Originally posted at Lp.org on July 15, 2010:

Ridiculous pornography trial violates Constitution

 WASHINGTON - The federal trial of pornographer John Stagliano began last week. Libertarian National Committee Chairman Mark Hinkle issued the following statement today:

“The Obama Administration’s prosecution of John Stagliano is a travesty.

“As Reason magazine’s Richard Abowitz wrote, ‘The case against Stagliano concerns the selling of movies performed by consenting adults to entertain adult DVD viewers who have chosen to watch these films. In a free and open society this is exactly the kind of prosecution that should not happen.’

“Many Americans find it far more obscene that Democrats and Republicans are piling trillions of dollars of debt on our children and grandchildren, in order to further the creation and expansion of bad federal programs. The president should be worrying more about these problems, and less about prosecuting and censoring Mr. Stagliano.

“Different people will have different opinions about how valuable or harmful Mr. Stagliano’s products are. Fortunately, no one is forced to watch them.

“Federal anti-obscenity laws are unconstitutional in two ways. First, because the Constitution does not grant Congress any power to regulate or criminalize obscenity. And second, because the First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech.

“In addition, there appear to be serious irregularities in the judge’s conduct of the trial. He is reportedly refusing to allow the defense to call expert witnesses; refusing to allow the jurors to see the entirety of the films, even though that is necessary to apply the legal tests required by earlier Supreme Court rulings; and refusing to allow the press to see evidence or the questionnaires that were used in jury selection.

“It is worth noting that this case was not initiated by citizen complaints. FBI agents just purchased the materials, watched them, and then brought charges. It’s clear that the FBI budget needs to be cut.

“Apparently President Obama’s Justice Department is no different than former President Bush’s when it comes to prosecuting speech. Obama has sustained the ‘Obscene Prosecution Task Force,’ which was created by the Bush Administration in 2005.”

The Libertarian Party’s platform states, “We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology.”

Disclosure: John Stagliano has been a donor to the Libertarian National Committee.

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America’s third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

Originally posted at Law.com on July 14, 2010 by Mike Scarcella

Tuesday marked the opening of the government’s obscenity case against adult film producer John Stagliano and two of his companies, including Evil Angel Productions Inc. Stagliano was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2008 on charges of producing two films that prosecutors allege have no artistic and scientific value.

The prosecution, the first obscenity case in Washington in more than 20 years, according to DOJ statistics, drew a crowd that included at least one adult movie director and one actress, Aurora Snow, who is writing about the case from a performer’s perspective. Law clerks and interns made up a portion of the audience.

Little is known about the jurors — eight women and six men, including two alternates — who must apply the “community standard” of Washington, D.C., to decide whether Stagliano’s videos lack serious artistic or scientific value.

Leon conducted jury selection behind closed doors, and the judge has not allowed the public to see the jury questionnaire that prospective panelists filled out last week. Justice Department lawyers and attorneys for Stagliano debated the substance of the questions. Leon has described the questionnaire as “sensitive.” Pamela Satterfield, a Criminal Division trial attorney, said in court one of the questions was “way too detailed.”

To read the full article, go to:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202463502892

Originally posted at XBIZ.com on July 13, 2010 by Rhett Pardon

Torture Portal operator Barry Goldman has reached a plea deal with federal prosecutors over obscenity charges, XBIZ has learned.

Goldman, who faces sentencing later this year before U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh in Newark, was indicted by a federal grand jury for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1461 and § 1467 for the distribution of “Torture of a Porn Store Girl,” “Defiant Crista Submits” and “Pregnant and Willing” through the mail. The videos all were mailed in 2006 and 2007.

Details of the plea were unavailable at post time, but Justice Department spokeswoman Rebecca Carmichael confirmed to XBIZ the plea and sentencing hearing for Goldman was slated Tuesday for Nov. 29.

The case has been mired in legal controversy after Goldman was indicted by a federal grand jury in New Jersey after a previous indictment was dropped in Montana.

