US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity

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."

Comments

Re:Privacy? Huh?

[sopssa]

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 :)

Simulated Rape

[jamesoutlaw]

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

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=

Re:Privacy? Huh?

[rsmith-mac]

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 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 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:Privacy? Huh?

[1729]

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

Where's Larry?

[TapeCutter]

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:Privacy? Huh?

[SeximusMaximus]

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) 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"

Porn is obscene only if it has no plot

[tepples]

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.

Re:Privacy? Huh?

[greyhueofdoubt]

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?

[Artifakt]

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?

[TheoMurpse]

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).