Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Censorship United States News Your Rights Online

US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity 574

Posted by timothy
from the your-honor-it-was-just-some-good-clean-fun dept.
angry tapir writes "The husband and wife owners of a California company that distributed pornographic materials over the Internet have been each sentenced to one year and one day in prison. Extreme Associates and owners Robert Zicari, also known as Rob Black, 35, and his wife, Janet Romano, aka Lizzie Borden, 32, pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity

Comments Filter:
  • Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:16AM (#28570333) Homepage Journal

    In August 2003, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates for violating federal obscenity statutes. In January 2005, a district court judge dismissed the indictment, saying that the federal obscenity statutes were unconstitutional. The government appealed, and Buchanan argued the case in October 2005 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

    In December 2005, the appeals court reversed the decision of the district court and held that the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity do not violate any constitutional right to privacy. The case was then remanded back to the district court.

    Wow.. just Wow. What the fuck has happened to the US? What happened to free speech? Wasn't all this shit worked out in the 70s? Why the hell was the unconstitutional finding to do with privacy and not freedom of speech?

    Please tell me the next stop is to the supreme court where this will be sorted out.

    • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:20AM (#28570357) Journal

      Since the summary didnt tell it: "Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable," U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."

      It's nice that theres no problems killing people in movies, but once theres some titties you go to jail in usa :)

      • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:23AM (#28570385) Homepage Journal

        I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.

        • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

          by SeximusMaximus (1207526) on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:42AM (#28571025)

          I have no doubt that the porn they were distributing could well have been "degrading" women by portraying them in a "vile and depraved manner", as for the "most imaginable" part, I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech.. thus my shock at the finding.

          You must not have looked very recently - protected speech does not include anything that falls under a Chaplinksy test(Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568) [wikipedia.org] and while erotic content does not nessessarly fall under that list, obscene material does - and that is what the federal law is dealing with "obscene erotic content"

          • by DJRumpy (1345787)
            But it does go against their right to free speech. I'm totally confused by the second court appeal that said it was not covered under the Right to Privacy? What does that have to even do with this? This is obviously a free speech issue. The original decision IMO was the right one. These 'obscenity' laws are not constitutional. You may not like what people have to say, but they still have the right to say it. These harm no one (it's acting, not real life). Yeah they are tasteless, and unacceptable to the vas
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by oldhack (1037484)
            There you go again, the legal industry in their bizarro universe. Calling something from "erotic" to "obscene" makes all the difference. "Legal logic" makes "Creation science" look bad.
        • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by honkycat (249849) on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:44AM (#28571051) Homepage Journal

          but last I looked that was still protected speech..

          If they're doing prison time for it, apparently it's not protected speech... maybe it should be, but it's apparently not.

          • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

            by TheoMurpse (729043) on Friday July 03, 2009 @04:30PM (#28574795) Homepage

            I doubt they'll do prison time. I suspect this because they copped a plea to get their sentence down to a year and a day, and a sentence of a year and a day is typically imposed (rather than something shorter) because this is the minimum sentence that makes the defendant still qualify for alternative punishment (I forget the federal term of art, but it something evocative of the more famous "parole"--there is no parole for federal law, however).

        • I'm sure my imagination is a little better than yours Mary Beth, being that many pornographic movies serve exactly that purpose.. but last I looked that was still protected speech

          The Miller test, established by the Supreme Court in 1973, is that something is obscene if all of the following are true:

          1. It's intended for sexual arousal ("prurient interest").
          2. It depicts sex or disposal of waste in an offensive manner.
          3. It has no serious plot ("literary, artistic, political or scientific value").

          Things like Eyes Wide Shut aren't obscene because they have a plot.

          • by MightyMartian (840721) on Friday July 03, 2009 @10:28AM (#28571471) Journal

            So if shit eating had taken place while trying to overthrow an evil wizard, it would be okay.

            What a moronic restriction on free speech.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by TaoPhoenix (980487)

              "In Plain Sight" - a Multipurpose provocative treatment.

              Act 1: China
              Because of the Green Dam rules on new Chinese computers, hackers took to modifying the Green Dam's actual behavior. By using a keyboard remapping system, with patterns known to both sides, key messages were embedded in the grass grazed on by MudHorses.

