Porn Crackdown

[Luna 0]

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1559251,00.html

Quote

Article Last Updated: Friday, August 08, 2003 - 3:45:27 AM PST

Porn crackdown puts chill in 'Boogie Nights' land
Justice charges wholesaler

By P.J. Huffstutter, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES -- The Justice Department on Thursday charged a wholesaler of adult films here with violating federal obscenity laws, launching the first of what it promises will be a wave of criminal cases against purveyors of pornography.

The 10-count federal grand-jury indictment against Extreme Associates and its executives, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, set off a wave of anxiety at adult-entertainment companies in California's San Fernando Valley, considered the capital of the multibillion-dollar pornography industry in the United States. Attorney General John Ashcroft promised upon taking office that he would crack down on the distributors of adult-entertainment material such as movies, magazines and Web sites, much as his Reagan administration predecessor Edwin Meese III did in the 1980s.

"Today's indictment marks an important step in the Department of Justice's strategy for attacking the proliferation of adult obscenity," Ashcroft said. The department will "continue to focus our efforts on targeted obscenity prosecutions that will deter others from producing and distributing obscene material."

Officials at Extreme Associates did not return calls for comment Thursday. But William Lyon, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade group for the adult-entertainment industry, moviemakers and former actresses, said, "This is just another form of harassment by the government." Thursday's indictment came after investigators with the U.S. Postal Inspectors Service set up a sting operation in Pennsylvania. Between July 2002 and February, the defendants are accused of illegally selling allegedly obscene material via the Internet, and distributing videotapes and DVDs across state lines through the postal system.

Extreme produces movies such as "Extreme Teen24" and "Forced Entry -- Directors Cut," which depict the rapes and murders of several women, according to court documents.

Extreme Associates, a relatively small player in the Triple-X world, has garnered both financial success and public attention in the past several years for its line of hyper-aggressive adult films.

The privately held company employees 15 people and has annual sales of between $20 million and $49.9 million, according to the U.S. Business Directory.

Extreme's offices were searched in April under a federal search warrant. The unsealed warrant shows that federal and postal investigators seized copies of five movies as well as sales records, distribution invoices and an array of other business documents.

On the company's Web site, Zicari posted a statement that said no one was arrested and that the company remained in business. He vowed to fight the government and wrote, "I definitely will not sit here and cry a bunch of tears."

He also announced that the company was putting what it has begun calling "The Federal Five" tapes on sale on its Web site.

If convicted, Zicari, 29, also known as Rob Black, and Romano, 26, also known as Lizzie Borden, each could face as long as 50 years in prison and a fine of $2.5 million.

While a steady string of state and federal cases have tackled obscenity issues in the past few years, many lawsuits have focused on concerns of online child pornography.

"Every time we get a Republican administration, these kind of cases seem to perk up," said attorney Elliot Abelson, who defended the industry in obscenity cases in the late 1970s and mid-'80s. "Back then, people definitely had a bracing sense that this was coming."

The adult-entertainment industry has grown dramatically since then. Annual rentals and sales of adult videos and DVDs top $4 billion, and the industry churns out about 11,000 titles each year--more than 20 times as many as Hollywood, according to Adult Video News, a trade magazine.

Social mores also have changed, allowing the industry to be perceived as more mainstream. Cable television company Showtime runs a show called "Family Business," detailing the day-to-day life of pornography producer Adam Glasser. And this week, legendary pornographer Larry Flynt, publisher of Hustler magazine, and adult film actress Mary Carey began gathering signatures to run in California's gubernatorial recall election.

Because of such changes, "it's getting harder and harder to get obscenity prosecutions," said Frederick S. Lane III, an attorney and author of "Obscene Profits: The Entrepreneurs of Pornography in the Cyber Age."

"Ones that would have been slam-dunks are hung juries," he said.

I'm walking a marathon to raise money for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Click Here for more information!

[lawrocket 3]

Fascinating. I sense a free-speech situation right here.

It has been categorically settled that obscene material is not protected by Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment.

The issue will be whether the videos are obscene.

Back in 1973, the Supreme Court decided MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15. In that case, the Supreme Court stated the standard for "obscenity." The standard was listed as this test:

"(a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
(b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and
(c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."

So, I guess the issue is whether videos "which depict the rapes and murders of several women" meet that test.

Personally, I don't know what "state" law is being used here, or what "obscenity law" is being used. SO, I don't know.

But, do you all think that, by this definition, the videos depicting rape and murder are obscene?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Cornholio 0]

Um, last I heard porn was legal. WTF ???

Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast!
Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool!
bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

Fascinating. I sense a free-speech situation right here.

Well, according to the article it was Federal laws and not state laws.

