In 2012, fetish porn producer Ira Isaacs, a man frequently misidentified as the producer of 2 Girls 1 Cup (though he did cite it in his defense) was sentenced to four years in prison on obscenity charges: five counts in connection to the production and shipping of “Mako’s First Time Scat,” two volumes of “Hollywood Scat Amateurs” and “Japanese Doggie 3 Way,” which reportedly feature bestiality and (obviously) pooping. It took three trials to convict him, after the first two ended in mistrial.
The first case in 2008 ended in a mistrial when the judge recused himself after it was revealed that he had posted sexually explicit photos on his personal website.
A second mistrial was declared after the panel voted 10-2 in favor of conviction.
The case against Isaacs was originally brought in 2007 by Department of Justice prosecutors with the now-defunct Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. Isaacs was charged under an updated indictment in 2011. [HollywoodPatch]
What a fun jury assignment that must be, getting to watch hours of women screwing animals and eating poop.
Isaacs hasn’t yet served any jail time for his four-year sentence, but yesterday, his conviction was upheld by an appellate court. Both the reasons for the appeal and the three-judge panel’s decision on them is a masterpiece of legalese and Kafka-esque semantic gobbledy gook.
In determining whether a work is obscene, a jury must consider “whether
‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.” Miller v. California,
413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973) (quoting Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 230 (1972) (per
curiam)). Prior to closing argument, the district court adopted the parties’
proposed jury instruction defining an “appeal to ‘prurient’ interest” in part as “an
appeal to a morbid, degrading, and unhealthy interest in sex.” In response to a
question posed by the jury, the district court observed that the instruction was
erroneous because it listed the adjectives “morbid,” “degrading,” and “unhealthy”
conjunctively rather than disjunctively. [full decision]
Jesus, what a nightmare. Can you imagine if your freedom was being decided by a group of random schmoes off the street who had to determine whether your porn applied to a vague set of adjectives decided in the seventies? I wouldn’t trust twelve English Phds to figure that out. “Here, take a look at this video of a woman getting rammed by a dog while eating a turd pie and tell us if you think it violates ‘community decency standards.'”
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena rejected Isaacs’ arguments that the lower court made errors in regard to jury instructions and abused its discretion by excluding the defendant’s proposed expert testimony.
Defense attorney Roger Jon Diamond said he would discuss with Isaacs whether to file a petition for rehearing before the full 11-judge appeals panel. [HollywoodPatch]
Almost everyone I know watches porn, but I don’t think many people realize what a legal grey area making porn still exists in. Producer Max Hardcore went to jail for 46 months back in 2005 over depicting of-age actresses as underage girls. John Stagliano was facing 32 years in jail before he was acquitted of obscenity charges.
Basically, it seems like any time someone in the federal government gets a boner or a wild hair up their ass for prosecuting pornographers, they can use old obscenity laws to make an example out of whoever they deem the worst offenders. Ira Isaac’s was the last case of a now defunct task force set up under the Bush administration, but the laws underpinning it are still there for prosecutors and attorney generals to do with as they see fit. Someone should probably set up a Scat Porn Defense fund just in case. I’ll help, but no way I’m opening the mail.
[via SusannahBreslin]