Tom Byron

If you still plan to establish and run a legal defense fund for this cause, please feel free to e-mail me for some ideas and suggestions on how you might go about it.

Pontus

[Link]

In response to EagleSpirit's original post, let me suggest that the industry has it within its power to defend itself, and that without its active participation I don't see how we fans can save it. By that I mean that somebody has to lead; that somebody has to set strategy, build a team and guide the defense. The movers and shakers in the industry need to find that somebody and get behind him/her. In fact, I think they have been lapse in not having a permanent organization dedicated to their political health in the same manner they have an organization dedicated to their actors' health.

In regards to helping out, if they need money, they should charge $1 more per unit for each movie. If they choose to fight in Congress, then they can involve the fans more directly in petitions and letters to important Congressmen.

[Link]

Specifically, the cable/satellite TV and hotel industries which have got a nice revenue stream from pay-per-view porn. I wouldn't be surprised if lobbyists from these industries have quietly told the AG and/or Bush to back away from their profitable corner of the porn world. You won't hear any public announcements from the likes of ATT, Comcast Cable, AOL-Time Warner, Marriott, Hilton, etc., but the porn producers that provide the product for these corporate "distributors" would be hard for the AG to touch.

On the ABC Nightline show yesterday, the chief DOJ attorney for the Obscenity section, a Mr. Oosterbaan, was repeatedly asked by Ted Koppel why the AG wasn't going after one of the really big porn companies, that have far more assets than Extreme Associates, and that sell far more product. The DOJ attorney danced around this question for 10 minutes, and never did give a straight answer. All he would say was they wanted "efficacious" prosecutions that would result in convictions. Even he seemed to realize that the general American population can make distinctions between different types of porn.

Rob Black was also interviewed on the program for 10 minutes, by a correspondant named Jack Napper. Mr. Napper made one telling comment after viewing "Forced Entry". He said that he's a single guy, 34 years old, from the East Coast (and presumably he's seen his share of porn), the kind of guy Rob Black would like to have on a jury. And then Mr. Napper stated that even he wasn't certain how he would vote on this movie, because he found parts of it unwatchable. Black countered with the fact that any juror is not supposed to vote based on their own bias, but on what the community would find offensive. He then went on to state that the film was meant to show the horrors of rape. Napper asked back, "so this was meant to be an educational film?"

I found the above to be a telling exchange.

You can find some more info about the program at ABCNews

[Link]

And I've been wondering - if this case does go to trial, will the Court-TV channel broadcast it? It would certainly be a change of pace from the usual sordid murder cases that are their bread and butter.

[Link]

I take umbrage to the quote above highlighted from your post. Let the record reflect: I was indicted along with 4 other co-defendants in 1990 on several Federal Obscenity charges brought in Dallas, Texas. At that time, the government would have been happy to have me "roll over" on my co-defendants and yet, I chose to stand trial, risking my freedom and my children's future. I was finally acquitted by the jury. Your off-the-cuff guessing about what I would do if indicted today is, as usual, not based on any fact. It's not even an educated guess based on past history. It's just another blowhard remark.

In the Texas case, my co-defendants didn't fare as well as I did. When all was said and done, the defense cost about $1 Million, funded without any donations, and people went to jail or had home confinement, etc. The material at that time was child's play by comparison. I'm curious to see the jury reactions to Extreme Teen or Ass Clowns, etc.

Let me clarify: I hope Rob wins. I just think that those people who are calling on everyone to fund this defense fail to acknowledge that this case was NOT necessary and was provoked by the foolhardy appearance on Frontline.

You are correct in saying that I want to distance myself from Extreme style content. Ideally, in a William O. Douglas world (do the research), there would be no such thing as obscenity and all depictions would be protected. Pragmatically, that's not the case, there is a Federal obscenity statute and I believe a jury would have an easier time giving protection to hardcore porn that doesn't seek to shock and disgust.

