Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Couple Gets Prison Time For Internet Obscenity

Posted by timothy on 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."

5 of 574 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Privacy? Huh? by sopssa · · 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 :)

  2. Simulated Rape by jamesoutlaw · · 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

    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=

  3. Re:Privacy? Huh? by 1729 · · 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

  4. Re:Privacy? Huh? by SeximusMaximus · · 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) 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"

  5. Porn is obscene only if it has no plot by tepples · · 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:

    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.