Syemour Butts fisting obscenity trial - GoFuckYourself.com

Rip · 02-11-2002, 10:06 AM

Anyone know much about this, I was watching a tv show with a blurb about it last night, not only were they going after Seymour Butts for fisting, but they were talking about bukkake and everything else under the sun they considered extreme, as being obscene and subject to community obscenity laws... as far as even saying anal sex, peeing, bondage, simulated rape, women dressing up in school uniforms... the list goes on

If they have taken this test case to trial, then they must be serious, but I am worried that they will win

anyone have anything else on this?

All i have seen is this here

thx

optikalz · 02-11-2002, 10:16 AM

I may be wrong but the legal standard being used is based on the Miller case. This case stands for the proposition that local community standards determines whether a) material appeals to "prurient interest" in sex [whatever the fuck that means...the US Supreme Court recently came up with more "specific" language--"morbid fascination" with sex... yeah, real clear!] b) the material has no serious literary, artistic, political, or social value.

Bottom line: depending on where you live, you may get fucked. The local community standard in a suburbian Arizona or Colorado neighborhood is different from that in Alabama which is different from San Francisco. However, since the Internet is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, jurisdiction issues are still up in the air.

What's troubling is a recent spate of international cases saying that local law applies to the Internet. Let's just hope this does not continue or our industry will become toast.

codecrawler · 02-11-2002, 10:20 AM

Uh oh! I gues Gary's fucked then

CC

Rip · 02-11-2002, 10:24 AM

I guess what surprized me was some of the commentary on Hustler Magazine, which used to be considered cutting edge, now chooses to pass images/content by it's legal staff to make sure it does not invite litigation.

Not that I blame them, but they are pretty mild compared to what is available on the internet

It has got me bothered enough to consider carefully what I am purchasing on my next content order... and to be honest the occasional extreme fetish package is off the list for now

This of course may be treated differently if you are a paysite, or just post thumbnail galleries

Kimmykim · 02-11-2002, 12:12 PM

Miller is a subjective ruling based on the community in which prosecution occurs. The basic problem in applying Miller to the internet is deciding just where, how and who the community is going to be. A website that's produced in one state, hosted in another and processed in yet a third is typical of the business. However, the site can be viewed in any state. So where does the case go to trial? Who tries it?

The so-called community standards in the middle of backwoods, Mississippi are bound to be very different from suburban NY or LA, and things that people don't bat an eye out in a more sophisticated suburban area might cause a rural jury to convict.

So it's very important as you can see, that the first case to actually go to trial, is one that is defensible and possibly winnable on several levels.

First, you have the precedent being set of where the case may actually be tried. This is a key as I see it. If anyone can try a site for obscenity anywhere in the country, what's to stop those that hate porn from going to areas where they KNOW they will get a conviction and trying ALL the cases there? Ideally the ruling will be that the site has to either be produced or hosted in a location in order to qualify it for prosecution in that location.

Next, you have the contents of that first site. I don't think that a group of 12 non pornographers anywhere wouldn't call a beastie site, a pissing site, any kind of extreme site, obscene under the definition of appealing to the "prurient" interest. I'm not sure that any of those could be saved on artistic merits either ;)

However if the first site to go to trial somewhere is a plain vanilla hardcore site, then you've got the issue that every site that's as graphic or further out than that should get an automatic conviction based on those community standards. Yeah, they'll be a jury but you've got precedent for an appeal if the jury doesn't convict.

Anyway, not to run any longer with this post, just to point out some of the highlights of what's at stake here.

In the Seymour Butts case, Adam Glasser's 72 year old mother is a co-defendant, it should be interesting to see how that plays out, her on the stand talking about how a fisting vid isn't obscene to the jurors. Could be the make or break of the case.

SykkBoy · 02-11-2002, 12:51 PM

Thanks for the info Kimmy

I know a couple years ago when I worked for a woman who did specialty custom videos, we often had to run things past our counsel since we handled some of the extreme stuff like death fantasy, kidnap vids, playing doctor, bloodletting, etc.

At the time our attorney mainly advised against showing penetration within these extreme scenarios. Then if something were challenged, we could defend it on the grounds of it being like a Friday The 13th Movie that was never submitted to the MPAA for a rating.

I believe the guys from NecroBabes could probaably shed a little more light on that was well. I've seen one of the guys post here before.

