Now lets remember to vote republician - GoFuckYourself.com

tony286 · 10-23-2003, 04:46 AM

Ex-Dallas officer, wife guilty of obscenity
FW couple plans to appeal jury verdict in adult video sales case

02:01 AM CDT on Thursday, October 23, 2003

By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News

Tamara Ragsdale shrieked as the guilty verdict on federal obscenity charges instantly altered the lives of her and her husband, former Dallas police Officer Garry Ragsdale.

What would become of their marriage, she asked aloud. Who would take care of their three young children now that she and her husband had been convicted on two counts of mailing obscene material and one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material?

"God, oh God! What are we going to do?" Ms. Ragsdale screamed to her husband.

The Fort Worth couple embraced and cried as U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater explained the ramifications of a jury's guilty verdict against them Wednesday

The jury of eight men and four women affirmed what prosecutors had argued during the trial: Videotapes the couple sold online depicting simulated rape, among other sex acts, are not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Rather, they offend contemporary community standards ? the legal benchmark for defining obscenity ? and are subject to criminal penalty.

Mr. Ragsdale, 34, and Ms. Ragsdale, 32, each could face up to 20 years in federal prison and a $750,000 fine. Judge Fitzwater scheduled sentencing for Jan. 23. Until then, he allowed the Ragsdales to remain free on bail.

"It's sad that [U.S. Attorney General] John Ashhahahahaha is diverting resources away from really serious crimes and focusing them on morality," F. Clinton Broden, Mr. Ragsdale's attorney, said after the trial. "This is political persecution."

Mr. Broden vowed to appeal the verdict. If granted, an appeal may take up to 18 months to complete, he said.

The couple ran a business called G Rags Inc. and operated a Web site called the Rape Video Store from April to July 1998. The couple made more than $60,000 on video sales from the site, according to bank records.

Mr. Ragsdale, who joined the Dallas Police Department in 1990, was arrested July 9, 1998, after vice officers bought videos from the Web site. He was fired from the department a short time later. State obscenity charges were soon dropped. The case remained dormant until 2002, when the Justice Department asked federal authorities to resume an investigation.

Three-part test

The case revolved around the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for obscenity, which is based on a three-part test ? whether the material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
"This case does set some sort of precedent, the extent of which we do not yet know," said Daniel Weiss, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based organization that promotes traditional family values. "But this puts pornographers on notice."

Under U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who served during President Bill Clinton's tenure, the U.S. Department of Justice rarely prosecuted pornography and obscenity cases, Mr. Weiss said.

Mr. Ashhahahahaha, however, is pursuing the cases because pornographers have become so aggressive, wantonly filling children's e-mail inboxes with pornographic material and showing no regard in their advertising for adults who object to pornography, Mr. Weiss said.

"What will be interesting is how law enforcement goes after cases involving material less hard-core," he said.

Dallas-based U.S. Attorney Jane Boyle said in a statement: "This case clearly demonstrates that a jury drawn from our community can make a determination that materials containing offensive adult material violate our community standards. The citizens on the jury clearly rejected the Ragsdales' contention that the materials they sold did not violate community standards."

Mr. Broden argued that it is practically impossible for a 12-member jury, in a federal jurisdiction as large and diverse as North Texas, to define what community standards are in an obscenity trial.

"They weren't basing their decision on community standards," he said. "The jurors apparently ruled on their own personal tastes."

Relatives attempted to console the Ragsdales as they walked the halls of Dallas' Earle Cabell Federal Building, sometimes crying and hugging, sometimes talking quietly, and all the while questioning their fate.

'It's not fair!'

"I don't understand! It's not fair!" Ms. Ragsdale said to her husband, placing her hands on his forehead.
He placed his forehead on hers, then walked away, pacing in a circle as he unfastened his tie and unbuttoned his shirt.

"I can't provide for my family. What's going to happen to us?" he said.

Mr. Broden said he did not know whether the court would allow the Ragsdales to work.

