First I have to say that it pains me to disagree with my idol! :)
Second, look at Hollywood -- it has policed itself, which has kept the government pretty much out of the business of censorship and prosecuting mainstream companies for "obscene" mainstream films.
The system in place now (i.e. no system) in the adult industry is too willy-nilly. Now, the "artistes" don't want that type of top-down control, but they need to start thinking like business people. Stopping trashy, obscene material from flooding into the distribution channels not only heads off prosecution, but also means fewer movies clogging the shelves. That means more room for quality movies, and more money for quality adult filmmakers.
It's a nice ideal to say that adults should determine what adults should see, but when adults act like children (e.g. Extreme), they put the entire industry at risk. It's better to self-censor, to have the industry determine for itself what is decent porn, than to have right-wing hypocrites do it for you.
I think I sound like a sensible, reponsible *adult* who understands where the boundaries are in our society, and when to push them. Porn is a business, people, not just a way to get your rocks off. The way to ensure the continued flow of masturbatory material is to, yes, stop the "trashy, obscene" stuff from ever getting to the video stores.
You mentioned Europe, Japan, etc. I traveled extensively in both. These areas have *different standards* than we do. They may allow scat, for example, but jesus, try finding pubic hair shots in magazines anywhere in Japan, for example. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The U.S. may never be as open as Europe when it comes to porn, but it won't get there through the likes of Rob Black.
We complain about "Oh, we don't know what the standards are here in the U.S." But I think it's quite simple. Your stomach turns when you watch it. Your dick doesn't get hard. Women are actually being abused. The filmmakers actually claim the films have no erotic or artistic value. How much clearer can it get?
When I say children, taunting the government, claiming ones tapes have no erotic or artistic value and generally pissing everybody in the industry off is childish. I'm not saying that people with particular fetishes are childish, though Fredian psychologists may disagree. ;)
Pacifism is what invites trouble. Being passive has never fended off the aggressor...ever. If the Fed's hadn't gone after Extreme, it would have been somebody else. Rob Black's proverbial "head on a platter" is chicken shit in the grand scheme of things. Had it not been Rob's head, it would have been one of your's (producer's), for sure. Be thankful the Fed's did not target somebody with a pacifists attitude...someone who would have already plea-bargained, rolled-over, and walked home with their tail between their legs. If Larry Flynt had taken the path of least resistance, most of us working in the industry today would be among the jobless millions. Kudos, I say, to those pushing the envelope. Somebody has to fight for free speech...or were you under the impression that Free Speech is actually "free"? If the entire industry fails to come to the defense of this indictment, whether you agree with what Extreme does or not, then may shame and government intrusion of equal atrocity befall you and yours. The fact is, there's always a party of one fighting for the rights of many...and the opposition needs to know that we stand unified in defense of this indictment, rather than fragmented, or else the "divide and conquor" approach to their war on porn will impose a wrath on society as a whole in the years to come, the magnitude of which you could never fathom.
Lindi, Thank you, although I will clarify that I would prefer the Japanese to rationalise their regulations by showing pubic hair, I would hate to see the fish-shitting woman lose her job
Adult films, like mainstream, should be viewed as an entertainment and fantasy because that's what they are. One could say that the stuff Extreme Associates puts out isn't entertainment the same way an elderly woman in Arizona might not consider teen slasher films entertainment. I feel that this lawsuit says a lot more about the Justice Department & the Pittsburgh DA (in my opinion negatively) than it does about Extreme Associates.
