PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center

Pornography & Obscenity (hearing in pittsburgh on Wed 8/27)
by mute Monday, Aug. 25, 2003 at 3:38 PM

Ashcroft and the DOJ start attacking pornographers again. 2 California pornographers have been indicted under "obscenity" charges, a federal issue because it crossed state lines when federal investigators in PA ordered videos.

"Pornography & Obscenity"
originally from http://b2b.oneinchpunch.org/

After finishing "Reefer Madness", I decided to take a look at what Ashcroft and his cronies were doing about pornography these days, since the crusade was abandoned by the Clinton Administration, and since the most recent legal decision (Miller v California) defining the relationship between "obscenity" and the first amendment was made by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973. And it looks like the DOJ is beginning to start its "crackdown" on pornographers again for the first time in (supposedly) more than 10 years.

The DOJ has indicted 2 people in Southern California for distributing 5 pornographic videos that the DOJ has decided are obscene. First, I took a look at the indictment on the DOJ's website. Next, I looked that the Extreme Associates Inc website (the defendants). I wasn't particularly impressed with the website. It looks pretty ordinary to me. This particular website even has the little "only enter if you're of legal age" disclaimer index. It might be distasteful, but why would making porn deserve a maximum sentence of 50 years in prison and/or $2.5 million dollar fine? And as far as I can tell from the wording of the indictment, it looks like the feds could seize their porn, money, and house (if it was somehow even remotely linked to distribution).

Frankly, I find this behavior by the DOJ to be whimsical and insulting. That supreme court decision saying that the first amendment does not entitle people to publish (and read or watch) what they wish if it's "obscene" strikes me as dirty. The indictment references simulated violence, rape, and sexual acts, but I'm pretty sure I've seen all that stuff before in Hollywood movies. I wonder how this type of "obscenity" prosecution might apply to things like "Faces of Death" videos. Certainly it can be argued that pornography is of less artistic value than the material put out by the MPAA. I'm not sure I'd even agree considering the drivel Hollywood has put out recently, but even so, who cares? The term "offensive" is far too subjective to be used very well in law, in my opinion of course. I'm sure that as a fundamentalist christian, John Ashcroft no doubt finds pornography offensive. I personally find fundamental christianity to be offensive. But once again, who cares? He doesn't have to watch pornographic videos, and I don't have to go to church. Problem solved.

That is, it would be solved if they weren't trying to put people in jail. But fuck it, we're building more prisons anyway right?

On a page linked to from the Extreme Associates website, they put up a note that says they have a hearing on Wednesday, 2003-08-27, and would like people to show up for support at a courthouse in Pittsburgh.

b2b.oneinchpunch.org/

add your comments