The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with English-speaking territories and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.

An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious. The term is also applied to an object that incorporates such a statement or displays such an act.

In a legal context, the term obscenity is most often used to describe expressions (words, images, actions) of an explicitly sexual nature. The word can be used to indicate a strong moral repugnance, in expressions such as "obscene profits", "the obscenity of war", etc. It is often replaced by "salaciousness".

According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, that which is obscene (i.e.: an obscenity) is quite simply defined as repulsive, or disgusting to the senses.^[1]

The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions: usually including, but not limited to, pornographic material. As such censorship restricts freedom of expression, crafting a legal definition of obscenity presents a civil liberties issue.

United States obscenity law[link]

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)

The 18th century book Fanny Hill has been subject to obscenity trials at various times (image: plate XI: The bathing party; La baignade)

Cover of an undated American edition of Fanny Hill, ca. 1910

In the United States of America, issues of obscenity raise issues of limitations on the freedom of speech and of the press which are otherwise protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court has found that obscenity is an exception to the constitutional rights under the First Amendment, and is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible, though it has at times encompassed other subject matters, such as spoken and written language that can be publicly transmitted and received by the general public.

Legally, a distinction is made between socially permitted material and discussions that the public can access and obscenity, access to which should be denied. There does exist a classification of those acceptable materials and discussions that the public should be allowed to engage in, and the access to that same permitted material—which in the areas of sexual materials ranges between the permitted areas of erotic art (which usually includes "classic nude forms" such as Michelangelo's David statue) and the generally less respected commercial pornography. The legal distinction between artistic nudity and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) deemed "protected forms of speech", versus "obscene acts", which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, is usually predicated on cultural factors. However, no such specific objective distinction exists outside of legal decisions in federal court cases where a specific action is deemed to fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subject to decisions within local US federal districts and contemporary moral standards.

In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent (the "Miller test", below) that all but guarantees that something that is legally obscene in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. With the advent of Internet distribution of potentially obscene material, this question of jurisdiction and community standards has created significant controversy in the legal community. (See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996))

Even at the federal level, there does not exist a specific listing of which exact acts are to be classified as obscene outside of the legally determined court cases. Title 18, chapter 71 of the USC deals with obscenity, the workings out of the law described in this article, most notably the aforementioned Miller test.

Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly "what is obscene," infamously wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…[b]ut I know it when I see it…"^[2]

However, in the United States, the 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. California established a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene—and thus not protected, versus what was merely erotic and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.^[3]

Justice Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion that eloquently expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling:

The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are 'offensive' to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed 'to invite dispute,' to induce 'a condition of unrest,' to 'create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,' and even to stir 'people to anger.' The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are 'offensive' to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to 'offensive' as well as to 'staid' people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard 'offensive' gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court's opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment—and solely because of it—speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be 'offensive' to some. ^[4]

In U.S. legal texts, therefore, the question of "obscenity" presently always refers to this "Miller test obscenity". As articulated in several sections of 18 USC Chapter 71, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to legally limit the sale, transport for personal use or other transmission of obscenity. However, it has ruled unconstitutional the passing of law concerning personal possession of obscenity per se. Federal obscenity laws at present apply to inter-state and foreign obscenity issues such as distribution; intrastate issues are for the most part still governed by state law. "Obscene articles... are generally prohibited entry" to the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.^[5]

At present, there are only two legally protected areas of explicit commercial pornography. The first is "mere nudity" as upheld in "Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974)" whereby the film Carnal Knowledge was deemed not to be obscene under the constitutional standards announced by Miller. As declared by the judge at trial "The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller's standards." This was upheld time and again in later cases including "Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville FL, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)" in which the city of Jacksonville stated that showing films containing nudity when the screen is visible from a public street or place is a punishable offense. The law was determined to be invalid as it was an infringement of First Amendment rights of the movie producer and theatre owners. The second is single male to female vaginal-only penetration that does NOT show the actual ejaculation of semen, sometimes referred to as "soft-core" pornography wherein the sexual act and its fulfillment (orgasm) are merely implied to happen rather than explicitly shown.

