Steve Sweet Goes to Trial

[maxsweet]

To: ALL MEDIA
From: Sweet Entertainment Group
Date: 2/13/2004
Re: Steve Sweet Obscenity Prosecution
The head of Sweet Entertainment Group, Steve Sweet, will go to trial next Monday, February 16th, 2004 in Vancouver, British Columbia on charges of making and distributing obscene material contrary to s. 163 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Crown alleges that eleven (11) video vignettes are obscene under Canadian law. The videos consist of one (1) Pee Lovers scene, two (2) Miss Pain scenes, and eight (8) Sado Slaves scenes. With the exception of the Pee Lovers scene, the performances in question all document bondage and discipline/sado-masochistic play.

The Crown alleges that the videos are obscene because they combine explicit sex with cruelty, and violence, which is statutorily prohibited in Canada under s. 163 (8) of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Sweet will be launching a vigorous defense to the charges including leading expert evidence regarding the popularity of BDSM, the safe sane and consensual nature of the acts depicted in the vignettes and the unlikelihood of any substantial risk of harm. Live Internet demonstrative evidence will also be tendered at trial concerning the popularity, ease of availability and sheer number of BDSM websites since the World Wide Web came into its own.
The case will raise new and important issues concerning contemporary Canadian community standards, what Canadians will tolerate other Canadians viewing, which is one aspect of the obscenity test set out in the seminal Supreme Court of Canada decision Regina v. Butler. Butler was decided in 1992, well before the explosion of adult-based entertainment on the Internet.

The trial is presently scheduled for six (6) weeks. Further information will be forthcoming at the conclusion of the trial.
Sweet Entertainment Group will continue to provide cutting edge adult entertainment to its many members and customers as Mr. Sweet rises to meet this important legal challenge.

P.G. Kent-Snowsell. B.A., LL.B.
Barrister
Head of Legal Affairs
Sweet Entertainment Group of Companies

[latinasojourn]

yes, when you push the envelope in this direction you are vulnerable in front of a jury.

just ask rob black, or amatueractionBBS


not a good long-term business model, whether it sells or not.

because even if you win you give your profits to lawyers.

[slapass]

Good Luck!

[JFK]

Good Luck Steve

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by latinasojourn
yes, when you push the envelope in this direction you are vulnerable in front of a jury.

just ask rob black, or amatueractionBBS


not a good long-term business model, whether it sells or not.

because even if you win you give your profits to lawyers.

If nobody ever had " push the envelope " , you would be flipping burgers at the local joint.. or selling bibles to motels



BTW, any donations accepted ??? This will cost about $ 50-75,000
IMO.

[tbabe]

Originally posted by directfiesta


If nobody ever had " push the envelope " , you would be flipping burgers at the local joint.. or selling bibles to motels

Exactly, most people seem to forget where we would be without envelope pushing. Good luck steve

[maxsweet]

Thanks for the kind words everyone!

I think its important to note that the BDSM content we produce is not much different
than a number of US sites but the local laws in Canada are anitiquated in our opinion.
Also, the use of the internet as a distribution method has not been addressed
in any court case so far so we are excited about this.

As for donations - you could always send us some traffic

Every little bit helps!

[latinasojourn]

well wtf do i know.

i took a federal obscenity bust in 1976.

i actually have an idea what it costs.

and how it relates to a long-term business plan.

my pushing the envelope days are over

[magnatique]

All my good wishes go to you guys, best of luck!

[GTS Mark]

Best of luck guys!

DH

[TampaJim]

Good Luck Guys.

[Mikel]

Good Luck Steve!

Good luck guys!!

[SoBeGirl Video]

Go Get'em Sweet

[gregtx]

Originally posted by directfiesta


If nobody ever had " push the envelope " , you would be flipping burgers at the local joint.. or selling bibles to motels



BTW, any donations accepted ??? This will cost about $ 50-75,000
IMO.

we spent more than that trying to keep the domain name shawinternet.com ... and it never went to trial... this could easily exceed $150k

[directfiesta]

Originally posted by gregtx


we spent more than that trying to keep the domain name shawinternet.com ... and it never went to trial... this could easily exceed $150k

Fucking inflation..... lol


In 1983-85, I spent for an obscenity case about 30,000.00.

Lost in first instance, won in appeal court. Had 4 expert witnesses, among them the head of ( doyen in french, don't know in english) the sexual departmemt of Fraser University....

Good luck guys... Will send traffic ...

[Paul Markham]

Let's get a few things straight. Steve Sweet was not pushing any envelopes when producing these films. He was either doing them to make a profit, personal tastes or both. He knew the laws and he decided to break them and he took the money. Trust me he was never fighting for your rights and freedoms.

Now the Canadian prosecutor has decided to put him in court and convict him.

At the moment there are 11 defendants fighting for the future of everyone to stream on the Internet, if you feel like giving to someone to protect your rights give to these guys. It's the Acacia defense fund.

Not someone who was trying to make a quick buck.

[Phoenix]

Best wishes Steve

[Mr.Fiction]

[Roger]

good luck, it's a freaking shame that you have to go to trial for this.

[JohnW]

About time this deal went to trial. This whole thing has been a dark cloud over the Vancouver porn scene for the last year and a half.

Whatever the outcome, I'm glad it's finally nearing some conclusion.

[latinasojourn]

It's always interesting to me how many guys jump on the bandwagon in support of this sort of thing.

here's the allegation, and read carefully:

"videos are obscene because they combine explicit sex with cruelty, and violence"


i haven't seen the videos in question, but i've seen shit like this on the web, (by mistake.)


i'm certain there is a market for this stuff.


but here's the dreary reality of much of it.


an 18 or 19 year old girl who needs to pay her rent answers a modeling ad.

and she is happy to hear that she can solve her whole month's financial problems in one afternoon.

and she's a hip girl, and she agrees to try some "new" things that the guys tell her will be fun.


so some guy then blindfolds her, and ties a rope around her breasts till they turn blue, and takes
needles and sticks them through her nipples, while another guy rams her ass with something, while another guy
urinates in her mouth.

and now it's beginning to be not so much fun.

so she begins to cry a little bit.

and the tape keeps rolling. now we've got some drama. so she is slapped, and gagged, and maybe spit on.

and the guys get done shooting their loads on her, and the performers are paid. and everyone goes home.

problem is, maybe the girl doesn't go away happy.

so she calls the cops, and they bust the place, and maybe take the content produced by this session into evidence.

and the little gal is now a government witness, who sits on the stand and cries while the video is played in open court.

and the jurors will watch her parents sitting in court breaking down and crying.

IMO, just to stay out of jail, this case could easily cost the producers over one million dollars if it goes to the appellate level.

not a good business plan.

[Theo]

Good luck to Steve Sweet

[[illnet]-Romeo]

Steve Good Luck Brotha when the dust settles give me a holar. Haven't talked in a while.

[SykkBoy]

Originally posted by charly
Let's get a few things straight. Steve Sweet was not pushing any envelopes when producing these films. He was either doing them to make a profit, personal tastes or both. He knew the laws and he decided to break them and he took the money. Trust me he was never fighting for your rights and freedoms.

Now the Canadian prosecutor has decided to put him in court and convict him.

At the moment there are 11 defendants fighting for the future of everyone to stream on the Internet, if you feel like giving to someone to protect your rights give to these guys. It's the Acacia defense fund.

Not someone who was trying to make a quick buck.

You've gotta be fucking kidding me...

Why do you produce porn if not for money? Are you just a dirty old man who enjoys photographing women naked? If you're so against making a buck, why sell your content? Why not give it away?

[maxsweet]

latinasojourn: I had quite a few things to point out about your hypothetical
analysis that you got very wrong.
On the advice of council I cannot post them.

All I can say is if you haven't been through our talent
screening process you have no right to imply things you know nothing about.

I understand you have a history with this sort of thing so you
can post some constructive advice on how to weather the storm instead of just stirring the shit.

[Paul Markham]

latinasojourn
On this we agree.

Or maybe she was booked to do a weeks work and told half way through,

"Now we are going to do some heavy stuff and if you don't like it and go home, we will not pay you for the three days you worked"

Be sure that has happened in a few cases, not saying the Sweet brothers though.

