The title question is one that a Los Angeles court will be charged with answering soon since Federal prosecutors say that films created by Ira Isaacs, which include bestiality and defecation are criminally obscene.
Ira Isaacs creates films that feature bestiality, which is sexual relations between a person and an animal, and defecation, which is to void excrement from the bowels through the anus, as well as multiple other sexual fetishes and he considers them works of art and was selling the videos he created fro $30 apiece until early last year, when a U.S. Department of Justice task force formed in 2005, arrested him alleging that his videos were "criminally obscene".
The task force has won convictions in more than a dozen cases, the vast majority resulting from plea bargains, according to case summaries provided by the department. Only a few defendants have elected to fight the charges at trial. Punishment in most cases included some prison time, ranging from one to seven years, as well as stiff fines and forfeiture of proceeds.
The charges against Isaac are related to the importation, transportation and distribution of obscene material in connection with four videos he was selling over the Internet.
Isaacs admits freely to producing one film and distributing all four.
His argument, which he hopes the jury will agree with, is that they should not be considered obscene.
The jury, after watching the films, one of which shows hard-core pornography so degrading that in one film, an actress cries throughout, will have to decide if there is any literary, scientific or artistic value, which was the standard established in the 1973 court ruling, Miller v. California.
In the 1973 case, the court defined what is considered obscene by ruling that "Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
That is the definition, set by the 1973 case, that the jury must use to decide if Isaacs' work is to be considered obscene or whether it is legitimate art which falls under the protections of the US Constitution.
In 1957, in Roth v. United States, it was determined that Obscenity is not protected by the first amendment.
The ACLU, as amicus curiae, urged reversal of the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; the Supreme Court affirmed in a 6-3 vote, giving the ACLU an apparent loss.
The United States, Canada and the UK all have Obscenity Laws, just to name a few, and this will be the first prosecution in Southern California by a U.S. Department of Justice task force formed in 2005 after Christian conservative groups appealed to the Bush administration to crack down on obscenity and smut.
There have been multiple cases in the United States dealing with the issue of obscenity, you can see a list of those at Wikipedia for reference.
Ira Isaacs believes that the jury will be "shocked" but also contends he thinks that the jury will see artistic value in his films, one of which he produced and starred in and he also predicts the trial is going to be a circus, saying, "I think I'd freak out if I had to watch six hours of the stuff."
Alex Kozinski who is the chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, will be presiding over the case and that is being seen as a stroke of luck for Mr. Isaacs, because Kozinski is a vehement defender of free speech.
Kozinski is known well within the world of law because as he said himself in an interview in 2006, "I disagree with the liberals on the bench half of the time, and the conservatives the other half.”
Kozinski’s incorrigible impishness—he amuses himself in restaurants by blowing the cover off straws as far as he can—could easily qualify him as the court’s ringleader. But he takes his job of applying the law very seriously.
It is good that the judge presiding has a sense of humor and is known for his sharp wit, because after hours and hours of the jury and judge sitting through video of this type, he will need it.
Whether these films can or should be considered obscene, is for the jury to decide.
.