In June 2006, the U.S. Federal government in the district of Arizona brought a case against JM Productions of Chatsworth, California in order to classify commercial pornography that specifically shows actual semen being ejaculated as obscene. The four films that were the subject of the case are entitled "American Bukkake 13", "Gag Factor 15", "Gag Factor 18" and "Filthy Things 6". The case also includes charges of distribution of obscene material (a criminal act under 18 USC § 1465 - "Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution") against Five Star DVD for the extra-state commercial distribution of the JM Productions films in question. The case was brought to trial on October 16, 2007. At the first date of trial, the US DoJ decided not to pursue the JM obscenity case any further, leaving the matter without resolution.^[6] While the US DoJ decided to abandon its legal pursuit of the JM productions, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver has forced the legal case against Five Star DVD distributors to continue, whereby the legal classification of whether "sperm showing through ejaculation" is an obscene act and thus illegal to produce or distribute will be definitely answered in order to convict Five Star of being guilty of "18 USC 1465 - Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution".^[7] The jury found that Five Star Video LC and Five Star Video Outlet LC were guilty of "18 USC 1465 - Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution" for having shipped JM Productions' film "Gag Factor 18".^[8] However, the specific content in that film that the jury deemed to actually fulfill the legal qualification of being "obscene" has not been specifically stated at this point.

Obscenity v. indecency[link]

The differentiation between indecent and obscene material is a particularly difficult one, and a contentious First Amendment issue that has not fully been settled. Similarly, the level of offense (if any) generated by a profane word or phrase depends on region, context, and audience.

Non image-based obscenity cases in the USA[link]

Obscene Texts[link]

While most of the obscenity cases in the United States in the past century have revolved around images and films, there have been many cases that dealt with textual works as well.

The classification of "obscene" and thus illegal for production and distribution has been judged on printed text-only stories starting with "Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897)" which upheld a conviction for mailing and delivery of a newspaper called the 'Chicago Dispatch,' containing "obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent materials", which was later upheld in several cases. One of these was "A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)" wherein the book "Fanny Hill", written by John Cleland c. 1760, was judged to be obscene in a proceeding that put the book itself on trial rather than its publisher. Another was "Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)" whereby the court most famously determined that "Obscene material in book form is not entitled to any First Amendment protection merely because it has no pictorial content."

However, the book was labeled "erotica" in the 1965 case (206 NE 2d 403) and there a division between erotica and obscenity was made—not all items with erotic content were automatically obscene. Further, the 1965 "John Cleland's 'Memoirs'" case added a further qualification for the proving of "obscenity" -- the work in question had to inspire or exhibit "prurient" (that is, "shameful or morbid") interest.

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein, cited Jacobellis v. Ohio (which was decided the same day) and overruled state court findings of obscenity against Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer. A copyright infringing "Medusa" edition of the novel was published in New York City in 1940 by Jacob Brussel; its title page claimed its place of publication to be Mexico. Brussel was eventually sent to jail for three years for the edition,^[9] a copy of which is in the Library of Congress.

In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice formed the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force in a push to prosecute obscenity cases.^[10][11] Red Rose Stories (www.red-rose-stories.com, now defunct), a site dedicated to text-only fantasy stories, became one of many sites targeted by the FBI for shutdown.^[12] The government alleged that Red Rose Stories contained depictions of child rape. The publisher pled guilty.^[13] Other websites such as BeautyBound.com have closed themselves down despite not being targeted, due to these risks and legislative burdens.^{[citation needed]}

Obscene Devices[link]

Many U.S. states have had bans on the sale of sex toys, regulating them as obscene devices. For instance, the 1999 Law and Government of Alabama (Ala. Code. § 13A-12-200.1) made it "unlawful to produce, distribute or otherwise sell sexual devices that are marketed primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." Alabama claimed that these products were obscene, and that there was "no fundamental right to purchase a product to use in pursuit of having an orgasm. The ACLU challenged the statute, which was overturned in 2002. A federal judge reinstated the law in 2004. The matter was appealed to the US Supreme Court who in 2007 refused to hear the case, thus the decision of the lower court is enforceable within the state of Alabama.^[14]

But other states have seen their sex toy bans ruled unconstitutional in the courts. In 2008 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled a similar Texas statute violated the constitutional right to privacy that was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas decision.^[15] That ruling leaves only Mississippi, Alabama, and Virginia with current bans on the sale of obscene devices.^[16]

Past standards[link]

Symbol of the "New York Society for the Suppression of Vice", advocating book-burning

These standards were once used to determine exactly what was obscene. All have been invalidated, overturned, or superseded by the Miller Test.

