Posted on 01/24/2005 3:04:20 PM PST by Modernman
The Justice Department yesterday lost the first major test of obscenity laws in at least a decade when a federal judge in Pittsburgh threw out an indictment of Extreme Associates, which sells films of women being gang-raped, defecated on and having their throats slit.
U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster dismissed charges of distribution of obscene materials brought here last year against the California company and its owners, Robert Zicari, 31, and his wife, Janet Romano, 27.
In a 45-page opinion, the judge said the federal obscenity statutes as applied in the case violate constitutional protections of liberty and privacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
THIS is obscene.
Unless the films used under-aged actors or were done without their consent, or unless the material was being marketed to children, I don't see why the government would spend its treasure on this case.
I suppose. I'm still not in favor of using taxpayer money to prosecute skin-flicks involving consenting adults, no matter how icky the porn.
If I recall correctly, concentration on bodily functions is one of the hallmark tests of obscenity.
Precious bodily fluids, Mandrake!
I gave them myself but of course not my essence.
"I suppose. I'm still not in favor of using taxpayer money to prosecute skin-flicks involving consenting adults, no matter how icky the porn."
Spoken like a true libertarian who does not have values or morals.
The Miller v. California obscenity test:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);
AND
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct (i.e.: ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; masturbation; excretory functions; lewd exhibition of the genitals; or sado-masochistic sexual abuse);
AND
Whether a reasonable person would find that the work, taken
as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or
scientific value.
Ah. So deriving sexual satisfaction from watching a woman getting her throat slit is pretty much the same as watching any old porn.
I think I get it.
Assuming that everyone involved in the production and consumption of this porn is a consenting adult, what basis do you have for using government force to ban it?
It's not my cup of tea, but who does it harm?
That is disgusting.
"Whether the average person. . . "
Maybe that judge was not an average person.
I can't believe that the "average person" would find that content acceptable. That's incredible.
I don't get it. To me there is a huge difference between some smut peddler selling images of consensual stuff, and making movies of throat slashing and gang raping. Something is missing from the article.
"I'm still not in favor of using taxpayer money to prosecute skin-flicks involving consenting adults, no matter how icky the porn."
I get where you're coming from but what if films which use endentured legal aged slaves, say women of Asian 3rd world countries for such snuff like films? Would you say authorities have no right to stop such grotesque forms of slavery manufactured under the guise of art, entertainment?
Will the Goverment appeal? And Can We get this SOB tossed off the bench
The women getting her throat slit.
If the women involved are being forced to perform in the porn, then a crime is being committed.
Read the article- the throat-slitting and gang-rapes were simulated. Everyone involved fully consented to everything in the videos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.