The Ragsdales declined to comment as they left the building, instead piling into an SUV and driving away.

directfiesta · 10-23-2003, 06:37 AM

Quote:

The case remained dormant until 2002, when the Justice Department asked federal authorities to resume an investigation.

Maybe 12shits can come here and blame the "liberals"....

After all, his brain only has 2 dimensions...

People life a ruined because they fulfilled "normal" fantasy to willing consenting adults...

tony286 · 10-23-2003, 06:42 AM

Maybe 12shits can come here and blame the "liberals"....

myjah · 10-23-2003, 06:43 AM

if consenting adults order and pay for it...whats the biggie?

tony286 · 10-23-2003, 08:51 AM

Your very right and thats why we have to get out and vote.

com · 10-23-2003, 08:55 AM

this makes me sick... fuck political parties... this is a complete disregard for your fellow men and women. so what if some of us like video taping shitting on peoples chests, and others enjoy watching it... where does that draw a 20 year sentance? ive seen less for murder outright.

LadyMischief · 10-23-2003, 08:58 AM

Although I agree that it would not be in this businesses interests to have Bush in office, the couple in question are a couple of fucking morons. They should have looked into the legality of portraying rape, as all that's required to take a court case from victory to instant loss for anyone in the biz is when shit like that is involved. Pornography falls under first amendment laws. The portrayal of brutalization and violence of women, even if it is NOT real, DOES NOT. If they had done a little research, they would have found this out and could have avoided the whole thing.

In the finished product, it's what's intended to be portrayed that is what is judged, NOT if it was real or not. Even if any blood was fake blood, the rape was fake, and the parties were willing, if it looks like rape, they will assume it is rape regardless.

Absolutely stupid.

eroswebmaster · 10-23-2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyMischief
Although I agree that it would not be in this businesses interests to have Bush in office, the couple in question are a couple of fucking morons. They should have looked into the legality of portraying rape, as all that's required to take a court case from victory to instant loss for anyone in the biz is when shit like that is involved. Pornography falls under first amendment laws. The portrayal of brutalization and violence of women, even if it is NOT real, DOES NOT. If they had done a little research, they would have found this out and could have avoided the whole thing.

In the finished product, it's what's intended to be portrayed that is what is judged, NOT if it was real or not. Even if any blood was fake blood, the rape was fake, and the parties were willing, if it looks like rape, they will assume it is rape regardless.

Absolutely stupid.

Sorry LM but aparently you do not understand the first amendment. This is about judging based on so called "community standards," and not true free speech.

It is designed to protect speech we do not like.

If "The portrayal of brutalization and violence of women" does not fall under the first amendment if only acted out then there goes films, books, and rap music ;)

I do not advocate portraying rape in porn, and would not do business with a company that does. However I do advocate your right to view consenting adults doing whatever they wish as long as it's all fake.

rooster · 10-23-2003, 09:05 AM

id also say they are stupid. If you want to produce hardcore porn, go to southern california or southeast florida

eroswebmaster · 10-23-2003, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster
id also say they are stupid. If you want to produce hardcore porn, go to southern california or southeast florida

Didn't help the couple at extreme associates.

socalcash · 10-23-2003, 09:07 AM

How much did the scenes look like rape?

Was it in the cateogry of extreme?

rooster · 10-23-2003, 09:08 AM

if you want to stay on the fringe, there is a risk involved.

I think the next big target will be all the cock gagging etc type sites because its pretty easy to show its obsene and has no artistic value.

hyatla · 10-23-2003, 09:17 AM

That attorney general even ordered to cover up a naked statue. Reminds me of north korea.

GoGoBar · 10-23-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta

Maybe 12shits can come here and blame the "liberals"....

After all, his brain only has 2 dimensions...

People life a ruined because they fulfilled "normal" fantasy to willing consenting adults...

