I have posted all 84 pages of the warrant and indictment from the fed's against Extreme.
While some may disagree with me posting the entire document, I think it really shows that the government is about to seriously crack down on adult and it really worries me.
Thanks for posting this, and I urge everyone to make sure they read it.
Now, the real question for all of us is this
What are we willing to do to protect our rights? What are we willing to do about being 'worried'?
Are you willing to vote, get folks registered to vote, research the issues and write to elected officials? Are you willing to donate time, money, and expertise?
The opposition is organized, commited and they do their homework. They depend on us being largely apathetic, and/or easily embarrassed. Besides whining and moaning, what are you willing to do to make sure they don't win?
Scott Kinney Diversified Video Associates www.xxx-imports.com
My take on this is that producers need to take some responsibility for this crackdown. All of this rough sex, watersports, bukkake, and the like may have a market, but there's been a steady pushing of the envelope that's occurred over the past 5-6 years that anybody with a brain could tell was going to indict the whole industry some day.
I'm not willing to defend those who act irresponsibly, who don't care about the consequences to others, who push the envelope for the sake of pushing the envelope, or who all but dare the government to prosecute them. It's unfortunate that everyone will lose because of this, and before you know it, we'll be back to where we were 15 years ago.
I'm so tired of people whining about Ashcroft, Bush, and the Republicans in general. The truth of the matter is that Extreme would have been indicted whether Gore was in the White House or not. Too many people get worked up over some of the personalities and figureheads within our government, when it's not the individuals but the bureaucracy and collective will that's driving this.
Wake up people, this day didn't just materialize out of thin air.
.. with your line of reasoning.. we would still be where we were 40 years ago.. if some guys with guts had not started pushing the envelope to get us where we are now..
..I love to watch breasts, pussies, I love watersports, I buy/rent those videos .. I don't like rough sex, bukkake and I don't watch those videos.. why should Bush or Ashcroft and their friends or the 'bureaucracy' if you want to call them that decide for me.. it has nothing to do with them (your 'bureacracy' as an entity that acts on its own doesn't hold.. if anything bureaucracies are known for not acting at all) ..
now if minors were involved, or force/coercion was used, that would be another matter
And we will never know what Gore would have done, will we?.. we can thank the Scalia 5 for that.
I hope all Californians think hard about the threat to their rights before voting.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Aug 8 2003 : 1:00PM
I have to disagree. The Justice Dept. isn't a free-floating bureaucracy that nobody really controls, like the Army Corps of Engineers. This kind of federal obscenity prosecution isn't going to happen unless the Attorney General wants it to happen. Going after pornographers wasn't a priority during the Clinton administration, and I don't really see any reason to believe that this would have changed if Gore had been installed in the Oval Office by the Supreme Court instead of Bush. The democrats know that trying to pander to the religious right by appointing anti-porn zealots like Ashcroft isn't going to get them anywhere; those voters will still vote republican.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Aug 8 2003 : 1:17PM
Kevin - Thank you for posting the indictment, but would there be any way you could make the entire document available to be downloaded, as opposed to viewing it 1 page at a time?
Saki wrote:I am in general agreement with this thought as well. Lizzie Borden bragged to Rog that there is no pleasure in Forced Entry and that Cocktails 3 will make him "fucking sick." There is more than a hint there that the actual goal was to make movies that won't be acceptable to the standards of a community, and that they are goading the feds.
I haven't heard anyone say they enjoyed these movies, but these movies are bringing down the wrath of the government on porn. It is also easy for ministers and the like to describe porn by it's extremes - to say that people are making porn that shows women drinking barfed up piss, people being raped and killed, etc.
Honestly, I'm not sure how they can fairly prosecute these Extreme efforts. Take out the pee-pees, and what is the difference between Taylor St Clair chugging a bowl of gunk in "Cocktails" and some coed in a tanktop chewing on horse uterus in "Fear Factor"? At least Taylor gets paid. The "Fear Factor" contestant gets booted if she can't finish chewing! They are just going after a target they think will be easy because it's sensational and gross to almost anyone. But if Extreme didn't exist, they'd go after Max Hardcore (or maybe they already did). And on down the line.