Which one of them went to Holland to work and why did he leave?

[Jensen]

best of luck!

[latinasojourn]

Originally posted by maxsweet
latinasojourn: I had quite a few things to point out about your hypothetical
analysis that you got very wrong.
On the advice of council I cannot post them.

All I can say is if you haven't been through our talent
screening process you have no right to imply things you know nothing about.

I understand you have a history with this sort of thing so you
can post some constructive advice on how to weather the storm instead of just stirring the shit.

correct, i do not know the exact facts of your case.

and my scenario is hypothetical.

but i do know some facts of cases where people actually became incarcerated for this "sort" of content.

i don't know if Robert Thomas and/or his wife Carleen are still behind bars.

i am not trying to exacerbate your condition. the best advice i could give anyone who wants to produce this sort of content is don't do it.

it is not me or people in the porn industry who will decide your fate---it is ordinary people who probably don't see this sort of content.

the ONLY reason i take 10 minutes to post on this thread is that i know somehting of the dangers of toying with agencies that have police power.

[ParasiteTV]

Model screening process my ass...

The story goes more like this:

Somewhere in the 17 page model release there is a tiny line stipulating that if you don't finish the scene you don't get payed.

So when the slaps, spit, piss start coming into the picture and the girl decides she's in way over her head, and wants it to stop, she is reminded that she has to finish the scene or she wont get payed.

This is coersion, not consentual pornography.

Not to mention the deteriored mental state caused by drug abuse and other social factors (mental, sexual abuse) that get that woman to call up the ad in the first place.

Sweet is not the only pornographer to take part in this type of hardcore, meatholes, alot of russian porn, etc.

I'm not pointing fingers, but calling it as it is.

[Mutt]

my prediction is a conviction.

if the defense is going to be based on a 'well all the other kids are doing it' as it seems to be.

post the gist of that 1992 decision, it sounds like somebody got off on an obscenity charge by convincing the court that whatever was in the video/book/movie was now acceptable by community standards. i have a feeling it wasn't peeing down an 18 year old crack whore's throat.

The rules are the same in the United States, the same rule exists there, don't combine BDSM with sex.

[vidvicious]

good luck steve

[StuartD]

Originally posted by Mutt
my prediction is a conviction.

if the defense is going to be based on a 'well all the other kids are doing it' as it seems to be.

Yeah, I'm kinda thinking that too.... unfortunately. As Paul said... he did the videos fully aware that they were breaking the law, not to make it safe for all mankind to do it later... but just simply to do it and make money and hope he doesn't get caught.

Knowingly breaking the law just because others are doing it in Amsterdam or somewhere, that doesn't go over well with the judges.

Good luck anyway Steve. Hopefully you have a pocket ace that we don't know about.

[Shoplifter]

The Canadian laws are specific on this sort of thing. You can't have anyone with both hands restrained or anything with pleading etc.

I wish the Sweet's luck, but unless the jury is a group of pro level West End sodomites it will be a conviction.

[Major (Tom)]

God Speed Steve Sweet!
DS

[XxXotic]

GL guys

[Vittorio]

Good luck Steve!

[PattyeCake*]

Best Of Luck Steve!!

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by ParasiteTV
Model screening process my ass...

The story goes more like this:

Somewhere in the 17 page model release there is a tiny line stipulating that if you don't finish the scene you don't get payed.

So when the slaps, spit, piss start coming into the picture and the girl decides she's in way over her head, and wants it to stop, she is reminded that she has to finish the scene or she wont get payed.

This is coersion, not consentual pornography.

Not to mention the deteriored mental state caused by drug abuse and other social factors (mental, sexual abuse) that get that woman to call up the ad in the first place.

Sweet is not the only pornographer to take part in this type of hardcore, meatholes, alot of russian porn, etc.

I'm not pointing fingers, but calling it as it is.

If the prosecution can pull out a girl like this and a contract with these stipulations, Steve is in trouble. And trust me if she exists they will have done their upmost to find her.