In my opinion, Extreme content does not help the cause of making Americans want to protect their rights to view porn. It helps the anti-porn groups not seem so radical when they can show that this material is something that could only appeal to sick people. You brought up Vivid. Their content may be tame by today's standards, but I'll say this: they have done more to effectively mainstream adult material and carefully alter community standards without bringing on the kind of heat that Extreme does. They have balls, brains and enough money to fund their own defense.

You insist that this fight, this round of indictments, was coming regardless of Extreme's acts because Ashcroft hates porn. I don't doubt the AG's personal bent against porn, but I wonder if this next spate of activity would have been started without Rob and Lizzie challenging the AG on Frontline. Rob is like a suicide bomber: misguided in the belief that he's helping a cause when in fact he is aiding the enemy.

Personally, I question whether Rob is really interested in helping the business or if he's just basking in the attention today without thinking about the fact that it's just a temporary thrill with long term negative consequences. Let's face it: Extreme doesn't really have much to lose. Their business is in jeopardy so the "come and get me" stance won't really change the eventual fate of that company. The willingness to go to jail, however does baffle me, but trying to figure out Rob is always a fruitless exercise.

I think we are on the same side of this fight, I just think your (Extreme's) strategy is foolish, dangerous, self destructive and harmful to the rest of us in the business of marketing adult content. I hope Rob prevails, but I don't feel as cocky as he does about that. Either way, I still don't see where any of this helps the long term health of our industry.

In summation: I've been at this since 1979. Like Rob, I'm a second generation guy. My dad started in 1964. In all that time I've witnessed plenty of cases as the pendulum has swung to and fro'. I've learned not to go into battle unarmed...

Tom (Guy?): best of luck. Congratulations to you on NOT being indicted. I hope it stays that way.

Regards,

Christian Mann
Video Team

[Link]

Chris, my "newcomer to the business" position in this industry has gotten the worst of me this time. I was totally unaware of your legal battles, and I stand apologetically corrected. Thank you for constructively informing me of such events, and thank you for making your contribution to defending this business.

Being in the business as long as you have, is it possible that you see the compartmentalized facets of the industry that nobody else sees? In rural Pennsyvania, nobody knows or gives a shit who Extreme is. YOU know they are a band of industry misfits who do not accurately reflect the entire business, but the jurors and the judges don't know that, and rest assured, they don't care. Porn is porn is porn to the Republican soccer mom who finds a few worn out VHS's in her son's sock drawer. We are all in one basket of rotten eggs to the prosecuters of this industry.

You did make a fabulous statement in regards to the ramifications of doing away with the softer, more acceptable material (ie: the Vivids and Wickeds and VCA's of the game). The cable rights and hotel deals and all that other shit would suffer, and then bureaucrats lose money, and so on and so on...Very valid indeed.

Did Rob and Lizzy invite this war with their "Frontline" prodding of the AG himself? Mmmmmmm...maybe....But again, I think it was coming nonetheless. Rob and Lizzy just cut to the front of the line for the Federal Rollercoaster. But somebody would have been at the front anyway...now they are second in line...I wonder who that will be? If Extreme wins the case, the second guy in line will have a better chance of survival than if Extreme loses, and he may possibly never hear from the Fed's at all.

Vivid has indeed done a fabulous job of creating a certain social acceptability of the industry without poking the Federal bear. But no progress has ever come from following convention, in any endeavor throughout history. It has always been the idiot on a tangent who has opened up new avenues, even when it seems as though their efforts will ultimately be cannibalistic for everyone. Extreme may not be the best example of making well thought out decisions when pushing the limits...but if this case falls in their favor, and they retain the right to script and perform theatrical representations of sex, no matter who may be repulsed by them, then all of us are safe to experiment with pushing our own boundaries, free from government intervention.