              Act 2: France
              The French, typically known to resist the strongest forms of opression but struggling recently with rising political forces, worked with the owner of the French version of the Goa

            • by couchslug (175151) on Friday July 03, 2009 @06:09PM (#28575597)

              "So if shit eating had taken place while trying to overthrow an evil wizard, it would be okay."

              Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Bones3D_mac (324952)

            Hmm... wouldn't this apply to almost everything on YouTube that reaches "viral" status? (Like monkey's casually drinking their own urine fresh from the tap, etc...)

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Jeremy Erwin (2054)

          From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]

          Extreme Teen 24: contains a scene of a naive supposed young girl being talked into having sex by an older man. The actress involved was over 18, however dressed and acted like a young girl.
          Cocktails 2: various scenes of women drinking vomit, saliva and other bodily fluids. It was the director's cut version of the film that was cited in the case.
          Ass Clowns 3: a female journalist is being raped by a gang led by Osama bin Laden; the journalist is freed and the gang members killed. The director's cut version also contains a scene where Jesus steps off the cross and has sex with an angel.
          1001 Ways to Eat My Jizz:
          Forced Entry: The film depicts the beating, rape and murder of women by a serial killer, who is eventually killed by a mob of vigilantes. There are three scenes which graphically portray rape and murder, and women are also spat on. Extreme's website called it their "most controversial movie" and "a stunningly disturbing look at a serial killer, satanic rituals, and the depths of human depravity." Forced Entry was directed by Lizzy Borden and released in 2002. Again it was the director's cut version of the film that was cited in the case.

          Sounds like it doesn't appeal to my prurient interests. But a porn distributor with only four titles isn't much of a distributor, and the imprisonment, forfeiture, and all that other nonsense will surely affect distribution of other, non-"obscene" titles that might well appeal to someone.

      • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Andr T. (1006215) <andretaff@noSPam.gmail.com> on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:24AM (#28570395)

        It's nice that theres no problems killing people in movies, but once theres some titties you go to jail in usa :)

        'We train young men to drop fire on people. But their commanders won't allow them to write "fuck" on their airplanes because it's obscene! '

        • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by tygerstripes (832644) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:32AM (#28570451)
          Precisely. Bill Hicks would have had a bloody field-day with this.

          Here is my final point. About drugs, about alcohol, about pornography and smoking and everything else. What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
            Fat lot of good it did. Same with George Carlin. For all of the insight they had, all they did was make people laugh at their own idiocy.

            I wonder why they didn't say, half way through the show "Why are you laughing? What's funny about what I'm saying? Here's a petition stating that we want this shit sorted out. Sign it. It's going in this envelope on stage, and that envelope is going to Congress. I'm tired of this shit, and the fact that you're paying to hear me talk about it means you are too! Do somethin
            • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Sponge Bath (413667) on Friday July 03, 2009 @10:25AM (#28571451)

              Why are you laughing?

              I know what you are saying, but Bill Hicks did this in some of his material:

              By the way, if anyone here is in advertising or marketing, kill yourself. Thank you, thank you. Just a little thought. I'm just trying to plant seeds. Maybe one day they'll take root. I don't know. You try. You do what you can. Kill yourselves. Seriously though, if you are, do. No really, there's no rationalisation for what you do, and you are Satan's little helpers, OK? Kill yourselves, seriously. You're the ruiner of all things good. Seriously, no, this is not a joke. "There's gonna be a joke coming..." There's no fucking joke coming, you are Satan's spawn, filling the world with bile and garbage, you are fucked and you are fucking us, kill yourselves, it's the only way to save your fucking soul. Kill yourself, kill yourself, kill yourself now. Now, back to the show.

            • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by ShieldW0lf (601553) on Friday July 03, 2009 @11:22AM (#28572069) Journal
              Fat lot of good it did. Same with George Carlin. For all of the insight they had, all they did was make people laugh at their own idiocy.

              I wonder why they didn't say, half way through the show "Why are you laughing? What's funny about what I'm saying? Here's a petition stating that we want this shit sorted out. Sign it. It's going in this envelope on stage, and that envelope is going to Congress. I'm tired of this shit, and the fact that you're paying to hear me talk about it means you are too! Do something about it! Put your name down."


              There are millions of angry men out there. These particular ones manage to make you laugh at things, which drains your anger of its potency and makes you accepting, and thus makes apathetic about what you were angry about. They made nihilism seem like it really wasn't so bad even as they shoved it in your face.