When you buy or rent an Extreme Associates video you know what you're about to watch in the same way you know what you're about to watch when you pop in a Vivid release, a mainstream romantic comedy, an action film, etc. Purchase another genre of film and move on if that doesn't suit your tastes. Don't censor something just because you don't like it or you find it tasteless. I do not feel that Extreme Associates have broken any laws but instead believe that the government has had it out for this particular company's founders because they're trendsetters. Let's be honest. We would not be viewing films like "I Love it Rough #2" in 2003 if Rob Black had not produced "Week and a Half in the Life of a Prostitute" in 1997. I admire Rob Black for having the balls to help move adult entertainment to a new, more hardcore level. I don't think it's gotten out of hand at all but instead is only a reflection of viewers' changing preferences. If adult viewing audiences didn't want to see rough sex, "I Love it Rough #1, #2" would not have broken record sales. On the same token, if I or anyone prefers to watch more gentler or softcore entertainment, we always have Vivid & Wicked. There is something for everyone. The main point I'm trying to get across is that it is my right to view any Extreme Associates production because it is entertainment, showing consenting adults who are paid to perform (and act out) a fantasy. Style and preferences change. Ten years from now, the majority of porn audiences will probably be screaming for softer, more gentle entertainment, after having seen everyone push the limits for so long.
Rather the federal government finds it tasteful or not, it is still the right of Rob Black to produce willing participated models who are paid to perform a fantasy on film (and my right to view it in the privacy of my home). Also, nothing that Extreme Associates has put out is any less or more intense than some of the stuff Elegant Angel, Platinum X Pictures or Evil Angel is distributing each month. I'm sure that someone in Pittsburgh has purchased "Gonzomania", "Slave Dolls" or "Dirty Trixxx #1, #2" thru the mail. Clips for those movies are available over the Internet on several web sites as well. Just because Extreme Associates has a weirder edge to them doesn't mean that the company's founders should face up to 40 years in prison.
I feel that Rob Black and the others noted in the suit are totally innocent of the charges brought against them. In my opinion, it says a lot about our country (and current administration) that we're discussing this issue in 2003. I'm sure other folks have more & different views of this situation and all views are valid of course. This is mine.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 11 2003 : 5:29PM
Thank you Sir Noel, for pointing out some obvious weaknesses in my reasoning. I am no legal expert at all and my knowledge of the legal system in the USA is sporadic at best. Furthermore, I live in a country whose legal system is not so keen on case law, although we certainly do have a similar legal term as "the reasonable man" (we call it "de goede huisvader", the good housekeeper). However, I still believe that something fishy (pun intended) is going on here regarding the legal system itself. My gut tells me that there is something wrong when you can't tell for sure that you have broken the law, until you have been convicted of doing so. I don't blame case law itself for this. As you said, case law allows a more flexible legal system, more easily adapted to current events. Although within the Belgian legal system, the same principle is at work in the distinction between "laws" (what you call frame work or statutes) and "ministerial decrees" (I don't know the translation for "ministriële besluiten"). That distinction leaves plenty of room for being up to date as well and it is an easy way to adapt existing rules to cover bases which were priviously overlooked. No need to turn to case law at all for that. (btw, I am absolutely not pleading in favor of our system, since the "ministriële besluiten" open the door for a whole other kind of political corruption and abuse of personal power. The fact that many loopholes can become in existence, is in this more a positive than a negative and is really part of the legal system itself. The existence of loopholes is very often a deliberate decision on the part of the law maker and can be scrutinized as any other part of the law. IOW, at least it is unequivocally writen on paper and can be scrutinized before you have to appear in a court as a "test case".)
All in all, I agree that case law has many advantages, but also when "obscenity" is concerned? Consider what you wrote here:
Is it really the case that you should have a fair idea about what isn't and is obscene? I have no idea this is the case, but I guess that is what the Cambria list was all about. What still worries me though is the vagueness of the concept "reasonable man" in conjunction with an extremely controversial subject such as "obscenity". The "reasonable man" may be a nice legal, abstract concept, but what about the "real" "reasonable men and women", who will be bringing this concept into practice? When I look at the different reactions here elicited by Rob Black, I see many different kinds of "rationales" being employed. Which ones of these represent that of the "reasonable man"? How can we "reasonably" be expected to know which rationale will be used in court? The few things I have read of a legal nature in AVN, for instance, has convinced me that studying case histories doesn't help much when talking about "obscenity trials". And so, I can direct this discussion into an area in which I am more at home. Because at this time, I would like to bring back my point about the difference between a quantitative and a qualitative interpretative operation. That difference IS important when talking about "legal certainty". That is why I brought it up when discussing wetmartini's comparison. (btw, I don't get it why wetmartini mentioned the concept of legal intent. I am probably missing a finer point here, but isn't the legal intent of the speed limt and that of obscenity law basically the same? Just as the speed limit is "simply" trying to prevent drivers from driving too fast, aren't "obscenity laws" trying to prevent the production/distribution of "obscenity"? The only difference I see, is how the rules are defined AND then we are back to quantitative versus qualitative operations and the fact that both rules are arbitrary in a very different way.)
Edited: (Walter, you sly devil you. I know what you are trying to do here. You are trying to get out of a legal discussion by turning this into an epistemological discussion.) OK, I am busted. To redeem myself, just a quick "legal" question. If one of the strengths of case law is its adaptability to current events, how come the outdated notion of "community standards" is still being used?
Bob said: "You can't expect a flying bird to swim like a fish, even though you will occasionally run across the odd duck."
This is more of an American term I think so I'll leave it to others to comment on this as I can only guess at what it means (as opposed to knowing the true legal connotations).
Just as an aside. What tends to happen in the UK in major cases is that they are firstly sent to The Old Bailey which is our most famous and central court. If you are not happy with the result it is possible to appeal and ultimately in matters of the greatest debate the case ends up in The House of Lords our second parliamentary chamber (although it is only a sub-group, the Law Lords, who deal with it, I believe) who make the final decision. Should the Lords overturn the earlier decision then they also overturn the precedent set previously by the crown court. Note that in any event case law can only be set by crown courts ( a high level of court) and the judges reasoning must be given in great detail for a precedent to be set thereby allowing later appeals or other trials to see flaws in his reasoning. This all has a tendency to centralise and normalise the process. The relevance of this to the US is that the US system is based on the English legal system but maybe these methods that work well within a smaller nation with perhaps less regional variation in, dare I say, 'community standards' do not work quite so well in a country where juries from different areas reach such widely differing decisions.
I would be interested to know how appeals procedures work in the US and what relevance/impact this has on case law.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 11 2003 : 7:27PM
I am curious about this too, Sir Noel. But maybe it would be better if we started a new thread about this in the World News and Nonsense forum, since we seem to stray a bit to off-topic territory.
btw, the "Law Lords", are they chosen by the people, or are they "hereditary peers" (I had to look this up, I hope it isn't nonsense)? Hmm, maybe you better answer this in another thread.
GaySatyr said: "Lady Justice is neither blind nor fair; she winks and blinks for money, power, politics, religion, and celebrity on a regular basis."
#SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03
Posted - Aug 12 2003 : 12:04AM
OK, I posted an brief explanation of the US court system in World News and Nonsense.
Walter, your points regarding the subjective nature of the US obscenity laws are well-taken. A would-be publisher of sexually explicit or other potentially controversial items, faced with the unpredictable reaction of any given set of jurors to his material, has no "safe harbor" from prosecution, other than to refrain from publishing entirely. The puritanical concept of "obscenity" is fundamentally in conflict with our constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, and the legal climate surrounding adult films, nude dancing, etc., is the result of the courts insisting on attempting to reconcile the irreconcilable, rather than recognizing that the constitution should trump everything else.
I've read the indictment and this thread and quite a bit more on this subject. Sadly, most of the pro-porn arguments are pointless in the context of the government's case. And the FrontLine program is little more than an excuse as far as the AG's staff is concerned - they have been plotting this since long before that program was aired.
The AG and his goons intend to win. They are operating in a circuit where the deck is stacked in their favor. And they plan on expanding the indictment to include one hell of a lot more than Extreme, Robert Black, et al.
The court district they have chosen is way more than conservative: the religious base there is fundamentalist without having to depend on the Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell types. What's more, those justices currently serving on the appeals board in that region are, for the most part, similarly conservative. And should this case even approach the level of the supreme court, the AG is confident that shrub and his cohorts will have replaced the more liberal members most likely to be forced into retirement in the near-term with clones of Scalia and Thomas (never mind Long-Dong Silver), guaranteeing a tick in the "win" column.
