Yet Another Obscenity Trial? We Should Be Ashamed

By Dr. Marty Klein, AlterNet. Posted August 29, 2008.

Last week I traveled 14 hours to Staunton, Va., to testify in an obscenity trial. A guy was accused of selling DVDs in his shop that showed adults having sex with each other -- which, of course, he had.

Staunton is the kind of small town in which locals enjoy being helpful to strangers. In fact, when I pulled into a gas station needing directions, the mechanic fixing a flat asked me where I was from, shook my hand and introduced himself, welcoming me to the beautiful Shenandoah Valley.

But I couldn't have coffee with the guy. I was in Staunton to defend the Constitution from his neighbors. Maybe even from him.

I am desperate for you to understand this: An American city, in the year 2008, asked a jury of seven men and women to declare that a movie of adults having sex could be illegal. City prosecutor Ray Robertson said that some movies -- these movies, for sure -- could be so dangerous that they fall outside the protection of our glorious First Amendment.

What could these films contain that make them so treacherous? If the films called for organized revolution, they would be legal. If the films said blacks were lazy, Jews were cheap or Catholics were disloyal Pope-lovers, they would be legal. If the films said our two-party system was corrupt, and that censorship laws were destroying democracy, they would be legal.

The indicted films didn't say any of these things. But the government said these films were so dangerous that adults must be prevented from buying them.

In the United States. In 2008. Films that simply showed adults having sex: no kids, no animals. Not even a pretend rape. Just a few hours of boobs, boners and butts, waxed vulvas and a few pints of ejaculate (much of it on women's faces or chests). And hours of smiles.

To a casual observer, the bust looked simple enough: A small-town cop buys a DVD and gives it to the DA, who convenes a grand jury, which issues an indictment, and a small-time businessman gets hauled into court.

That would be bad enough. Remember, this is America.

But something more sinister was afoot: The federal Department of Justice was involved in this. Attorney Matthew Buzzelli, part of the DOJ's medieval Obscenity Prosecution Task Force, was serving as co-prosecutor, even though there were no federal indictments. Prosecuting a tiny shop in tiny Staunton is part of a bigger plan to attack smut across the country. "They're interested in how we do here," said local prosecutor Robertson.

Now let's roll in the irony.

Staunton, Va., is just a few miles from Monticello, home of Thomas Jefferson -- author of the Declaration of Independence. And it's only a few miles from Montpelier, the home of James Madison -- who wrote the Constitution.

Staunton itself, in fact, is the birthplace of Woodrow Wilson, who guided the United States into and out of World War I. His presidential library is on North Coalter Street, two blocks from the courthouse. James Monroe's estate is less than an hour away. Founded more than three centuries ago, Staunton is thick with the perfume of history. The history of freedom.

The trial to decide whether one adult can sell a movie to another adult of other adults having sex was taking place in the shadow of Jefferson and Madison. If anyone noticed the depressing irony of this, they didn't mention it.

The government claimed the movies should be criminalized because:

• They depict sick behavior.
• They appeal to sick people.
• Watching movies like this makes people masturbate and makes them watch more movies, rape women and molest children.
• Criminalizing the movies is part of protecting American society from moral depravity.

The first three points are demonstrably not true. The government couldn't prove any of them, so they just asserted them, over and over.

The fourth claim is merely overheated rhetoric, a judgment about personal morality that any American is free to make. The idea that anyone could enforce that judgment on another American, however, is repulsive.

And yet that's what the government did -- it lied repeatedly about the first three claims and asserted the jury's responsibility to pursue the fourth.

In fact, the government used the slimiest tactic imaginable. Although every actress in "Sugar Britches" had proven she was over 18, the government said one looked much younger (small breasts, shaved bush, etc.). Therefore, according to the argument, the film appealed to pedophiles; it encouraged them to molest children and was thus so dangerous it had to be banned.

See more stories tagged with: porn, sexuality, censorship, obscenity

Dr. Marty Klein is a licensed marriage and family therapist, certified sex therapist, and sociologist with a special interest in public policy and sexuality. He has written six books and more than 100 articles about sexuality.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »