From Rachel's page:
PAIR FOUND GUILTY IN OBSCENITY TRIALDALLAS, TX -- After deliberating 6 hours, a jury here has found Clarence Thomas Gartman and Brent Alan McDowell guilty of having shipped an obscene video across state lines. The jury also found Gartman guilty of a conspiracy charge.
The verdict highlights once again the confusing and subjective nature of obscenity law in this country. The video found obscene by the jury contained nipple piercing billed as sexual torture, but no explicit sexual acts. Another video, found not to be obscene, was a rape video which had been deemed obscene by a different jury in the conviction of Garry and Tamara Ragsdale, former business partners with Gartman, in October 2003. A third video, also not obscene in the eyes of the jury, featured urination and defecation.
"The obscenity law is still mired in inconsistency," said Gartman's attorney Andrew Chatham. "It simply does not give clear directions as to what is allowed to be sold or not sold to consenting adults."
From Tim Wyatt, The Dallas Morning News, 3/14/06
And from Mark Kernes, AVN.com, 3/13/06
The bold is my emphasis. If you still didn't get it, a couple of guys were found guilty of obscenity over a video of a nipple piercing. There were no sexual acts in the video. They were found NOT guilty of obscenity for a video full of sex acts containing peeing and pooping on someone as well as not guilty for a rape video. So a piercing is considered obscene but explicit sex acts involving urine and feces as well as rape are not. While I don't feel that either act is obscene, it worries me that THAT is where the line is being drawn.
Nice.
Comments go here
And, in more pleasant news:
Post a Comment