You consider rape a normal fantasy? Maybe you should have your head checked out.

tony286 · 10-23-2003, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GoGoBar

You consider rape a normal fantasy? Maybe you should have your head checked out.

Its more common than you would think, not my cup of tea but I have dated at least four women who included it in their list of fantasies.

LadyMischief · 10-23-2003, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eroswebmaster

Sorry LM but aparently you do not understand the first amendment. This is about judging based on so called "community standards," and not true free speech.

It is designed to protect speech we do not like.

If "The portrayal of brutalization and violence of women" does not fall under the first amendment if only acted out then there goes films, books, and rap music ;)

I do not advocate portraying rape in porn, and would not do business with a company that does. However I do advocate your right to view consenting adults doing whatever they wish as long as it's all fake.

It's the final intent though.. Books, films, rap music etc are not actually trying to "get you off" on rape. The final intent of what these people were doing was to get people off. The final intent is what matters, period.

Unfortunately materials that are made to enhance, invoke. etc sexual pleasure CAN fall under first amendment, but once harm is brought into it, they can no longer be classified as art, entertainment, or anything else.

Unfortunately there really aren't gray areas in the matter of pretending.. Because it's pretty easy to pretend that a young-looking woman is a little child, too. Portraying child porn will get you busted for child porn. Portraying rape can get you busted for rape, or at the very least for breaking community obscenity laws. What we THINK is right, and what actually happens in the court of law are two different things.. Portraying rape in images or video is playing with fire, I don't care HOW you paint it.

basschick · 10-23-2003, 09:35 AM

what is the url of that article?

maybe it's time for adult webmasters to start answering people accusing us of spamming children and other horrors that only the lowest commit - and those lowest exist outside our business as well!

tony286 · 10-23-2003, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by basschick
what is the url of that article?

maybe it's time for adult webmasters to start answering people accusing us of spamming children and other horrors that only the lowest commit - and those lowest exist outside our business as well!

I pasted the whole article because for the dallas newspaper website you have register and wanted to save everyone the pain

Fletch XXX · 10-23-2003, 09:40 AM

why are they ripping a family aopart for mailing a video I can go buy blocks from here in any dirty film store.

man the rest of this country is so fuicking behind its pathetic.

crockett · 10-23-2003, 09:43 AM

LM the problem is, this now opens the door for asscraft and his goonies to go after whom ever they want.. All they have to do is go to a community that will find your website offensive then try your case there...

I agree these assholes from what I hear sold some fucked up shit and probally deserved what they got.. but this is bad news IMO for Adult in general. Mainstreem may or maynot be affected, but some of the niches that are legal but extreem could very well be effected..

how hard is it to throw bondage in here.. saying it's deplecting pain and suffering therfore "could be" offensive to "someone"..I personally wouldn't put it past the current admin

IMO this is clearly a blackspot on our First Amendment rights.

Quote:

Dallas-based U.S. Attorney Jane Boyle said in a statement: "This case clearly demonstrates that a jury drawn from our community can make a determination that materials containing offensive adult material violate our community standards. The citizens on the jury clearly rejected the Ragsdales' contention that the materials they sold did not violate community standards."

tony286 · 10-23-2003, 09:46 AM

one of the things that doesnt make sense is if it was community standards, why did the state drop charges?

Fletch XXX · 10-23-2003, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyMischief

Unfortunately materials that are made to enhance, invoke. etc sexual pleasure CAN fall under first amendment, but once harm is brought into it, they can no longer be classified as art, entertainment, or anything else.

Some of the most offensive and most hardcore bondage stuff in the us is made right here in my backyard in SOuthern California. I even know people that are into the necroporn, and run that shit from here and vegas.

girls suffer pain for money in this town every day on film and get paid very well.

I see NONE of them going to jail, only if you mail that shit like Extreme Associates did.

This shit nees to be addressed.

BIGTIME.

