Another Pornographer Up on "Obsenity" Charges

[Athena]

If You Care About Free Expression, Be Outraged: The Obscenity Trial of John Stagliano, Happening Now in DC

If things go as anticipated, the federal trial of pornographer John Stagliano on multiple counts of obscenity will get into full swing this afternoon. If convicted on all counts and given the maximum sentence, he faces up to 32 years in jail and a $7 million fine. At issue are three videos distributed by his company Evil Angel: Milk Nymphos, Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice, and trailer for material by porn maker Belladonna.

(Full disclosure: Stagliano has been a donor to Reason Foundation, the 501(c)3 nonprofit that publishes this website.)

Last week, the judge in the case disallowed Stagliano's expert witnesses and the trial will basically hinge on whether 12 people from the DC area think that the material in question (purchased online by federal agents and delivered via the mails to a prosecutor in the nation's capital) is obscene and hence not worthy of First Amendment protection. Due to its very subjective nature, obscenity is a horrible concept, allowing for one piece of work to be punishable by prison time in one place and critically acclaimed in another. That all of the people making and consuming the material do so of their own free accord matters not at all.

More reading AND videos (not the ones in question, unfortunately)

[62julietandvoid]

I assume by the titles he shot videos about lactation?

Nothing wrong with that. I got a few good storys about fresh breat milk, non sexual and I am not aroused by it. Makes a great fight defuser tho.

I've seen some pretty devious porn. 2 men 1 horse, 1 man 1 jar...never seen the 2 girls 1 cup...and dont wanna

[biteme]

I'v always found Belladonna to be amazing in her talent to fit anything any size anywhere, never thought of it as obscene, more like a magic act, now you see it, now you don't

[brokenandtwisted]

I'd like to know what's actually in the films that is deemed obscene. The idea of obscenity has always been...unusual to me. It's not something I have ever understood. If an individual of legal age purchases or watches something that is of no harm to another individual's well-being I do not see the harm in what is 'obscene'. Surely if bloodletting were occurring, a child was involved etc I could see an issue. Otherwise I honestly don't see 'obscenity laws' as anything reasonable.

(I have never heard of paraphilic videos being prescribed for psychotherapeutic treatment either...going to have to call bullshit on that 'expert witness'.)

[Obsolete]

If charging someone for being obscene is going to become the norm in America, I'm going to have to leave the states...

BTW I read the title as "obesity" ... I need a nap.

[Pene784]

There will always be people that consider porn vulgar. I have seen some porn that I wish I had not, but really couldn't care less if other people watch stuff like that. And I have seen much more that was sexy and erotic and made for some awesome nights with my husband! (Was that TMI???) I just don't understand why the people that do not like porn just won't refrain from watching it, what do they care if other people see it. Just like people who do not like alcohol or broccoli or the beach should refrain from those things. I on the other hand like to partake in all of the above....

[Valasca]

Also, do not look up blue waffle. No really, don't.

[62julietandvoid]

Also, do not look up blue waffle. No really, don't.

Whoa!!! I thnk metalic rainbow pussy fits that better...given I looked at the correct thing. It looked like it had teef

Show that pic to all sexual predators. Seriously... if i was a cop i'd break that photo out to a rapist. Be all like " yeah motherfucker, this is what your dirty ass had to have"...totallt play on the psychological stuff

[sorrow_discord]

The very notion of obscenity laws scare the living shit out of me. As a writer, some of what I have produced has involved simple splatter punk horror to extreme kink(some of which involves homosexual relations). It would very easy for a person of sheltered Christian morals to view my work as obscene, at the same time many would not view it as such. The whole Miller Test, although intended for good is greatly flawed. By what community standard does one put a piece to the test?

For those who may not know, here is the Miller Test.

* Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
* Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law,
* Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

It is quite easy to see how it is flawed. Offensive is a very subjective term. BDSM, fetish and kink, depictions of violence in horror, works that depict and describe sexual relations between consenting adults of the same sex will not be viewed the same way by everyone. I have even seen someone mention that they could understand if bloodletting is involved...perhaps to that person a depiction of bloodletting is something that could be offensive, yet to me that may be the norm in an erotic story. (I am not slamming you Brokenandtwisted, just using what you said as an example -smiles-)