1. People closely divided on swingers’ club
2. Adult Movie Producer Found Guilty In Obscenity Trial
3. Jurors convict adult film producer
4. Upcoming trial will see hours of hard-core fetish pornography
5. Judge suspends L.A. obscenity trial after conceding his website had sexual images National Coalition for Sexual Freedom — Media Update
June 13, 2008
www.ncsfreedom.org
media@ncsfreedom.org
1. People closely divided on swingers’ club
2. Adult Movie Producer Found Guilty In Obscenity Trial
3. Jurors convict adult film producer
4. Upcoming trial will see hours of hard-core fetish pornography
5. Judge suspends L.A. obscenity trial after conceding his website had sexual images
NCSF Media Updates represent a sampling of recent stories printed in US newspapers,
magazines, and selected websites containing significant mention of SM-leather-fetish,
polyamory, or swing issues and topics.
These stories may be positive, negative, accurate, inaccurate b or anywhere in between.
NCSF publishes the Updates to provide readers a comprehensive look at what media
outlets are writing about these topics. NCSF permits and encourages readers to forward
these Updates where appropriate.
#
People closely divided on swingers’ club
By Melissa Long
Indiana News Center
June 12, 2008
FORT WAYNE, Ind – Almost half of you who responded to our Indiana NewsCenter online
poll dealing with swingers’ clubs say it was okay for there to be a swingers’ club in
your community.
A report Wednesday by Indiana’s NewsCenter focused on one such club located in Fort
Wayne. To watch the story on Club Utopia click here.
Our online poll asked the question “Would you approve of a swingers’ club in your
community” 49% said Yes, while 51% said no.
The swingers’ club is about meeting people and having sex.
Nate from Huntington County wrote: “I think having a private swingers club in the area
is ok. They are not doing anything illegal. People have the right to explore and Club
Utopia gives them an opportunity to do so.”
Another viewer wrote: “It doesn’t matter what people want to do as long as they are all
willing participants and are not harming anyone in the process.”
“The club is private for a reason…the members do not flaunt it is people’s faces, so
people should stay out of theirs. The media needs to stay out of people’s private
lives, after all this is a PRIVATE club!!!!!!”
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/19845944.html
To respond, send a letter to: newsroom@indianasnewscenter.com
Adult Movie Producer Found Guilty In Obscenity Trial
By Elaine Silvestrini
The Tampa Tribune
June 6, 2008
This city may be known for its thriving adult entertainment industry, but a federal
jury drew the line Thursday, convicting a California movie producer of 10 counts of
distributing obscene materials.
Jurors were given the task of deciding whether a series of films starring a character
called Max Hardcore, portrayed by Paul Little, violated the community’s standards.
After more than 12 hours of deliberations spanning two days, the seven-woman and five-
man jury concluded that the films, with their vomiting, violence and urination, were
criminally obscene.
The panel convicted defendant Little, 50, and his company, Maxworld Entertainment, of
five counts each of distributing obscene materials over the Internet and through the
mail. Each count carries a possible maximum penalty of five years in federal prison and
a $250,000 fine.
“We think it is a sad day for the First Amendment,” said defense attorney H. Louis
Sirkin. “We believe in freedom of speech, and this is a setback.”
Sirkin vowed to appeal, saying it is not unusual in cases like this for appellate
courts to reach different decisions. “It’s not over,” he said.
After their guilty verdicts, jurors were asked to render a ruling on whether Little
should lose his California home and his Internet domain names. Jurors ordered him to
surrender the domain names but ruled he could keep his house.
Little slumped in his seat and wept after that verdict was announced. On the elevator
as he left the courthouse, he shook his head, saying, “At least they didn’t get the
house.”
His attorneys would not allow Little to comment further on the verdict. He is scheduled
to be sentenced in September.
Jurors, who would not give their names, said the deliberations were difficult and
emotional. They said deciding local community standards was a challenge. They also said
they thought the law regarding the mail charges needs to be changed. They declined to
elaborate, saying they plan to write a book together and will explain it there.
Sirkin said those in the adult entertainment industry are “soldiers” in the battle to
protect freedom of speech. “The soldiers have been wounded,” he said. “It is not a
permanent injury. It’s an injury we believe will be healed.”
The defense argued that the sexually explicit videos constituted political expression,
showing “the politically incorrect depiction and relationship with women.”
U.S. Justice Department prosecutor Edward McAndrew urged jurors to convict.
“Political speech is entitled to the highest protection under the First Amendment,” he
said. “Obscenity is entitled to none. They are not the same thing.”
[continued]
Jurors convict adult film producer
By Kevin Graham
St. Petersburg Times
June 6, 2008
TAMPA b Twelve federal jurors drew the line Thursday for Tampa Bay area residents,
saying the graphic and violent films of a Hollywood pornographer are unacceptable in
their community.
They reached that decision after watching 81/2 hours of extreme pornography on a giant
screen in court. At times, they winced as an adult film producer who calls himself Max
Hardcore performed in scenes that included urinating, vomiting and violently dominating
women.
They convicted the actor and producer, whose real name is Paul F. Little, 51, of
Altadena, Calif., and his company, MaxWorld Entertainment Inc., of 10 counts of selling
obscene material on the Internet and 10 counts of shipping it to Tampa through the U.S.
mail.
Jurors asked that their names not be used. But several spoke of how emotional it had
been and how tensions among them escalated Thursday as they deliberated, temporarily
unable to reach a decision on half of the charges.
They said they plan to write a book about their jury service. And they criticized the
law that was the basis for charges of aiding in the use of the U.S. mail to send the
films to Tampa.
Attorneys with the Justice Department’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section
prosecuted the case in Tampa because Little’s Max Hardcore site was housed on computer
servers downtown for at least three years.
Defense attorneys said Little never knew his site was housed in Tampa, and that
prosecutors never produced any evidence that he did.
In closing arguments, the defense called on jurors to consider the nearly five-dozen
adult oriented businesses in the bay area and infer what that suggested about the local
community standards.
Justice Department attorney Edward McAndrew urged jurors to rely on how the films made
them feel as they watched. He told them in closing arguments that had the law not
required they stay, he wouldn’t blame them for running for the exits.
“These videos aren’t only offensive, they assault your senses,” McAndrew said.
[continued]
To respond, comment at the bottom of the article
Upcoming trial will see hours of hard-core fetish pornography
By Scott Glover
Los Angeles Times
June 9, 2008
Ira Isaacs faces a trial on obscenity charges. Ira Isaacs says his films, which feature
bestiality and defecation, have artistic value. Federal prosecutors say they are
criminally obscene. Hours of footage will help jurors decide who’s right.
If all goes according to plan, an otherwise stately federal courtroom in downtown Los
Angeles will be converted into a makeshift movie theater this week, screening a series
of graphic — many would say vulgar — sexual fetish videos.
At issue is how a jury will define obscenity in a region that boasts its status as the
capital of the pornography industry and at a time when technology has made the taboo
adult flicks of a generation ago available to a mainstream audience.
Hollywood filmmaker Ira Isaacs says the videos he sells are works of art, protected
under the Constitution. Federal prosecutors contend they are criminally obscene.
The prosecution is the first in Southern California by a U.S. Department of Justice
task force formed in 2005 after Christian conservative groups appealed to the Bush
administration to crack down on smut.
For jurors to determine whether Isaacs’ work is obscene, they will view hours of hard-
core pornography so degrading that in one film, an actress cries throughout,
prosecutors said in court papers.
But if jurors find that any of the four videos at issue in the case have any “literary,
scientific or artistic value,” the work is not legally obscene, according to a 1973
Supreme Court ruling.
“All they’re going to do is turn on a DVD machine and hope the jury is going to be so
shocked and disgusted and offended that they’re going to throw me in prison,” said
Isaacs, 57, a native of the Bronx. He said he hopes that jurors will be shocked — he’s
a self-described “shock artist” — but also that they will see artistic value in the
work.
The portly defendant, who sports a ponytail and goatee, produced and starred in one of
the videos. He contends that the sex in the movie is incidental to the art. It’s merely
a marketing tool to drive sales of the videos on the Internet, he said.
Isaacs predicted that many jurors would not be able to stomach viewing the movies, some
of which feature acts of bestiality and defecation.
“It’s going to be a circus,” he said of the upcoming trial. “I think I’d freak out if I
had to watch six hours of the stuff.”
Isaacs said he would testify as his own expert witness at trial and planned to lecture
jurors on how perceptions of art have changed over the years. There was a time, he
said, when the works of authors James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence were called obscene.
The task force has won convictions in more than a dozen cases, the vast majority
resulting from plea bargains, according to case summaries provided by the department.
Only a few defendants have elected to fight the charges at trial. Punishment in most
cases included some prison time, ranging from one to seven years, as well as stiff
fines and forfeiture of proceeds.
Most of the cases were brought in relatively conservative areas of the country, five of
them in Texas.
Whether jurors in Southern California have more lenient views on obscenity will be
tested at Isaacs’ trial.
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-obscene9-2008jun09,0,7643770.story
To respond, email your letter to letters@latimes.com or respond at the bottom of the
article.
Judge suspends L.A. obscenity trial after conceding his website had sexual images
By Scott Glover
Los Angeles Times
June 12, 2008
A closely watched obscenity trial in Los Angeles federal court was suspended Wednesday
after the judge acknowledged maintaining his own publicly accessible website featuring
sexually explicit photos and videos.
Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, granted a 48-hour
stay in the obscenity trial of a Hollywood adult filmmaker after the prosecutor
requested time to explore “a potential conflict of interest concerning the court having
a . . . sexually explicit website with similar material to what is on trial here.”
In an interview Tuesday with The Times, Kozinski acknowledged posting sexual content on
his website. Among the images on the site were a photo of naked women on all fours
painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually
aroused farm animal. He defended some of the adult content as “funny” but conceded that
other postings were inappropriate.
Kozinski, 57, said that he thought the site was for his private storage and that he was
not aware the images could be seen by the public, although he also said he had shared
some material on the site with friends. After the interview Tuesday evening, he blocked
public access to the site.
Kozinski is one of the nation’s highest-ranking judges and has been mentioned as a
possible candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. He was named chief judge of the 9th
Circuit last year and is considered a judicial conservative on most issues. He was
appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1985.
After publication of an latimes.com article about his website Wednesday morning, the
judge offered another explanation for how the material might have been posted to the
site. Tuesday evening he had told The Times that he had a clear recollection of some of
the most objectionable material and that he was responsible for placing it on the Web.
By Wednesday afternoon, as controversy about the website spread, Kozinski was seeking
to shift responsibility, at least in part, to his adult son, Yale.
“Yale called and said he’s pretty sure he uploaded a bunch of it,” Kozinski wrote in an
e-mail to Abovethelaw.com, a legal news website. “I had no idea, but that sounds right
because I sure don’t remember putting some of that stuff there.”
Kozinski has a reputation as a brilliant legal mind and is seen as a champion of the
1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. Several years ago, for
example, after learning that appeals court administrators had placed filters on
computers that denied access to pornography and other materials, Kozinski led a
successful effort to have the filters removed.
The judge said it was strictly by chance that he wound up presiding over the trial of
filmmaker Ira Isaacs in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Appellate judges
occasionally hear criminal cases when they have free time on their calendars, and the
Isaacs case was one of two he was given, the judge said.
Isaacs is on trial for distributing sexual fetish videos, featuring acts of bestiality
and defecation. The material is considerably more vulgar than the content posted on
Kozinski’s website.
The judge said he didn’t think any of the material on his site would qualify as obscene.
“Is it prurient? I don’t know what to tell you,” he said. “I think it’s odd and
interesting. It’s part of life.”
Before the site was taken down, visitors to http://alex.kozinski.com were greeted with
the message: “Ain’t nothin’ here. Y’all best be movin’ on, compadre.”
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-kozinski12-2008jun12,0,6220192.story
To respond, email your letter to letters@latimes.com or respond at the bottom of the
article.
HOW TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Feedback letters are an effective way to convey a positive image of alternate sexual
practices such as SM, swinging, or polyamory. You can help to correct negative social
myths and misconceptions about these types of practices. These letters help achieve the
advocacy goals of the NCSF.
Generally, for a letter to be published, it’s important to include your name (or first
initial, last name), city and daytime phone (for verification only).
Please alert us to positive, negative or neutral stories about SM, swinging and
polyamory at media@ncsfreedom.org .
###
A project of NCSF and The Foundation of NCSF