It's very easy to make scapegoats of politicians and fool oneself into believing that absent of some conservatives with an agenda everything would be okay. That's fine and good, but that ignores the fact that the content has gotten more extreme since Monicagate effectively ended Clinton's presidency.
You can fault Ashcroft or someone at the Justice Dept. for giving the green light to the US Attorney's office to seek indictments now, but there was definitely some basis for prosecution for some time now. Thanks to Miller v. California, it's always been a risky landscape. I think the lack of prosecutions in the 90's emboldened producers to forget that community standards is a very low bar indeed.
I can remember when Slap Happy was a huge controvery, and now it's a cottage industry. Fisting? Are you kidding me? To say nothing about simulated rape or drinking enema water. You can say all you want about whether you think this stuff should be legal or not, but the opinions are irrelevant, since it's a jury in Pennsylvania who's going to decide. And I guarantee that it will be easier to get a conviction with a Extreme Associates video than with one from Vivid. Even as a jaded porn reviewer, I'd have to say that I wouldn't be above calling some of this stuff obscene. I can only imagine what 12 more-or-less randomly selected people would think.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Aug 8 2003 : 3:32PM
"Scapegoat" = "one that is made to bear the blame of others." How is someone who wields the full force of the United States government a scapegoat? Ashcroft hasn't had anything imposed on him; he has chosen to ignore obvious proscecution targets such as big-time corporate criminals in the securities industry (thank goodness the New York AG stepped into the vacuum there), while squandering taxpayers' dollars in the pursuit of his own right-wing christian agenda, going after people who make hash-pipes and icky porn movies.
i disagree with this. in my opinion, most of the "improvements" in porn were made for the sake of viewer enjoyment. certainly in all cases the envelope was being pushed. but the *reason* it was being pushed and the *direction* in which it was being pushed are factors just as important. i believe this is the distinction Saki is trying to make - a distinction whose relevance should not be taken lightly.
consider, for example, the current proliferation of anal and DPs. these are things which, by yesterday's standards, might have been considered fairly extreme, possibly even obscene. yet the inherent value to a large segment of the porn audience is clear. these are things about which many people fantasize, enjoy and even perform privately in their own lives.
contrast that with some of the content purportedly contained in these Extreme videos. i haven't seen them myself (and never will so long as i have a choice in the matter) but based on other's descriptions i can hardly imagine a soul on the planet deriving any enjoyment from watching them.
i sense the potential for this thread to turn into a mild flame war. maybe we should all take a step back, calm down and remind ourselves what this forum is about.
in the spirit of softening the opposing viewpoints, i propose that both sides are correct.
sans Ashcroft and his conservative colleagues i think there may have been a decent chance none of this would be happening right now. porn is clearly something that he has chosen to put on his prosecutorial agenda that likely would be absent from the agenda of a less conservative AG, especially given the current state of corporate ethics in the U.S.
however, as i summarized in my previous post, i think it's clear that Extreme is not wholly without blame. they very likely may have broken the law and they very likely may have intended to flirt with breaking the law from the start. even those producers who pushed the envelope in the past with DPs, rough sex, etc. knew that strong legal arguments could be made in support of presenting that material to viewers. i highly doubt that was the case with Extreme.
as for assigning blame based who has the greater choice - i'll close with this unfortunate personal analogy.
i got my first speeding ticket in 6 years the other night. it was late in the evening, completely dark out, and the cop had apparently been trailing me for a while to gauge my speed. the glare from his headlights prevented me from noticing the sirens which would have prevented this from happening during the day. i was caught doing about 70 in a 55 but the driver in front of me was going even faster. as the cop pulled over and approached my window, i thought to myself with bitterness, "why didn't he go after the guy in front of me?" my natural human response at the time was to be angry. angry at this cop for choosing to pick on me when there were greater offenders at large, offenders that this cop could not have possibly missed. but in the end, who was to blame for my receiving a ticket? the answer to this question should be fairly straightforward and logical yet, as often occurs when the situation is personal or emotional, our rationale can become quite clouded.
