christophe thinks out loud

Am I felonious or not?

Via the rather righty Little Miss Attila, found this article (from another righty blog) questioning the wisdom about the War on Pornography.

I’m not going to hash over (in this post) the idea of whether or not a War on a Concept is a reasonable idea. I'm going to address one of the comments, which rhetorically asks:

So you think we shouldn’t enforce the law because we are fighting terrorism?

In the case of the War on Pornography, it’s not that simple.

In a reasonable world, any average citizen should be able to tell, in advance, if a particular action will break the law or not. For example, whether or not you agree with the War on Drugs, if you are bouncing ashore north of San Diego with a motorboat full of cocaine, it’s hard to argue that you didn't know that you were doing something the law frowns upon.

The problem with the current state of obscenity law (and, please remember, the term "pornography" has no legal definition whatsoever) is that you don’t know. You will never know. The only way to know is to be prosecuted, have your life ruined by the expense and effort of defending yourself, be found innocent . . . and then have to do it all over again with the next book or video you make.

Suppose the only way you could know if taking a prescription drug was legal was to be busted, have all your assets seized, be prosecuted, and then be found innocent. And further suppose that no precedent whatsoever would be established by this: You could still be prosecuted for taking a different medication, and your neighbor down the street could be prosecuted for the same drug that you were just acquitted for.

Welcome to the state of modern obscenity law. It’s not a comfortable place to live. Saying that the government should "just enforce the law" conceals a huge amount of politicized decision-making as to who gets prosecuted, and for what. It's been somewhat academic until recently, as the Clinton administration did not consider obscenity prosecutions a priority, and the Bush administration had, shall we say, other things to think about. But now the Feds have a case that they are sure they can win, and they are probably right.

As with most people in the sex business, I view the prosecution of Extreme Associates with mixed feelings. Rob Black’s (of Extreme) protestations of innocence are utterly disingenuous; this is a guy who has made a living by deliberately pushing the edge, with material that everyone with half a living brain cell knew was prosecution bait. That was his marketing niche: He made videos with shit (sometimes literally) in them that other producers wouldn't touch. If you dance on the edge of the cliff yelling, "Look how close I am!", when you trip and fall, it’s a bit rich to claim you were pushed. It’s doubly rich to take up a collection for your medical bills.

But my peers in the industry have rocks in their head if they think the Extreme Associates prosecution is the end. It's the beginning. The Ashcroft DoJ wants a case they can win, to prove to the public, the sex industry, the demoralized anti-smut zealots within the DoJ, and (most importantly) the Bush administration’s extreme right-wing base that obscenity cases are winnable. If that can be accomplished, hunting season will be open, and we’ll all be in front of the blind.

(Thanks to Jamais for the idea of a War on Concept, btw.)

posted 10:46