One final note...What's with the confusion between me and Tommy? I'm an actual person...a director who's had a pre-industry knack for creating controversial documentaries, videos, and short films. I have a particular interest in this case because I abandoned mainstream media for the freedom of expression this industry offered. The sex, to me, is secondary to the fact that I can create films that elevate and expose provocative subjects and unpopular speech. Erotica is the platform from which I protest what is going on in the world. Check out the trailer for "AMERICAN GUNK" on the evolutionerotica.com website...it may help give you a better idea of what I do. But make no mistake about it, Tommy and I are two very different individuals, who happen to compliment each other in the best way when working together.

Thanks again for your input Chris...we all learn from each other.
- guy capo

[Link]

And a lot of you are reading a lot into about why Rob and Lizzie got indicted and not Tom. Save yourselves the time and bother. There's a lot about Extreme's paperwork in the last couple of years that was preparing them for something like this.

This is just speculation, but maybe Rob and Janet WANTED her to be one if the people indicted, if an indictment ever happened. It's much harder for most people to think a female as guilty of obsenity as a male. Therefore, if Janet is co-owner of Extreme, there is a female there to lend credence to the content produced.

[Link]

You don't know that for a fact. We have been expecting a crackdown since the election and nothing has occurred probably because of 9/11. Is it possible that it may have stayed that way, but for Rob's appearance on Frontline? I think maybe so. I don't claim to know... but you shouldn't either.

One thing is certain, and I think we agree on this: what Rob did on Frontline was stupid and not helpful to anyone. As a 1st Amendment purist, I respect his right to do it. As a business pragmatist, I do NOT respect his need to draw attention to himself, and by default, to us all.

Regards,

Christian

[Link]

This is about as succinct a response on this topic as one is likely to find. Kudos Mr.Mann

Quaze

[Link]

Question for Christian: You say, 'We have been expecting a crackdown since the election...' Who is 'we' and what have you done about it?

[Link]

You wrote "We have been expecting a crackdown since the election and nothing has occurred probably because of 9/11. Is it possible that it may have stayed that way, but for Rob's appearance on Frontline?" Yes. "I think maybe so." I think probably not. We just happen to disagree on that point, Christian, but it's nothing personal either way, right?

Pontus

[Link]

That's really an opinion. I can't really judge, as I've never seen any of their product, and in fact, the only time I've ever viewed it were the clips on 20/20 last night. And I can't really say I have any interest in watching any of it.

But it should also be kept in mind that there are also people who think Playboy magazine "goes to far."

There are also people who think the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issues "go to far."

In the end, that's a judgement call we have to make for ourselves. Providing that only consenting adults are involved, what we view should be our own decision, and not the decision of the goverment or some set of nebulous "community standards," whatever the hell that means.

In the end, you either believe in freedom or you don't. There is no inbetween.

[Link]

Pontus

[Link]

That last line speaks to my point that I'll make.

Pontus said,
"Does anybody really believe that the Government would not be going after porn had it not been for Rob Black's appearance on Frontline? I don't see how anybody can believe that. Had Black (and Extreme Associates) not been featured on Frontline, then possibly he wouldn't have been selected as the Government's first target for prosecution, but somebody would have been picked."

I believe this to be true. However, I believe any case brought against someone else would have been more of a case to appease the right wing constituants rather than a case the gov't stands a good chance of winning. One thing that is being overlooked here. Everyone keeps saying how it's the right wingers and john ashcroft and george bush this. Well, as far as bringing the cases that's true. However, the fortunate thing about our justice system is we have something called the jury system. You seem to be all doom and gloom assuming we're going to have twelve John Ashcroft carbon copies on the jury. You realize what the odds of that are. Much talk has been made of where the trial will take place. A supposed conservative stronghold. If I'm not mistaken the gov't also went after porn in hotels in salt lake city. How more conservative can you get? The result? The gov't lost especially when it was revealed salt lake city had one of the higher averages of adult videos rented and ordered in the country. Thus the community standards argument all but got that case dismissed. Also about the juries. Suppose they show these films and they are considered obscene and Rob loses. Now, immediately after this show that same jury a vivid or wicked video. What are the odds that same jury will say that one of theose videos are also obscene? You may disagree but I say I win that case 100 out of 100 times. It's going to be hard enough for the gov't to win against Rob. I personally have no fear in losing the kind of porn I watch. So give me your doomsday scenario all you want, not sweating a lick here. The only thing that will happen is that if Rob loses, not only will he have brought this on himself but he will only encourage the gov't the go after the bigger and more mainstream companies they may never have or even if had, had no chance of winning against. Remember it takes 12 normal citizens to convict, not just an indictment by some right wing fanatic.
The gov't has every right to bring this case. For all the what about my freedom talk they have the right to do this. That's the way our system is set up. If he's convicted then that's the way it is because that's the way our system is set up. The jury system. If he's not that's the way our system is set up. I believe in our freedoms as much as you. I also believe if a jury decides something to live with that decision too. Don't have to agree with it but must believe in the process. There is a difference between being pissed the gov't is doing this and saying they don't have a right too. Let's just let a jury decide.

Proud member of the church of Tina.

[Link]

What have I done about it? I met with my attorney, Paul Cambria, to discuss the most prudent way to protect my business while balancing my need to sell product. This meeting, and others like it, spawned the now famous, much maligned and completely mis-understood "Cambria List".

[Link]

Pontus

[Link]

Guy Capo: I apologize for not knowing that you and Tommy are two different people. When I saw the Evolution name and the word "capo" as in chief, I assumed it was TB. Forgive me. Thank you for your remarks. Obviously, the suggestion that I'm anything short of a "stand up guy" didn't please me, but your explanation is more than satisfactory.

With that, I will recoil back into my sheltered world, try to get some work done and once again hang up my soap box... for now.

Regards to all.

CSM

[Link]

Lenny Would Have Had to Deal with Ashcroft

From salon.com: Pornography may not be as inspiring a subject to defend as a Lenny Bruce spritz, but free speech is free speech. It's also hard to avoid the feeling that Attorney General John Ashcroft and his ilk, who are constantly calling for a return to the good old days of clear moral guidelines and harsh sanctions, would have been among Bruce's most zealous persecutors.

On Aug. 7, Ashcroft's Justice Department announced a 10-count indictment against a porno production company called Extreme Associates. The owners of the company, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano (aka "Lizzie Borden") were charged with distributing obscene films and video clips through the U.S. mail and the Internet. The move was expected. The conservative groups that regard society's tolerance for pornography as a sign of hideous moral decay, and that make up the Bush administration's political base, have been critical of Bush for not launching an anti-porn war sooner. Attorney General Ashcroft is a fervent born-again Christian who met with anti-porn crusaders before Sept. 11; his planned crusade was derailed by the terrorist attacks. (Under Clinton, not surprisingly, prosecuting porn was a low priority -- and during those years, the industry took off in meteoric fashion.)

What is peculiar about Ashcroft's war on porn is its obvious futility. Only someone with the burning, itching faith of a Jimmy Swaggart would believe that an industry that now generates an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion annually and involves mainstream, blue-chip companies could realistically be closed down, or even significantly curtailed: Like it or not, the porn toothpaste is out of the American tube, and it won't go back in.

Legally, Ashcroft is on strong ground: pornography is obviously obscene, and obscene speech can be restricted. But law and the real world have diverged here to the point of absurdity, and a common-sense analysis reveals his singling out the Extreme films to be ludicrous. With the possible exception of "Forced Entry," in which an actress was apparently actually beaten (albeit with her consent), the Extreme Associates movies deemed obscene by the feds -- "Extreme Teen #24," "Cocktails #2: Director's Cut," "Ass Clowns #3: Director's Cut," and "1001 Ways to Eat My Jizz" -- don't appear (to judge by the images on the Extreme Web site) to be fundamentally different from the standard run of porn films. Raunchier, maybe; a little more outrageous, perhaps. But not in an altogether different league. Once you're in the realm of hardcore, drawing distinctions about what is and isn't obscene becomes an exercise in Aristotelean hairsplitting, using Clarence Thomas' fabled pubic hair. As Susannah Breslin noted in a Salon piece two years ago about the L.A. police department's crackdown on so-called extreme porn, "It remains unclear why 100 men masturbating on a woman is less protected by the First Amendment than, say, three men doing the same thing."

