John Stagliano Obscenity Case Affects Everyone

On April 21 John Stagliano, one of the biggest names in adult entertainment, will be arraigned on seven federal obscenity charges. For those that have not heard about this case, on April 8 Mr. Stagliano was charged by a federal grand jury with seven different obscenity charges related to operating an obscenity distribution business (read the full indictment here) naming two movies, Jay Sin's Milk Nymphos and Joey Silvera's Storm Squirters as well as Belladonnas movie trailer for Fetish Fanatic 5. Not only are charges being brought against him, but against his business John Stagliano Inc. and Evil Angel Productions. If, at the end of this case, it is deemed that Mr. Stagliano is guilty, he is looking at around 32 years in prison and seven million dollars in fines.

Why should anyone care what happens to a pornographer? This time around it affects more than the person being charged and it affects more than the adult industry. First Amendment rights are a stake as well as the freedom of the internet. In a nation where the events of September 11 have made cause for the Bush Administration to pass laws, such as the Patriot Act, that slowly strip away constitutional rights in the name of protecting the country, people should stand up and pay attention to this obscenity case. The outcome of this case could very well take us a step or two back to the times of book burning.

A US Supreme Court case in 1973, Miller vs. California, legally defined obscenity and determined that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. Today, in order for something to be considered obscene, the Miller Test has to be applied. In order for something to be considered obscene it must meet the following three conditions:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interests.

2. The work depicts, or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state (or federal) law

3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious, artistic, political or scientific value.

The Miller test brings up a few interesting questions, especially when it pertains to the internet that make this case so interesting and far reaching, especially now that China has proven that the internet can be regulated. The U.S. Courts have not defined what constitutes "internet community"�.

Three of the laws that Stagliano is charged with violating are from Title 18 and include sections 1465, 1462 and 1466. The verbiage of all three laws reads "...sale or distribution of any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, film, paper, letter, writing, print, silhouette, drawing, figure, image, cast, photography recording, electrical transcription or other article capable of producing sound or any other matter of indecent or immoral character"�.

A fourth law has been sited, 47 U.S.C. SS 223 (often referred to as the Dial-a-Porn law). Adult industry lawyer, Greg Piccionelli, has stated that he believes since COPA (The Child Online Protection Act) was knocked down in federal court as being unconstitutional, that the Dial-a-Porn law has been dug up as a way to prosecute Stagliano for providing pornographic material to minors.

So, what does all of this mean to the general public and why should everyone care?

First, people should be concerned that, once again, the government is trying to prosecute someone without following the letter of the law that has been set down. Using the Miller Test, how can a movie trailer be deemed obscene? A movie trailer does not take the "work as a whole".

Two, in order for this case to be tried, the internet community has to be defined. It's going to take more than the argument that, by way of the internet, that people in those areas of the United States where it is still illegal to purchase adult materials (including DVDs and sex toys), were obtaining "illegal"� material. In those areas where such things are illegal, shouldn't it fall to the ISP to block them? Why should it fall to webmasters, in an area where it is legal, to censor themselves because adult videos are illegal in about two dozen zip codes. Should everyone be denied access to something that is legal in their area, because of a handful of small communities?

Third, why were these movies picked out of the lot and declared obscene? Where I have not watched the two movies in question, I have watched the movie trailer. It's not my cup of tea, but I have to question what makes this trailer any different than Anne Rice erotica. Where Fetish Fanatic 5 shows something visually, Anne Rice describes in words very similar acts in her Beauty Trilogy books. In fact, Anne Rice's erotic has been deemed some of the greatest erotic literature. For anyone that thinks I am comparing apples and oranges here, what is the difference between watching something and reading a graphic depiction of the same act? Is it because John Stagliano is a pornographer and Anne Rice is one of the greatest modern writers of our time? Does that vindicate her in some way that doesn't apply to Stagliano? There is a double standard here that I don't understand.

I do realize that Stagliano was targeted because of his popularity in the adult industry. It works much better to make an example out of someone well known, someone who has won numerous awards, someone who created an entire genre of porn, than someone who hardly anyone knows about. It's the same reason the government picks on Larry Flint. Taking down the big players makes the smaller ones run and hide. That doesn't change the fact that the outcome of this case is going to affect internet regulation and commerce. If Stagliano looses, it is another nail in coffin of individual liberties by making everyone, despite their own person and religious beliefs, conform to government dictated standards of morality.