This fight was promised when Ashcroft took office. And, sadly, it is one he is counting on winning.
It's not "divide and conquer" I'm advocating, it's "defend and control." Defend responsible companies and control the distribution channels so that only quality materials get to store shelves.
What Larry Flynt did -- and Flynt is probably, besides Berth Milton, one of the smartest businesspeople in porn -- was use humor whenever he was pushing the envelope. He might have ben defiling the Virgin Mary in the pages of Hustler, but he used satire and humor with aplomb. He knew the value of a joke.
Extreme basically brutalized whatever it touched, period. There was no laughter or humor, just sickness. It was one big gross-out fest. It didn't push the envelope -- it just offered you a barfbag.
Follow the money: Do you see Larry Flynt rushing to buy Extreme Associates? No, but he did buy Vivid Video's distribution rights, and supposed was going to buy or did buy Sin City and VCA. If Extreme is the new LFP and Rob Black the second coming of Larry Flynt, why isn't Flynt snapping up Extreme's assets? Please...
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 12 2003 : 9:46AM
As I see it, there are two major problems with this:
1) A philosophical/principle problem: Who is going to call the shots? Who is going to define who the "responsible companies" are and what kind of material is to be regarded as "quality material". About the latter, are you sugesting an aesthetic norm? In that case, I would like to see a ban on all daytime soap series. They offend my sense of "good" taste. In short, why can't I be the judge myself of what I like to see and what kind of material I regard as quality material. Why should I have to rely on some "industry standard" to do that in my place.
2) A practical-industrial problem: Having studied the adaptation, function and history of the Production Code, MPPDA and PCA (Production Code Administration) in great detail, it is clear that such a plan will only be possible within a well-organized oligopoly, where a limited amount of big players control almost the entire market. Do you really want this to happen? Not only will this favor the big players, who will do anything to keep the status quo, but it will also lead to a great deal of uniformity in the kind of product that will be available. Consumer input will be a great deal less important, since almost all product has to answer to some standards, which the industry can always point to. IOW, I doubt it very much that you will get more "quality" (however defined), but you surely will get more of the same "quality", especially since the oligopolistic nature of the industry will make it almost impossible for "independent" or "new" talent to make their mark. Remember how the Prodcution Code was slowly eroded, until it became unworkable, after the Paramount decrees of 1948 practically destroyed the classical, vertically integrated studio system. It was only in the 50s and 60s that new companies and new talent were given a chance within the Hollywood cinema. In short, I am convinced that your plan will put the industry in a phase of "creative" stagnation, where the fans, like ourselves, will have very little input at all.
(p.s. Before you make the remark that the Production Code successfully kept the Government out of movie regulation, let's remind ourselves who drafted the Production Code in the first place and also who was the head of the PCA, during its most strict regime. Self-censorship is still censorship, only its motives are not politcal, but economical.)
Skeeter kerkove said: "God Bless the vegetables that Jules Jordan eats."
Same here.History is replete with examples that legislating morality does not work. Moral crusaders need to learn they must change hearts, they cannot change behavior.
No authority to have to answer to; None internally composed, none externally composed.
That is absurd. Do we grant the same power to all industries (banking, manufacturing, farming, food, etc.) or just the porn industry? Do we grant the same power to government or even to "the people?" That is the philosophical foundation for anarchy.
On every structural level of society and culture, it is a fundamental truth that if we do not police our own behavior, society will eventually find a way to step in and police it for us.
Sneakers comments on the "divide and conquor" objective, with a "Defend and Control" tactic...
"Defend responsible companies and control the distribution channels so that only quality material gets to the store shelves."
