Do Obscenity Laws Still Make Sense!?

We’ve Got Questions, You’ve Got Answers

Last week, Ira Isaacs, an L.A. fetish film producer was convicted of violating federal obscenity laws.  His films involved bestiality, and certain, umm, biological functions normally reserved for the bathroom. He called his films “shock art” but neither the prosecutors nor jurors were willing to consider his work as containing artistic merit.  Obscenity prosecutions are somewhat rare these days, but not unheard of.   In 2008, for example, a 56 year old woman pled guilty to obscenity charges based on extremely graphic stories she wrote and sold (they were text only, no images) depicting fictional accounts of the molesting, torture and sometimes gruesome murders of children.  In 2010 a 50 year old New Jersey man was indicted under obscenity laws for  distribution of videos like of “Torture of a Porn Store Girl,” “Defiant Crista Submits” and “Pregnant and Willing” through the mail.

Since 1973, the standard in determining whether something is obscene has been the “community standards” test.  But given that the ‘community’ is now the entire nation, does that even make sense?   Given that we have other laws to protect children, do we still need obscenity laws.

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

What crosses the line for you?