DOJ Promises to Pursue Porn Industry with New Obscenity Investigations

Agape Press ^ | 9/19/03 | James L. Lambert

[truthandlife]

In an effort to send a strong message to the porn industry, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently working on 49 cases involving potential violations of federal obscenity statutes.

In correspondence last month, Andrew Oosterbaan -- leader of the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section -- acknowledged that "obscenity enforcement is a priority for the Department." The general tone of Oosterbaan’s letter indicates the Department is attempting to get serious about obscenity enforcement, including adult obscenity.

While reluctant to provide any specifics on the cases in progress, Oosterbaan has acknowledged that currently "some of the Department’s biggest cases involve producers and distributors involved in more so-called 'mainstream’ material.'" If this is so, this marks a critical departure from the last Justice Department headed by Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration (1993-2000). Two recent calls to the DOJ concerning this deviation were not returned.

Pro-family advocates are hopeful this change in direction signals the beginning of new indictments against elements of an industry that continues to push obscenity and sexually explicit hard-core material into American culture. Over the course of the last nine years, increasingly vile forms of pornography have been foisted on society. Products depicting bestiality, incest, urination, defecation, fisting, and various forms of "rape" are being offered for sale to the public -- products that would violate most community standards, if brought to trial.

While the DOJ has presented some recent hard-core obscenity indictments, prosecutions to date have only involved more extreme elements of the porn trade. Such is the case with Extreme Associates [PDF], whose owners were indicted in early August for violating federal obscenity laws. In an interview with Adult Video News (June 2003), Los Angeles attorney Jeffery Douglas confided, "because Extreme Associates has positioned itself to be literally at the extreme end of all production, their prosecution was highly likely if not inevitable." Robert Zicari (a/k/a Rob Black) of Extreme Associates disputes this assumption, rationalizing that the material in question represents only a small portion of his company’s film catalogue.

Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice (aclj.org) thinks it is amusing when one porn industry insider "tries to define what is or is not extreme to another pornographer." Sekulow believes that in the next 12 months, the DOJ "will put [the porn industry] on notice" when it sees more obscenity indictments handed down from the Department "now that their DC satellite office is in place." The satellite office Sekulow refers to is a new technology center, established last fall, where the Criminal Division undertakes Internet obscenity investigations. Sekulow "believes there is more to come" in the upcoming months.

Pro-family advocates have different takes on the DOJ's current obscenity case load. The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section presently purports to working investigations "against large-scale, nationwide [pornography] distribution enterprises," according to Oosterbaan. Bill Johnson of the American Decency Association believes that the wave of Internet porn is "so significant that the Justice Department needs to inform porn operators that they will not tolerate" Internet obscenity anymore. Johnson thinks pastors and local community leaders should not be afraid to tackle the problem, lest America go the way of Europe, where children in countries such as Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, and Denmark are highly sexualized.

Sekulow contends that Congress is also serious about tackling criminal obscenity violations. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah will soon be conducting hearings on the progress of Oosterbaan’s unit. Sekulow contends that "hearings are good evidence" that the Senate Judicial committee "takes these matters seriously." Such hearings should also put pressure on Osterbaan’s group to demonstrate progress in its endeavors.

Pro-family advocates are cautious in predicting the outcome of these DOJ battles with the porn industry. Both Marlin Maddoux of USA Radio Network and Paul McGuire of Salem Radio think family activists should support the Department's current efforts to enforce obscenity laws.

Maddoux believes the DOJ's move is an "encouraging sign" in light of the tremendous growth in the porn trade "since the [early] days of the Clinton Administration" when virtually no obscenity prosecutions took place.

And McGuire believes that while future indictments may only address "the [very] tip of the iceberg, we should show our support for [President George] Bush and [U.S. Attorney General John] Ashcroft" so they can go after smut peddlers.

McGuire reiterates that since so little has been done since 1992 regarding obscenity indictments, he is hopeful that "the quality of investigations" will help the DOJ in securing convictions of peddlers of pornography. McGuire also thinks it is important for the Bush Administration to increase the budget so these investigations can be broadened.

Gene McConnell, founder of Authentic Relationships International, thinks it goes much deeper than this. "As long as there is a consumer, there will always be a battle" with sexually explicit material, he says. McConnell thinks "the culture must change [and] we must win the hearts and minds of the consumer." McConnell, a former pastor, should know. He has an amazing story about his own struggles with hard-core porn and how he broke free from its addictive chains.

The DOJ's effort to draw a line in the sand does have its detractors. For example, the porn industry has become much more politically sophisticated in the last five years. It has its own advocates who are not afraid to voice their opinions.

For example, in an Adult Video News interview, attorney J. Douglas of Santa Monica said he "regard[s] all obscenity prosecutions as being immoral, unconstitutional, and evil." And Dale Kelly Bankhead, public affairs associate of the San Diego chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, says that "if people are violating the law, they should be brought to justice" -- but that she has problems "when it gets to the situation where one person tells another person what is offensive."

Historically the ACLU has defended the position that possession of child pornography should not be deemed illegal.