A scene in which Bush and Ashcroft are sitting around discussing this important matter of First Amendment law could only be done justice to by Lenny Bruce. "John, I love ya but I gotta tell ya, you're back in the friggin' Middle Ages with this no-more-than-four-dicks-at-one-time thing. Times have changed. Even when I was a frat boy, a couple dozen weenies was no big deal ... Tell you what I'll do, I'll do ya a favor and cut it off at 50. More than 50 shmucks, we shut 'em down." "Fifty! Mr. President, with respect, that's outrageous. How about 35?"

The real target of Ashcroft's zeal is obviously not the supposedly "unacceptable" porn made by Extreme Associates, but pornography itself. As already noted, however, it is a singularly empty crusade, apparently intended mainly to score political points: Although Ashcroft has the full weight of obscenity law on his side, that law -- always hopelessly ambiguous and vague -- has become completely meaningless. It has been trumped by money and reality.

[Link]

Max Hardcore Says Rob Black Will Walk

Max Hardcore: After viewing the Nightline report on the case of U.S. vs. Rob Zicarri, I am now thoroughly convinced he will walk. It’s as simple as that.

Why you ask? Simple - the government did their best to lay out their case tonight, and frankly, they didn’t make much of an impact. So much for the ‘Almighty Hammer’™ campaign. (I just made that up.) The Justice Department didn’t get any traction right from the start, and they’re going to get less as time goes on. They have a zero percent chance of a conviction, but do have a hundred percent chance of making him spend a lot of money

I also find it ironic that MasterCard was the first advertiser on the show – quite possibly used for the website subscription or an internet video purchase that led to the charges.

Americans are too informed these days for a red-herring, con job. And besides, it should be pretty clear that people don’t really care about the ‘pornography threat’ anymore. No body count, no interest. We as Americans have more pressing problems. Like when they’re going to drop the next bomb over here. Or will I have a job next year.

I find it comical that the government would show their hand and try this case in the court of public opinion. It’s a blatant attempt to rally support for George Junior’s next campaign. But I can’t see how even right wing conservatives could be satisfied by this so-called opening salvo.

I have to hand it to Rob Black, God bless his blackened soul. He came off not looking like a complete imbecile. Paul Fishbein on the other hand looked real good. But it you want to put Rob in jail for something, go after him for writing bad checks, not making bad movies.

In the end, this prosecution is going to get bogged down by a complicated case they can’t win. It will drag on for years due to the dogged persistence of the veteran fighter H. Lou Sirkin, and the law on his side.

In time, the ‘assault’ on adult entertainment is going to be seen by the public for the farce that it is. And that will be that. I know because I’ve been there. They said the same thing when three of us got popped out here in Los Angeles a few years ago. ‘This is just the beginning!’ Right - three years on my case and they’re still no closer to putting it to bed. Credit my lawyer Jeffrey Douglas for sure, but credit the public for being too smart for this crap.

[Link]

Proud member of the church of Tina.

[Link]

Can't really say I'm surprised by your comments. The industry's always self-centered position seems to be "let
'em hang."

Hopefully, that short-sightedness won't affect the outcome of this case. While it would be a tragedy if Rob and Co. were actually convicted in this case, it would be even more
disheartening if he ended up in jail because he couldn't
get the support, financial or otherwise, from the industry.

