That's pretty obscene!
It is jury shopping, at it's prime. "If you find it acceptable, we will let you set the standards!"
Posted on 06/11/2008 6:48:35 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
What violates community obscenity standards in the nation's reputed pornography capital? Federal prosecutors think they have a case.
Ira Isaacs readily admits he produced and sold movies depicting bestiality and sexual activity involving feces and urine. The judge warned potential jurors that the hours of fetish videos included violence against women, and many of them said they don't want to serve because watching would make them sick to their stomachs.
"It's the most extreme material that's ever been put on trial. I don't know of anything more disgusting," said Roger Jon Diamond — Isaacs' own defense attorney.
The case is the most visible effort of a new federal task force designed to crack down on smut in America. Isaacs, however, says his work is an extreme but constitutionally protected form of art.
"There's no question the stuff is disgusting," said Diamond, who has spent much of his career representing pornographers. "The question is should we throw people in jail for it?"
Isaacs, 57, a Los Angeles advertising agency owner who says he used to market fine art in commercial projects, calls himself a "shock artist" and says he went into distributing and producing films about fetishes because "I wanted to do something extreme."
"I'm fighting for art," he said in an interview before his federal trial got under way. "Art is on trial."
He plans to testify as his own expert witness and said he will cite the historic battles over obscenity involving authors James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence.
One of his exhibits, he said, will be a painting of a urinal by famed artist Marcel Duchamp.
Diamond said Isaacs also will tell jurors the works have therapeutic value for people with the same fetishes depicted on screen.
"They don't feel so isolated," Diamond said. "They have fetishes that other people have."
Isaacs makes a brief appearance in one of the videos he produced; others that he distributed were imported from other countries.
The business has been lucrative. At one point, he has said, he was selling 1,000 videos a month at $30 apiece. Then his office was raided by FBI agents who bought his videos online with undercover credit cards.
The government obtained an indictment against Isaacs on a variety of obscenity charges, including importation or transportation of obscene material for sale. Prosecutors have declined to comment about the case.
Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, said such prosecutions were rare until the creation of the U.S. Department of Justice Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. Child pornography cases are handled by a separate unit.
"The problem with obscenity is no one really knows what it is," she said. "It's relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it's offensive."
The test of obscenity still hinges on a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling which held that a work is not legally obscene if it has "literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
Jurors also are asked to determine whether the material in question violates standards of what is acceptable to the community at large.
"This task force was quite controversial and many in the Department of Justice felt that it was a waste of resources," Rosenbluth said. "Because of the pressure, they seem to have chosen the worst cases they can find to prosecute."
Each of the six counts against Isaacs carries a five-year maximum prison sentence. Prosecutors also are seeking forfeiture of assets obtained through his video sales.
"A lot of this is about sending a message — `Don't make this stuff. Don't put it on the Internet. We don't want it here,'" Rosenbluth said.
Rosenbluth said prosecutors would be emboldened to pursue similar cases if Isaacs is convicted, though there would be lengthy challenges on appeal.
In an unusual twist, the trial is being presided over by the chief judge of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Alex Kozinski, under a program that allows appellate judges to occasionally handle criminal trials at the District Court level. Kozinski is known as a strong defender of free speech and First Amendment rights.
When jury selection began Monday, he urged prospects to be open about their opinions and incurred an onslaught of negative statements. Within the first hour, he dismissed 26 men and women who said they could not be fair to the defendant because they were repulsed by the subject matter. By day's end, half the panel of 100 had been excused.
"I think watching something like that would make me physically ill, nauseous," said one woman. "It's affecting me physically now just thinking about it."
One man fired angry comments at the ponytailed Isaacs.
"Hearing stuff about feces made me sick and the defendant looks like my ex-business partner who did some of these things. He looks guilty as sin to me," said the man. "It turns my stomach thinking about it."
Several prospects marched up to the judge's bench for private conferences when he told them that the films also involved violence against women. They, too, were excused, as were several who cited their religious beliefs.
Asked how long they would have to watch the movies, Kozinski told them it would be about five hours and "I will be there watching with you. This is part of the job we're doing."
17. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures and TV.
18. Promote homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural and healthy.
A perfect case for the "9th Circus Court," Eh?
> “They don’t feel so isolated,” Diamond said. “They have
> fetishes that other people have.”
Yes, of course.
Let’s normalize the abnormal so these goons and freaks can prey on our youth.
Before you know it, we will have them conducting sensitivity seminars in the public schools starting in elementary schools.
That's pretty obscene!
It is jury shopping, at it's prime. "If you find it acceptable, we will let you set the standards!"
It mesmerizes me, the parallels between our time and Jesus’ time: Legalistic law-protectors/enforcers, who long ago abandoned the Transcendent and the notion of selflessness. When will our John the Baptist come, urging repentance?
He’ll win the case.
The prosecution should try to make a deal: They’ll drop the case if he publishes the names of everyone who rents these movies.
IF you can’t stop it, at least let us know who the sickos and perverts are.
Sounds like the verdict is in to me.
Count me as one conservative who doesn’t see any reason (so far) for charging this person with a crime. Gross and disgusting doesn’t always equal illegal.
It sounds like the “community standard” for obsenity has already been met. They can’t even seat a jury in one of the most liberal towns in the world because the jurors are “sickened” by the perverted images.
If homosexuality is genetic, bestiality is also. All sexual preferences are genetically programed according to the conventional wisdom of our great universities. Can we punish people simply because of their genetics to have sex with animals or other such fetishes????? There is absolutely no reason to draw the line at homosexuality.
