Adam Glasser (aks Seymore Butts) has reached a plea agreement with the LA City Attorney's office
*Glasser's company, BBE, Inc., would plead "no contest" to a charge of "creating a public nuisance" (Penal Code Sec. 372) and would pay a fine of $1000 into a "victim's restitution" fund. The company would not be put on probation.
* All other charges against Adam Glasser, Lila Glasser and his companies would be dropped. Originally, each defendant had been charged with one court of trafficking in obscene materials and one of promoting the distribution of obscene materials. As per the plea agreement, those charges were dropped.
Man, some misguided statemens in that AVN article:How? Nothing was defended, they pleaded out. No precedent was set, no ruling on the books about fisting. It never went to a jury of his peers. The DA decided it wasn't worth pursuing the case and accepted the plea.
That does not mean another DA won't eventually think they *could* make a case against someone else and go for it again.
To say the First Amendment wom anything has very little credibility to me...
I fear he believes wrong. he can sleep better knowing that this DA probably won;t hound him again anytime soon, but there is no legal authority anywhere.Still... all they did was drop the charges,they didn't lose the case. In the legal world, that's a HUUUUGE difference.
So I think its important to realize that all this posturing is little more than spin and no real freedoms have been defended or won here...
When you go to court and get your speeding ticket reduced to a "no seatbelt" ticket -- you didn't just make it legal to speed -- you got the DA to forgive you. This time.
I'm with Jeff/AMF 100% on this one. He pled guilty. The next time he distributes a fisting video, and that time might not be "by accident" as this one was reported to be, he'll find some DA who will take it court and not offer him a plea-probably based on his prior conviction (ie: in this case). He didn't just lose $1000 either-his lawyers aren't cheap, nor is his time.
So, while I'm glad he's off the hook for now, it would've likely been better to take it all the way. Had he lost, he'd appeal it to a higher court possibly setting the stage for all the hupe-filled worrying about Cambria to be squashed once and for all. Had he won, it would've helped support future cases, in nearby communities at least, based on his reasonable belief that the matter was settled by the jury here. Until someone gets a local prosecutor to take the bait and go all the way with it, the prior restrainst the industry imposes on itself will be far more damaging than anything the government could do.
I know lawyers aren't cheap, and like Larry Flynt did, it is not right to fight a battle by yourself.
No one person should have all that weight on their backs.
If so many people feel this strongly about personal freedoms, then do something about it. Don't just expect to have one person fighting the battle for everyone.
It would be too costly in dollars to drag it out, but by taking the plea, it is also like admitting that fisting or anything else can be obscene. But again why should one person fight and pay for a battle, just to see some fisting or anything considered obscene.
I can understand why he took the plea. He more than likely spent a lot of money and with the government dragging it on, made him lose the fight mentally. And financially.
Problem is, this is a pretty solitary offense. If there was some way I could help the fight (assuming I wanted to) ho should I go about it? I could contribute to Seymore's defense fund -- but what else?
There is no law on the books prohibiting fisting, so I can't appeal to my congressman to have it overturned; it's a fight for the courts since this particular law (as interpreted) is designed to be vague so it can apply to the whole country, not just the enlightened sections -- that's why some companies don't ship certain places. There's a better chance of having the law tested in Memphis than there is in NYC.
Why? Because it is his livelihood, I guess. He's fighting for his livelihood... I'm merely noting that they're wrapping themselves in the flag when they have no legit occasion to do so. He pled no contest (in essence guilty) to a lesser, unrelated, charge. That's a victory for free speech? Hardly.
It's like when you go to court to fight your speeding ticket and you agree to plead to a no-point seatbelt ticket instead of the 4-point speeding ticket. By pleading to the lesser charge you did not make get granted "legal authority" for yourself or anyone else to speed. You'll get tagged the next time you do it too; and maybe this time, the DA won't let you plead it out...
But for Seymore to say "we have legal authority" to sell fisting videos is ludicrous and really misstates what he can and cannot do...
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Mar 24 2002 : 8:40AM
Absolutely. This is no victory.
Then again how can you win a case when you're essentially saying 'I made a mistake, but I still think it's legal.' He didn't intend to distribute a video with fisting in the US. The fact that it was policy not to suggests that he questioned the legality of it.
While I'm disgusted that tax dollars go towards prosecuting cases like this, I don't think his case was strong enough to warrant a big show of support from free speech enthusiasts. You have to pick your battles. I think he made a wise decision.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Mar 24 2002 : 3:22PM
Evil Angel supported Seymore in his case. Actually, the night before Adam agread to the bargain, he called us to ask our opinion and the opinion of our lawyer. Unfortunately, we didn't get the message soon enough.
Although I wish he hadn't accepted the plea bargain, I can't blame him. His trial was indeed VERY costly to him, both financially and emotionally. As a friend of Adam's, I know that he has been through a lot over the last few years.
By offering the plea at all, the prosecutors show that they did not think they could win the case. There is another trial coming up - the one for Legend. Seymore's case should help them and maybe they will realize that the government doesn't have a very strong case. At least the trial is in LA, where jury's aren't as conservative. Alabama would be a different story.