Mark the Pithy · 02-11-2002, 12:54 PM

Censorship is a hate crime.

Censors are bigots.

kmanrox · 02-11-2002, 01:17 PM

is it illegal for me to fist men in the privacy of my own home?

UnseenWorld · 02-11-2002, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kmanrox
is it illegal for me to fist men in the privacy of my own home?

I'm not an attorney, but from what I've read, that's more a local issue than a Federal one. When you make a video like that, you may be violating Federal law. In some states (most notably in the Southeast) it can be illegal to perform certain "perverted" acts even in the privacy of your home. And the Supreme Court has supported the states' rights to do this.

kane · 02-11-2002, 01:20 PM

what amazes me is that they still call a jury " a jury of your peers" so for me if I ever had to have a trial by jury a jury of my peers would all be 30 year old white guys that peddle smut and drive jeeps.

Jurys typically are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty

eroswebmaster · 02-11-2002, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim

The so-called community standards in the middle of backwoods, Mississippi are bound to be very different from suburban NY or LA, and things that people don't bat an eye out in a more sophisticated suburban area might cause a rural jury to convict.

But you know if areas like these incest sites just might win their cases...LOL

eros

kmanrox · 02-11-2002, 01:35 PM

well then for the record, i fist men in my house in SoCal, come and get me =-)

Kimmykim · 02-11-2002, 01:36 PM

Federal law covers child pornography only, and that is the only thing that can be directly prosecuted by the federal government at this time.

Individual states have laws regarding all manner of sexual contact between adults, especially unmarried adults and even more so, adults of the same sex. Men having sex with animals is usually covered under this same set of laws... ;)

http://sodomy.org I think is where you need to go for advice, kman... ;)

Rip · 02-11-2002, 03:39 PM

Thanks for the insight kk ;)

This does seem to revolve around a video tape purchased on a website, so it will be very interesting to see how and what law ends up being applied here

Kimmykim · 02-11-2002, 03:57 PM

I forgot to mention that materials mailed through the USPS can become a whole other barrel of monkeys.

SNOW · 02-11-2002, 04:24 PM

Kimmy Kim for President dammit......

Kimmykim · 02-11-2002, 04:31 PM

Sorry snow, no way... Chairman of the Federal Reserve on the other hand, now we're talking ;)

Speedy26 · 02-11-2002, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
I forgot to mention that materials mailed through the USPS can become a whole other barrel of monkeys.

is it illegal to sell porn tapes on the internet and ship them USPS?

Not that i do this

SleazyDream · 02-11-2002, 06:29 PM

Frontline did a show on this - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/

VERY interesting

Paul -C- · 02-11-2002, 06:42 PM

So when is the trial? All references to it just say February 2002...

Rip · 02-11-2002, 06:46 PM

This was THE LIST which I was referring to

[Labret] · 02-11-2002, 07:02 PM

Cause I am lazy like everyone else.

Cambria List

No shots with appearance of pain or degradation

No facials (bodyshots are OK if shot is not nasty)

No bukakke

No spitting or saliva mouth to mouth

No food used as sex object

No peeing unless in a natural setting, e.g., field, roadside

No coffins

No blindfolds

No wax dripping

No two dicks in/near one mouth

No shot of stretching pussy

No fisting

No squirting

No bondage-type toys or gear unless very light

No girls sharing same dildo (in mouth or pussy)

Toys are OK if shot is not nasty

No hands from 2 different people fingering same girl

No male/male penetration

No transsexuals

No bi-sex

No degrading dialogue, e.g., "Suck this cock, bitch" while slapping her face with a penis

No menstruation topics

No incest topics

No forced sex, rape themes, etc.

No black men-white women themes

kmanrox · 02-11-2002, 07:30 PM

and what is truly sad is the only things i am into are all on this fucking list...

fuck that shit!! im gonna fist black 18yo men, while licking a womans bloody vagine involved in a 4 way while fisting herself inside a coffin while getting pissed on by a bisexual transexual...

and ya know what, im gonna tape it and keep an archive so i have something to jerkoff to....

now then, off to a dr.s appt, later

wired1 · 02-11-2002, 10:30 PM

That Fronline documentary was really informative. Flints take
on the current administration made alot of sense on why Hustler
has become much more tame lately. Ashxxxxx scares the shit out
of me too. They were saying his first meeting after taking his spot
after attourney general was with Anti-Porn prosecuters, the only
thing that stoped his hard crackdown on porn was Sept. 11th
and his focus now on terrorism. Considering how uptight this
guy really is with wanting to cover some of the naked statues in
the Whitehouse, when these guys get tired of war, we all may be fucked...