To read the full article, go to:
http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece.php?id=122757&mi=all&q=goldman

Originally posted at Salon.com on July 13, 2010
By Mary Elizabeth Williams

From the article:
Pornography has had its day in court before, notably in 1973’s Miller v. California, which established the three criteria for a work to be deemed “obscene.” Going beyond the old “I know it when I see it” test, Miller set the standard: that “the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law”; that it, “taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value”; and for the kicker, that “the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.”

It’s the “community standards” part, which dates even further back, to Justice William Brennan’s decision in 1957’s Roth v. United States, that’s the stickiest of wickets. The obscenity test, which Judge Richard J. Leon has instructed Stagliano’s jury to apply, remains unchanged, even though, in the four decades since Miller, cable and the Internet have redefined our concept of community. Your cable system, your phone provider and that nice Marriott you stayed at on your last business trip, after all, do brisk business bringing you naked people engaged in sexual congress. (According to one estimate, half of all hotel guests buy in-room adult movies. The road really does get lonely.)

But why go after respectable multinational businesses when there’s an outspoken guy with an ass fetish out there? And that’s how, in this sex-riddled day and age, John Stagliano found himself in court.

The story starts in 2005, when the Bush administration created the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force dedicated “exclusively to the protection of America’s children and families through the enforcement of our Nation’s obscenity laws.” And enforce they have, successfully prosecuting fetish filmmakers like Max Hardcore and Ira Isaacs. But Stagliano is big game. So in December 2007, an FBI agent paid $57.48 for “Jay Sin’s Milk Nymphos” and “Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice,” and watched the trailer for “Fetish Fanatic 5″ — none of which, by the way, Stagliano directed. On April 8, 2008, he and his production company Evil Angel were indicted on federal obscenity charges.

To read the full article, go to: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/07/13/trial_of_buttman/index.html

The 2nd Circuit in Manhattan strikes down the FCC’s ludicrously vague indecency policy

Originally posted at Salon.com on July 13, 2010
By Jenn Kepka 

From the article:
A federal appeals court has tossed out a government policy that can lead to broadcasters being fined for allowing even a single curse word on live television.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan on Tuesday found the policy to be unconstitutional. It says the policy violates the First Amendment.

To read the full article, go to:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/07/13/appeals_court_fcc_free_speech_open2010/index.html

Originally posted on July 12, 2010 at http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Porn-Mogul-Faces-Prison-98241219.html:

The federal trial against John Stagliano of Evil Angel Productions on multiple obscenity counts begins Tuesday. Jurors will have to view two of Evil Angel’s films and a trailer for a third. Jamin Raskin of American University’s law school, quoted by the Washington Examiner, calls the trial “kind of a jury-based movie review. The jury becomes a little focus group on how shocked, scandalized and grossed out people are.”

To read the full article, click on the nbc website link.

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3303
Originally posted by Wendy McElroy on her site - May 26, 2010

… John is currently facing a maximum 32 years in jail and $7 million in fines for making fetish porn films that include only adults. Two years ago, John was indicted and has since gone through the sort of legal hell that only those who are targeted as examples by the government can understand. (And, yes, people are still going to jail for producing and distributing adult pornography; consider the case of Max Hardcore, aka prisoner no. 44902-112, currently at FCI La Tuna, Texas.) John has established the website, DefendOurPorn.org as a venue on which to post articles, news, and updates regarding his court proceedings. Alas, it does not appear to have been updated recently.

For decades, John has encouraged libertarians, defended their rights, contributed heavily to institutions and periodicals… In the years of our association, I never heard him utter a vicious word against anyone nor an unlibertarian sentiment. …

Click on the link to read the full article.

Originally sent to TrueSlant.com - May 24, 2010

Susannah- This morning I read your post about the Max Hardcore porn parody and I wanted to contact you about how it made me feel.

I first became aware of your TrueSlant blog through the article you did about my husband John Stagliano in March. As that specific article was more about the journalistic world, I couldn’t really tell what your personal view on the merit of the case was.

