Couple gets prison time for Internet obscenity
- — 03 July, 2009 00:13
Husband and wife owners of a California company that distributed pornographic materials over the Internet have been each sentenced to one year and one day in prison, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.
Extreme Associates and owners Robert Zicari, also known as Rob Black, 35, and his wife, Janet Romano, aka Lizzie Borden, 32, pleaded guilty in March to a felony charge of conspiracy to distribute obscene material through the mail and over the Internet. They were sentenced Wednesday.
The couple, in their plea agreement, acknowledged distributing three videos through the mail and six video clips over the Internet to western Pennsylvania. They forfeited the domain name, Extremeassociates.com, as part of their plea agreement, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The company is now defunct.
"Extreme Associates produced and distributed sexually degrading material that portrayed women in the most vile and depraved manner imaginable," U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, of the Western District of Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."
The DOJ began cracking down on Internet-based pornography in 2003, and the agency established an Obscenity Prosecution Task Force in 2005.
Extreme Associates was the subject of a PBS Frontline documentary entitled "American Porn," which aired nationwide in February 2002. That program showed nonsexually explicit portions of the filming of a video. Undercover U.S. Postal inspectors then visited the Extreme Associates Web site and purchased videotapes. Inspectors also downloaded several obscene video clips, the DOJ said.
In August 2003, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh returned a 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates for violating federal obscenity statutes. In January 2005, a district court judge dismissed the indictment, saying that the federal obscenity statutes were unconstitutional. The government appealed, and Buchanan argued the case in October 2005 before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In December 2005, the appeals court reversed the decision of the district court and held that the federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity do not violate any constitutional right to privacy. The case was then remanded back to the district court.
Comments
Anonymous
Fri 03/07/2009 - 23:40
Do some simple research first
Grant,
How about doing some proper research. If you don't have an editor, you need one. If you do, they fell asleep. This is basic college jouralism stuff.
A simple search would have turned up the resaons why the case went forward. It was NOT about plain old pornography.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Associates
I do not agree with the authorities or the laws, but that is for another debate.
Anonymous
Fri 03/07/2009 - 23:41
Ahh somebody made some porn that was legal just extremely perverted and some little christians got their panties an in a bunch. Wow people, grow up, and act like an adult. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
cashgamma
Fri 03/07/2009 - 23:45
You like the Dirty Sanchez?
If a man or women is openly willing to do something un-socially acceptable on film (being still or motion picture) then it is their constitutional right to do so.
I mean, lets be honest, they should go after the producers of "That 80's Show", what a wreck!
:P
Jason A. Quest
Fri 03/07/2009 - 23:50
extreme argument
"These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."
And yet, I don't <em>feel</em> degraded. Methinks someone is going a bit overboard in describing the threat of fictional fantasy images to our society.
Anonymous
Fri 03/07/2009 - 23:59
This article scared me. For a second there I thought this happened in the US. I know the US is a freer than that.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 00:26
where
There is porn on the Internet? where have I been all these years.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 01:17
what a waste
And to think they spent our tax money on this BS over the years. These lawyers and judges ought to be in prison instead, for this waste of time and oxygen.
Joe
Sat 04/07/2009 - 01:40
Ridiculous
Why does this not surprise me in the least? Dissappoint, yes, surprise, no. America continues to have a prudish government, which is ironic considering that many of the most publicly prudish legislators have been busted doing some of the very things they object to... Mark Foley, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford... these guys are all paragons of virtue when it comes to directing the lives of other people.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 01:50
Like this surprises anybody?
Seriously, Americans are the most ridiculously conservative people in the western world. Their 'liberals' are right of most countries conservatives.
And don't even start on Obama changing anything, he's a good God-fearing church-going Christian because you can't get elected to his job if you're not.
Feel like I'm being unfair because you're American and don't feel like all the conservatives? Get over it. It's your country, and if it's broken, it's your fault as much as theirs. What are you doing to fix it?
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 02:00
bestiality and advertisements
Animals could never be considered willing participants and why that is ok is beyond me. I guess it is b/c animals(non-human) can't defend themselves so it's ok to abuse them however we as a society see fit.
I tend to agree to that if women or men decide to participate in drinking vomit or simulating rapes, more power to them. I don't want to see it, and I'm not going to, and I don't really care who does see it. It's not like it is in your face everywhere you go.
What do you mean by this comment?
"HEY WAKE UP, there are alot more degrading stuff being done to men by men, because they have always been light years ahead in the EXTREME p0rn."
I am just curious, and would like to know what you are referring to.
And as for degradation of women, just take a look at many billboards, magazines( women's fashion included ). It is less 'extreme' but is pervasive as everyone sees it. Degradation of women seems to be one of the neo-cons most sacred 'family values'.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 02:01
bestiality and advertisements
Animals could never be considered willing participants and why that is ok is beyond me. I guess it is b/c animals(non-human) can't defend themselves so it's ok to abuse them however we as a society see fit.