In the eyes of the Christian Right, Vivid is no less responsible than Extreme...you are fooling yourself if you think diferently. Believe me, I came here from the epicenter of the original and ongoing obscenity trial universe...Ohio...and the mid-west soccer mom who finds porn in her teenager's sock drawer doesn't care who put it out, or even what the content is. To say that one company should be controlled and another should operate unfettered due to their willingness to censor themselves goes against the very principle the 1st Amendment was founded upon. If the mere threat of government intrusion is forcing companies to self-censor their material, then our lawmakers have the producers right where they want them...on the ropes and running scared, and censoring their craft without the government ever having to explain themselves. WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on all levels...And as for the "quality material" you speak of hitting the shelves...Have you SEEN what's out there!? Is any of it quality material?! Quality by who's standards? Nothing we do is considered quality material by anoyne outside the industry or the fans of erotic entertainment...and even the fans will give a thumbs-down to much of the "quality material" they are forced to choose from.
Sneakers goes on to explain how Larry Flynt always used satire to defend his most abrasive material. Sneakers has obviously not watched the most damning of all Extreme titles, "Forced Entry". I have never seen such an out-right parody ever produced by the adult industry. If you can't see the satire in that film, well, you didn't watch it...period. Satire has been established as an acceptable protective device for controversy...which is fine, but why can't erotic art be provocative and controversial without having to be rediculous? It's a bullshit platform to selectively prosecute adult filmmakers...an approach that doesn't apply to any other artistic medium. Once again, WRONG on all levels.
Finally, an explanation as to why Larry Flynt has put his money into Vivid and VCA, and not Extreme...because Larry doesn't need the headaches. He did his time. He won his wars. HUSTLER got out of the business of stirring up shit years ago. Have you ever seen a controversial HUSTLER video? Hardly...However, when Extreme's Attorney Lou Sirkin shared the stage with the Free Speech Coalition at the 16th Annual Night of the Stars event, Larry was the first to throw his cash in the hat, knowing damn good and well that he wasn't funding the defense of VCA, or Vivid. He was well aware that his money was going toward defending those pushing the envelope...not those too scared to admit they are even part of the same file. Which brings me back to "divide and conquor"...Totally the objective of our legislators. They have no intention of winning any of these legal obscenity battles. Flynt took the Feds to the matresses too many times for them to think they can win the war by that approach again. Their intention is to put you through a wringer so costly that you fold on your own. The only way we can win that battle is by approaching the beast as an entity...not by isolating the "rotten apples" who are "bringing heat" on the industry. The industry brings heat on itself by puking out the same old standard releases week after week after week. If we were even remotely defending our craft as whole, the Feds would have to think twice about who they prosecuted and on what grounds. But they know that we are largely an industry of individuals, who will point fingers and run for cover when the heat is on.
I appreciate your commentary, Sneakers...as much as I appreciate the right to have my own commentary. But to say that some companies are within the allowable limits of "quality" and others are not, is purely a matter of conjecture. A matter better left for each American to decide for his or her self, and not by a governing body of old men and Christian activists...and I'll never be convinced that our current administration is anything more than that...
Any way you look at it, this is going to be an important case for the porn industry. If Black and Borden are found not guilty, it will open the floodgates to all sorts of extremely hard porn. If they get convicted, I see a lot of the harder edged stuff stop being made, which would be a disaster.
A most cogent post! I'll try to respond to some of your points. Like this one above: if one is a pedophile, then the choice is made for you. If you live in certain states of the Union where obscenity laws are more stringent, the choice is being made for you, either by local law enforcement or by companies who refuse to ship to your locale. The choices are being made right now -- I'm saying, let's be professional about it, let's be smart about it, so the whole industry isn't brought down by a bunch of yahoos with camcorders.It's happening now. Hello, LFP?And we're in a new Golden Age now? What's the difference between Red Light District, Zero Tolerance and all the newbies these days. All of them have DPs, extreme blowjob vids, hispanic girls vids, black girl vids, gangbang vids...nothing new under the sun. We're in a period of creative stagnation now, because stagnation is cheap .
