Federal Judge Declines to Dismiss Obscenity Case

A U.S. district judge today refused to dismiss the Justice Department's case against the owner of a major pornography studio, shooting down the defense's argument that federal obscenity statutes are unconstitutional.

The ruling by Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia could pave the way for John Stagliano and his company, Evil Angel Productions, to stand trial as soon as early summer. However, at a hearing today the judge said he would consider allowing defense lawyers to file an immediate appeal of his decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"This is about the overarching legal issue in this case, and needs to be resolved one way or another," he said.

Prosecutors indicted Stagliano and his company in 2008 on charges that they illegally sold and transferred obscene material across state lines. The materials included two DVDs, "Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice" and "Milk Nymphos," as well as a film trailer for "Fetish Fanatic Chapter 5," which was featured on the studio's web site.

In a motion to dismiss the case, Stagliano's lawyers argued that the standards set by federal obscenity laws -- such as the use of "contemporary community standards" to determine what was obscene -- were too vague to govern Internet speech. They also contended that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which found that state laws banning sodomy were unconstitutional, created a right to "sexual privacy," allowing individuals to own and distribute sexually explicit materials.

Finally, the lawyers said also said that by using the District of Columbia as a venue for an obscenity prosecution, the government "chilled" the rights of adult entertainment companies to copyright their work, by making the D.C. juries the "final arbiter" of what was and wasn't obscene.

Leon, who issued his ruling from the bench, disagreed on all fronts. He said that the federal obscenity statutes provided "sufficient guidance to Internet publishers," and that the right of two adults to have a consensual relationship was vastly different from the right to own an adult video.

"The liberty interest the defendants claim pales in comparison to the liberty interest announced in Lawrence," Leon said.

Comments

[Brain Lutz]

Congress shall make no law abridging or prohibiting the press. The term "the press" is a euphemism for publication devices.

So any attempt to stop or make illegal the showing of trailers on a website cannot be done by Congress, which means no law or prohibition thereof such activity. This means Net Neutrality. This means the Government is acting illegally as in the case of "The Miller Test".

[Marty]

sometimes porn is better chilled!

Seriously, though, isn't this supposed to be a government of limited powers?

[Frank Tilley]

if you have a right to own obscene materials, it necessarily follows that someone else has a right to manufacture and market them

[Oscar in Miami Beach]

John you are so wrong.The way the Bush Administration got us into the Iraq war is totally obscene.Those government officials that orquestrated this massacre of american in a war totally unneeded and arbitrary should be prosecuted.We do it to other Head of States that we do not like and commit the same things but not to our own.It is also obscene.Obscenity is not only carnal things but a lot of other activities.The carnal ones should not be regulated other that what is in regard to children.Consenting adults should be left to own pornografy since the latter is in the eyes of the beholder.For some Michelangelo David is obscene.Is it to you?.

[John]

Matthew: what does that have to do with obscenity law? You're a fool.

[Jeff]

Seriously torture is now legal, but they will try to stop porn like drugs?

[Arthur Brown]

And good luck convincing anybody that adult entertainment can even BE "chilled."

[Arthur Brown]

Judge Leon seems pretty right to me... There is something inherently different between Lawrence's liberty interest in sexual "privacy" and the supposed right to "publish" sexual material.

[KJ]

The entire obscenity doctrine is hopelessly flawed. What is the compelling governmental interest in criminalizing sexual speech between consenting adults?

Moreover how do the statutes provide any guideance to internet speakers as to what a local jury may determine it's "community standards" to be?

[Matthew Carmody]

But God forbid we should prosecute the war criminals from the previous administration.