one of the biggest headlines in the san pornando valley for the past year was the obscenity prosecution that the owners of the ulta hardcore production company extreme associates faced. just last month the charges against co-owners rob zicari and lizzie borden were dropped when federal district judge lancaster stated that individuals have a right to view sexual material from the privacy of their own homes. hell, it even got a mention on the sg boards.
the ruling itself came as a complete shock to everyone involved. i sat down with the defense attorney, lou sirkin, a mere two weeks before the ruling was handed down and nothing we talked about indicated he had any knowledge that the charges against extreme associates would be dropped. one of the things we talked about was the potential reaction of jurors to the videos once it was screened because it is the jury that has the final say in determining if the content--depictions of rape and even murder in this case--is obscene and therefore illegal.
incidentally, i think its kinda funny that the prosecutor, mary beth buchannan, was the same person responsible for incarcerating tommy chong for making, selling, and distributing bongs. if you look into the chong case, there was some pretty shady shit pulled by the prosecutors that borders intrapment. but that's another blog entry for another time.
so why the hell is the Big Porn Defender blogging about yesterday's news? it just so happens that united states senators orrin hatch (ut) and sam brownback (ks)--i don't think i need to mention which political affiliation they claim--wrote an op-ed piece that was carried in the washington times, the right-leaning alternate newspaper of our nation's capitol. in it they specifically call out judge lancaster for failing to protect the First Amendment of the Constitution (whaa?) and creating a "judicial Frankenstein" by dismissing the case against extreme associates.
i think my boss (who spent over 12 years working as a senate staffer) summed it up quite well when he said "this is one of the most bizarre statments by united states senators that i have ever read." our elected officials may pull some strange shit from time to time, but documenting their incoherent diatribe for distribution and specifically calling out a federally appointed judge is like pouring turkey gravy on top of the world's strangest ice cream sundae. i've read their statement over five times now and i'm still scratching my head in my futile attempts at objectivity.
i'd laugh at the idiocy that the esteemed senators have displayed but there's some very real issues at hand. first off, hatch and brownback both serve on the senate judiciary committee, the committee responsible for federal judicial nominations. also, the judiciary committee has one of the broadest jurisdictions in congress at it deals with legal issues and how they are codified into the federal law books. for these two fairly senior members on the senate committee that carries the responsibility of drafting the law to openly display that they have little regard for judicial reasoning speaks to the fundamental motives of these moral crusaders.
when it comes down to it, they want to tell you how to live your lives, both in public and behind closed doors. they will call you a criminal and take you to court. when that doesn't work they will single out the judge and make sure the courts are packed with people that think like they do. if that doesn't work, they will change the way the law is written because it is within their powers to do so.
statements like the op ed that was carried in the washington times aren't lip service and spin. when a senator stands up and makes a statement, it is a a warning shot, loud and clear. at first glance, this may seem to be about some very grapic material that you may find objectionable. but its much more than that. they've made their stand, and it is from their moral pulpit that they will attack your personal rights.
so, what are you going to do about it?
the ruling itself came as a complete shock to everyone involved. i sat down with the defense attorney, lou sirkin, a mere two weeks before the ruling was handed down and nothing we talked about indicated he had any knowledge that the charges against extreme associates would be dropped. one of the things we talked about was the potential reaction of jurors to the videos once it was screened because it is the jury that has the final say in determining if the content--depictions of rape and even murder in this case--is obscene and therefore illegal.
incidentally, i think its kinda funny that the prosecutor, mary beth buchannan, was the same person responsible for incarcerating tommy chong for making, selling, and distributing bongs. if you look into the chong case, there was some pretty shady shit pulled by the prosecutors that borders intrapment. but that's another blog entry for another time.
so why the hell is the Big Porn Defender blogging about yesterday's news? it just so happens that united states senators orrin hatch (ut) and sam brownback (ks)--i don't think i need to mention which political affiliation they claim--wrote an op-ed piece that was carried in the washington times, the right-leaning alternate newspaper of our nation's capitol. in it they specifically call out judge lancaster for failing to protect the First Amendment of the Constitution (whaa?) and creating a "judicial Frankenstein" by dismissing the case against extreme associates.
i think my boss (who spent over 12 years working as a senate staffer) summed it up quite well when he said "this is one of the most bizarre statments by united states senators that i have ever read." our elected officials may pull some strange shit from time to time, but documenting their incoherent diatribe for distribution and specifically calling out a federally appointed judge is like pouring turkey gravy on top of the world's strangest ice cream sundae. i've read their statement over five times now and i'm still scratching my head in my futile attempts at objectivity.
i'd laugh at the idiocy that the esteemed senators have displayed but there's some very real issues at hand. first off, hatch and brownback both serve on the senate judiciary committee, the committee responsible for federal judicial nominations. also, the judiciary committee has one of the broadest jurisdictions in congress at it deals with legal issues and how they are codified into the federal law books. for these two fairly senior members on the senate committee that carries the responsibility of drafting the law to openly display that they have little regard for judicial reasoning speaks to the fundamental motives of these moral crusaders.
when it comes down to it, they want to tell you how to live your lives, both in public and behind closed doors. they will call you a criminal and take you to court. when that doesn't work they will single out the judge and make sure the courts are packed with people that think like they do. if that doesn't work, they will change the way the law is written because it is within their powers to do so.
statements like the op ed that was carried in the washington times aren't lip service and spin. when a senator stands up and makes a statement, it is a a warning shot, loud and clear. at first glance, this may seem to be about some very grapic material that you may find objectionable. but its much more than that. they've made their stand, and it is from their moral pulpit that they will attack your personal rights.
so, what are you going to do about it?
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
takeshi21:
So how were the waves?
edea:
hope things are going well for ya! 