I tend to agree to that if women or men decide to participate in drinking vomit or simulating rapes, more power to them. I don't want to see it, and I'm not going to, and I don't really care who does see it. It's not like it is in your face everywhere you go.
What do you mean by this comment?
"HEY WAKE UP, there are alot more degrading stuff being done to men by men, because they have always been light years ahead in the EXTREME p0rn."
I am just curious, and would like to know what you are referring to.
And as for degradation of women, just take a look at many billboards, magazines( women's fashion included ). It is less 'extreme' but is pervasive as everyone sees it. Degradation of women seems to be one of the neo-cons most sacred 'family values'.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 02:38
Animals could never be considered willing participants and why that is ok is beyond me. I guess it is b/c animals(non-human) can't defend themselves so it's ok to abuse them however we as a society see fit.
I agree to that if women or men decide to participate in drinking vomit or simulating rapes and filming it, why try to stop them? Personally, I don't want to see it, and I'm not going to, and I don't really care who does see it. It's not like it is in your face everywhere you go.
What do you mean by this comment?
"HEY WAKE UP, there are alot more degrading stuff being done to men by men, because they have always been light years ahead in the EXTREME p0rn."
I am just curious, and would like to know what you are referring to.
And as for degradation of women, just take a look at many billboards, magazines( women's fashion included ). It is less 'extreme' but is pervasive as everyone sees it. Degradation of women seems to be one of the neo-cons most sacred 'family values'.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 02:41
Animals could never be considered willing participants. I guess it is b/c animals(non-human) can't defend themselves so it's ok to abuse them however we as a society see fit.
I agree to that if women or men decide to participate in drinking vomit or simulating rapes, and filming it for posterity to enjoy, why try to stop them? Personally I don't want to see it, and I'm not going to, and I don't really care who does see it. It's not like it is in your face everywhere you go.
Can you expand on this comment?
"HEY WAKE UP, there are alot more degrading stuff being done to men by men, because they have always been light years ahead in the EXTREME p0rn."
I am just curious, and would like to know what you are referring to.
And as for degradation of women, just take a look at many billboards, magazines( women's fashion included ). It is less 'extreme' but is pervasive as everyone sees it. Degradation of women seems to be one of the neo-cons most sacred 'family values'.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 02:43
sorry for the quadruple post
looking for comment at bottom not top... sorry
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 02:44
Animals willing participants
So let me get this straight:
It's okay to film two dogs making out.
It's okay to film a dog making out with a tree.
It's okay to film a dog making out with a non-dog, non-human animal.
It's okay to film a human making out with a human.
It's okay to film a human making out with a tree, especially if said tree is carved into a shape similar to a part of the male anatomy.
But it's not okay to film a human with a dog because the dog can't consent?
I submit to you that if the dog can't consent, neither can the other dog, the tree, the non-human animal, or the dildo, and therefore none of these should be allowed to be filmed. *sarcasm*
Anyone else see the inconsistencies here?
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 03:11
lol
aren't these the same christians that send our kids over seas to kill people, and be killed themselves?
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 03:27
seems so!!!
LOL indeed. Yeah it seems that is one of their other favorite vaules. And they call themselves Christians, which always reminds me of this:
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
Mohandas Gandhi
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 03:51
"These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."
As a grown adult I WILL choose what I watch as long as it involves consenting adults.
What is degrading is brainwashing children into believing in some medieval fairytale.
dust4ngel
Sat 04/07/2009 - 03:56
let me explain.
to pick
let me explain.
to pick arbitrarily from movies such as 'saw' or 'hostel', here are some scenes which do not offend american morality: a man gouges out his own eyes, a woman is hung from a meat hook and slashed so that another nude woman can bathe in her blood, and another woman is forced to wear a pig mask before her scalp is torn off by a machine. you can buy these films in any target, and they're probably on sale.
however, if a man is having rough fellatio with a woman while slapping her and calling her names, <em>this is going too far.</em>
from wikipedia:
Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly "what is obscene", famously wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced... but I know it when I see it..."
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 04:25
"These prison sentences affirm the need to continue to protect the public from obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy material, the production of which degrades all of us."
Protect the public, my butt! The obscenity laws are so subjective it's impossible to know before hand. If you get a jury prudes a nude body could conceivably be obscene. It's just a bunch of BS. There is a word for people like her (the prosecutor), but I can't use it here.
JudgeX
Sat 04/07/2009 - 04:37
No
It's not because the dog cannot only "not consent" it also cannot "reason". Two dogs "making out" is two animals following instinct. A human and a dog demonstrates a form of animal cruelty, even if the dog seems to be going along with it... the animal is being USED in a way that society has deemed wrong.
