Support John Stagliano
I may not watch his films but I support John Stagliano and oppose this arbitrary case against him. For those who how no idea who or what I am talking about lets set some facts first. John Stagliano is a pornographic film producer and owner of the production studio Evil Angel and currently he is facing obscenity charges in Washington DC. For a great article written about the trail and it's proceedings check out this article by Reason Magazine. What is most striking about this case is the manner in which it is being held, mainly in that Judge Richard J. Leon is doing his best to make it as closed as possible. He has has denied both the prosecution and the defense request to have expert witnesses testify. He also opened by discussing the arbitrary "Miller Test" for deciding whether something constitutes obscenities. More information on the court proceedings in available here. Discloser, John Stagliano is also a libertarian and donates money to libertarian think-tanks which is where I would like to work some day. The important part to take form this is that what is on trail is whether or not the films distributed by John Stagliano's company Evil Angel constitute obscenity. Excepts of three films will be shown in the court room on a tv that will only be facing the jury, they are Milk Nymphos and Storm Squirters 2, plus the trailer to Fetish Fanatic 5. Curiously absent is Back Door Sluts 9. These films weren't directed by John Stagliano and they all include legal age consenting adults and can only be sold to legal adults.
Now I honestly have no idea what constitutes obscenity and if our courts have an arbitrary definition then I have one more reason to be uneasy. But lets take a look at the definition...
Now I honestly have no idea what constitutes obscenity and if our courts have an arbitrary definition then I have one more reason to be uneasy. But lets take a look at the definition...
Obscenity
noun, plural -ties for 2, 3.
1.the character or quality of being obscene; indecency;lewdness.
2.something obscene, as a picture or story.
3.an obscene word or expression, esp. when used as aninvective.
And because it requires knowing the definition of Obscene here is it.
Obscene
adjective
1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved:obscene language.
2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.
3.abominable; disgusting; repulsive.
Firstly I'd like to point out that both of these words rely on a subjective interpretation of whatever is being called or considered obscene. I for one am scared of government subjectivity because it violates the principle of limited government which the United States was founded on. Some will say of course that this is about society's definition of what constitutes obscenity however, need I remind that it is the job of the government to protect individuals from society. We all no know examples of majority societies violating the rights of individuals. The showing of the female form in Muslim societies is often considered obscene and punishable by caning. The US may have a different view on what is obscene and may not cane people but it still support the notion of forcing people to comply with social norms. Only the firm support of the natural rights we all possess as individuals can differentiate the United States from societies that regularly violate them. If the US even stand by them for one instance then it again betrays everything it stands for.
Here is what I think this case is really about. Parents don't want to explain sex to their kids and anything that they don't like they don't want to have to explain, so they seek to have the producers of things they don't approve of punished. No one is forcing anyone to purchase or watch these films and if they did then that's a clear violation of and individual's rights which a case can be built on. The fact of the matter is, what may be obscene to one person probably isn't to others; in fact there are things out on the internet that are far more obscene then most people can even imagine (it most likely comes form Japan). If parents don't want their kids to have access to materials they consider obscene then they need to take precautions on their own computers and talk with their kids about it, not force their beliefs on others. Instead, sex is the single most avoided topic by parents and when kids inevitably, yes inevitably see something that wouldn't be approved of they have no context of what they are seeing, just ask Butters. Parents then seek to have the public schools explain this to their children which then places the sexual education of young people into the hands of the state which has no problem of using arbitrary definitions. Parents cannot hide their children for ever, and punishing a producer will not change that fact and worse sets further precedent for the state to violate the natural rights of us all.