              Because these particular men had that particular quality, they were given a voice that can reach billions where others were not given such a voice.

              Does that answer your question?
          • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:37AM (#28570975) Homepage Journal

            Here's the rub, though; while there are certainly women in the porn industry with full knowledge and understanding and even enjoyment of what they are doing, a large amount of porn is nothing like that. A friend recently told me a story about a girl he knew from his hometown, and I will share the anecdote with you now: This girl's girlfriends got her to come down to LA to do "modeling" which then turned into drinking and drugs on a scale she wasn't used to, which then became "modeling with titties", then "modeling with a cock out", etc etc. She then wound up having violent sex she wasn't at all in to, then the tape got sold out of gas stations everywhere, and she couldn't show here face in her home town, now she's some kind of shut-in.

            Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn. There's nothing happy about that story.

            This is by no means the worst casualty of pornography, either. Most of the low-rent, low-pro videos you see which are about degrading women really are degrading women. That is in fact part of their appeal for their particular audience. I have nothing against pornography, but getting off on not-really-consensual sex where women were coerced and/or deliberately tricked into having it is sick, and it's wrong, and it's harmful to society.

            Again, I'm not saying porn is bad. The Nixon administration even commissioned a report which was TRYING to find a link between consumption of pornography and harmful behavior, and failed. What I'm saying is that pornography which is designed to be degrading really is degrading in most cases, and furthermore it is often literally a form of rape. I know NOTHING WHATSOEVER about this particular case, but it is not at all impossible that this couple acted reprehensibly. There are numerous institutions producing pornography in California and distributing it over the internet, some of them much larger than this. If the point were to stamp out internet porn, then they would have gone after one of those, and made a larger dent.

            With all that said: To see words from "U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan" saying that the public needs to be protected from lasciviousness truly makes me sick. The English kicked the Puritans out, and I think it's time for Americans to do the same.

            • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Abcd1234 (188840) on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:54AM (#28571143) Homepage

              Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn.

              No, she was ruined by her own stupidity. Throughout your little anecdote, there's one thing you neglected to point out: she was a free actor who made her own choices. Were they *stupid* choices? Hell yes. But they were her choices to make. Now she gets to live with the consequences.

            • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)

              by networkconsultant (1224452) on Friday July 03, 2009 @10:33AM (#28571529)
              Nixion is no example to live by, the man probably had some form of undiagnosed paranoid schitzophrenia "But the voices told me to bug his home without a warrant really they did!"...

              The issue with "Consentual vs. Non-consensual" is this; Because the drugs are illegal your friend would have come forward and charged said person and people with rape however since she faced jail time her right to justice was revoked under the American war on drugs. Now if the drugs were legal, she could have charged them with rape and conspiricy but that's her business not yours, she choose to hang her head in shame.
              I've been held at knife point because somone I knew thought it might be a good idea to deal, because it was home invasion and this is Canada they went to jail / juvie. But you see my point?
            • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Djupblue (780563) on Friday July 03, 2009 @01:05PM (#28573065)

              You are referring to an adult woman making her own decisions as "Top shelf pussy, just ruined by porn.".
              AND THEN you go on arguing about how porn is degrading towards women? Mind bending!

              Do you also refer to your mother as Top Shelf Pussy or does she not live up to that quality standard?

              I would like to propose that it is not porn or sexist commercials that degrades women. It is our (both mens and womens) attitudes that does. You just gave us a great illustration of this. Women are not body part nor decorations.

      • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:27AM (#28570419)

        Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable

        So they made kinky porn? Well damn, lock them up and throw away the key guys!

        lol America

      • by Chrisq (894406) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:43AM (#28570527)

        "Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable,"

        I don't know about that. I've got a pretty good imagination.

      • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hesaigo999ca (786966) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:49AM (#28570567) Homepage Journal

        I have to agree, someone sitting over top of a female squatting and taking a dump, seems to violate some kind of law, but when a guy does it to another guy, no problem. Pooper films as I call them have been around for so many years, they are just NOW figuring out they exist?

        Snuff films, rape, etc...you have all types, but they have been around for sooo many years, are they saying we can't publish them on youtube or are they saying the contents of the film are illegal, this is what I would like
        better explained, as well, being so cryptic about what is going on in the movie, does not help the average joe follow any sort of precedent, if you need to tell us taking a dump on someone and filming it is criminal, then say it, stop indirectly saying some sort stuff happened, which should not have happened, but we think it was bad enough to prosecute.....sounds like that bit from Team America for christ's sake....or are we not allowed to swear anymore as well?

        • Where's Larry? (Score:5, Informative)

          by TapeCutter (624760) * on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:37AM (#28570971) Journal
          I'm not an American but I can recognise a genuine American patriot when I see one. Larry Flynt famously admits to being guilty of bad taste but in my book the man is a hero and has the wounds to prove it. Before his landmark case against Falwell there was no protection of parody and you could be sued for "hurting someones feelings".

          He was appalled by the hypocricy of the Clinton blow job thing and took out a full page ad in the Washington Post offering a million dollars for anyone who could prove they had an affair with a congressman or senator. The ad produced sex tapes and a scandal that embarased the FBI and forced the speaker of the house to quit. When sentenced to three months for refusing to name his sources he threw an orange at the judge and shouted "You fucking pussy, is that the best you can do".

          When facing 25yrs for "organised crime" ( ie: publishing Hustler ), he was asked by the judge if he had anything to say before sentencing, he replied "You haven't made one intelligent decison in this case, I don't expect you to start now".

          He also took on the Bush administration for the right to report from the battlefield after they went against 200yrs of journalistic tradition and made it illeagal at the start of the Afghan war, he set another important precedent by winning that one too.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Tom (822)

        the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material,

        Uh, maybe I missed something here. Did they display their simulated rape in a public square? Is it "the public" or isn't it rather voluntary customers of such material?

      • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

        by 1729 (581437) <slashdot1729@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:36AM (#28570963)

        U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan

        That explains it. Buchanan was the zealot who (selectively) prosecuted Tommy Chong:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beth_Buchanan#United_States_vs._Tommy_Chong_.282003.29 [wikipedia.org]

        • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by swb (14022) on Friday July 03, 2009 @10:43AM (#28571615)

          That prosecution has to be about the worst use of government funds ever. It makes the Iraq war look like a responsible use of government money.

          Do you think she goes home at night and talks to her family about her tireless sacrifice in the never ending struggle against evildoers?

      • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Friday July 03, 2009 @12:50PM (#28572929)

        "Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable,"

        Shouldn't there be a "CONSENTING WOMEN" in there somewhere?

        Whats wrong with sexually degrading material? Whats wrong with OBSCENE material?

        Some women like to be degraded. Hell most of them like when a men takes charge and tells them what to do in bed. Some women like to dominate men. IS that ok? What the fuck does it matter?

        I fucking hate this shit land of oppressive laws known as America. Why is it that my "FREE" country continues to fail its own test at ever fucking opportunity. America is dead.

        You know what truly is obscene? THE EVENING NEWS. That is obscene. Its not even news. Its not even real. Its complete bullshit designed to distract you with entertainment while the criminal politicians and corporations run away with murder living off the wealth of this country.

        This country is a fucking vampire draining itself financially and ethically and dracula is telling you it will all be ok... just sit back and take it.

        The war in iraq is fucking obscene. The politicians are obscene! The state of health care is obscene!

        Reboot America please.

    • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Andr T. (1006215) <andretaff@noSPam.gmail.com> on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:22AM (#28570373)

      I was thinking to myself... why is this any different to any porn site out there? Is porn now prohibited in the US?

      I thought there was child porn or something like that, but, after reading TFA, I can't see a problem at all.

      • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

        by struppi (576767) <`ten.fpuhlgug' `ta' `ippurts'> on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:26AM (#28570411) Homepage
        I saw the documentary "Deep Throat" some time ago, and it said that there were still laws against porn in the US - I couldn't believe it, but it seems to be true. But I am not a lawyer and not from the USA - Can someone with an understanding of the US laws and legal system explain what exactly the crime was? Is producing and distributing porn really a crime for which you can get jail time in the USA?
        • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ciderVisor (1318765) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:55AM (#28570621)

          I saw the documentary "Deep Throat" some time ago.

          "Deep Throat" is regarded as a documentary, now ? Shit, Linda Lovelace is now my favourite research scientist !

