the State Constitution, students may not use such a scholarship to pursue a devotional theology degree. Re-spondent Davey was awarded a Promise Scholarship and chose to at-tend Northwest College, a private, church-affiliated institution that is eligible under the program. When he enrolled, Davey chose a dou-ble major in pastoral ministries and business manage-ment/administration. It is undisputed that the pastoral ministries degree is devotional. After learning that he could not use his scholar-ship to pursue that degree, Davey brought this action under 42 U. S.

C. §1983 for an injunction and damages, arguing that the denial of his scholarship violated, inter alia, the First Amendment’s Free Ex-ercise and Establishment Clauses. The District Court rejected Davey’s constitutional claims and granted the State summary judg-ment. The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that, because the State had singled out religion for unfavorable treatment, its exclusion of theology majors had to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. Finding that the State’s antiestablishment concerns were not compelling, the court declared the program unconstitutional.

Held: Washington’s exclusion of the pursuit of a devotional theology degree from its otherwise-inclusive scholarship aid program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. This case involves the “play in the joints” between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Walz

v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 669. That is, it con-cerns state action that is permitted by the former but not required by

U.S. Networks

· American Broadcasting Company

· CBS Television

· Fox Broadcasting Company --à do MURDOCH (australiano, Republicano)

· National Broadcasting Company

· PAX TV

· Public Broadcasting Service

· United Paramount Network (UPN)

· The Warner Brothers Television Network

Industry Links

Canadian Radio Stations on the Net

Canadian Television Stations on the Net

Canadian Cable and Pay-TV Stations on the Net

Government Sites

U.S. Networks

Other Related Sites

International Broadcasters

http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/privacy_policy/

BUSINESS INFORMATION GROUP - PRIVACY POLICY

http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/article.asp?id=28819

CHUM grows overseas

3/29/2004

Companies in this story

CHUM Television International

Articles in related categories

International news

Programming

TORONTO - CHUM Television International recently announced the signing of several distribution agreements which will see the Canadian company's programming spread farther and wider.

New deals in South Africa, Japan and a series of world wide renewals will see CHUM programming remain in the U.K., Australia, Brazil and Israel.

Action! and MT-MovieTelevision will premiere on South Africa's M-NET pay TV channel while Granada has picked up Sextv for Men (http://www.sextelevision.net/ por CHUM television, veja a lista de redes e canais de TV, Mundial, para tal série de TV) & Motors in the U.K. Men & Motors is a lifestyle channel for men and Britain's number one motoring channel in the U.K.

New deals inked with Australia's XYZ and OPTUS will see XYZ air Sextv while Live at the Rehearsal Hall has been sold to OPTUS Television and will premiere on its OVATION station, Australia's only arts and entertainment channel.

Asia's STAR Group purchases The Story Of..., The Morning After, Exposed and Egos & Icons. All programmes will air in English with dubbing and subtitling rights for various languages on STAR Services via exclusive pay/basic TV.

More Episodes of The Review and Sextv were also sold to Israel's Ana-Ney Communications of Israel. All will air on the broadcaster's Good Life and EGO Channel in English, Hebrew, Russian and Arabic. In all, Ana-Ney has purchased over 90 hours of CHUM programming since 2003.

Globosat Programadora has picked up two more seasons of Sextv (http://www.sextelevision.net/ por CHUM television) for broadcast on its pay television news and documentary channel, GNT. The episodes will air in Brazil in Portuguese.

Japan's Tohokushinsha Film Corporation has purchased Star! Inside: Enterprise, the part of the Star! Inside series which takes an up-close and behind-the-scenes look at TV shows. It will air on Tohokushinsha's So-Net Channel via cable satellite.

http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/article.asp?id=761&story_id=&issue=03282001&SearchFor=pornography&SearchType=all&RType=&PC=

ExpressVu pulls hard-core porn channels

3/28/2001

Articles in related categories

CBC

Programming

Toronto, - Responding to a CBC-TV program that airs tonight, Bell ExpressVu has stopped broadcast of two adult film channels, True Blue and Extasy. The organization said it took the step as soon as it became "aware of concerns about programming content which have recently been raised through the media."

CBC-TV's the Fifth Estate charges that Canadian satellite and cable companies frequently purchase the hardest core pornography they can find to attract the highest-paying customers. The show airs tonight at 8 p.m.