At Yes Portal, Arlo Tolesco has written an article that sheds more light on the Government's case against Extreme Associates. The article starts off with a rehash of what is already widely known, but then, beginning in the seventh paragraph, becomes very insightful when it gets to commentary by Jeffrey Douglas, an attorney who has defended the adult industry for the last 20 years.
I've certainly already stated my thoughts about Extreme. My post in this thread is one example. My thoughts pretty much echo Saki's viewpoint.
Ultimately though, this debate is not a new one, and unfortunately most porn fans who face off in it (just as most other debates here) are going to divide according to their porn tastes--leaving little room for the practical reality that Extreme, and by association, the rest of the porn industry is faced with. When it comes down to it, Extreme asked for it, and unfortunately, the rest of the industry is now as involved as they are.
I think that sooner or later, changes are a-commin' and despite my hatred for the obscenity standard and my distaste for the idea of legislated morality, I'm not sure that I would mind a bit of a change... I just wish that the industry itself could have made the effort to keep things reasonable so the courts didn't have to get involved to judge the industry over such extreme content. I think it's a real travesty that Extreme is now in a position to speak for the industry. I can't think of a worse representative. Even Max Hardcore would have been better.
Mike L.
And while I'm here--I urge everyone to keep the debate on the issues at hand, and please refrain from taking things, (or getting) personal. This is a potential hot-potater of a debate, and a worthy one, and everyone's opinions are welcome. Even if we don't agree--we're all friends here. ;-)
I'll have much more to say in an upcoming statement, but let me say this:
The industry shouldn't have to police itself, nor should we have to worry about the government or any law enforcement entity doing it for us.
Any sexual acts performed by consenting adults should be up to the adults who consent to perform them, and the adults who consent to view them. Period.
The difference is that 55 mph is the law. You clearly broke that law. The problem with obscenity is that you don't know you have broken that law until someone tells you it's broken. Until we have a clearer definition of what constitutes obscenity other than the murky 30 year old Miller decision, obscenity is an unjust law.
Don't break the speed limit, you won't get a ticket. Tell us, by law, what the obscenity laws are, and they won't be broken.
The feds are going to have a hard time convincing any jury that EA's videos can be defined as obscene. The Miller test was put in place during a time in America when the only place you could see any pornography was in a dark movie theater, usually located on the seedier side of town.
Now, adult films are found in every corner of America, from the Internet to the corner sex shop. Major corporations such as AT&T and General Motors are invested in the adult industry, and adult content is streamed into homes across America 24/7 via satellite, cable, and pay-per-view.
Ashcroft still believes that we are living in an America remniscient of the 1940's and 50's.
The "community standards" are now the standards of the national and international communities, and porn has become seamlessly blended into mainstream America.
Not much shocks people anymore. Turn on the TV on Thursday night to CBS and you are treated to mutilations, hangings, sadistic rapes, torture, and blood soaked scenes, all in the name of entertainment, courtesy of the number one show in America, CSI. Embraced and approved by millions of Americans.
Fear Factor also rates in the top 20, complete with contestants gulping down bull testicles, pig rectums, and pig uteruses. Vomit buckets are the trademark of this show.
The feds have already lost the battle. This isn't a "Leave It To Beaver" society anymore. The right of the people, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, to be free from censorship, has been proven over and over by juries that see these witch hunts for what they are - a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and government resources that could be put to better use.
The pendulum isn't going to swing back, regardless of what Ashcroft and his religious zealots are trying to do. Prohibition is a perfect example of what happens when the "moral judges" of our society have their 15 minutes of fame.