ThunderBalls · 10-23-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rooster

I think the next big target will be all the cock gagging

Arent you worried then?

directfiesta · 10-23-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GoGoBar

You consider rape a normal fantasy? Maybe you should have your head checked out.

You should take a book and read:

Humans ( both men and women) have fantasies ( understand what that terms means???). Most common are :

- rape, beastiality, incest, schoolteacher or doctor, and so on.

Now, being a fantasy, it stays most of the time as not realised, hence a ' fantasy"...

This is part of human nature . As much as you can fantasize about being rich or pretty or talented.

So finish your education, then come back to post.

GoGoBar · 10-24-2003, 02:04 PM

Gotta love some of the idiots around here

10-23-2003, 04:46 AM	#1
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Now lets remember to vote republician Ex-Dallas officer, wife guilty of obscenity FW couple plans to appeal jury verdict in adult video sales case 02:01 AM CDT on Thursday, October 23, 2003 By DAVE LEVINTHAL / The Dallas Morning News Tamara Ragsdale shrieked as the guilty verdict on federal obscenity charges instantly altered the lives of her and her husband, former Dallas police Officer Garry Ragsdale. What would become of their marriage, she asked aloud. Who would take care of their three young children now that she and her husband had been convicted on two counts of mailing obscene material and one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material? "God, oh God! What are we going to do?" Ms. Ragsdale screamed to her husband. The Fort Worth couple embraced and cried as U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater explained the ramifications of a jury's guilty verdict against them Wednesday The jury of eight men and four women affirmed what prosecutors had argued during the trial: Videotapes the couple sold online depicting simulated rape, among other sex acts, are not protected free speech under the First Amendment. Rather, they offend contemporary community standards ? the legal benchmark for defining obscenity ? and are subject to criminal penalty. Mr. Ragsdale, 34, and Ms. Ragsdale, 32, each could face up to 20 years in federal prison and a $750,000 fine. Judge Fitzwater scheduled sentencing for Jan. 23. Until then, he allowed the Ragsdales to remain free on bail. "It's sad that [U.S. Attorney General] John Ashhahahahaha is diverting resources away from really serious crimes and focusing them on morality," F. Clinton Broden, Mr. Ragsdale's attorney, said after the trial. "This is political persecution." Mr. Broden vowed to appeal the verdict. If granted, an appeal may take up to 18 months to complete, he said. The couple ran a business called G Rags Inc. and operated a Web site called the Rape Video Store from April to July 1998. The couple made more than $60,000 on video sales from the site, according to bank records. Mr. Ragsdale, who joined the Dallas Police Department in 1990, was arrested July 9, 1998, after vice officers bought videos from the Web site. He was fired from the department a short time later. State obscenity charges were soon dropped. The case remained dormant until 2002, when the Justice Department asked federal authorities to resume an investigation. Three-part test The case revolved around the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for obscenity, which is based on a three-part test ? whether the material appeals to prurient interest, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. "This case does set some sort of precedent, the extent of which we do not yet know," said Daniel Weiss, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based organization that promotes traditional family values. "But this puts pornographers on notice." Under U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who served during President Bill Clinton's tenure, the U.S. Department of Justice rarely prosecuted pornography and obscenity cases, Mr. Weiss said. Mr. Ashhahahahaha, however, is pursuing the cases because pornographers have become so aggressive, wantonly filling children's e-mail inboxes with pornographic material and showing no regard in their advertising for adults who object to pornography, Mr. Weiss said. "What will be interesting is how law enforcement goes after cases involving material less hard-core," he said. Dallas-based U.S. Attorney Jane Boyle said in a statement: "This case clearly demonstrates that a jury drawn from our community can make a determination that materials containing offensive adult material violate our community standards. The citizens on the jury clearly rejected the Ragsdales' contention that the materials they sold did not violate community standards." Mr. Broden argued that it is practically impossible for a 12-member jury, in a federal jurisdiction as large and diverse as North Texas, to define what community standards are in an obscenity trial. "They weren't basing their decision on community standards," he said. "The jurors apparently ruled on their own personal tastes." Relatives attempted to console the Ragsdales as they walked the halls of Dallas' Earle Cabell Federal Building, sometimes crying and hugging, sometimes talking quietly, and all the while questioning their fate. 'It's not fair!' "I don't understand! It's not fair!" Ms. Ragsdale said to her husband, placing her hands on his forehead. He placed his forehead on hers, then walked away, pacing in a circle as he unfastened his tie and unbuttoned his shirt. "I can't provide for my family. What's going to happen to us?" he said. Mr. Broden said he did not know whether the court would allow the Ragsdales to work. The Ragsdales declined to comment as they left the building, instead piling into an SUV and driving away.

