US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity 574
Posted
by
timothy
from the your-honor-it-was-just-some-good-clean-fun dept.
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."
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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:4, Informative)
Simulated Rape (Score:5, Informative)
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:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
crackdown on BD/SM websites since 2005 (Score:3, Informative)
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]
This is why they were prosecuted (Score:0, Informative)
* 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.[3]
* Cocktails 2[1]: various scenes of women drinking vomit, saliva and other bodily fluids.[15] 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[16]: The film depicts the beating, rape and murder of women by a serial killer, who is eventually killed by a mob of vigilantes.[17] There are three scenes which graphically portray rape and murder, and women are also spat on.[3] 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."[18] 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]
So, your traditional porn is still safe in the US. There is porn and then there is sick minded porn. This addresses the more violent side that porn can take.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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:
.
Similarly, Max Hardcore [wikipedia.org] was put in the slammer early this year for similar material:
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:Simulated Rape (Score:4, Informative)
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:Privacy? Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
It's depressing on both sides of the Atlantic ... in the US, you go to prison for publishing it, in the UK, you now go to prison for privately possessing it.
(I wonder if this case follows on from the precedent set by the Max Hardcore cases? I remember there being worry that this would open the floodgates, now that people can be prosecuted for material made with consenting adult actors.)
Don't blame the system (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Where's Larry? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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"
Re:Simulated Rape (Score:3, Informative)
here is a further clarification
1973, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Miller v. California that materials are obscene if they satisfy a three part test:
(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the material taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; and
(2) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the material depicts sexual conduct in patently offensive manner; and
(3) A reasonable person, viewing the material as a whole, finds that the material lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Extreme Associates and its owners conceded that the charged materials are obscene under the Miller test, and that the distribution of these materials is illegal.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
there's a documentary "Deep Throat" about the porn movie "Deep Throat" and events that surrounded it.
Re:Frontline episode (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Porn is obscene only if it has no plot (Score:5, Informative)
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:
Things like Eyes Wide Shut aren't obscene because they have a plot.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Your lack of empathy for other humans has been noted, meatbag.
So has yours, meatbag.
They fed her drugs with the intent to impair her judgement, which is illegal; they obtained bogus consent when she was unable to provide informed consent, which is illegal.
Try again, son.
OK, if they commited those crimes, they should be charged for them. Distribution of obscene recordings that were created lawfully should still be legal.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Thanks, libtards! (Score:1, Informative)
She is actually a deeply conservative Republican.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beth_Buchanan
Mary Beth Buchanan is a bitch (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
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:I don't know about that (Score:3, Informative)
With "Two girls, one cup" everybody can imagine things. Unfortunately what has been seen can not be unseen.
thanks very much, I had almost managed to erase that god awful image out of my mind!
No, you are deluding yourself. That image is permanent. It hides, out of sight, biding its time until conditions are right, and will rear its ugly head unbidden periodically for the rest of your life. You will never truly forget it. This is the true horror of "what is seen cannot be unseen".
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's assume there was nothing actually slipped into her drink. Professional filmmakers, including a lot of XXX, don't get a model's release signed by anyone who has used drugs or alcohol in the hours before. They don't allow booze or drugs actually on the set. They take the time to check proof of age and consent, because they have to take the time to check a current HIV test anyways. They are regulated by laws, not just ones for the adult industry, but ones that apply to all film studios or professional photographers. The laws that say you check HIV status are part of workplace safety laws that affect, for another case, any stuntperson who might get a bleeding injury. The laws about booze and drugs are film industry wide, although I recall Nina Hartley once explaining that the adult industry had more incentive to stay squeaky clean on them than anyone, so nobody used them as an excuse to shut a production down. This isn't just about a few people conducting a normal private transaction (like me taking a date out to a bar). On one side, we have a business, bound by special regulations that affect all such businesses and not just the adult subset.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Err...they plead guilty to crimes and went to prison. That doesn't mean it doesn't truly fall under protected speech, but in their case they sort of forfeited their ability to challenge this at the highest level.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
If you were arrested for looking at someone, then asked in court if you indeed committed an "act of observation", would you lie and say you never looked or say you looked but that you had every right to do so?
Straw man aside, here's the exact article and summary wording
...pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet
Note that if they claimed the material was not obscene they could have pleaded not guilty...what they did instead was concede some material as obscene, non-protected speech and take a plea deal for a reduced sentence. Without seeing the videos I can't say for sure if what they were doing was truly criminal (the article is a little vague) and that they made the best decision for themselves, though I highly doubt that I would agree with the DOJ on this one.
Re:Where's Larry? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
You're talking about Flynt v. Rumsfeld [georgetown.edu]. He lost that one.
Re:Privacy? Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
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).