Porn isn't going away, and the feds need to focus on on the unchecked corruption in our government and greedy corporations that destroy the lives of the common man.
I don't know how relevant my post is, or who amongst you really cares, but, I just wanted to metion that there is an audience outside the adult-film fandom following this case.
XPW (Extreme Pro Wrestling) has a fanatical following that believes Black can do no wrong & will be vindicated sometime in the future. (When that future is, remains to be seen.)
...Also, a number of wrestling fans looking to see Mr. Black fall hard - very hard...
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Aug 9 2003 : 2:37AM
The thing is, the government knows that any non-Larry Flynt-owned porn company likely has neither the money nor the inclination to fight an obscenity prosection, particuarly one which the government has thoughtfully venued on the other side of the country. I have no knowledge of Extreme's finances beyond what I read in the internet gossip sites, but I think it's extremely unlikely that they are in a position to pay legal counsel to defend this action all the way through to a verdict in a jury trial. Unless Rob and Lizzie go completely insane and try to defend themselves in pro per , look for them to eventually plead guilty to something.
The government also knows that simply by bringing cases like this one, they can cow most porn producers into toning down their product.
no analogy is perfect. they are most often used to compare a single aspect of one situation with a single aspect of another. in this case, it was the irrationality of assigning blame based on whoever has the power to make the final decision. if i wanted to draw a perfect comparison, i'd have to use an absolutely identical situation with identical factors and variables.herein lies the problem. the speed limit is a number and can be clearly defined. obscenity is just some subjective concept that cannot be fully captured in a written statute. furthermore, providing clear, explicit definitions for these standards (i.e. no fisting, no bestiality, etc.) often creates more problems than it might address. the existence of an explicit set of rules opens up the possibility for widespread abuse through the use of omissions, loopholes, etc. it is largely for this reason that the underlying basis for tort law is the concept of the "reasonable man." i.e. what would a "reasonable" man do? how much more vague and undefined can you get than that??
despite this ambiguity, a few guidelines do exist to help producers decide what may or may not be legally acceptable. if this seems to create an unfair burden of risk on companies attempting to deal with "grey" areas, i would be inclined to agree. it is only when a company might recklessly ignore these guidelines that i would no take no pity and freely assign them blame for their own misfortune.
taken to another level, it's my opinion that obscenity laws as they pertain to porn should be abolished. as Tom stated earlier, "Any sexual acts performed by consenting adults should be up to the adults who consent to perform them, and the adults who consent to view them." certainly freedom of speech has its limits in American society, but historically and philosophically those limits have only been put in place when those freedoms infringe upon the rights of others. namely the right to control what we and those under our care see, hear and read. given that an adequate amount of control is in place (imho, as in the case of physically distributed pornographic media - VHS, DVDs) then no historic or ethical/philosophical basis for restriction exists under the First Amendment.
but since the topic of debate here is on the subject of who is to blame - *given the existing laws and conditions* - then i stand by my original assessment. don't i wish i could tell a judge that i shouldn't have gotten a speeding ticket because a speed limit of 55 mph is unconstitutional ...
on that note, perhaps if Extreme's lawyers are daring and ambitious enough they in fact *could* challenge the constitutionality of obscenity laws as they pertain to "physically distributed pornographic media" but that would turn out to be terribly expensive ...
Has it occurred to you that the Feds intentionally chose Western Pennsylvania as a location to have these videos shipped? This trial will take place in a very conservative place in the country.
They will not be able to use the those companies or hotel content as comparable material because those companies have chosen to avoid this type of content.
Rob & Lizzie have a rough and expensive road ahead of them.
I agree with Tom about the definition (or lack of definition) of obscenity laws in the U.S. But Rob Black is like a little kid with his finger a quarter inch from his sister's face saying "I'm not touching you. I'm not touching you. ...". An intelligent person doesn't push the envelope and then dare the government to do something about it. That's essentially what he did on the Frontline documentary.