Filming a DP is cheap. Finding a good script, paying good actors well, and shooting on decent film costs money. If larger companies prevailed in this industry, we'd have larger productions. And I'd bet you you'd have more fan input, because these firms would be run like real businesses with real marketing departments, not like your typical fly-by-night porn company "marketers" now: guys with gold chains and crank habits.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Aug 13 2003 : 11:12AM
Whoaw there my man. Let's not confuse child porn and porn with (consenting) adults. It is bad enough that the religious right is doing this, why add to this confusion. The problem I have with what you are saying here goes back to one of my quotes in another post. You seem to fail to make a distinction between regulating the "pro-filmic reality" and the "filmic reality". I can understand what you are saying from a political standpoint (the law is like this, so let's play safe, so we can stay out of trouble), but I strongly disagree from a philosophical standpoint and ultimately from a pratical, business standpoint. There is a very fundamental difference between agreeing to regulate child porn (where a criminal offense is taking place in the "pro-filmic reality") and trying to regulate obscene representations of acts which did not involve criminal offenses in the "pro-filmic reality". Sure, I am aware of sodomy laws and what you have not, but surely, you wouldn't want the government to be meddling with your personal sexual politics/practices, would you? So why allow the government to do this with porn? (In all fairness, there is a very potent critique possible on this line of reasening, wherein I point towards the differences of the "pro-filmic" and "filmic" realities. I am even prepared to give a hint: the "cinematographic dipositif". It is also fair of me to point out that I can counter THAT critique as well.)Maybe so, but for different reasons and with different consequences. And not nearly enough to the extent that will be necessary to implement any kind of "centralized bureau of quality control", that will have to see the light of day if your idea is to be successful. Think about these numbers: the Production Code Adminstration had to handle about 500 films per years during the heydays of the classical studio system, 80% of which were produced/distributed by a mere 15 companies. Do I have to give you numbers on the porn industry as a comparison? Now, if you are suggesting that it is a good idea if the numbers within the porn industry change drastically to accommodate your proposal, I don't think you will find much support for this idea, except by the bigger players.And here we go again. A reference to another quote from another thread: are you confusing ethics and aesthetics? About your "aesthetic analysis" itself. Do I hear you say that bigger is better? Are you attributing aesthetic value to formal systems themselves, instead of to individual texts? It seems to me that you are definitely doing this. I could understand this as well, if you were doing it to explain your personal viewpoint/preference. But that shouldn't count in this fundamental discussion, should it? Because, again, if it does, I would like to ban all daytime television soap series. Do I have to explain in detail what happened in the classical studio system and how the system controlled creativity? Do I have to explain how little consumers (and even retailers) had to say within the classical studio system, that was run by all these professionals. No my friend, what you are advocating is an "aesthetic standard" that pleases your own wishes, but which can be scrutinized in its own right anyway, to solve an "ethic" situation. And let me tell you: it will have adverse effects.
BigFerret said: "Governments should not tell you where you can stick your prick." (I swear honest to God that this quote is purely coincindental.)
Scott Kinney wrote:Originality is no index to virtue, either moral or aesthetic.
That's a great post, Scott! That line is so good that I would rather have it serve as the last sentence of the defense's closing argument! As in, "Remember, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, no matter how much you may have detested these videos, you are the only people in the United States who were forced to watch them."
As someone who grew up in Central Pennsylvania, and went to college in Pittsburgh, PA., I wanted to add my $0.02 about the apparent conservative climate in Western PA., that has been mentioned several times in this topic.
Some of the posters have mentioned that Western PA is ultra-conservative compared to the rest of the US, and that is why the Justice Dept. decided to file this case in the Federal Court there. Having spent 4 years in Pittsburgh in the early 80's, I would at worst call it moderately conservative. It's not San Francisco, but it's not East Podunk,Iowa, either. It is a city of 1.3 million people, and a very ethnically diverse city at that. Most of the people are of Italian, Irish, German, Jewish, African American, Arab, Greek and Eastern European descent, the latter including Polish, Ukrainian, Serbian, Croatian, Russian, Slovak, Czech and last but not least, Hungarian. Considering the contributions that Eastern Europe has made to the porn world over the last decade, this may be significant.