With regards to Max Hardcore’s trial, I understand completely that you’re disgusted by Max Hardcore’s movies. There’s not much, if anything, to like about them. However, I was surprised by Debi Diamond’s comment regarding Max of “you commit the crime, you do the time”. What crime did Max commit that he was actually convicted of? He’s in jail for making movies where the performers say they were willing participants, and people willingly bought those movies. It was never suggested during the trial that anything nonconsensual ever happened during the making of those movies, no matter how disgusted the viewer may have been by the movies. If a person is disgusted by horror movies, I would think they should choose to not watch them. I choose to not watch South Park, because even though I agree with the basic overall opinions of the vast majority of the episodes and topics, the way the show is presented is so callous, mean-spirited and often-times offensive, that I more often than not, would not actually enjoy it. So after several episodes of feeling offended (even though I didn’t disagree with the underlying thought), I chose to stop watching South Park. I didn’t protest the show. I tell people I think it’s mean-spirited, but I support the right of the makers to make the show, of their right of speech to say the things they do, and the right of Americans to watch the show if they choose.

If Max was in jail for beating a woman against her will, or for coercing someone, I would think that would be completely justified. When I was a porn performer many years ago, Max tried to hire me. I was well aware of him and his movies and I knew it was not something I wanted to be a part of, so I said no. I did not need the government to step in and protect me from Max, I was more than capable of making logical decisions for myself.

When people say that Max deserves to be in jail under pretenses of an obscenity law, it creates a slippery slope of allowing people to put anyone in jail just because they made something that they simply don’t like. Not everyone has to like pornography. Violent crimes should be prosecuted under every letter of the law, but if a porn movie is indeed made consensually, then even if there are people in this country who disagree with it, shouldn’t we simply be able to tell those people to simply not watch it?

My 9 year-old daughter was 7 when her father received the indictment from the federal government. She knows that we make movies with grown-ups, that only grown-ups can see. We told her that there are people who think that John shouldn’t be selling the kinds of movies that he does, and that he should be in jail because of it. We emphasized to her that we never have someone do something that they don’t want to do, and we don’t show the movies to anyone who doesn’t want to see them. At age 7, she asked “if they don’t like the movies, why don’t they just not watch them?”

Thank you for your time,
Karen Stagliano

To read Susannah’s response, go to the TrueSlant: http://trueslant.com/susannahbreslin/2010/05/24/wife-of-indicted-pornographer-speaks-out-on-obscenity/

http://www.goldplateddoor.com/2010/05/20/stagliano-on-selling-porn-to-the-fbi/
Originally posted on GoldPlateDoor.com by Richard Abowitz - May 20, 2010

This is part one of the interview I did this morning with Evil Angel owner and former Vegas show producer John Stagliano.  Here Stagliano discusses the indictment against him and how this has impacted his life.

In part two, which I will post soon, Stagliano looks ahead at his trial and answers among other questions, if he plans to take the stand in his defense.

Richard Abowitz: Do you see your prosecution as different from the Max Hardcore prosecution and the other recent prosecutions that preceded you?

John Stagliano: Maybe the motivation is little different in that I am a bigger pornographer and it will have a greater impact in terms of the battle that the anti obscenity task force is waging. If they get a victory against me it is more significant than Max Hardcore or animal sex movies or something like that.

Click on the GoldPlateDoor.com link to read the full interview article.

 
http://www.xbiz.com/news/120917
Originally posted on XBIZ.com by Bob Johnson - May 21, 2010

Evil Angel owner John Stagliano appeared on the FOX Business Network’s “Stossell” show last evening along with former judge and FOX news analyst Andrew Napolitano.

The brief interview focused on Stagliano’s obscenity indictment and the possibility of him facing 32 years in jail.

The issue of obscenity and 1st amendment rights was discussed with both Napolitano and Stagliano pointing out that individuals have the right to view what they please and that the definition of obscenity must be clearly defined before it can be decided upon.

Click on the XBIZ.com link to read the full article.