Chad B
Sat 04/07/2009 - 04:41
Wow, what I want to know is where do they find these juries? Are everyone of them controlled by the Dept. of Justice? You mean to tell me there isn't one person on these juries that believes in Freedom of Speech? I just wish I were part of these juries so these innocent film makers could walk free.
They have committed no crime and DO NOT deserve this blatant witch hunt and violation of their civil liberties to make movies they deem appropriate for their audience. The people in the movies were WILLING PARTICIPANTS and not held against their will.
Absurd, I'm hating our Government more and more everyday.
JudgeX
Sat 04/07/2009 - 04:42
Idiocy
The United States that I live in continually proves its own stupidity...
People should have liberty to film and do what they want as long as all people on the film are not having their liberties denied.
That's freedom. If on the video it was clear that the female was being injured in a way that she didn't agree with, and was somehow being "bullied" into continuing to make these films, then, there's a problem... but, SHE WENT TO JAIL, TOO.
Seriously, if people want to show people what they do in the bedroom, and the only people they are showing are those who CHOSE TO LOOK, KNOWING what was going on in that bedroom... there is no harm done, unless the video literally contained murder. Which it did not.
If JESUS disagrees, that's why he and God made Hell, right? Get off of people's back.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 04:43
Did my reseach
I watched a scene. I find it disgusting but it should NOT be a crime if all participants are adults and ok with it. I have a 500 pound neighbor who lays out in a thong. I find that disgusting too. Should that be illegal?
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 05:09
Without hearing what was the offending part because it is to offensive to comment is a fascist argument to censor the defendant's contesting by a clever loophole. There are horrible rape and murder cases that are argued with full disclosure the details of the offense for the cause of serving justice, leaving no ambiguity as to a charges validity. Refusing to say what it is because it disgusts you only proves you are to weak to effectively hear the case due to your own bias. If the material in question has 'no place being disclosed in the courtroom due to its pornographic nature' then maybe that basis alone is not what constitutes an acceptable court case. A crime must be described if it occurred, victims and property tabulated, and motivations and factors in the perpetrators involvement are weighed. If the only part that comes into it at the end is the perpetrator is getting themselves and others aroused - as adults are still allowed to do I hear - then the other 2 factors (victims and property), I assume are not an issue here unless these were snuff films, in which case several other capital offenses would apply instead.
Rigged.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 06:00
wow...just wow.
All i see in this charge on obscenity is millions and millions of contradictions. Contradictions to what is considered illegal degradation in woman, and what we consider popular entertainment. The government does. not. have the responsibility to hold my hand in the choices i make in entertainment. ESPECIALLY with consenting adults.
Let's repeat that shall we? Consenting adults. How can that be degrading if the women consents? Maybe i've been desensitized from the internets, but people get off in some weird ways. And who am i (or them) to tell them how?
Was there anyone being injured in the making of the film? Was someone using illicit drugs while on stage? Did someone object morally and ethically to the making of the film during production, and they refused to take part any further?
No. 'Nuff said.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 06:15
there was no jury, they plead guilty. you really should work on your knowledge of the law and due process. you do know it's one of your duties as a citizen to know the laws under which you are bound?
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 06:41
Mary Beth Buchanan is possibly running for PA Senate, which would explain her use of what are considered entrapment techniques in some cases. She was also the force behind the prosecution of Tommy Chong. A prosecuter's road to the Senate or AG's office is often littered with the corpses of dead legal priciples.
Anonymous
Sat 04/07/2009 - 11:03
hypocrisy
"Animals could never be considered willing participants and why that is ok is beyond me"
Was the cow a willing participant in being ground up into a hamburger? Was the chicken a willing participant in being locked up in a tiny cage and having its legs rot away? If you eat animals, you really have no cause to complain about bestiality; I find slaughtering animals and eating meat just as disgusting as bestiality.
Anonymous
Sun 05/07/2009 - 02:02
Really?
Come on, with the rate our legislative bodies have been adding laws and regulations, this is a ridiculous statement. Of course we're BOUND by the law but even our elected officials don't know what laws they're passing, how can we?
Anonymous
Mon 06/07/2009 - 04:32
Home of the brave indeed!
Who knew so many Americans support bestiality? Wow!!
Anonymous
Mon 06/07/2009 - 12:11
Are you a "willing participant" in this thong-wearing?
A 500 pound man who would wear a thong in public view definitely should be arrested, and have the book thrown at him. Seriously. I'm not kidding.
Anonymous
Tue 07/07/2009 - 02:32
We live in a world where CEOs of huge corps can basically rob everyday people blind and they get to keep their jobs and the money, yet making porn gets you jail time. Religious types really should get their heads checked.
Anonymous
Tue 07/07/2009 - 04:43
not sure where this bestiality conversation comes in. Don't see it mentioned anywhere.
Anonymous
Fri 03/07/2009 - 23:27
Christian Taliban
The Christian Taliban strikes again!