While I grant that Rob Black, by daring the government to come after him, is the author of much of his own misfortune, I don't wish to see him convicted of obscenity. I also don't think that he deserves everything that is going to happen to him just because I don't like his videos....
All that said, and taking Bill's point about the conservative nature of western PA into account, there are a number of things that can be done to establish that adult material is still *part* of the community.
1. Video stores offering adult material for sale or rent in the area. There may not be many, but their existence is important, as would be their ownership by local folk. 2. Pay-per-view sales and subscriptions into those zip codes areas. 3. Mail order sales of other companies to those zip codes.( During Seymore's trial, I supplied his attornies with a listing of other fisting videos available for sale in Los Angeles county, and sales volumes to addresses in the county.) 4. Adult site subscriptions from those areas.
Many of the companies participating on this board have professional PR, and I think it would help for them to write and distribute PSA-type articles on how the mom-and-pop video store only survives the Blockbuster juggernaut because of their adult sales, for example.
It's just a thought.
Scott Kinney Diversified Video Associates www.xxx-imports.com
Scott just actually pointed out another problem that Rob may have in this trial. Extreme was the company that wouldn't help Max Hardcore by providing similar information when he was on trial.
He may have a hard time getting anyone else to help him out.
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Aug 9 2003 : 2:27PM
As Tom Byron pointed out, there is no community standard set as yet. If there were, the onus would be on the retailers not to sell in those communities, not the producer of the material. I live in NY, where Rudy Giuliani decided to sanitize the city. He pushed for zoning ordinances and the 60 - 40 law in the video stores. They didn't arrest and indict retailers or producers of smut. If there were store closings, they came after the laws were passed. As far as the internet and streaming content is concerned, I would hope that any competent lawyer could get a jury to agree that no community has a right to dictate what goes on in someones home. Democracy and majority rule was not meant to encroach on our personal liberties and it would be a good thing if the courts and populace affirmed that.
While I agree with the sentiment expressed, if the defense starts down that road the prosecution will object on the grounds of relevance and the judge will agree. This isn't about what's right or fair, it's about the law, which ultimately is what the judge says it is. Don't think the feds picked this venue out of a hat. It was chosen for the conservative community and for the judge being sympathetic to their side.
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Aug 9 2003 : 6:38PM
I agree with Bill. Western Pennsylvania is very conservative. That's why Evil Angel, when we still handled our own subscription magazine delivery, did not sell to that area, among many others. We defend our content to the end, but we're not careless enough to put things in the realm of being judged by seriously conservative people.
It would not bother me one bit to see Rob in jail for some of the criminal things he has done in the past, but not for something to do with Free Speech.
Extreme was incredibly careless when they taunted the government to go after them. This will be a very difficult time for them.
After reading the transcript of the Frontline interview I don't really see where Rob "taunted" the government to come after him:
And you'd like to be that test case? You know what? I don't want to be the test case. I'm not out there saying I want to be the test case. But I will be the test case. I would welcome that. I would welcome the publicity. I would welcome everything, to make a point in, I guess, our society. And people say, "Well, why should people care about pornography?" It's not a matter of caring about pornography. It's a matter of, do we have more pressing issues in our society that the government and your local government need to be addressing besides pornography? Because we could go and document how much it costs, and then say to you, "Hey! You live in a school district where they've got to bus your kid an hour away. Why don't you take the money -- the $5 million they're using to try and come after me -- why don't you take it and use it to solve the public schooling problem?" I don't want people to sit back and go "That's disgusting, they should go to jail." I just want them to sit there and go, "Listen, it doesn't bother me. It's like, who cares? They do their thing. But please, don't waste our money on this cause." Worry about rolling blackouts. Worry about the riots.