People there are moderately religious, but more as a way of identifying with their ethnic backgrounds, rather than from any straight-laced religious beliefs. Pittsburghers don't wear their religion on their sleeves, and they don't have any "holier-than-thou" attitudes towards people who are different from them. My fond recollections of Pittsburghers are that they are fun-loving people who like to socialize and drink; they are definately not vindictive fundamentalists.
Given that the Federal Courthouse is in downtown Pittsburgh, I would think most if not all of the jurors for any trial would be chosen from the city or the immediate suburbs, rather than the more distant small towns of Western PA, which indeed are more conservative socially.
There are other reasons why the Federal Gov't may have chosen Western PA. that I can think of:
1. It is only a 5 hour drive from Wash. DC, so Justice Dept officials can readily attend any court proceedings.
2. It is not the East Coast, which is somewhat more liberal.
3. The videos from Extreme Associates can be shipped to Pennsylvania, unlike a lot of states in the (far more conservative) South which prohibit their shipment in the first place. Without the initial shipment to the postal inspector in PA., the case could not have gotten off the ground.
If there is anyone from Pittsburgh or the surrounding areas who has more to add to this, I gather the posters here would appreciate it.
Well this is my first post on here so bear with me. I have read every page of this indictment and it is not only an attack by the government on Extreme but if the government wins it will open the door to prosecute basically every adult manufacturer with a website. All Ten indictments are based upon interstate transportation of obscene material via the mail and the INTERNET. A few question's I have on Count 5 of the indictment is whether Extreme sent the transmission to the undercover Postal Inspector or did the undercover Postal Inspector download it? If the undercover Postal Inspector downloaded it does that mean he is the one responsible for the interstate transportation of obscene material? If the undercover Postal Inspector is responsible for transporting the alleged obscene material can he be held criminally liable for this act? Just a few questions I had.
Has anyone been able to obtain a copy of the Extreme Associates indictment through "official channels" (e.g., through the Justice Department's website)? Not me.
The document originally posted by Kevin Moore (thanks again, Kevin!) on StunningCurves.com appears to be a photocopy -- judging, for instance, by the skewed appearance of the first page of the indictment itself.
Although I'm not a criminal lawyer, it also seems notable to me that the first page of the indictment withholds the reference number of the case, indicating that it is "[UNDER SEAL ]". Curiouser and curiouser.
Could this be a sneaky way for the Bush administration to keep the real nature of this prosecution (persecution?) largely unknown to the public?
This is a topic that interests me very much, most of the posts I have read agree with the fact that Extreme has a right to do what they are doing, although unpopular, but I think the real issue has yet to be seen.
I'm not sure if people don't see the ramnifications this case is about or if they are afraid to post. United States District Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan is not only attacking Extreme but laying the groundwork to attack every company involved with adult internet websites.
Not being in California I would not know all the candidates properly, however out of the more realistic candidates for the Governor of California, it would seem that Schwarzenegger may be the best candidate to defend Hollywood from Washington over the next few years?
Ok, this isn't over yet. Today I was told that other people have been convicted of interstate transportation of obscene material via the internet and I don't believe it. If anybody can elighten me on these convictions I would be more than happy. Or not so happy. But at least my mind would be "at rest."
These internet charges seems to be a large misuse of the old obscenity laws to me. I was under the impression the "obscenity" is defined by community standards . When on the internet you are entering a virtual community, the internet community did not go to you.
Even if you define the internet as a means of transportation into your community. You still have a problem; The person, not the company pulled that information into their community.
Lastly, there has to be a clarification of the whole community standards. These are old laws that applied when a movie "played" in the community. The movie houses would air the movie in the a public location that was assessable to the adult community as a whole. The obscenity cases now rarely involved that scenario anymore since most porn on the internet or direct catalog never enters the community as a whole, just the sub-community of your private residence. We need to take ownership of the word "community" and define it as it exist today. If we don't the word will be so abstract any 12 people from your city, state or country can tell you what you can have in your home and define your standards of obscenity.
