Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KRL
Piercing? Try rape videos.
"After securing a conviction against the Ragsdales, federal prosecutors turned their attention to Gartman and McDowell, who operated ForbiddenVideos.com. According to prosecutors, the site was used to advertise and sell obscene content distributed via VHS cassettes, CDs and streaming video. The video in question depicted rape scenes, sexual torture and other explicit sex acts, prosecutors said."
|
First let me say that I have a close family member that was raped and I certanly have no compasion for rapists.
I think you are being unfair to these guys.
The key phrase is "According to prosecutors" which does not mean shit.
What counts is the jury and they had an opportunity to find the "rape" video obscene but didn't.
Since they equate "nipple piercing" with "sexual torture" the "rape" video must have been pretty mild.
PAIR FOUND GUILTY IN OBSCENITY TRIAL
Quote:
DALLAS, TX -- After deliberating 6 hours, a jury here has found Clarence Thomas Gartman and Brent Alan McDowell guilty of having shipped an obscene video across state lines. The jury also found Gartman guilty of a conspiracy charge.
The verdict highlights once again the confusing and subjective nature of obscenity law in this country. The video found obscene by the jury contained nipple piercing billed as sexual torture, but no explicit sexual acts. Another video, found not to be obscene, was a rape video which had been deemed obscene by a different jury in the conviction of Garry and Tamara Ragsdale, former business partners with Gartman, in October 2003. A third video, also not obscene in the eyes of the jury, featured urination and defecation.
"The obscenity law is still mired in inconsistency," said Gartman's attorney Andrew Chatham. "It simply does not give clear directions as to what is allowed to be sold or not sold to consenting adults."
From Tim Wyatt, The Dallas Morning News, 3/14/06
And from Mark Kernes, AVN.com, 3/13/06
|