• Wepplo (1947): If material has a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers by inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful desires. (People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal. App.2d Supp. 959, 178 P.2d 853).
• Hicklin test (1868): the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons. (British common law, cited in Regina v. Hicklin, 1868. LR 3 QB 360 - overturned when Michigan tried to outlaw all printed matter that would 'corrupt the morals of youth' in Butler v. State of Michigan 352 U.S. 380 (1957))
• Roth Standard (1957): "Whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest". Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) - overturned by Miller
• Roth-Jacobellis (1964): "community standards" applicable to an obscenity are national, not local standards. Material is "utterly without redeeming social importance". Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) - famous quote: "I shall not today attempt further to define [hardcore pornography] ...But I know it when I see it".
• Roth-Jacobellis-Memoirs Test (1966): Adds that the material possesses "not a modicum of social value". (A Book Named John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966))

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.: language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.

Many historically important works have been described as obscene or prosecuted under obscenity laws, including the works of Charles Baudelaire, Lenny Bruce, William S. Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, James Joyce, D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, and the Marquis de Sade.

U.S. court cases on obscenity[link]

• In Roth v. United States (1957), the Supreme Court held that a published work is obscene if it a) appeals predominantly to prurient interests; b) is patently offensive by contemporary community standards; and, c) is utterly without redeeming social value. This definition was not very practical when identifying what should be censored.

• In Miller v. California (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest", showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value." Decisions regarding whether material was obscene should be based on local, not national, standards.

• FCC v. Pacifica (1978) (external link) better known as the landmark "seven dirty words" case. In that ruling, the Court found that only "repetitive and frequent" use of the words in a time or place when a minor could hear can be punished.

• In State v. Henry (1987), the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the Oregon state law that criminalized obscenity was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech under the free speech provision of the Oregon Constitution, with the ruling making Oregon the "first state in the nation to abolish the offense of obscenity."^[17]

• In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the Supreme Court struck down indecency laws applying to the Internet.

Criticism[link]

Obscenity law has been criticized in the following areas:^[18]

• Federal law forbids obscenity in certain contexts (such as broadcast)^[19], however the law does not define the term.
• The U.S. Supreme Court similarly has had difficulty defining the term. In Miller v. California, the court defers definition to two hypothetical entities, "contemporary community standards" and "hypothetical reasonable persons".
• The courts and the legislature have had similar problems defining this term because it is paradoxical, and thus impossible to define.
• Because the term "obscenity" is not defined by either the statutes or the case law, this law does not satisfy the Vagueness doctrine, which states that people must clearly be informed as to the prohibited behavior.
• Because the determination of what is obscene (offensive) is ultimately a personal preference, alleged violations of obscenity law are not actionable (actions require a right).
• Because no actual injury occurs when a mere preference is violated, alleged violations of obscenity law are not actionable (actions require an injury).

It should be noted that in light of the recent decision of the en banc decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, as brought by Judge Lancaster in the original US vs. Extreme Associates case, only the US Supreme Court is allowed to revise its earlier decision that established the Miller decision.

The US Supreme Court refused to hear, effectively rejecting, such modification in August 2006 when the same en banc decision by the Third Circuit was sent to the US Supreme Court for review.[1] Thus the open ended conflicting notes above remain in effect for obscenity prosecutions.

Public funding/ public places[link]

Congress passed a law in 1990 that required such organizations such as the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA) and National Associations of Artists Organizations (NAAO) to abide by general decency standards for the "diverse beliefs and values of the American public."^[20]

In 1998, Congress made a decision in the case of National Endowment for the Arts vs. Karen Finley, which upheld the general standards and decency law within the United States.

Government owned exhibition spaces are available under the Supreme Court's "public forum" doctrine. This doctrine explains that citizens within the United States have access to display in such public places such as lobbies of public buildings, theatrical productions, etc.

