Obscenity According to the Government
by undermyspell - Adult Grind

Well, it looks as if the government is at it again. As if John Ashcroft weren't bad enough to have to endure in our line of work they have now brought aboard another bulldog to attempt to lock down the porn industry. The Justice Department has recently installed a new member to their crime fighting team by the name of Bruce Taylor.

Those of you that closely follow any litigation in the adult entertainment world may recognize the name in conjunction with cases against such figures as Larry Flynt. Although, if you look real closely and dig a little deeper it doesn't appear as if his track record is that great. Most of the high profile cases I came across ended up in the defendant's being acquitted or a hung jury. Incredibly enough the Christian right wing believes that John Ashcroft has been lax in his pursuit of targeting and prosecuting obscenity cases. Well, they obviously haven't ever worked in the adult industry or followed the impact that this man has had on all of us.

Officials at the Justice Department believe that they have scored a real coup de grais by bringing Taylor on board. He also worked in the department during their big surge to squelch porn in the mid 80's through early 90's which is the departments self described heyday of anti porn efforts. That seems to be somewhat of a redundant statement considering the porn industry has more than tripled it's revenue in that period of time and developed new and sophisticated technologies and methods of reaching every person in the world that wants to partake in the pleasures of the adult world. It all makes you wonder precisely what the government has up its proverbial sleeve.

It seems as if obscenity laws are becoming rather obscene themselves. I have looked over various laws throughout the country and found everything from it being illegal to sell any obscene materials that cause another person to stimulate their genitals to it being illegal for any person in Nevada to sell, deliver or provide, or offer or agree to sell, deliver or provide, any obscene material; or presents or directs an obscene play, dance or performance, or participates in that portion thereof which makes it obscene; or publishes, exhibits or otherwise makes available any obscene material; or possesses any obscene material for purposes of sale or other commercial dissemination; or sells, advertises or otherwise commercially disseminates material, whether or not obscene, by representing or suggesting that it is obscene. Now, any of you that have ever been to Vegas especially during an Internext or AVN Awards Show knows that the above mentioned laws are ludicrous. But what precisely is the definition of obscene? This is the definition I found online: 1. The state or quality of being obscene. 2. Indecency, lewdness, or offensiveness in behavior, expression, or appearance. 3. Something, such as a word, act, or expression, that is indecent or lewd. 4. Something that is offensive or repulsive to the senses.

I could continue to define each of the words mentioned within the obscenity definition but i'm sure you get the picture. One of the definitions that I did find interesting was for obscene which is Repulsive or Disgusting. You know I find the fact that the government is interfering in my pursuit of a career doing something that I find enjoyable and profitable disgusting and repulsive. I find the most troubling thing is that there is no across the board standard that some uptight politician or church leader has set forth to define precisely what obscenity is. I think that it is something like the Acacia patent. It's way too broad of a definition and open to way too many interpretations for it to ever be enforced with any kind of regularity or effectiveness. Certainly it drags the porn industries name through the mud and brings some rather unflattering attention to the industry but it most definitely doesn't put the brakes on it.

There have been obscenity charges since the time legal systems were established and I don't anticipate them to stop at any point in the near future. One of the most recent cases is Steve Sweet who has been brought up on a couple of different charges in Canada relating to various obscenity laws. The Sweet defense team is confident that they have enough ammunition in their guns to blast a huge hole in the charges and allow Sweet to walk away a free man. I do however think that there are some things that probably should not be allowed to legally be generated or produced. I realize that if there wasn't a public demand for some of the content that there wouldn't be a demand for it to be produced but there are some things that do cross the line whether they're staged photos and films or not. Of course Snuff Films would be at the top of my list as well as Child Porn related materials. I also would have to call into question content that addresses the issue of violent sex in the form of beating, torture, mutilation or rape. All of these aforementioned situations are illegal acts whether they involve sex or not and to me I just don't feel that because you have them acted out on film or in front of a camera lens that should make them a work of art or freedom of speech. I really do think there needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that the government should have the berth that they do in prosecution of obscenity related "crimes" but I do feel that if it's a situation where it's an obviously illegal act then maybe we need to take a step back and look at it and take some self policing steps to control it. Perhaps it would prompt the public to view us in a different manner. I am not referring to content that deals with things like watersports or any of the other niches out there similar but the real hardcore type situations as mentioned above.

Jan "undermyspell" Grady
Editor in Chief - Adult Grind