Any thoughts on this? And how it will affect us?

[GetSCORECash]

To: NATIONAL EDITORS

Contact: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, +1-202-514-2007, TDD, +1-202-514-1888


WASHINGTON, April 8, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A producer of allegedly obscene movies and two companies owned by him have been charged by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., with operating an obscenity distribution business and related offenses, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division announced today.


In an indictment filed by the grand jury today, Malibu, Calif. resident John Stagliano and two of his companies, Evil Angel Productions, Inc. and John Stagliano, Inc., both located in Van Nuys, Calif., were charged with three counts of using a facility of interstate commerce to sell and distribute DVDs containing obscene films together with a movie trailer in violation of 18 U.S.C. SS 1465; two counts of using a common carrier for the conveyance or delivery of DVDs containing obscene films in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. SS 1462; one count of engaging in the business of selling or transferring an obscene film and a movie trailer in violation of 18 U.S.C. SS 1466; one count of using an interactive computer service to display an obscene movie trailer in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, in violation of 47 U.S.C. SS 223 (d); and one count seeking forfeiture of certain assets of the defendants under 18 U.S.C. SS 1467. According to the indictment, the defendants, producers of the films charged in the indictment, distributed the films to the public by means of common carrier and the Internet.


If convicted, Stagliano faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on each of the obscenity counts charged under Title 18, United States Code, and two years on the count charged under Title 47, United States Code. The corporations face a maximum penalty of $500,000 in fines per count.


An indictment is merely an accusation. All defendants are presumed innocent of the charges and it is the governments burden to prove a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.


The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Pamela Satterfield of the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force of the U.S. Department of Justice, with support from the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia. Investigation was done by the Federal Bureau of Investigations Adult Obscenity Squad based in the Washington, D.C. field office. The Los Angeles Police Department also assisted in the investigation.


SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

[gleem]

hmmmm... doesn't sound good.. what exactly did the movies violate, I can't tell... he just had some nasty videos or now 2257 docs?

[halfpint]

Xbiz posted this yesterday I think

[Snake Doctor]

Ask your boss, he's a lawyer. ;)

[GetSCORECash]

What worries me is the

"According to the indictment, the defendants, producers of the films charged in the indictment, distributed the films to the public by means of common carrier and the Internet."

Ii is makeing a mention to video footage posted online.

[TheDoc]

Anyone know which tapes/scenes it was?

[Ron Bennett]

Originally Posted by SCORE-Cash

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice: ...An indictment is merely an accusation. All defendants are presumed innocent of the charges and it is the governments burden to prove a defendants guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial...

BS ... if "an indictment is merely an accusation", quoting the U.S. Dept of Justice, then why do they publicly post it far and wide the people's names? ... umm - ok, it's one of those pet peaves of mine; some countries don't widely publicize accused people names until they're found guilty. But I digress.

Freedom of speech and expression, while better than most places, leaves a lot to be desired in the U.S...

Most Americans are suprised when I mention "Local Community Standards", and how a local government far away can dictate what information / images one can and can't distribute; many here are very familiar with the zipcode lists (not full-proof, but reduce the risk) of places not to ship product nor allow signups from.

In this instance, it appears to be Federal standards and/or related regulations that are at issue - curious as to what the content, etc is that's in question ... lack of documentation (2257), underage models?, extreme bondage/simulated rape?, etc ...?

Ron

[GetSCORECash]

Originally Posted by Ron Bennett

lack of documentation (2257), underage models?, extreme bondage/simulated rape?, etc ...?

Nope. Nothing has been mentioned as to exactly what the contents contained. They are being simply accused of showing obscene content to a possible minor over the internet.

"one count of using an interactive computer service to display an obscene movie trailer in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, in violation of 47 U.S.C. SS 223".

Evil Angel has responded that all they showed were porn actors having consensual sex

"We're in the business of distributing pornography that depicts porn actors having consensual sex," Evil Angel publicist Tricia Devereaux told XBIZ. "I don't know anyone more passionate about their love of this business and their right to be a part of it than John."