Even with this law in place it is hard for artists who have addressed sexually explicit work in work because of complaints which are generally in the form of "inappropriate for children" or seen as a form of "sexual harassment." Therefore the arts works are removed and at times there are official "no nudity" policies that are put in place.^[21]

When these decisions are taken to court on account of free expression the venues are often looked at to see if they are an actual "designated public forum." If it is then public officials have violated the First Amendment rights on the individuals. The other side is if the court finds that there is "no designated public forum" where government officials have the right to exclude and or censor the work.^[21]

Additional restrictions on sexual expression[link]

Lili St. Cyr on stage (showing pasties)

In the Miller decision the use of the words "contemporary community standards" means that the law evolves along with social mores and norms. This has been shown throughout the booming business of the pornography industry along with commercial pornography by people such as amateurs and publishers of personal websites on the World Wide Web. Indirect government control such as restrictive zoning of adult video stores and nude dancing were put in place because obscenity convictions were harder to come by and not protected by the First Amendment. Similarly a set of rules was put in place to control erotic dancing, where legal, so that all dancers must either wear "pasties" or "g-strings" as shown in the 1991 case of Barnes v. Glen Theatre.^[20]

State laws[link]

The laws on pornography are regulated by the state, meaning that there is not a national law for pornography. State laws on internet porn are recently expanding with more and more states regulating the age limits to purchase porn. Many states already have restrictions on buying books and magazines of porn, but with the recent increase in technology, states have been now restricting the laws on internet porn. Between 1995 and 2002, almost a fifth of states were preparing bills to control internet pornography. It is also against the law to transmit any of these materials from internet or literature to a minor and if caught, it would lead to prosecution.^{[citation needed]}

Censorship in schools, universities, and libraries[link]

Schools, universities, and libraries receive government funds for many purposes, and some of these funds go to censorship of obscenity in these institutions. There are a few different ways in which this is done. One way is by not carrying pornographic or what the government deems obscene material in these places; another is for these places to purchase software that filters the internet activity on campus. An example is the federal "Children's Internet Protection Act, or CIPA". This mandates that all schools and libraries receiving federal aid for internet connections install a "technology protection measure" (filter) on all computers, whether used by children or adults. There are some states that have passed laws mandating censorship in schools, universities, and libraries even if they are not receiving government aid that would fund censorship in these institutions. These include Arizona, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Twenty more states were considering such legislation in 2001–2002.^[22]

Child pornography[link]

Main article: Child pornography

Child pornography refers to images or films (also known as child abuse images^[23][24][25]) and in some cases writings^[25][26][27] depicting sexually explicit activities involving a child; as such, child pornography is a record of child sexual abuse.^{[28][29][30][31][32][33]} Abuse of the child occurs during the sexual acts which are recorded in the production of child pornography,^{[28][29][31][32][33][34][35]} and several professors of psychology state that memories of the abuse are maintained as long as visual records exist, are accessed, and are "exploited perversely."^[33][34]

Child pornography is widely considered extremely obscene.

Censorship in film[link]

This is most notably shown with the "X" rating that some films are categorized as. The most notable films given an "X" rating were Deep Throat (1972) and The Devil in Miss Jones (1973). These films show explicit, non simulated, penetrative sex that was presented as part of a reasonable plot with respectable production values. Some state authorities issued injunctions against such films to protect "local community standards"; in New York the print of Deep Throat was seized mid-run, and the film's exhibitors were found guilty of promoting obscenity.^[36] However, it's been found that films have also been further censored than their heterosexual, male, white counterparts due to gay sex (even if implied), african american sex, or female pleasure as opposed to male pleasure.^[37]

United Kingdom[link]

In the United Kingdom, the Obscene Publications Acts sets the criteria for what material is allowed to be publicly accessed and distributed.

Stanley Kauffmann's novel The Philanderer was published by Penguin Books in 1957 and was unsuccessfully prosecuted for obscenity.^[38]

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 prohibits the possession of "extreme pornography". This has included the first film to show pubic hair (Antonioni's Blowup, 1966); the first film to depict full frontal nudity (the Swedish production Puss och Kram); W.R. - Misterije organizma [W.R.—Mysteries of the Organism], 1971); and the first theatrically distributed film to depict the act of fellatio (Intimacy, 2001).^[36]

Sex crime has generated particular concern. In 1976 the BBFC claimed that, in that year, it had viewed 58 films depicting "explicit rape", declaring scenes that glorified it as "obscene". As opposed to questions of "indecency", which have been applied to sexual explicitness, films charged with being obscene have been viewed as having "a tendency to deprave and corrupt" and been liable to prosecution.^[36]