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by SharpFang (651121)

            there's a documentary "Deep Throat" about the porn movie "Deep Throat" and events that surrounded it.

          • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

            by greyhueofdoubt (1159527) on Friday July 03, 2009 @10:45AM (#28571639) Homepage Journal

            I think he meant, "Inside Deep Throat." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Deep_Throat). I've seen it as well; it's not pornographic in and of itself and the subject (since it was a little before my time) cast light onto a secretive aspect of our culture. Porn has a long history in the U.S. and with Deep Throat, porn almost became mainstream (as in, your local theater would play shrek, batman, and "Journey to the center of the Bertha" or something). This documentary covers the rise and fall of the 'actors', the government scandal, and the changes it wrough on the industry.

            -b

        • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:56AM (#28570629)

          Im not very familiar with the laws, but as a US resident I can say:

          Yes, laws against porn exist. Basically, its only 'obscene' porn that the laws target. Exactly what that means is very subjective, but since almost everyone looks at porn, 'obscene' porn is usually regarded as porn that most people dont look at. A few decades ago, bondage was obscene and was targeted by the government (not to good effect, however, as afterwords it became more mainstream). A few years after Bush became president a crackdown happened on porn sites, basically things that where overly rough where targeted (and produced by small-ish time porn makers, rather then large companies). This site was just one that was targeted.

          So, to wrap up the US laws on porn production/distribution: anything thats popular enough to get noticed, yet niche enough not to cause a backlash if they are targeted, is fair game. If your looking to make porn and want to avoid being targeted: dont do anything that pushes the limits, especially (or perhaps, specifically) in areas that could be regarded as degration/humiliation by whoever happens to be in power.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        "different than any porn site out there?" Wikipedia tells me that one of the porno videos involved in this case was about a teenage girl being raped by an older man. Its not really an underage girl and not really rape, of course, but this is hardly just normal porn. While I don't necessarily agree with the ruling in this case, there's no doubt that this was unusually extreme content.
        • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:32AM (#28570463)

          the porno videos involved in this case was about a teenage girl being raped by an older man

          Thanks for the extra info, though I still have to say it's a stupid law. I can't help but think that if the teenage girl had been graphically murdered they'd be nominated for Oscars rather than put in prison :\

          • Torture porn (Score:5, Insightful)

            by professorguy (1108737) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:46AM (#28570551)

            If the teenage girl had been graphically murdered they'd be nominated for Oscars rather than put in prison.

            And if she had been portrayed as being chained in a dungeon and having various body parts sliced off in slow motion, it'd be pretty much every third dvd now playing at Blockbuster.

            So the lesson: Sex porn is illegal but torture porn is perfectly OK. Nice job assholes.

        • by shoemilk (1008173)

          the porno videos involved in this case was about a teenage girl being raped by an older man.

          So, close to 80% of porn made in Japan is illegal in the US then?

    • Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)

      by rsmith-mac (639075) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:39AM (#28570499)

      The key factor appears to be the content of the pornography. The feds may have given up on prosecuting the tamest stuff, but they have not given up on prosecuting the most hardcore material. The Extreme Associates Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] gives you an idea of what they're being prosecuted for:

      • Extreme Teen 24[1]: contains a scene of a naive supposed young girl being talked into having sex by an older man. The actress involved was over 18, however dressed and acted like a young girl.[8]
      • Cocktails 2[1]: various scenes of women drinking vomit, saliva and other bodily fluids.[17] It was the director's cut version of the film that was cited in the case.[1]
      • Ass Clowns 3: a female journalist is being raped by a gang led by Osama bin Laden; the journalist is freed and the gang members killed. The director's cut version also contains a scene where Jesus steps off the cross and has sex with an angel.
      • 1001 Ways to Eat My Jizz:
      • Forced Entry[15]: The film depicts the beating, rape and murder of women by a serial killer, who is eventually killed by a mob of vigilantes.[15] There are three scenes which graphically portray rape and murder, and women are also spat on.[8] Extreme's website called it their "most controversial movie" and "a stunningly disturbing look at a serial killer, satanic rituals, and the depths of human depravity."[15] Forced Entry was directed by Lizzy Borden and released in 2002. Again it was the director's cut version of the film that was cited in the case.[1]

      .

