DALLAS, TX — Whether bootleg “rape and sexual torture” videos are protected under the First Amendment or not will determine where Clarence Thomas Gartman, Lou Anthony Santilena, and Brent Alan McDowell spend the next 20 years of their lives.The three men are accused of distributing obscene material over the internet and are embroiled in a federal court case that will require jurors to unanimously define what passes for obscenity in infamously conservative North Texas.

In order to reach a definitive conclusion, the dozen everyday citizens will be required to watch a minimum of hardcore pornography purchased by undercover officers involved in the investigation of an Arlington-based adult business.

Although defense counsel insists that the materials are legal, federal prosecutor Linda Groves insists that she will convince the six men and six women of the jury that profit was made by the accused from video content totally outside of the protective force of the First Amendment.

Ironically, the defendants agree with everything stated by Groves – except that their website’s catalogue includes obscene, and thus illegal, materials.

According to Grove, the website, which has a list of titles that has grown from six to 90, includes video footage of rape and sexual torture. She pins her hopes for conviction on a related case two years ago, in which a former Dallas police officer and his wife were sentenced in federal court for selling obscene materials online and in retail outlets. Among the titles being sold was one listed in Gartman and his partners’ catalogue.

The couple, convicted in 2003, had been business partners with Gartman before venturing out on their own professionally by opening their own online site in 1998, which listed extreme videos. Garry Ragsdale, who had been fired by the Dallas Police Department after his arrest, was sentenced to 33 months in prison and his wife Tamara received a 30 month sentence. The decision was upheld upon appeal.

During what is the fifth attempt within 14 years by federal authorities to pursue obscenity charges against porn distributors selling to adult customers, the jury will use a three point test to determine if the materials presented qualify as being obscene. In order for them to be found outside of First Amendment protections, they must violate contemporary community standards, lack any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit, and appeal solely to prurient interests.

If all counts are successful against Gartman and McDowell, each man faces a maximum of 20 years in prison, whereas Santilena is looking at the possibility of half that much time.

The men’s attorney, Andrew Chattham, acknowledged during his opening statements that the videos presented would be “disgusting, vulgar, violent videos” that can be found throughout the country. “But,” he emphasized, “you won’t hear any evidence that these videos are obscene.”