I find it incredibly disturbing that we live in a country where anyone should worry about challenging the government. The government is theoretically in place to serve the people, ALL the people, so if you speak your mind, exercise your First Amendment Right to express yourself, you should be sent to jail for 50 years?
What is really sad is that we have soldiers dying almost every day overseas, good jobs heading overseas with no sign of relief, states with record debts, federal through local governments pulling funding for schools and other worthwhile programs designed to build communities, terrorist sleeper cells walking among us, just to name a few...
And they are spending our tax dollars on prosecuting some nitwit and his surgically enhanced whore because someone in PA was able obtain their crap and deemed it obscene.
Guh-reat.
Personally, I could care less if Black goes to jail.
It just pains me to see my tax dollars go towards federal departments to legislate this and towards dimwits like Ashcroft, Orrin "computer nuker" Hatch, Dick Gebhart and other politicos with personal agendas stuck up their butt..
"We've got tons of stuff they technically could arrest us for. And when this happened, I put on our website - I made a big speech "I welcome the LAPD to come on down" I said, "Come on and get me" I said, "Because we won't go down without a fight. We will fight this. Regardless of the cost, we will fight it. We will take it to the airwaves".
"Come on and get me". Isn't that the definition of taunting?
News flash: politicians don't care about 'the people,' they only care about themselves, and, by extension, their support base. Furthermore, it's not your money, its their money. Just ask them.
In the case of the Bush administration, the support base is divided between the 'religious' right and the more-or-less libertarians. The wing that demands to have its own way is (to no-one's surprise) the "religious" right. I put the word religious in quotes because they're nothing of the kind. They're a bunch of bigots who abuse religion to garner power and money.
What I expect to happen is for the media to quickly focus on the characters, that is Rob and Lizzie, not the content. The idea will be to move the debate away from freedom of speech by vilifying the purveyors. I expect to see pieces about the industry describing all the past misdeeds of those involved. Considering that the purveyors of energy, phone service, food, etc. just ripped off the public for billions while the 'press' stood by yawning, I find the prospect ironic, to say the least.
All of this story makes me wanna puke, as whenever a bunch of politicos mounts a campaign against a minority to serve their dirty ends, in USA or elsewhere. But, I wonder, the "Bushdvd" ad appearing as I write on the upper part of the screen, just below the browser, is some kind of a joke or is it for real?
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Aug 9 2003 : 10:25PM
Whether or not you think Black was "taunting," I think it's remarkable that the postal inspector would actually cite the interview in his affidavit (along with the portion of Lizzie's interview where she makes a remark about how getting hit can be a turn-on -- the only apparent point of which was to try to convince the judge that she's some sleazy, depraved person whose right not to be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure shouldn't be taken seriously).Something else to remember here is that the "victims' rights" hotheads who embrace simplistic solutions to complex social problems (e.g., "three strikes and you're out"), and the conservative politicians who pander to them, have succeeded in stripping away most of the discretion which was formerly vested in the federal judiciary in matters of sentencing. Thus, if this case eventually results in convictions on any or all of the charged offenses, the judge, even if he or she happens to view the whole thing as a farce, or thinks that no useful purpose will be served by incarcerating the defendants, will not have the freedom to sentence them to a day in jail, or fine them $1, or anything of the sort. The mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines must be obeyed. (The yesportal.com article referred to above in this thread contains a discussion of this.)
If I was Mr. Byron, I would be thinking about a talent-scouting trip to Brazil. Maybe a loooooong trip ...
Having sat on a Federal Grand Jury in the past, I don find it "remarkable". In nearly every case that I heard, the person testifying, be it an FBI agent, Customs agent or local police officer, one of the things that they testified to was what caused them to begin a case in the first place.
Sometimes it was an informant. Sometimes, in the case of drug smuggling (usually Extacy), it was the behavior of the person at JFK. My Grand Jury indicted some people involved with child pornography (Candyman). IIRC, the FBI got wind of that website from spam.