The prosecution will be expecting the "Freedom of Speech & Consenting Adults" defense. They will try their best to show Steve was a profiteering smut peddler, breaking Canadian laws and abusing young innocent foolish girls for his own financial gain and pleasure.

[ParasiteTV]

Who knows, perhaps the release says no such thing, I was just speculating...

But regardless of what the release says, coersion is the word of the day. imho.

[magnatique]

Originally posted by latinasojourn

so some guy then blindfolds her, and ties a rope around her breasts till they turn blue, and takes
needles and sticks them through her nipples, while another guy rams her ass with something, while another guy
urinates in her mouth.


....

so she calls the cops, and they bust the place, and maybe take the content produced by this session into evidence.

and the little gal is now a government witness, who sits on the stand and cries while the video is played in open court.

I don't have all the details, but I believe that an obscenity case is always built around the community's standards of what is obscene or not...

In this case, there might or might not be any complains from models, but if I recall correctly what I heard about the case, there were no complaints and the case was brought up simply because the community/police feels Sweet Entertainment is doing something not right...


Also, if I remmember correctly what ReyRey taught me about shooting content, he always said to film the girl telling her name, info, saying what she will be doing and what she agrees to do during the video... My guess is that if he was telling me to do this, he probably was doing this himself and the girls probably all knew what they were going to do.


In any case, this case is about obscenity, not about misstreating models... while I might find their stuff hard as I am no fan of BDSM, I will say that the outcome of this trial might affect most of us canucks out here ;)

[latinasojourn]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by magnatique
[B]


I don't have all the details, but I believe that an obscenity case is always built around the community's standards of what is obscene or not...


exactly right, you've hit on the KEY issue.

look, all of us here are jaded. we see LOTS of porn.

and i consider myself very liberal-minded and normal.

and i don't have a problem seeing images of any sort of consensual adult sex if the people appear to be enjoying themselves.

i don't really even have a problem watching grandma getting nailed from behind by a great dane if both seem pleased.

but degrading another human doesn't get my dick hard. and i'll even go as far as to say, if it does make your dick hard then you need help.

when i see it i get a little bit angry, a little bit distressed.

for me only child porn is worse.

now consider how a jury of sunday school teachers, and mothers, and fathers, and brothers who have sisters will vote.

[besterman]

What I don't get, if it is illegal in Canada, then how can you expect to argue the law is bad, etc..doesn't it seem a bit backward, sort of like you have to find a place where it is not explicitely stated in the law that it's illegal, or is this a question of interpretation?

[Nysus]

Originally posted by scorpion3600
What I don't get, if it is illegal in Canada, then how can you expect to argue the law is bad, etc..doesn't it seem a bit backward, sort of like you have to find a place where it is not explicitely stated in the law that it's illegal, or is this a question of interpretation?

Society evolves and so law should reflect any evolution..

Cheers,
Matt

[NakedBo]

Good luck Steve...


I know some girls who did some work for you, and they absolutly where not forced to do anything they did not want to do. They where told before hand what the shoot was about, and they could stop the shoot when they wanted to.

Maybe it's because I'm dutch, but I don't understand why they work on those cases, instead of going after people who produce childporn or sick shit like that.

Bo

[webgurl]

You guys gotta fight for your rights !

[maxsweet]

Believe me I want to jump in here and answer all your questions
so badly as there's nothing I like better than a lively debate !

Unfortunately I cannot discuss anything until after the trial.
When that time comes I think it'll be time for a round of drinks

[mardigras]

I forsee sites promoting nothing but "vanilla" sex being caught up in obscenity prosecutions soon enough...

[latinasojourn]

Originally posted by mardigras
I forsee sites promoting nothing but "vanilla" sex being caught up in obscenity prosecutions soon enough...

no, that will not happen.

images of explicit adult sex are everywhere, and everyone has now seen them. the government might try to bring an obscenity case against standard hardcore, but a conviction will not be obtained. that genie is out of the bottle.

today, the ONLY thing that is vulnerable to conviction in north america is animal sex, child sex, excrement sex, and "cruel and violent sex".

this is not just my opinion. there are actual convictions in these areas.

everything else is already on daytime cable television.