Last time I checked the Constitution did not make any "exceptions" for obscene materials. I do believe the Supreme Court case you referenced will be questioned/challenged as it should be. Especially since the guidlines set out by the case are vague and opinion centered, and not measurable.

[usmcdannyboy 0]

Quote

Um, last I heard porn was legal. WTF ???

ok porn is legal and i do enjoy it ( what else is there to do on a computer?) but depicting the rape and murder of people engaged in sex is not cool. come on, i saw a clip of a girl getting smacked and dam if i didn't get called off jump run. people who enjoy that crap need to take a serious look at themselves

I am the light my son...What you seek is fire

[BlueEyedMonster 0]

Quote

Quote

Um, last I heard porn was legal. WTF ???

ok porn is legal and i do enjoy it ( what else is there to do on a computer?) but depicting the rape and murder of people engaged in sex is not cool. come on,...

And how is this really different that people being entertained by rape and murder on their favorite prime-time detective/law show? Oh wait, it has to do with sex... that never happens in prime-time.

I personally think its sick, but if someone else likes it, keeps it in fantasy land, and someone else wants to take their money. More power too 'em.

[Luv2Fall 0]

........very interesting.

[AndyMan 7]

I don't think it's all that interesting... They're accused of selling snuff films - films depicting murdering women for the sexual pleasure of men. That's pretty out there, and I would entirely support going after these guys in the same way I support going after people who make kiddie-porn.

The line between porn and "obscenity" is always murky. It's easier in cases like child porn where specific laws get passed to handle a specific case. I'm a bit surprised there aren't more "snuff film" laws out there to handle these cases... It does sound like these films fall clearly into what I hope is everybodys definition of obscenity.

_Am (as big a porn fan as anyone)

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Luv2Fall 0]

I do find it interesting.

Agreed, a lot of bad goes with porn - unfortunately.

[Muenkel 0]

Does this mean the Titee-Bar is in danger?

_________________________________________
Chris

[CrazyIvan 0]

As long as they don't ban BOOBIES, we're happy...aren't we fellas?

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[lawrocket 3]

The Constitution does make exceptions for "obscenity." Generations of jurisprudence demonstrates that.

Nevertheless, I think that the AG may have a case here. It certainly appeals to the prurient interest. A rape of a murder can certainly be depicted in a patently obscene way.

But, the issue is whether the films, "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." This is what makes porn films an exception to prostitution. Pay the "actors" and put a camera on it, and it becomes protected by free speech.

Again, an interesting topic. I think that what will ultimately occur will be a challenge to the law that they are using to prosecute the guy. The law itself may be written in a way that does not pass Constitutional muster.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I don't think it's all that interesting... They're accused of selling snuff films - films depicting murdering women for the sexual pleasure of men. That's pretty out there, and I would entirely support going after these guys in the same way I support going after people who make kiddie-porn.

Why? They're only depicting rape and murder, and like someone else said, we see that on prime time all the time. Is it different because the women (and maybe some men) are naked?

Quote

_Am (as big a porn fan as anyone)

Apparently you're not.
-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[tb62871 0]

Sodomy is ok but porn is not???

--TB
Welcome my friends to the show that never ends.

[billvon 2,991]

> I'm a bit surprised there aren't more "snuff film" laws out there to
>handle these cases...

I'm not. There is a very powerful lobby (Hollywood) that has a good reason to object to any law that might restrict depictions of violence towards women (including killing them) associated with depictions of sex. That's a huge market. Go to any Friday the 13th movie and see how many women have sex with someone and are then killed shortly thereafter, often while wearing nothing or next to nothing. Think Hollywood is going to be OK with a law that could be interpreted to include that?

There is a huge danger in letting the government define what is too gross for people to see. I am all for laws that protect people from exploitation (especially children) but I'm against laws that define what 'obscene' is. That is a very dangerous power to give to government.

[GigaBuist 0]

Quote

. It's easier in cases like child porn where specific laws get passed to handle a specific case.

Sorry, even child porn isn't a clear cut case. A picture of me at the age of 17 years 364 days running naked into a lake is child porn. One day later it's just a picture of my pale white hairy flat behind. While neither would probably be considered kiddie-porn by you one is highly illegal and the other is just evidence of me commit indecent exposure. If an 18 year old woman has a polaroid of 17 and a half year old boyfriend bucknaked she's guilty of holding child pornography. She can have sex with him, but she can't take a picture of him and keep it.

Maybe the law was written with ways around this but I've never heard of it and I would doubt any politicial would take a stand to reduce the scope of what is and isn't kiddie-porn.

I'm not saying I'm all for the stuff (certainly not) -- but it freaks me out to know that somebody could go to jail for posessing a picture of me naked at 17 and be labeled some type of sex offender. It's just not right.