"We feel it's important to respond promptly and to investigate any concerns that have been raised with respect to the quality standards of our programming," says David McLennan, president and COO, Bell ExpressVu.

ExpressVu says it has developed and maintains an adult programming distribution policy and associated practices that it says ensures compliance with the legal and regulatory standards governing the broadcast of adult programming by pay-per-view licensees in Canada. Specifically, the policy restricts the broadcast of material depicting sexual degradation, violence, humiliation or dehumanization.

It claims both channels are comprised of programming provided by a supplier who is contractually obligated to comply with all applicable Canadian laws and programming standards which meet the requirements of its distribution policy.

But it adds that the two channels will be stopped indefinitely while it reviews the concerns raised to ensure compliance with its distribution policy and practices.

http://www.sextelevision.net/ por CHUM television É SOBRE TAL REDE TV MUNDIAL PORNOGRAFIA: a REDE GLOBO e OUTRAS REPRODUZEM CADA VEZ MAIS LIVREMENTE

como nos canais MULTI-SHOW e GNT e outros (alguns até em horários para jovens verem...)

Ver no YAHOO GROUPS “FOTOSSUDS”, do Brasil, em ARQUIVOS:

http://f4.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/YF-HQM2ccM5AHNDlog7xT91cbKHLvueFwMEP4-cdTgj0Vf-IvTQSXHvsagQVQZCw8OeePfKl1YFP-g7DqC196A/INDUSTRIA%20PORNOGRAFIA%20E%20CORRUPTORAS%20DOS%20EUA.doc (indústria pornografia e corruptoras dos EUA.doc) E em

EUA CORROMPEM FAMÍLIAS E MORAL DO MUNDO TODO.doc fica bem claro quem alimenta as tais grandes REDES MUNDIAIS (GLOBALIZADAS) com material PORNOGRÁFICO “DE LUXO”, como para expor nas redes mundiais de TV (circuito aberto e privativo): os EUA, junto a HOLLYWOOD e em HOLLYWOOD (região de LOS ANGELES é o “CELEIRO” da CORRUPÇÃO e DEGRADAÇÃO MUNDIAL como que a MECA da SODOMIA e destruição FAMILIAR e MORAL e origem CORRUPÇÃO)

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pornography in the United States’ http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pornography%20in%20the%20United%20States

Pornographic movies in the United States

The movie camera has been used for pornography throughout its history, but pornographic movies were for most of that time typically only available in the United States by underground distribution, for projection at home or in private clubs.

The 1970s

More permissive legislation permitted the rise of "XXX-rated" movie theaters in the U.S. in the 1970s. There was also a proliferation of coin-operated "movie booths" in sex shops that displayed pornographic "loops" (so-called because they projected a movie from film arranged in a continuous loop).

At that time, pornographic movies even approached acceptance into the mainstream movie industry, with films such as Deep Throat, Behind the Green Door and Gerard Damiano's 1972 film The Devil in Miss Jones being shot on film with high production values, and grossing substantial amounts in movie theaters.

1980s and later

A few large companies operating out of Southern California's San Fernando Valley are responsible for much of the pornography produced in the United States. The distribution of pornography has changed radically after the 1980s with videotape and cable television largely displacing X-rated theaters. Video distribution in turn is in the process of being replaced by DVD (and Internet distribution for niche markets). Distribution of pornography is a large industry which involves major entertainment companies such as AOL-Time Warner (which profits from pornography through its cable channels, and in-room movies provided by hotel chains).

Pornography in the United States tends to feature mostly blonde women with large breasts (usually augmented by breast implants) and buttocks and often with tattoos

or body piercing. Men in pornography tend to be older and heavily muscled. American pornography movies often attempt to promote pornographic stars, and the boxes for video tapes tend to be extremely gaudy. Plot in pornographic movies

is often minimal.

With the advent of AIDS in the 1980s, HIV transmission between performers resulted in a number of deaths, including that of the famous erotic actor John Holmes.

After this, the pornography industry instituted a system of testing for the HIV virus designed to prevent the spread of the virus within the industry. In general, the pornography industry does not depict safer sex: mainstream pornographic movies now depict a range of behaviors including anal sex that are high risk activities for STD transmission, as if the taboo status of these activities has made them more thrilling for the consumers of pornography. Anal sex and other similar activities are now part of U.S. heterosexual pornography in a way that was unprecedented before the outbreak of AIDS.