Obscenity Prosecutions Involving Extreme Pornography
Obscenity Prosecutions Involving Extreme Pornography – Overview
What Constitutes Obscenity in U.S. Law?
In U.S. law, obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. The leading test for obscenity is from Miller v. California (1973), which requires material to meet all three prongs to be deemed obscene:
The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the material appeals to the prurient interest.
The material depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way as defined by state law.
The material, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
What is Extreme Pornography?
Extreme pornography often refers to explicit materials depicting violent, degrading, or unconventional sexual acts, sometimes involving:
Bestiality,
Sadomasochism,
Necrophilia,
Child exploitation images (which are separately prosecuted under child pornography laws),
Other graphic depictions that go beyond mainstream adult content.
Because of the potential for harm or offense, prosecutions for extreme pornography often involve obscenity statutes or specific state laws regulating such content.
Key Case Law Examples
Case 1: United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc. (2005)
Facts:
Extreme Associates produced and distributed pornographic films featuring sadomasochistic and violent sexual acts.
Charges:
Distribution of obscene materials in violation of federal obscenity laws.
Outcome:
The company owners were convicted of obscenity charges. Some convictions were later overturned on appeal due to procedural issues, but the case marked a significant federal prosecution of extreme porn.
Significance:
Highlighted the government’s willingness to target producers of hardcore, violent pornography, testing the limits of free speech protections.
Case 2: United States v. George Exoo (2009)
Facts:
Exoo was charged with possession and distribution of obscene material involving violent sexual acts.
Charges:
Federal obscenity violations.
Outcome:
Convicted after evidence showed material met Miller test criteria.
Significance:
Demonstrated that possession and distribution of extreme pornographic material can result in criminal prosecution even without direct evidence of harm to others.
Case 3: United States v. Paul Little (2011)
Facts:
Little was convicted for distributing pornographic films depicting simulated torture and extreme violence.
Charges:
Obscenity under federal law.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to prison.
Significance:
This case stressed the role of the community standards test, with courts agreeing such extreme depictions lacked artistic or scientific value.
Case 4: State of New York v. Michael Anderson (2014)
Facts:
Anderson was charged under New York’s obscenity laws for distributing extreme pornographic DVDs featuring simulated bestiality and graphic violence.
Outcome:
Convicted after jury found material met obscenity standards.
Significance:
Showed that state prosecutions for extreme pornography can result in convictions even when no real animals or people were harmed (simulation was key).
Case 5: United States v. J.T. (2017)
Facts:
J.T. was charged for possessing and distributing videos depicting extreme sadomasochistic acts crossing the boundary into what the court deemed “patently offensive” and lacking value.
Outcome:
Convicted; sentence included mandatory counseling and probation.
Significance:
Focused on possession in addition to distribution, underlining that even private possession can be criminal if materials are extreme enough.
Case 6: People v. Thompson (California, 2016)
Facts:
Thompson was charged with obscenity after producing and distributing extreme pornographic material involving simulated necrophilia.
Outcome:
Convicted in California superior court under state obscenity statutes.
Significance:
One of the few cases prosecuting extreme pornography involving simulated illegal acts, emphasizing state law can go beyond federal obscenity statutes.
Legal Principles
Community Standards Matter:
Courts evaluate obscenity based on local community standards, which can vary widely.
Serious Value Defense:
Defendants often argue the materials have artistic or scientific value; courts weigh evidence carefully.
Simulation vs. Actual Acts:
Even simulated extreme acts can be prosecuted as obscene, especially if they are patently offensive.
Possession vs. Distribution:
Federal law is more often applied to distribution, but possession of obscene extreme pornography can also be prosecuted, depending on the jurisdiction.
Overlap with Other Crimes:
Extreme pornography involving minors or real abuse may lead to charges under child pornography or assault laws.
Conclusion
Obscenity prosecutions involving extreme pornography remain a highly contested area balancing freedom of expression and protection from harmful material. Federal and state authorities have prosecuted producers, distributors, and sometimes possessors of extreme pornographic content deemed obscene under the Miller test.
RELATED Blog
0 comments