A Controversial Tip to
Adult Movie Makers and Photographers: The First Amendment Does Not Protect Most Porn
by Anthony J. Comparetto, Esq. - www.adultfilmmaking.com
"This time I plan to make everyone mad by arguing that most of the porn published on the Internet is not protected by the First Amendment. I should probably define this assertion further: Most porn loses its First Amendment protection because of the way in which it is delivered over the Internet by webmasters to surfers."
Attorney A.J. Comparetto is no stranger to controversy - and his latest article will prove no exception. Find out why he believes that most pornographic content on the Internet today could not pass as protected speech under the First Amendment. Also find out how little changes in the way you present your
adult movies to its intended audience can make all the difference in the world in terms of lowering your legal risks and giving your attorney a defense to argue, should you ever find yourself accused of distributing obscenity. It’s quite simple to make these changes, and they also could serve to boost your profits as a nice side effect of your efforts. Read on to find out more!
"Most Adult Movie
Makers Do Not Understand The Obscenity Laws"
I have never been one to shirk away from controversy - I tend to call it like I see it and tell it like it is, which sometimes upsets my audience. I have written articles stating that most adult
movie makers, website owners and content producers are in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2257. This made many adult veterans mad. I have written articles stating that most adult websites should form offshore corporations and do business offshore. This made attorneys mad. I have advocated using the controversial D.M.C.A. to stop content theft. This made many First Amendment advocates mad.
This time I plan to make everyone mad by arguing that most of the porn published on the Internet today is not protected by the First Amendment. I should probably define this assertion further: Most porn loses its First Amendment protection because of the way in which it is delivered over the Internet by webmasters to surfers.
I know that I am going to take shots from all sides on this call (that’s okay, I am used to it), but hear me out. Consider that all of the courts in the land have said that “obscenity” has no First Amendment protection whatsoever. The line between what is “obscene” and what is legal is a fine line - one that First Amendment attorneys must try to define when defending erotic expression. To date, all attorneys have to work with is that amorphous “Miller Test.” Every webmaster has seen it, but not many seem to understand it or even care much about it. Here is the “Miller Test” again:
* “Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."
* “Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law."
* “Whether the work, taken as whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Join our Free Adult Movie
Industry Newsletter
You need to have this information…at your
fingertips…. We really believe that you need to protect yourself.
So take a minute and subscribe to the monthly adult internet newsletter with
tips, tactics and strategies -- FREE ONLINE -- A $147 VALUE! This is a private
mailing list and it will never be sold or given away for any reason.
You can also un-subscribe if you ever want:
"You
need to put some creativity into the
making of your adult videos"
Most porn as delivered over the Internet today is not protected by the First Amendment simply because of the way webmasters present and deliver said porn to surfers. Webmasters refer to porn as “content” and not as adult movies, erotic films, stories or pictures. I have seen webmasters take a hardcore movie that does have some literary or artistic value and then strip it down just to hardcore scene after hardcore scene. These webmasters do not want to waste the bandwidth on streaming the literary or artistic portion of the film to the surfer, so they change the “work” that may originally have had First Amendment protection into little snippets of sex.
You can click on TGP posts, websites and galleries all over the Internet and find scene after scene of hardcore porn that has no context, no story, and most of the time no intelligence to it whatsoever. I have heard my clients argue, “But the surfers want to be able to quickly find the porn they want.” Sounds good for business, but most juries in an obscenity trial would probably laugh at that defense. A streaming clip of a hardcore sex scene in which the man comes all over the girl is not going to just get “First Amendment” protection just because it is sex. There has to be some serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value in this content. Think about how many clips you have seen on the Net featuring merely a messy facial, cumshot or other hardcore scene in isolation. Honestly think to yourself… where is the serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value in that?
I have represented both adult and mainstream moviemakers for years. What you find in the “old timers porn” is they have a semblance of a storyline or plot. No matter how bad of a storyline, fantasy sequence, skit or plot, there is something there.
Sometimes an argument is all you will need to sway a jury to your side or to keep a prosecutor from filing an indictment against you. Every time you sit down and decide to cut clips for your website to keep bandwidth down you are increasing your potential for criminal prosecution. So do what the old time pornographers did and put some thought into your porn if you want to keep the First Amendment on your side. Who knows, you may also find that putting out a little creative thought is also good for business.
Infoplus, Inc.
5340 Central Avenue
St. Petersburg, Florida 33707
Copyright 2004
|