Upcoming developments in the next six to twelve months should indicate how serious the Bush-Ashcroft Justice Department is when it comes to obscenity crime. It goes without saying that pro-family attorneys like Jay Sekulow and attorneys representing the porn industry will be keeping a close eye on the DOJ's actions.

[George Smiley]

in light of the tremendous growth in the porn trade "since the [early] days of the Clinton Administration" when virtually no obscenity prosecutions took place.

ROTFL.

Except for that one called "impeachment" that passed the house but got stonewalled in the Senate.

[Lazamataz]

If we just make enough laws, then finally we'll be free.

[Republicus2001]

they should go after our true enemies - Didn't Lt. Governor Bustamonte SWEAR AN OATH to uphold our government and not TO SUPPORT THE VIOLENT OVERTHROW OF CALIFORNIA?

[jimt]

Over the course of the last nine years, increasingly vile forms of pornography have been foisted on society.

I guess I missed the "foisting". Perhaps porn purveyors are accosting people on the streets, demanding they accept pornography. Or they're hiding it in normally innocuous items, like breakfast cereal.

This article illustrates the nanny-state mentality of the DOJ. Real criminals run free, stealing, robbing, defrauding, murdering - and these clowns waste their time on "obscenity". Their priorities are more obscene than the porn they're pursuing.

[WackyKat]

While reluctant to provide any specifics on the cases in progress, Oosterbaan has acknowledged that currently "some of the Department’s biggest cases involve producers and distributors involved in more so-called 'mainstream’ material.'"

I can't believe this insanity. Parson Ashcroft and his Decency Squads are about to cause a major backlash against Bush with these witchhunts

[freeeee]

"I'm pleased by this news... Some of you Americans aren't so bad afterall, as we hold some things in common. One question - why aren't you beheading these infidels?"

[truthandlife]

So I take it you guys don't see any harm in cases involving the use of minors in producing pornography and cases involving material depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct?

[freeeee]

Of course I do. That has always been illegal and vigorously prosecuted, and rightly so.

This new 'priority enforcement' is being directed at adult material. I think you already knew that, so why the strawman?

[Question_Assumptions]

PBS's Frontline did a fairly comprehensive episode on the subject of the increase in more extreme forms of pornography, the role of the Clinton administration in relaxing standards, and how prosecutions are being done. You can find not only the background material, a transcript, and mention of one of the companies mentioned above, but you can actually watch the episode over the internet here.

[middie]

Well and appropriately said. The irony is too clear. The same people who are frantic in their assertions that we must keep government out of our property, our business conduct and generally, all aspects of our lives, are equally frantic to assure themselves that what I choose to watch or read meets with their criteria of acceptability. Their fidelity to logical consistency contains a huge void. Yet, they merely ignore that chasm in fervent adherence to their situationally driven ethics.

[maryz]

Real criminals run free, stealing, robbing, defrauding, murdering - and these clowns waste their time on "obscenity". The crimes you mention are usually left to local and state authorities. I'd personally like to see the DOJ pursue election fraud (before it's too late).

[Question_Assumptions]

This new 'priority enforcement' is being directed at adult material. I think you already knew that, so why the strawman?

Watch the Frontline episode and/or read the transcript. The adult material that they are going after often involves physical abuse and situations where informed consent is in question. The Frontline episode talks to "Rob Black's" company and attends one of their shoots. Not only do they talk about how they persuaded the woman to submit to the abuse but they also mention how she'll get getting into more than she expected and the shoot was so disturbing to the Frontline camera crew that they had to leave. We aren't talking about generic dirty movies here but about women being actually beaten, tortured, and humiliated for the sexual gratification of others.

[freeeee]

where informed consent is in question

Those are rape and assault, which are already crimes. Curiously, they aren't bringing those charges. They are bringing obscenity charges.

From the article: "Products depicting bestiality, incest, urination, defecation, fisting..."

These consensual (while disgusting) themes are the focus of these prosecutions. And please before anyone accuses me of beings some sort of pervert because I don't think those should be prosecuted, let me ask you:

Do you agree with affirmative action? No? Does that make you a racist?

So lets stick to the topic and stay away from the inevitible personal attacks and ad homonims.

[Wolfie]

I guess I missed the "foisting"

You gotta rent the right movies. ;)

[FreePaul]

As long as it takes our mind off of the terrorism threat and the illegals streaming over our borders it will be worthwhile. Well, it will be worthwhile in the eyes of some. Maybe we can begin a WOP (War On Porn) and create a porn csar and a federal agency of thugs to assault those who are accused of porn infractions.

[jimt]

How did you like the "foisted" part? Besides the horribly misplaced priorities that is the biggest jaw-dropper in the article.

[Wolfie]

"Out of the boardroom and into the bedroom" sums up certain political types quite well.

[Palladin]

foisting=internet spam

and using tricky addresses to get very young children to view pornography.

For example, using the addy whitehouse.com, knowing that the kiddos will very likely type that in for a homework assignment, instead of whitehouse.org.

My ten-year-old neighbor told me about that one!

The kids had been passing the URL around her fourth grade classroom.

I had to call a couple of parents, plus the principal.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"I guess I missed the "foisting"
You gotta rent the right movies. ;)"

Think If I see the movies I will be foist on my own petard?