That being the case, it doesn't surprise me at all that the Frontline documentary caused the government to take a look at Extreme. That being the case, it stands to reason that the documentary would be mentioned in the indictment.
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Aug 10 2003 : 12:45AM
The affidavit to which I was referring was not prepared for the grand jury; it was submitted to a federal judge in Los Angeles in support of the government's request for the issuance of a search warrant.
It's as if the postal inspector was saying, "Judge, this guy is mouthing off on TV, and his girlfriend is some kind of freak. Let's kick their door down and see what we find."
Ms. Devereaux, my ignorance of recent porn history handicaps me. May I ask what this man's previous entanglements with the law entailed?
As for this entire problem, bear in mind that before September 11 effectively saved this then-unpopular (and always illegal) "administration," the so-called "war on drugs" and pornography were to be top-priority targets in the Ashcroft Justice Department.
After September 11 reinvigorated the current junta occupying the White Hourse and artificially boosted the "president's" popularity it was only a matter of time before other agenda items made their way up the list of targets.
And thus, porn's time has come.
Times have changed, however. Porn is more accessible and popular than ever thanks to the hard-to-police Internet. Extensive supply means extensive demand. In a strange sense, porn has gone mainstream.
And the fact that there are extreme, envelope-pushing niche genres available simply means there are people who go for this stuff. And who the hell am I or anyone else to deny someone his or her "perverted" pleasure?
Eventually, civilization will win out. But there are going to be some difficult times before then. The country's justice system is helmed by a religious fanatic who has problems with any sort of consensual behavior between or among adults.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 10 2003 : 1:54PM
I don't uderstand some things here. First, although the concept of obscenity is subjective, this doesn't mean that it can not be objectified and "fully captured in a written statute". You and anybody else may not agree with the rules laid down in that statute, but that is exactly what lawmakers are there for: to create legal certainty. Second, so what if those rules are the result of a political process and are thus completely arbitrary. There is no difference at all in this respect with the speed limit. Except that one is objectified in a quantifiable way and the other in a qualitative way, both remain arbitrary rules, but rules nonentheless, laid down before you engage in any action, that may or may not be illegal.
As far as I can see and understand what is going on with "community standards" vis-à-vis obscenity, this is a concept that is in complete contradiction with the modern constitutional state, where legal certainty (I don't know if this is the correct English term for "rechtszekerheid") for all is of the utmost importance.Think about it: Why would it have to matter where this case takes place? Besides "legal uncertainty" (rechtsonzekerheid"), I also detect a strong case for "legal inequality" ("rechtsongelijkheid"). And all of this has a legal basis. That seems to me to be a serious flaw in the legal system of any nation that calls itself a modern state (modern as in the 18th century, when the concept of the modern state, as we still know it today, was first launched).
aybesea aid: "Why be restrictive? A little of this... a little of that... ahh... variety!"
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Aug 10 2003 : 2:33PM
The reason that it matters is that the jury is chosen from the county where the trial will take place. The jury is asked if they feel that the material is obscene, which has no official definition of specific acts, but is generally understood as an act which causes visceral disgust in the person. If the area is more conservative, then there is a bigger possibility that there will be more conservative people on the jury which would find the questioned act obscene.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 10 2003 : 2:55PM
Tricia, I understand why it matters where the case takes place, and that this is probably part of the strategy of the feds, but I question (as in "being critical about") why this "must" be so, or iow, why the legal system makes this possible at all. If it is in the best interest of any party to have a trial in this or that court, because there might be a sympathetic judge there, I have serious doubts about the legal system that allows this. And the basis is that there are no rules, except the vague "community standards", which seem only to be on record after a trial, not before it.
To use wetmartini's comparison. Imagine that the speed limit in a county is not objectified, but simply described as a "community standard". How do you know when you have broken the law? How do you know how fast you can drive? The first "rule" of every modern constitutional State is that everybody is supposed to know the law. The way I understand it, the concept of "community standards" is so vague, that it has to be determined in court, on a case per case basis, what the law "really" entails. As I see it, this is hardly acceptable in a modern constitutional state.
