First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
 
Bush administration continues obscenity crackdown

By The Associated Press
05.05.05

WASHINGTON — Thomas Lambert made no attempt to hide the kind of videos he peddled from his Montana home — hard-core sex tapes involving bestiality, sadomasochism and simulated rape.

The 65-year-old former schoolteacher had little reason to believe he could get in trouble. He was selling tapes to adults who wanted them and there had not been a federal obscenity prosecution in Montana in at least 16 years, according to his lawyer, Mark Errebo.

But Lambert and co-defendant Sanford Wasserman were charged last spring with violating federal obscenity statutes. In pleading guilty, they joined a growing number of purveyors of pornography whom the Bush administration has pursued.

Since 2001, 40 people and businesses have been convicted and 20 additional indictments are pending, said Andrew Oosterbaan, chief of the Justice Department’s child exploitation and obscenity section. By comparison, there were four such prosecutions during the eight years of the Clinton administration, he said.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, like his immediate predecessor, John Ashcroft, has pledged to make obscenity prosecutions a priority. The department is expected to announce soon the creation of a special unit within its criminal division to focus on adult obscenity cases.

“Enforcement is absolutely necessary if we are going to protect citizens from unwanted exposure to obscene materials,” Gonzales recently told federal prosecutors. He directed U.S. attorneys to report back by late July on effective ways to crack down on obscenity and what tools the prosecutors might need.

Those kind of words please religious conservatives, who claim the Clinton administration virtually ignored the proliferation of pornography, particularly on the Internet, during the 1990s.

Critics say a few dozen criminal cases will not dent an industry with an estimated $10 billion a year in sales. Moreover, they say, the effort is an assault on the First Amendment protection of speech and expression, however distasteful.

“They’ll find some sacrificial victims, but the porn industry will go on,” said Marjorie Heins, founder of the Free Expression Policy Project at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

A proponent of strict enforcement of obscenity laws agreed with Heins that so far, the administration has aimed mostly at minor figures in the industry.

“At some point, they’re going to have to ratchet it up if they want to do something meaningful,” said Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media.

Oosterbaan said the government has won convictions in high-profile cases. He cited a guilty plea last year from John Coil of Highland Village, Texas, who owned and operated 27 adult-oriented businesses in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Coil forfeited an estimated $8.1 million in property to the government and was sentenced to more than five years in prison.

In addition, there is the 23-count indictment against Edward Wedelstedt of Littleton, Colo., and his Goalie Entertainment Holdings Inc. Wedelstedt owns pornographic bookstores in 18 states; the indictment lists six allegedly obscene videos and DVDs.

The government is seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in real estate and other property, including a Lear jet, in the Wedelstedt case.

Henry W. Asbill of Washington, Wedelstedt’s lawyer, said the indictment was politically motivated.

“My client supplies his own stores with adult materials that are for adults only. Consenting adults come into the stores and view or rent or buy the movies,” Asbill said.

In trying to prosecute obscenity, it long has been difficult to distinguish obscenity from indecent content. As former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said about hard-core pornography, “I know it when I see it.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that many dirty pictures are constitutionally protected free speech that adults have the right to see and buy. The high court also has rebuffed Congress’ attempts to ban or restrict adult-oriented Web sites.

But the Court also set out ground rules for obscenity in its landmark 1973 ruling in Miller v. California that allow the standards for offending material to vary from one community to the next.

The Justice Department’s approach has been to identify videos that even some in the pornography business find unappealing and to bring charges in more socially conservatives places, where possible.

In the Montana case, Lambert distributed videos that even his lawyer said were “frankly, disgusting.”

In the case against Wedelstedt, the government filed charges in Dallas, where the Colorado resident was indicted.

But a recent court decision in Pittsburgh could upset the administration’s plans. U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster tossed out an obscenity indictment against Extreme Associates Inc. and its owners, Robert Zicari, and his wife, Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif.

Lancaster ruled that prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the company’s hard-core movies from children and from adults who did not want to see such material. He said the company can market and distribute its materials because people have a right to view them in the privacy of their own homes.

The government has appealed.


Update
Federal judge hands out 5-year sentence in obscenity case
Sanford Wasserman maintains his innocence, says he resents being made 'poster child' for Bush administration 'crusade' against pornography. 12.07.05

Previous
Attorney general vows to prosecute obscenity cases
In his first lengthy address since taking office, Alberto Gonzales says people who distribute obscene materials do not enjoy constitutional guarantees of free speech. 03.02.05

Related

Feds to appeal dismissal of obscenity case

Justice Department to ask 3rd Circuit to reinstate 10-count indictment against California pornography business. 02.17.05

3rd Circuit asked to reinstate obscenity case
U.S. attorney tells three-judge panel that lower court erred in ruling that right to distribute obscene materials flows from privacy right. 10.20.05

Obscenity charges against porn sellers reinstated
3rd Circuit ruling represents step forward for Bush administration, which has ramped up federal obscenity prosecutions. 12.09.05

Federal judge blocks some new online-porn rules
Court dismisses industry's claims that restrictions violate free-speech rights, but finds rules overly broad in their application to chat rooms and some Web sites. 12.31.05

Man accused of downloading child porn can be charged with making it
Ruling by Michigan appeals court means former township treasurer could face 20-year felony. 01.30.06

Pa. woman charged with obscenity for online child-torture stories
Federal prosecutors say Web site contained excerpts of fictional stories about child sex, torture, murder that were available to all visitors. 09.28.06

Producer of extreme videos goes on trial in L.A.
Federal prosecutors think they can prove Ira Isaacs' movies violate community obscenity standards, even in nation's reputed pornography capital. 06.11.08

Judge declares mistrial in L.A. obscenity case
Move comes after 9th Circuit's Alex Kozinski, who is presiding over case, came under scrutiny for posting sexually explicit material on his own Web site. 06.16.08

Pornography & obscenity

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print


Last system update: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 | 22:56:54
 SEARCH  MORE
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
Video/RSS/podcasts
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment
reports

First Reports
Supreme Court
Experts
Columnists
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Glossary
Freedom Sings™
Events
First Amendment
Schools

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment
Library

Lesson plans
freedomforum.org
Newseum
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links