10-23-2003, 06:43 AM	#4
myjah Back in the harbor Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 11,482	if consenting adults order and pay for it...whats the biggie? __________________ VP of Marketing AVN Media Network Skype: AVNJill [email protected]

10-23-2003, 08:55 AM	#6
com Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 4,541	this makes me sick... fuck political parties... this is a complete disregard for your fellow men and women. so what if some of us like video taping shitting on peoples chests, and others enjoy watching it... where does that draw a 20 year sentance? ive seen less for murder outright. __________________ Real. Professional. Hosting. .:Expect Nothing Less:. 320-078-843 :: www.realprohosting.com :: [email protected]

10-23-2003, 08:58 AM	#7
LadyMischief Orgasms N Such! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Ontario Posts: 18,135	Although I agree that it would not be in this businesses interests to have Bush in office, the couple in question are a couple of fucking morons. They should have looked into the legality of portraying rape, as all that's required to take a court case from victory to instant loss for anyone in the biz is when shit like that is involved. Pornography falls under first amendment laws. The portrayal of brutalization and violence of women, even if it is NOT real, DOES NOT. If they had done a little research, they would have found this out and could have avoided the whole thing. In the finished product, it's what's intended to be portrayed that is what is judged, NOT if it was real or not. Even if any blood was fake blood, the rape was fake, and the parties were willing, if it looks like rape, they will assume it is rape regardless. Absolutely stupid. __________________ ICQ 3522039 Content Manager - orgasm.com [email protected]

10-23-2003, 09:07 AM	#11
socalcash Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: SoCal Posts: 323	How much did the scenes look like rape? Was it in the cateogry of extreme? __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

10-23-2003, 06:42 AM	#3
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Maybe 12shits can come here and blame the "liberals"....

10-23-2003, 08:51 AM	#5
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Your very right and thats why we have to get out and vote.

10-23-2003, 09:05 AM	#9
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	id also say they are stupid. If you want to produce hardcore porn, go to southern california or southeast florida

10-23-2003, 09:08 AM	#12
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	if you want to stay on the fringe, there is a risk involved. I think the next big target will be all the cock gagging etc type sites because its pretty easy to show its obsene and has no artistic value.

10-23-2003, 09:17 AM	#13
hyatla Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,720	That attorney general even ordered to cover up a naked statue. Reminds me of north korea. __________________ <a href="http://click.dtiserv2.com/Click/1125-99-us979" target="_blank">DTI cash: Top Asian Sponsor, $75 to new affiliates</a><br> <br> ICQ: 274731765

10-23-2003, 09:35 AM	#17
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	what is the url of that article? maybe it's time for adult webmasters to start answering people accusing us of spamming children and other horrors that only the lowest commit - and those lowest exist outside our business as well! __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

10-23-2003, 09:40 AM	#19
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	why are they ripping a family aopart for mailing a video I can go buy blocks from here in any dirty film store. man the rest of this country is so fuicking behind its pathetic. __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

10-23-2003, 09:46 AM	#21
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	one of the things that doesnt make sense is if it was community standards, why did the state drop charges?

10-24-2003, 02:04 PM	#25
GoGoBar Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: NJ Posts: 1,439	Gotta love some of the idiots around here