I've been in this business 21+ years and it never fails to amaze and disgust me how, when the chips are down, everyone
always seems to turn their back on people who do anything
out of step with the norm of the industry. I was the first performer in the business to call attention to the (then)
woefully inadequate testing and general denial that existed
in the early 90's regarding HIV by going "condom only."

For that, I was nearly blackballed from the industry.

Howie Wasserman and Gourmet Video actually took an obscenity
case all the way and WON , and they are now pretty much out of business, unlike Steve Hirsch and Russ Hampshire who copped pleas to save their businesses, not caring about the long-term effects such a decision would have on future prosecutions, they just cut and ran. Yet THEY are
considered First Amendment "heroes."

I pray that people can overlook their personal feelings about Rob and Extreme and realize that this case, whether or not you agree with how it was brought about, does have far reaching effects on the industry.

If anyone else gets indicted, I will be in their corner as well. I just wish more people in the biz felt the way I do.

Edited by - Tom Byron on 8/28/2003 7:21:31 PM

[Link]

Pontus

[Link]

Community standards might have seemed a reasonable test/explanation when adult movies were shown in theaters in seedy neighborhoods in the early 70s. The community standards test really should not apply to home video products since they involve personal/private viewing and in no way involve the community. If Sirkin has luck on his side he'll get a chance to argue this issue in front of the Supreme Court before a few Justices retire and are replaced by Ashcroft clones.

[Link]

Edited by - Bill on 8/28/2003 9:11:29 PM

[Link]

I know you personally didn't appear on Frontline, that's why you were in parentheses. I added you there because Extreme was (is?) ostensibly your company at that time which justified the parenthetical inclusion.

Re. Russ: my point is that he is refered to as a hero because of his sacrifice for his employees. Did it aid the 1st Amendment, per se? Maybe not, but I don't think it was a disservice either, as you seem to suggest. The government has no benefit of precedent when someone cops a plea on obscenity. Check your law on this.

Re. Vivid: I don't fault them for making the deal they made. It was a good deal. Ironically, their lawyer in that case: Lou Sirkin, the same Sirkin who is currently defending Rob. Again, they lived to fight another day and do good things for the industry.

I like you Tom, but I have to say: you sound bitter towards these guys and I'm not sure why. For what it's worth: Russ and Steven are two good guys who have done good things for the furtherance of this business. They are in business to make money and should not be faulted for that.

Rob may yet face the day that he decides it's more prudent to make a deal than to fight a losing case and do time for NO positive gain for anyone. If that happens, I will not judge him. It's easy for us to sit and play armchair quarterback. Each case is different when you're in the hotseat. I've been there.

As I said earlier: I'm glad you aren't indicted and I hope it stays that way. We don't need martyrs, we need survivors. Just my opinion.

PEACE.

[Link]

What disappointed me the most was that Koppel didn't ask the goon from the AG's office (who was introduced as the head of the "child exploitation and obscenity" section, or something along those lines), who kept claiming that they had to use the budget available to them to bring "efficacious prosecutions," why they deemed it appropriate to use any of their limited funds to prosecute movies made by, and for, consenting adults, rather than spend all of it on combating "child exploitation." The guy's head would have exploded if Koppel had done that.

BTW, Drew, porn wasn't exclusively shown in theatres in seedy neighborhoods back in the day. Plenty of the places were just normal movie theatres, in normal neighborhoods, which, as the mainstream movie business started to shift toward the multiplex theatres, found that showing hardcore porn movies was the only way to keep the bills paid and the doors open.

[Link]

While I too think that Rob Black has a decent chance in the courts, I recognize that this administration isn't approaching porn in a logical fasion - they are attacking it from an ideological basis. Whether or not Bush is ferverently anti-porn isn't so important as the fact that a major column of his support is. I believe it will take more than one in the loss column to stop this administration from pursuing this industry. We can hope that our fellow citizens in the courtroom will reject the government's attempts, but we should bear in mind that you don't have to lose your case to lose, a-la Bonfire of the Vanities.