BigMike: You hit the nail on the head but Jeff's still right. Wasn't it Patrick Henry, who, during the Revolutionary war, said something like: "We can all hang together or we can all hang separately."? My point, and I believe Jeff's point, was the hype about a big WIN by Seymore was not true. He gave in and it's his right to do so. Further, I don't have a problem with him saving his ass-I just don't think anyone should make a big victory speech over pleading guilty to a crime.
Steph: I think his case was fairly strong. He could have made it clear that the reason he normally didn't distribute fisting video's was that the company tries to keep the government's interference off it's back (prior restraint). Further, a conviction would allow for appeals to take place (the current judges are still a lot more liberal than anything the current administration will try and appoint). The higher up a case like this goes, the broader the area the ruling will cover. If you, like myself and others, believe such things are protected, now's the best chance to get something up as high as possible.
Tricia: Perhaps the courts there are less busy than here (I doubt it) but DA's offer pleas based on time/effort/policy too. There simply aren't enough courts and jurors to try every case. A case like this, with it's circus atmosphere potential, is probably not the biggest priority for the DA. Had he thought he couldn't win, he'd have dismissed the case. In any case, had Seymore won at trial, it would have no bearing on other cases elsewhere-precedent is set at the appellate level.
I'm glad that he's off the hook-he seems like a nice guy-but the point of some of the prosecutions is to enhance companies initiating a form of prior restraint on themselves. If a company is scared of something like the Cambria list, the government can much more easily feed that fear if the industry takes a "me first" attitude.
Satan must be getting chilly given how much I'm agreeing with Don these days!That's exactly my point. I'm happy this chapter of his life is over for him, but to jump around yelling victory is just falt out lying. He pled "no contest" to a crime; he wasn't found "not guilty" of a crime. Two different things.
Well, I went to the chat and saw Kimi there-Yay! That was the only good thing about it though. I asked a few questions and got bullied by everyone else for "bumming them out" and being a "pessimist".
Adam wouldn't really discuss the details of the case except to tell us that his "deal" with the city attorney of LA allows him to sell his fisting video anywhere in the state of California. When I pointed out the the attorney in question has no such power, I was made the bad guy for "not knowing the details of the case". That's okay I suppose except that the chat was promoted as being held for the purpose of discussing the case. It became readily apparent that no one really wanted to discuss the case except me. I pointed out that Jeff would've been a lot harsher than I was (and he'd have been right) at which point I had to inform the cheerleader squad about RAME/AMF (as a great resource-I do say nice things about you Jeff).
I like Adam. I want him to be able to distribute his movies to any legally consenting adult that wants a copy. I'm practically holding a banner to that effect every time I review a porno. That said, if he wants to believe the hogwash he's obviously been told by clueless individuals, that's his folly. I just hope the next lawyers are better...
So, while all of us are glad that Adam isn't going to find out first hand about fisting (ie: while in prison), the AVN article is about as accurate as any of their movie reviews. In the future, feel free to publicize chats with a hint of honesty though. As much as I may be in teamtushy's corner in general terms, I'm not going to blindly follow them off a cliff...
Look, if Adam is lurking out there, don't take my comments as hostile. Coming out ahead, especially from what could've happened, has a way of making a person feel invincible. Anyone involved in a court battle will probably agree (as long as they came out better than they thought they would). You had months to learn something about the court system and your comments on the chat showed that you really didn't learn anything significant from the experience. That's a shame.
I'm sorry that my rather mild comments were so offensive to you that you bailed out on the chat. My intent was to learn more about the details of the case-which was the promoted purpose of the chat. Teamtushy wrote, "For anyone wishing to discuss the settlement with Seymore, he will be addressing these issues in a free chat at his Web site on Tuesday, March 26." Well, I showed up and Kimi is my witness that Adam sure didn't want to discuss the settlement in any meaningful way. Another wasted opportunity for freedom of expression to prevail...
You should know by now that the porn industry really isn't interested, by and large, with dealign with its fans in any meaningful way, since that will occasionally mean they have to take criticism, which most of them don't want to hear.
You know... it's hard enough for them fucking all the pretty girls and dealing with the MAN to have to listen to a bunch of yokels with their dicks in their hand spout off about things that they don't know about.
At least, this is the impression I get from my dealing with a large portion of the adult community.
Of course, there are exceptions to the rule -- Tricia, Mike South, Jim Gunn, a few others -- but as a whoole, I tend to find the prodcers of pornography hold their customer base in contempt and would just as soon not deal with us.
The internet is just another revenue stream and it's not worth facing the tough questions. I am sure Seymore was looking for backpatting and asskissing, and when he didn't get it, he left.
This is why I don't usually participate in ploanned and promoted star "chats" -- any question I might ask has a better than average chance of being passed over in favor of the "I bet it felt good to have Lex Steele up your ass, huh?" type of questions.
So, bravo to you for asking the tough qestions, and it's a shame that Seymore wouldn't address them.
... and you're right... I may have been harsher... but not really. It'sa a simple question to ask -- how does pleading no contest to unrelated charges make it OK to sell fisting tapes in California? (was it a state case or country case?) How can you claim victory when you had to pay a fine and there was no ruling in your favor?
I never said you were. I just think we disagree sometimes because our primary allegiences are to different masters. But I like to think, in those times, we disagree without being disagreeable.