That would put you in the libertarian camp.
The defendant's attorney started giving me a hard time about some of my answers and I just piped up with something along the lines of, "I don't know what the problem is, or why we're all here. The bailiff has a gun, give it to me, I'll deal with this."
I had an excuse for saying it but the judge was still pissed and basically threw me out on my ass, but that's how you get out of jury duty.
They SHOULD feel isolated.... because their "fetishes" are a sign of extreme mental illness and moral bankruptcy. 50 years ago, this guy would have been put in a mental institution....not given a platform for "alternative" lifestyles.
NOW you tell me! (I’m on a jury right now).
Carolyn
Let’s just cut to the chase and pass a law stating it is legal to do absolutely anything you want , no matter how sick or depraved it is. Leagalize it all. If it feels good, do it. To hell with morals and personal responsibility. Walking you dog past a church and got a sudden urge to copulate with it - go right ahead! To heck with those prudes. You’ve got the law on your side!
No, I'm a conservative. Others do not define my views.
One show this season had a Randy Marsh addicted to really, really gross internet porn which suddenly wasn't available.
Agreed. Some people spend way too much time worrying about what other people do in their bedrooms.
Your earlier keyboard response reveals your views. Nobody is defining anything, just helping you understand the import of those words...
What bedrooms are you talking about. The guy defines this as art for public display and peddles the movies for public consumption.
I'm a conservative and I don't see where this guys "art" is the public's business. But maybe I missed something....is he displaying this stuff in a public storefront? I would agree with charging him in that case. And I sure wouldn't support him receiving public funds either. But if he is doing this with his money, willing subjects, and a willing clientele, there's no reason for the public via the government to get involved.
Jurors wont watch the disgusting videos but will vote for politicians who support the evil vile creatures who make it???? Ostriches with their heads in the sand.
I'm not sure how good your unsolicited help is since I don't see your point.
“The guy defines this as art for public display”
You saw this in the article, where?
hank
“Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens” Genesis 19:24.
“Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly” II Peter 2:6.
Now I’ll give you some real help. These people who have no idea what your views are, and do not understand you reasoning are always ready to tell you what you are—but what they are really doing is telling you what they are. They are people who do not understand that freedom means freedom to offend, but never freedom to meddle in other’s affairs—which is something they can almost never keep themselves from doing.
I agree with you, by the way, Niteranger68.
Hank
I really don’t understand why some FReepers believe that not condoning an activity means you endorse it. It’s a complete failure of logic.
First step on a yet another slippery slope that we do NOT need.
“We should understand freedom...as a right to act, not a right to choose”
Could not have been said better by Antonio Gramsci himself. It’s exactly how he would have defined “freedom.” If you aren’t free to choose, you are not free at all. Slaves are free to act, as long as they do what they are told.
Hank
Libertarians however chalk it up to "Acts of Capitalism between consenting Adults" and try and exercise their Right of free association to exclude such nutbags.
Free speech covers offensive speech. The .00001% of the population that engages in these types of fetishes have an impact that is nothing compared to the idiotic and truly offensive DNC propaganda IMO.
So, limited freedom is alright?
This crap often comes to us courtesy of our tax dollars, and our gum't's tacit approval thereof is disdainful, at least. But, to allow perversion to be openly shown is beyond what "art" is about. It is license, instead.
50 years ago (+/-), the standards would not allow George Carlin's "words". Do you understand the term "situational ethics"?
A friend once taught me about the same principles used by the communists. But, in Christian terms, he calling it "searing the conscience". The more we expose ourselves (community), the more our consciences become immune to it's results.
For search results, please see: TV, Movies, Music
Also see: Sexually transmitted diseases, sex crimes, sexual perversion, pre-marital sex (oh, my!)
George Carlin
Yes. As an aside, in order for something to be obscene, it must appeal to the prurient interest. It will be interesting to see if twelve jurors admit they are—or other reasonable people could be—”turned on” by this guy’s work.
I seem to recall this was a sticking point in Cincinnati’s prosecutions of Mapplethorpe.
The abolition of law results in absolute freedom. Is that your goal? It appears to be the direction you would advocate a society direct itself.
I can’t quote Cleon Skoussen enough. A brilliant mind who saw this coming well before many of us here were even born.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/416.html
Stupid double post...
“I really don’t understand why some FReepers believe that not condoning an activity means you endorse it. It’s a complete failure of logic.”
I think you mean, “tolerating an idea means endorsing it,” which of course it doesn’t.
I think a lot of people are very unsure about their own moral character, and cannot trust themselves to do the right thing without some authority to tell them what to do. They also assume that everyone else is as morally weak as they.
Hank
Aboslutely BEAUTIFUL response.
I disagree completely. Our society is full of things that are legal but can’t always be openly displayed in public (see pornography). In a storefront, anyone out in public could view this without warning. If he is selling via the internet, chances are someone has to be looking for it to find it. For that matter, maybe he doesn't even show any of his work on the internet, just descriptions. And his descriptions may be no different than what is printed in this article. Which would mean that his ads are not obscene or this article is.
The current conservative arguments against homosexuality are archaic, population biologists have proven that it occurs in a huge number of species. This is one of the reasons why anti-homosexual activism is losing steam as a wedge issue.
Ohh...that's gonna leave a mark on someone!!! Nice call!
Which would close the case if you truly believed people are no better or worse than animals. Thankfully, we have something a little higher to aspire to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.