      Similarly, Max Hardcore [wikipedia.org] was put in the slammer early this year for similar material:

      Hardcore's films generally consist of rough sex with women who act like underage girls.[3] For example in Hollywood Hardcore 13 he says to Cloey Adams, "If you're a good girl, I'll take you to McDonald's later and get you a Happy Meal."[3] He then urinates in her mouth, and Adams asks, "What do you think of your little princess now Daddy?"[3] In several of his films Max stretches the actress's anus or vagina with a speculum, then urinates into it, after which the actress sucks the urine out through a hose.[3] Although the actresses in Little's movies appear to dress and act in a way as to suggest that they are a young, possibly under the age of consent, but all of the actresses used were over the legal age of 18. In his film Max Extreme 4, an actress stated during one verbal exchange that she was 12 years-old[4].

      The short and long of the matter is that vague obscenity laws are still on the books, and technically all porn is still illegal because someone somewhere is going to find it obscene. The Feds know they can't win however, so they are choosing to prosecute whomever makes the stuff that offends them the most. Nothing has really been worked out since the 70s, the Feds just can't keep prosecuting everyone like they used to.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Just Some Guy (3352)

        The Extreme Associates Wikipedia article gives you an idea of what they're being prosecuted for

        That's filthy, disgusting, meritless, reprehensible, and none of the government's damn business. Two consenting adults filmed scenes that other consenting adults wanted to watch. That should be the end of the story.

        I normally mean for my sig to be funny. Sometimes, like now, I don't.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:22AM (#28570371)

    People are still getting porn delivered in the mail?

  • by Leghorn (44886) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:25AM (#28570403)

    Unfortunately, they came to America.

  • by xous (1009057) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:27AM (#28570413) Homepage

    I'm extremely confused... I don't see anything wrong here.

    Is porn illegal in the US?

    Did someone forget to tell the multi-billion dollar industry?

  • Simulated Rape (Score:5, Informative)

    by jamesoutlaw (87295) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:27AM (#28570421) Homepage

    Apparently several "simulated rape" scenes in their film "Forced Entry" is what led them to be charged with committing a crime:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Zicari#Obscenity_prosecution [wikipedia.org]

    Zicari asked for help from the rest of the Adult Entertainment industry and they declined- even Larry Flynt declined to help fight the charges.

    http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-01-2009/0005053905&EDATE= [prnewswire.com]

    • Re:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Insightful)

      by xous (1009057) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:36AM (#28570477) Homepage

      "simulated rape" is a crime?

      That's fucking ridiculous.

      How long before simulated murder is a crime?

      • Re:Simulated Rape (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tjonnyc999 (1423763) <tjonnyc@@@gmail...com> on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:28AM (#28570897)
        Yes, it is ridiculous.
        If Hollywood can get away with portraying real rape, why can't a porn producer get away with portraying a simulation of the same?

        FFS, there's movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Last House On The Left" that show [what most people would consider to be] extreme depictions of rape, cannibalism, genital torture, and plenty of other perverse acts.
        Even classics like Ingmar Bergman's "Aus dem Leben der Marionetten" feature rape scenes and stark violence.
        Not simulated or implied rape, but real, violent, gory, crying-and-shitting rape.
        There's a torrent compilation of over 130 rape scenes from mainstream movies. And the torrent poster states that this is just a "small sample" of what's out there.
        But, apparently if it's done "ars gratia artis", it's OK - if it's done for profit+pleasure, all of a sudden we have a moral shit-storm.

        Bullshit double-standards, and weak-assed half-measures, will be the end of this society.

        Also, COCKS.
    • Re:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Informative)

      by SirLurksAlot (1169039) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:41AM (#28570513)

      Ah, another individual who didn't think the summary told the whole story. Here are a couple more links:

      The appellate court ruling [uscourts.gov]

      The case summary from Wikipedia: United States vs. Extreme Associates [wikipedia.org]

      I usually don't criticize on these kind of things but honestly, but would it take all that long to do just a little more digging before posting the story? (Yes, I realize it is easier to get readers to the rest of the work :-P).