[Labret] · 02-11-2002, 11:04 PM

Its not 1980, its not as easy as it used to be.

It costs ALOT of money to bring an obscenity prosecution, in excess of a million dollars. And the targets of obscenity charges are typically ones that they can recoup their court costs from (large guys). When the big boys start falling, then you can worry.

The fact of the matter is, Joe Shithead running a lame tgp with piss pics on it has about as much to worry about as your neighbor in the trailer park.

Sleepy · 02-12-2002, 06:52 AM

From what I was told , Seymour had two versions of that video slated for release ( Euro and US ). Somehow, some of the orders were switched and the local community officials took the chance to sue him.

The thing about governments is that if they want to put you out of business they can. Even if there is no law pertaining to your breed of "criminal activity" they will find some freaky ass statute to get you with.

I think the obscenity laws should only apply to public obscenity. The TV has two knobs, one switches the channel and one turns it off. If you dont like what your seeing just turn the knob. Of course the Attorney General probably isnt to familiar with anything that has two knobs.

WildWebAmateurs · 02-12-2002, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sleepy
From what I was told , Seymour had two versions of that video slated for release ( Euro and US ). Somehow, some of the orders were switched and the local community officials took the chance to sue him.

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the scene in question wasn't just a fisting, it was an anal fisting and a vaginal double-fist [I know, I have the original uncut version].

Rip · 02-12-2002, 10:16 AM

There are two real problems here;

1 The possiblility that they are able to define obscenity and are successful in their suit

2 They look at that list as a definition of future obscenity trials

There are a lot of up front webmasters/industry people who don't care if they are in the public eye, and there are others who work quietly in the background, not wishing to be in the public eye

What worries me that under pressure of a successful suit, the moral right can use the adverse media attention to push people out of business for fear of the public attention.

Sleepy · 02-12-2002, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by WildWebAmateurs

it was an anal fisting and a vaginal double-fist [I know, I have the original uncut version].

Damn ! I flinched just reading that !

SykkBoy · 02-12-2002, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WildWebAmateurs

One other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the scene in question wasn't just a fisting, it was an anal fisting and a vaginal double-fist [I know, I have the original uncut version].

wow, I bet that model's parents are real proud of her...

02-11-2002, 10:06 AM	#1
Rip Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: somewheres wet Posts: 1,456	Syemour Butts fisting obscenity trial Anyone know much about this, I was watching a tv show with a blurb about it last night, not only were they going after Seymour Butts for fisting, but they were talking about bukkake and everything else under the sun they considered extreme, as being obscene and subject to community obscenity laws... as far as even saying anal sex, peeing, bondage, simulated rape, women dressing up in school uniforms... the list goes on If they have taken this test case to trial, then they must be serious, but I am worried that they will win anyone have anything else on this? All i have seen is this here thx __________________ ...

02-11-2002, 10:20 AM	#3
codecrawler Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: wolfshade's basement Posts: 297	Uh oh! I gues Gary's fucked then CC __________________ WE ARE TGP2 RESISTANCE IS FUTILE YOU WILL BE CONVERTED!!!

02-11-2002, 10:24 AM	#4
Rip Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: somewheres wet Posts: 1,456	I guess what surprized me was some of the commentary on Hustler Magazine, which used to be considered cutting edge, now chooses to pass images/content by it's legal staff to make sure it does not invite litigation. Not that I blame them, but they are pretty mild compared to what is available on the internet It has got me bothered enough to consider carefully what I am purchasing on my next content order... and to be honest the occasional extreme fetish package is off the list for now This of course may be treated differently if you are a paysite, or just post thumbnail galleries __________________ ...