[Link]

1. Rob actually came off kinda sympathetic; reminded me of Tricia's admonition about not confusing the Rob Black "character" and Rob Zicari. There seemed to be more Zicari than Black on the show -- which is the opposite of how he played Frontline. (Removing the eyebrow post probably didn't hurt either... ;)

2. Extreme has revenues of 20 to 50 MILLION bucks anually? Holy crap!

3. The ADA sure was dancing a lot, wasn't he? I was surprised Koppel was putting the screws to him as much as he did; and not as surpised that the ADA didn't have an answer.

4. It sure does seem personal. Ashcroft doesn't seem the type to be able to take a joke, let alone being made a mockery by some snotty pornographer.

5. Fishbein came off well; the came not to praise Rob but not to bury him either... he did call the movies "aborrhent" but also "not obscene" -- the latter really being the key.

6. I liked the passing references to mainstream portrayals of rape and murder. It does make me wonder why it's OK for slasher pics to exist (probably because they punish the sexually active with death) but mix the slasher genre with explicit sex and someone goes and makes a Federal Case about it.

7. Why the hell do reporters get so fucking sensitive -- "titles we can't say on network TV" -- when covering porn? First off, it's 11:30 at night, you can probably say "Ass Clowns" on a news show in the context of a legit news piece... and if you can't -- why the hell can you show the opening credits -- WHICH DISPLAY THE TITLE? Because the kids who are watching at 11:30 can't read? (And why don't more stations take advantage of the lax overnight FCC rules?)

(I watched the History Channel's docu about the NASA Mission Control guys (Krantz, etc.) and they were bleeping conversational profanity until Krantz used "shit" as part of an illustrative quote, and then it sailed right by.)

8. Rob did come off poorly when he tried to justify "Forced Entry" as illustrating the evils of rape... All I wanted was the reporter to say "Bullshit. You made it as stroke material; for you are a maker of jerk-off movies." but instead he danced around the issue (damned Standards & PRactices) and had do go with that the Jodie Foster flick, The Accused, is a "rape is bad" movie...

9. Rob looked a little too pleased with his oft-repeated quote 'The only people forced to watch my movies are the 12 people in the jury box." It was as if George Costanza got JerkStore out the first time. A little too smug at the cleverness. However, you really can't fault the reasoning.

But, as a society member, I am torn... I'm not comfortable with the fact that people whack off to violent images. There's nothing to do about it, really... but it's one of those things that I wonder if there was any sort of violent porn in the 50s that people were whacking off to... and if not, why not, and why has it appeared now?

Lofty topics. :-)

To conclude, I thought the piece was far more balanced than I expected. It started dangerously, with Koppel explaining why they're giving away "free publicity" -- but on the whole was pretty sympathetic...

[Link]

Rob Black And Lizzie Borden Make Bail

by Jeff Booth
08/28/03

As an adult film reviewer, you could not pay me enough to watch an Extreme video. Staged violence and vomit is not what I want to see in my porn. Now, thanks to the Justice Department, several jurors will be forced to watch them, an irony that will no doubt be lost on the current Attorney General of the United States. He is making it clear that his number two priority, after dealing with domestic terrorism, is going after obscenity.

Certainly, it is no surprise that the government went after Rob Zicari (Rob Black) and Janet Romano (Lizzy Borden) of Extreme Associates. They practically begged the Attorney General to do it in their staged presentation on Frontline with the producers walking out because they were so disgusted (which turned out to be entirely set up). I personally deplore what they do in their videos, although the rape and violence are little different than what is found in mainstream movies. If there had been no sex in the movies, they would be untouchable.

After pleading not guilty to Federal obscenity charges, the two are now free on $100,000 bail apiece. That's pretty high bail for someone not considered a flight risk and not charged with a violent crime.