    • Re:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Interesting)

      by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:49AM (#28570571) Homepage Journal

      I don't really care if they were simulating bestiality.. its protected speech.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Rogerborg (306625)
        The trick is to criminalize not the "speech" per se, just the distribution of it. As long as you "say" it where nobody can hear you, that pesky ol' Constitution doesn't get in the way. See also "First Amendment Zones".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:31AM (#28570441)

    The crackdown on BD/SM websites started in late 2005. It's the same reason that Insex [wikipedia.org] stopped producing clips. See also the following articles:
    BD/SM Internet Sites Under Attack [sfbaytimes.com]
    Tortured Logic [thestranger.com]

  • by egandalf (1051424) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:31AM (#28570449)
    It seems odd to me that pictures of naked people is censored, but, if I wanted, I could post videos of "zombies" killing mowing each other down with chainsaws with no public outcry whatsoever.

    Carlin had it right: I'd rather my kids saw images of two people making love than of two people killing each other.
    • killing has always been acceptable, as long as it's done outside our borders (or in slums). And sex has always been highly suspect. This is nothing new. Our tendency toward mass violence is tightly intertwined with our general sexual repression. If we're all just laying about smoking dope and having sex, who will kill our enemies? And you know, we've got a lot of enemies. They hate us for our freedom.
    • by jamstar7 (694492) on Friday July 03, 2009 @10:59AM (#28571827)

      Carlin had it right: I'd rather my kids saw images of two people making love than of two people killing each other.

      Personally, if I wanted my kids to watch two people trying to kill each other, I woulda stayed married.

  • U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."

    In what way is this protecting people? Presumably they were only supplying this stuff to people who paid for it, not projecting it onto the side of schools or posting it to small children.

    I don't understand this attitude of protecting people from things they want to do, and I don't see why the state should intervene (assuming all the parties involved consented).

    It seems to be the same logic as used by opponents of gay marriage, who claim that it will somehow destroy the institution of marriage. How will someone else getting married to someone of the same sex, in any way change yours or anyone else's marriage? In the same way, how does the production of this material (again, assuming consent on all sides) "degrade us all"? It doesn't degrade me, I had nothing to do with it, don't watch it, and am unaffected by it. This whole idea of "someone's doing something I don't like, therefore I can object and stop it" is just narrow minded control-freakery.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheP4st (1164315)

      How will someone else getting married to someone of the same sex, in any way change yours or anyone else's marriage?

      Because once gay people can marry, it's only a matter of time before those into bestiality are going to demand the right to marry the animal of their choice which of course will be allowed as same sex marriage is allowed. Then the next thing that will happen is obviously that people by the millions will divorce their god God fearing, 100% and then some heterosexual spouses and marry their sheep, chihaua's, tortioses, hedgehogs etc.

      See, it is just a matter of applying fundemental(ist) logic and instantly y

  • by jaypifer (64463) on Friday July 03, 2009 @08:42AM (#28570517)

    The American Taliban strikes again.

  • Frontline episode (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cenc (1310167) on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:13AM (#28570775) Homepage

    I remember that Frontline documentary episode. I believe these where the people that made videos of women being kidnapped, beaten, and gang raped. They did not show anything in the documentary, but they did show the Frontline camera crew that was filming the making of video had to stop in the middle because they could not watch anymore. Now, it might have been shocking stuff at the edge of what is possible to do with actors, but it was still within the bounds of the law as far as consenting parties willing to be filmed.

    At least it is the kind of thing that is not up to a judge to decide what they find repulsive, otherwise we are on the slippery slope back to the 70's where more conservative taste will make any portrayal of sex illegal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by DarrenBaker (322210)

      If I remember correctly, they didn't stop filming because they couldn't watch, but because it was conceivable they'd be charged with being an accessory.

  • by divisionbyzero (300681) on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:14AM (#28570801)

    is this verdict. Between the First Amendment and the Fourth I'm not sure that this is remotely constitutional. I could see the point if the person involved filed rape charges, but then it would be a case about rape, not obscenity. Totally stupid.

  • by Psyborgue (699890) on Friday July 03, 2009 @09:24AM (#28570873) Homepage Journal
    These idiots pled guilty. It's their fault. They should have fought it.
  • by hamburgler007 (1420537) on Friday July 03, 2009 @11:43AM (#28572277)
    This is the same bitch prosecutor who tried to convict a doctor for prescribing pain medication. She is a holdover from the previous administration who has refused to step down. There is word she is on the way out though, and not soon enough imo.

If bankers can count, how come they have eight windows and only four tellers?

Working...