In 2008, the UK prosecuted a man for writing a fictional sex story.^[39][40] In 2009, the case was dropped by the crown prosecution service (CPS) before it reached trial.^[41]

New Zealand[link]

In New Zealand, screening of Deep Throat (1972) was only cleared in 1986. However, the film has not been screened because the only cinema which has tried to organize a screening was thwarted by the city council that owned the building's lease. Such is the tight regulation of sex in the cinema that its history has been one of a series of certificated firsts.^[36]

Canada obscenity law[link]

Section 163 of the Canadian Criminal Code provides the country's legal definition of "obscenity". Officially termed as "Offences Tending to Corrupt Morals", [2] the Canadian prohibited class of articles which are to be legally included as "obscene things" is very broad, including text only written material, pictures, models (including statues), records or "any other thing whatsoever" -- that according to Section 163(8) -- has "a dominant characteristic of the publication is the undue exploitation of sex, or the combination of sex and at least one of crime, horror, cruelty or violence" is deemed to be "obscene" under the current law.

The current law states

163. (1) Every one commits an offense who

(a) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, circulates, or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation any obscene written matter, picture, model, phonograph record or other thing whatever; or

(b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purposes of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic.

"Crime comics" are stated to be books that glorify criminal activities and have at least one depiction of such criminal actions of the book's text.

The Canadian Border Services Agency seizes items it labels obscene.

In 1993, Canadian police arrested the 19-year-old writer of a fictional sex story "The Forestwood Kids"^[42] however the case was dismissed in 1995.^[43]

In February 2009, citing its Policy On The Classification Of Obscene Material, the CBSA banned two Lucas Entertainment films because they show the "ingestion of someone else's urine... with a sexual purpose".^[44][45]

Other countries[link]

Various countries have different standings on the types of materials that they as legal bodies permit their citizens to have access to and disseminate among their locale populations. The set of these countries permissible content vary widely accordingly with some having extreme punishment up to and including execution for members who violate their restrictions, as in the case of Iran where the current laws against pornography now include death sentences for those convicted of producing pornography. [3]

In India the Obscenity law is the same as had been framed by the British Government. Charges of obscenity have been levelled against various writers and poets till date; the law has not yet been revised. The famous trials relate to the Hungryalists who were arrested and prosecuted in 1960s.

See also[link]

Freedom of speech portal

Notes[link]

References[link]

• Henderson, Jeffrey The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy 1991 Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19-506685-5
• The Melon Farmers (UK)
• O'Toole, L. (1998) Pornocopia: Porn, Sex, Technology and Desire. London: Serpent's Tail ISBN 1-85242-395-1
• Silver, Judith, of Coollawyer.com, "Movie Day at the Supreme Court or 'I Know It When I See It': A History of the Definition of Obscenity", on FindLaw.com.[4]
• Slater, W. J., review of "The Maculate Muse: Obscene Language in Attic Comedy" by Jeffrey Henderson. Phoenix, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Autumn, 1976), pp. 291–293. doi:10.2307/1087300

Further reading[link]

• FEPP
• Regina v. Hicklin, 3 Queens Bench 360, 362 (1868).
• United States v. One Book Called "Ulysses", 5 F. Supp. 182, 183–185 (S.D.N.Y. 1933) affirmed, United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce, 72 F.2d 705, 706–707 (2d Cir. 1934)
• American Civil Liberties Union report
• Cho, Christina, Commerato, Kim & Heins, Marjorie (2003) Free Expression in Arts and Funding: a public policy report. New York: FEPP; pp. 38–39
• Sex and violence in crime films
• Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973)
• Child pornography

External links[link]

Look up obscenity in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Chapter 71 of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code, relating to obscenity. Hosted by the Legal Information Institute.
• "A resource for educating the public and reporting violations of internet obscenity laws"
• 2005, Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Cmte. Hearing on Decency in the Media archive at CSpan. [5]
• Ethical Spectacle article on problems with definition of obscenity
• "Under Color of Law: Obscenity vs. First Amendment" Nexus Journal (Chapman University Law School) article on problems with definition of obscenity.
• Truetales.org report on "recent FBI obscenity raids" (2005-10-24)
• Model Citizenship - Real-life Examples of Obscene and Sociably Unacceptable Behavior