Edited: When the basis of the legal concept of obscenity is the rule "I know it when I see it", there is way too much leverage for the individual to give it a true "uiversal" basis and as thus, it should not be part of any legal system .
Edited 2: I would rather live with a legal certainty I don't agree with (and that I can fight with arguments) than with any kind legal uncertainty. (Walter, stop talking in slogans. You are oversimplifying matters and you sound like a drama queen.)
lindi said: "Sir Noel has stepped aside in a gentlemanly way (an unexpected move)."
Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00
Posted - Aug 10 2003 : 2:59PM
now I understand, Walter. sorry and I agree. Except I don't think the government should be making the sort of laws about what I can or can't watch, even when dealing with obscenity. Next thing you know, they'll be saying I can't choose to watch a double penetration on DVD.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 10 2003 : 3:22PM
I agree with you. But at least we know what we are fighting against in this scenario.
And maybe here lies the reason why they keep it so vague. If we are not sure what they don't want us to see, how can we blame them for it? If they were to say, "You can't see this", then it is much easier for the big public to cry "censorship".
GaySatyr said: " I'm a '10' ??? Move over, Bo Derek!"
A question from a foreigner: is this forum and his participants liable to a legal action from the US government as supportive of obscenity? Or as being obscene itself?
I don't know that I wholly agree with you on this one Walter. In the UK we of course use the same principles as in the US. The 'reasonable man' is affectionately referred to as 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' and our definition of 'obscenity is that which 'has a tendency to deprave and corrupt'.
Whilst I can see that advantages of drawing up a shopping list of that which is legal and that which is not there are also some pretty big disadvantages to this approach. For a start legislation tends to lag behind public opinion and it is likely that any list drawn up now in statute will likely still be in place in forty or fifty years by which time it will be grotesquely out of sync with 'community standards'. This coupled with the inevitable limitations of coverage and you end with a situation such as has happened in Japan when you can show a woman shit a fish out her ass but you can't show her pubic hair!
To go back to the quote above, at any given point you should have a fair idea of what is deemed acceptable by looking at the case law and a judges decision and that of a jury should be far from random or based on personal fancy but tied in closely to cases which preceed it and set precedent. The beauty of this system is that it allows the law to evolve within a framework (the statutes) without going through the laborious process of rewriting the whole thing every few years. As a case in point, over the last few years hardcore porn videos have effectively been legalised in the UK without a single piece of legislation being changed. All that happened is that an influential organisation, the BBFC (film censors), conducted a huge survey which demonstrated beyond all doubt that the man on the Clapham omnibus had changed his mind about porn over the last 40 or so years.
I quite agree that this idea in the US whereby you massage the result via your choice of prosecuting location seems bizarre and unfair when dealing with issues that have national significance. Surely though, this is not a fault of either using case law or the principle of reasonableness: look elsewhere within the system for your culprits. I don't know much about the US legal system but it seems as if you can effectively set a precedent via what is, in terms of a country as large as the US, a fairly parochial court. Precedents such as any which could arise either way from a case such as this one should be decided from a more centralised body which represents more fully the nation as a whole. Of course this still wouldn't stop starchy right-wingers who are hell bent on stamping out porn, but bear in mind that if you live in a democracy that includes the right of people to vote in starchy right-wingers who want to stamp out porn.
But that's the catch. There is no standard of obscenity, other than the nebulous concept of "community standards."
This, in turn, encourages the concept of prior restraint. Since we don't actually know what the community considers to obscene actually are (and in fact won't even know they've even been violated until there is a conviction), we are expected to not "push the envelope," as it were, and show restraint in exorcising our First Amendment rights.
Of course, I'm one of those people who has to ask what part of "no law" in the First Amendment do the smut-busters not understand?