02-11-2002, 12:51 PM	#6
SykkBoy Jesus loves bacon Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sin City, Motherfucker Posts: 19,969	Thanks for the info Kimmy I know a couple years ago when I worked for a woman who did specialty custom videos, we often had to run things past our counsel since we handled some of the extreme stuff like death fantasy, kidnap vids, playing doctor, bloodletting, etc. At the time our attorney mainly advised against showing penetration within these extreme scenarios. Then if something were challenged, we could defend it on the grounds of it being like a Friday The 13th Movie that was never submitted to the MPAA for a rating. I believe the guys from NecroBabes could probaably shed a little more light on that was well. I've seen one of the guys post here before. __________________ Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

02-11-2002, 01:17 PM	#8
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,292	is it illegal for me to fist men in the privacy of my own home? __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor

02-11-2002, 10:16 AM	#2
optikalz Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lost Angelez Posts: 555	I may be wrong but the legal standard being used is based on the Miller case. This case stands for the proposition that local community standards determines whether a) material appeals to "prurient interest" in sex [whatever the fuck that means...the US Supreme Court recently came up with more "specific" language--"morbid fascination" with sex... yeah, real clear!] b) the material has no serious literary, artistic, political, or social value. Bottom line: depending on where you live, you may get fucked. The local community standard in a suburbian Arizona or Colorado neighborhood is different from that in Alabama which is different from San Francisco. However, since the Internet is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, jurisdiction issues are still up in the air. What's troubling is a recent spate of international cases saying that local law applies to the Internet. Let's just hope this does not continue or our industry will become toast.

02-11-2002, 12:12 PM	#5
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Miller is a subjective ruling based on the community in which prosecution occurs. The basic problem in applying Miller to the internet is deciding just where, how and who the community is going to be. A website that's produced in one state, hosted in another and processed in yet a third is typical of the business. However, the site can be viewed in any state. So where does the case go to trial? Who tries it? The so-called community standards in the middle of backwoods, Mississippi are bound to be very different from suburban NY or LA, and things that people don't bat an eye out in a more sophisticated suburban area might cause a rural jury to convict. So it's very important as you can see, that the first case to actually go to trial, is one that is defensible and possibly winnable on several levels. First, you have the precedent being set of where the case may actually be tried. This is a key as I see it. If anyone can try a site for obscenity anywhere in the country, what's to stop those that hate porn from going to areas where they KNOW they will get a conviction and trying ALL the cases there? Ideally the ruling will be that the site has to either be produced or hosted in a location in order to qualify it for prosecution in that location. Next, you have the contents of that first site. I don't think that a group of 12 non pornographers anywhere wouldn't call a beastie site, a pissing site, any kind of extreme site, obscene under the definition of appealing to the "prurient" interest. I'm not sure that any of those could be saved on artistic merits either ;) However if the first site to go to trial somewhere is a plain vanilla hardcore site, then you've got the issue that every site that's as graphic or further out than that should get an automatic conviction based on those community standards. Yeah, they'll be a jury but you've got precedent for an appeal if the jury doesn't convict. Anyway, not to run any longer with this post, just to point out some of the highlights of what's at stake here. In the Seymour Butts case, Adam Glasser's 72 year old mother is a co-defendant, it should be interesting to see how that plays out, her on the stand talking about how a fisting vid isn't obscene to the jurors. Could be the make or break of the case.

02-11-2002, 12:54 PM	#7
Mark the Pithy Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Upstate New Yawk Posts: 276	Censorship is a hate crime. Censors are bigots.

02-11-2002, 01:20 PM	#10
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	what amazes me is that they still call a jury " a jury of your peers" so for me if I ever had to have a trial by jury a jury of my peers would all be 30 year old white guys that peddle smut and drive jeeps. Jurys typically are made up of people too stupid to get out of jury duty

02-11-2002, 01:35 PM	#12
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,292	well then for the record, i fist men in my house in SoCal, come and get me =-) __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor

02-11-2002, 01:36 PM	#13
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Federal law covers child pornography only, and that is the only thing that can be directly prosecuted by the federal government at this time. Individual states have laws regarding all manner of sexual contact between adults, especially unmarried adults and even more so, adults of the same sex. Men having sex with animals is usually covered under this same set of laws... ;) http://sodomy.org I think is where you need to go for advice, kman... ;)

02-11-2002, 03:39 PM	#14
Rip Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: somewheres wet Posts: 1,456	Thanks for the insight kk ;) This does seem to revolve around a video tape purchased on a website, so it will be very interesting to see how and what law ends up being applied here __________________ ...

