40.13 You said something about "nuisance prosecutions." Could you clarify the illegality issue again?
Description
This article is from the Sex Movies FAQ, by director@gti.net (The Director) with numerous contributions by others.
40.13 You said something about "nuisance prosecutions." Could you clarify the illegality issue again?
The government cannot impose restrictions on what can be filmed.
However, local governments can TRY to impose restrictions on what
can be exhibited, but these have proven very hard to win. They can
impose only ONE restriction at the present time. The interstate
transportation of obscene material, this is always the charge that
is made for most videos. (Thanks to Bill Majors for clearing this
up).
It is more the threat of prosecution for obscenity (and the
prosecution doesn't have to lead to a conviction, since the high
cost of legal counsel is usually enough of a threat and has in the
past led to bankruptcy of companies) is the reason why the
producers heavily SELF-CENSOR their product.
Bill Majors confirms that if the above wasn't enough, the justice
dept some years ago had a POLICY (found in a letter in their files
that they forgot to shred) in which they said that their aim was to
put all pornographers OUT of business, either by simultaneous
prosecutions, jail time, excessive fines, or to just break them
through legal expenses.
It is important to make this point that the producers 'voluntarily'
censor their products because they know that adding these
controversial scenes will leave them wide open for prosecution in
many parts of the US, and prosecution will, even when acquitted,
lead to huge legal bills and possible bankruptcy.
Tim Evanson, ever the poli-sci doctoral candidate, tells us that
"the U.S. Department of Justice under President Bush prosecuted
several national mail order companies in multiple jurisdictions at
once, taking advantage of the Supreme Court's Miller ruling. By
seeking obscenity convictions in very conservative jurisdictions,
and by seeking multiple prosecutions at once, the Justice
Department was able to often bankrupt some firms. Others were
unable to defend themselves in all jurisdictions at once, and so
courts entered default obscenity decrees against them (which
included fines and prison sentences). This practice made national
headlines (even the Wall Street Journal's front-page political
column), but ceased under the Clinton administration."
Continue to:
My Books
