As I watch the events surrounding the obscenity indictment of Robert Zicari and Janet Romano of Extreme Associates unfold, I am reminded of the words of legendary satirist Tom Lehrer: “I do have a cause, though; it is obscenity – I’m for it.The Need for an Official ”Freedom of Pleasure”
As I watch the events surrounding the obscenity indictment of Robert Zicari and Janet Romano of Extreme Associates unfold, I am reminded of the words of legendary satirist Tom Lehrer: “I do have a cause, though; it is obscenity – I’m for it. Unfortunately, the civil-liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it, owing to the nature of the laws, as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on, but we know what’s really involved; dirty books are fun – that’s all there is to it. But you can’t get up in a court and say that, I suppose. It’s simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution, unfortunately.”
Lehrer’s words, spoken as a preamble to his brilliant song “Smut” (which, by the way, should be required listening for anyone involved in the adult entertainment business), may have been said in jest, but there is serious merit to what Lehrer suggested. As offensive as pornography may be – and the material produced by Extreme Associates pushes the offensiveness envelope further than most – is there a compelling public interest in regulating the private enjoyment of those that do not find the material offensive? Or, rather, should we regard sexually explicit material as part of what the Declaration of Independence termed our “pursuit of happiness”, and allow individuals to decide for themselves what videos, magazines, web sites, etc. to view?
Those who wish to regulate and suppress the production and distribution of pornography usually make the argument that “obscene” materials are inherently harmful, and serve to corrupt, denigrate and otherwise adversely affect the viewer, and society as a whole.
Suppose for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that we grant that point, and agree that pornographic materials are bad for us; does this mean that porn should be illegal, necessarily? There is no arguing that many products and activities that are clearly bad for us, whether it be in terms of public health (tobacco and abusing alcohol come to mind) or the public mindset (do you want your kids looking at “hate” websites?), these items are perfectly legal to create and distribute here in the United States.
This begs the question, “Why pick on porn?”
Thus far, more “mainstream” porn, material that does not flirt with the edges of acceptability the way that Extreme Associates’ content does, has not yet been made a target for federal obscenity prosecution by the current Department of Justice. However, it is all a matter of where the line is drawn, and there are few things that are less clear than the federal standard for “obscenity”. Within the vagaries of that standard lies the danger for all producers of erotica.
While Zicari clearly made himself an attractive target through his words and actions over the last couple of years (his interview with the PBS program Frontline comes to mind, in particular), he did make an excellent point in his interview with Nightline, broadcast on ABC August 27th: “The funny thing about my business is I don’t force it on anybody. The only people that are going to be forced to watch my videos are the 12 people that are going to sit on that jury.” Given that the material features consenting adults who are acting out fictional / fantasy situations, and the content is intended for viewing only by adults who wish to view it, where is the compelling public need to regulate the content?
Or, as Paul Fishbein from AVN said on Nightline, “You’re talking about an obscenity law that is defined by community standards, and you’re talking about people who are consuming material in the privacy of their own homes. So, I wonder, what business is that of the community?”
For me, it all comes back to a principle I first encountered in “free enterprise” courses dating back to my days in grammar school. In a free market, capitalist system, the market should decide. Regardless of whether the adult entertainment industry is a 2 billion dollar a year industry, or a 12 billion dollar a year industry, clearly there is a market for what we produce. How large a market there is for a video like “Forced Entry” I have no idea, and I have to admit that I find the nature of the tape to be creepy, at best. Still, as Zicari noted, I don’t have to watch the video if I don’t want to, and despite the movie’s theme, no actual rape or other crime takes place.
If the “community” truly doesn’t want these sorts of videos on the store shelf, then they will vote with their wallets by not purchasing or renting the video. That’s the simple beauty of the free market; we don’t buy what we don’t want, and the producers will, in turn, not produce what they cannot sell.
Perhaps it’s true that the framers never intended for the First Amendment to protect obscene materials, but isn’t the Constitution supposed to be a “living” document, a dynamic rather than static entity? True, the Founding Fathers probably would have been dismayed by the sort of content that Extreme distributes, but, then again, some of them were fine with the practice of slavery, which is something universally reviled these days.
The point is that times have changed; we no longer live in the same world we did when the obscenity standard was developed in the 1970s, much less the same world that produced the Constitution. It’s a vain hope, I’m sure, that it will happen, but I for one would like to see the establishment of a true, official, Freedom of Pleasure bestowed upon the American people in my lifetime. If we can’t have a state-sanctioned Freedom of Pleasure, then we should at least get a clear definition of obscenity that we can live with, as an industry, as a society, and as a free people.
Quentin is Director of Marketing for TopBucks and OneVerify and can be reached at quentin@seekio.com.