02-11-2002, 03:57 PM	#15
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	I forgot to mention that materials mailed through the USPS can become a whole other barrel of monkeys.

02-11-2002, 04:24 PM	#16
SNOW Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 3,963	Kimmy Kim for President dammit......

02-11-2002, 04:31 PM	#17
Kimmykim bitchslapping zebras!!!!! Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: In a shack by the beach Posts: 16,015	Sorry snow, no way... Chairman of the Federal Reserve on the other hand, now we're talking ;)

02-11-2002, 06:29 PM	#19
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	Frontline did a show on this - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/ VERY interesting __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

02-11-2002, 06:42 PM	#20
Paul -C- Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,255	So when is the trial? All references to it just say February 2002...

02-11-2002, 06:46 PM	#21
Rip Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: somewheres wet Posts: 1,456	This was THE LIST which I was referring to __________________ ...

02-11-2002, 07:02 PM	#22
[Labret] Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: Са́нкт-Петербу́рг Posts: 10,945	Cause I am lazy like everyone else. Cambria List No shots with appearance of pain or degradation No facials (bodyshots are OK if shot is not nasty) No bukakke No spitting or saliva mouth to mouth No food used as sex object No peeing unless in a natural setting, e.g., field, roadside No coffins No blindfolds No wax dripping No two dicks in/near one mouth No shot of stretching pussy No fisting No squirting No bondage-type toys or gear unless very light No girls sharing same dildo (in mouth or pussy) Toys are OK if shot is not nasty No hands from 2 different people fingering same girl No male/male penetration No transsexuals No bi-sex No degrading dialogue, e.g., "Suck this cock, bitch" while slapping her face with a penis No menstruation topics No incest topics No forced sex, rape themes, etc. No black men-white women themes

02-11-2002, 07:30 PM	#23
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,292	and what is truly sad is the only things i am into are all on this fucking list... fuck that shit!! im gonna fist black 18yo men, while licking a womans bloody vagine involved in a 4 way while fisting herself inside a coffin while getting pissed on by a bisexual transexual... and ya know what, im gonna tape it and keep an archive so i have something to jerkoff to.... now then, off to a dr.s appt, later __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor

02-11-2002, 10:30 PM	#24
wired1 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: North Posts: 279	That Fronline documentary was really informative. Flints take on the current administration made alot of sense on why Hustler has become much more tame lately. Ashxxxxx scares the shit out of me too. They were saying his first meeting after taking his spot after attourney general was with Anti-Porn prosecuters, the only thing that stoped his hard crackdown on porn was Sept. 11th and his focus now on terrorism. Considering how uptight this guy really is with wanting to cover some of the naked statues in the Whitehouse, when these guys get tired of war, we all may be fucked...

02-11-2002, 11:04 PM	#25
[Labret] Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Location: Са́нкт-Петербу́рг Posts: 10,945	Its not 1980, its not as easy as it used to be. It costs ALOT of money to bring an obscenity prosecution, in excess of a million dollars. And the targets of obscenity charges are typically ones that they can recoup their court costs from (large guys). When the big boys start falling, then you can worry. The fact of the matter is, Joe Shithead running a lame tgp with piss pics on it has about as much to worry about as your neighbor in the trailer park.

02-12-2002, 06:52 AM	#26
Sleepy Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Porn Peddler Posts: 679	From what I was told , Seymour had two versions of that video slated for release ( Euro and US ). Somehow, some of the orders were switched and the local community officials took the chance to sue him. The thing about governments is that if they want to put you out of business they can. Even if there is no law pertaining to your breed of "criminal activity" they will find some freaky ass statute to get you with. I think the obscenity laws should only apply to public obscenity. The TV has two knobs, one switches the channel and one turns it off. If you dont like what your seeing just turn the knob. Of course the Attorney General probably isnt to familiar with anything that has two knobs.

02-12-2002, 10:16 AM	#28
Rip Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: somewheres wet Posts: 1,456	There are two real problems here; 1 The possiblility that they are able to define obscenity and are successful in their suit 2 They look at that list as a definition of future obscenity trials There are a lot of up front webmasters/industry people who don't care if they are in the public eye, and there are others who work quietly in the background, not wishing to be in the public eye What worries me that under pressure of a successful suit, the moral right can use the adverse media attention to push people out of business for fear of the public attention. __________________ ...