Many civil libertarians have decried the countless abuses of civil liberties that have taken place under the new powers granted the Attorney General under the Patriot Act. Those abuses pale by comparison with the potential for abuse that already exists in our antiquated obscenity laws.

These laws allow the government to drag people from their homes and away from their families to another state to find the most ill-educated conservative jury pool in the nation. They could do little better than Western Pennsylvania, home of homophobe Senator Rick Santorum, who does not believe in a Constitutional right to privacy.

They allow the government to use random standards of what obscenity is (since it has no real definition), so that no one can know whether what they are doing is a crime ahead of time or not. Even the government attorney that is heading up this federal prosecution admitted that in some jurisdictions, even Playboy could be found obscene.

The laws allow prosecutors to give out sentences that are longer than if the defendants had actually raped or killed someone (the defendants in this case are facing 50 years each and $2.5 million in fines). As Zicari clearly put it, he's facing more time than the guy who was trying to sell surface-to-air missles to terrorists. Even if you think that these films should not be on the market -- do the punishments being threatened even remotely fit the crime? In fact, should it not be a civil rather than a criminal proceeding? It's really a product liability case -- except the nebulous case of actual harm caused would be thrown out of court were it about anything other than sex.

It is clear that our obscenity laws are a relic of the past that make almost no sense in today's world. The most surprising thing about last night's Nightline was that Ted Koppel and the show's point man on obscenity, reporter Jake Tapper, seem to agree.

In fact, Koppel seemed almost irate while questioning Drew Oosterbaan, chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. Oosterbann dodged the question when Koppel asked him to identify obscenity. When asked about how they determine what they go after, Oosterban responded with the cryptic "Your question assumes that that line is drawn solely upon content and it isn't. That line is drawn from a prosecutor's perspective on a number of factors including content and how egregious it is." When Koppel asked Oosterbann if any citizen of Western Pennsylvania had actually complained to initiate the prosecution there, he replied, "Perhaps not literally."

Reporter Jake Tapper, who provided background on U.S. obscenity laws, even questioned whether these laws were still relevant. He explained the difficulty of determining what is obscene, and the problem of applying community standards to what is a national market. People in Pennsylvania would be viewing these materials in the privacy of their own homes -- they were never intended for public viewing in a theatre, as was the case when our obscenity laws were last revisited by the courts. There were no VCRs or DVD players back then.

U.S. District Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan warned the adult industry that the Extreme case was just the beginning: "The current prosecution of Extreme Associates should put the pornography industry on notice that the U.S. Department of Justice is vigorously enforcing the federal obscenity laws."

Some might feel that what will clearly be a hugely expensive war on porn is a waste of money. To an administration that does not even blink at a billion dollars a week in Iraq, that won't stop them. Some might feel that there are more important things than going after porn in today's world. This is an administration that pulled resources away from the search for known terrorist Osama and his allies, allowing them to regroup, so that they could focus their attention on Iraq, that only posed an immediate threat if you fudged the evidence. Some might think that this is a threat to free speech. With the Patriot Act and other laws the Attorney General would like to see passed, free speech is not exactly something he is all that fond of. It is not an administration with any reality checks whatsoever, so the adult industry should be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Link]

Dion Giarrusso
President
Red Light District

[Link]

You know I've seen some of the movies in question. I didn't watch them because I was forced to, but because some aspect appealed to me. I found the films to be poor in production quality but artistic in a twisted sense.

[Link]

Even with that, the lack of definition of what is and isn't obscene is my biggest problem with this whole thing. It's the only crime that I know of that isn't a crime until the jury decided it is.

For most crimes, the jury decides if someone committed the crime or not (Did "Joe X." rob a bank, yes or no). It's black and white, no grey area. For obscenity, the jury has to first decide if any crime at all has been comitted and then decide if it was comitted by "Joe X.". That's like a jury having to decide whether robbing a bank is illegal before considering whether "Joe X." did it or not.

[Link]