John Stagliano
John Stagliano at the "Free Speech Coalition Awards Annual Bash Event" - Los Angeles, CA on Nov. 14, 2009
Born	John Stagliano (1951-11-29) November 29, 1951 (age 60) Chicago, Illinois, U.S.
Other names	Buttman, John Stag, John Stagg, John Staglano, John Stallion, Jon Stagliano, Jon Stallion, Romeo Verdi, John the Butt
Website
http://www.buttman.com/

John Stagliano "Buttman"

John Allen Stagliano (born November 29, 1951 in Chicago, Illinois), also known as Buttman, is an American entrepreneur, pornographic actor, producer and director, who founded and owns the Evil Angel pornographic film studio.

Early life and career[link]

Stagliano grew up in the Chicago suburbs,^[1] and attended high school from 1965 to 1969.^[2] He enrolled in college, but dropped out in 1969 for several semesters.^[2] He then went back to college and studied subjects including English, journalism, and engineering,^[2] before transferring to UCLA to major in economics.^[1] He originally planned to get an economics Ph.D. and become a professor.^[2] He then switched to studying theater, playwriting, modern, and jazz dance, partly because there were more women in those classes.^[1][2]

In the 1970s, he wrote erotic fiction for a small newspaper, and did some softcore modeling.^[1] He made his debut in a hardcore pornographic film in an 8mm loop in 1974.^[1] In 1979, he was looking for dancing jobs in Hollywood. He replied to an advertisement in the Daily Variety looking for male strippers for the new Chippendales show.^[1][3] He performed with the group four or five nights a week for the next four years.^[1] In 1982, when he was 30, he began publishing a small pornographic magazine on newsprint, which he called Evil Angel.^[1]

Adult film producer[link]

Initially he had little knowledge of film making, but he made his first movie for $8,000 in 1983, Bouncing Buns, starring Stacy Donovan. For the next six years he made films for other companies to manufacture and distribute.^[1] In 1989, he started Evil Angel to sell his own films. The origin of the company's name dates back to when Stagliano was working as a stripper. "There was another guy in one of my shows named John. So this MC started calling me Evil John to differentiate us. This was when I was doing Dracula and chains. At the same time I had a girlfriend who called herself Angel when she did strip shows. She was a very nasty girl and I suggested that she call herself Evil Angel. She didn't, but I loved the name and wound up using it for my company."^[1]

The first Evil Angel film was Dance Fire, filmed in 1988 by Stagliano, starring himself, Trinity Loren, Brandy Alexandre and others.^[4] In 1989, he produced "The Adventures of Buttman," the first in a popular series which is credited with sparking the "gonzo" adult film genre.^[5][6][7][8] These films involved highlighting the female buttocks,^[1] with actors often licking, kissing and playfully biting the female behind. Stagliano has stated that a scene showing Tracey Adams' buttocks inspired him to make the Buttman series of films. The clip shows Adams on her hands and knees with her rear end stuck high in the air. "The shot only lasted a couple of seconds," says Stagliano, "but I knew then what I wanted to do." ^[9] Early Stagliano productions had little to no anal sex in them and were critically acclaimed for the showcasing of his buttocks fetish. Later Buttman films included numerous anal sex scenes, often featuring Stagliano himself. In the 1990s, Stagliano became one of the most successful figures in American pornographic films.^[10]

He has directed series including Buttman at Nudes a Poppin', Buttman Goes to Rio, Buttman's Anal Divas, Buttman's Anal Show, Buttman's Bend Over Babes, Buttman's Bend Over Brazilian Babes, Buttman's Big Butt Backdoor Babes, Buttman's Big Tit Adventure, Buttman's Butt Freak, Buttman's European Vacation, Buttman's Favorite Big Butt Babes, Face Dance and Fashionistas, as well as numerous one-off films.^[11] Stagliano also served as mentor, producer, and co-director to Tristan Taormino in her video version of The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women.

From October 2004 through February 2008, Stagliano produced and directed a Las Vegas show called Fashionistas based on his porn film of the same name. In 2008, he won the 'Best Director - Video' award for Fashionistas Safado: Berlin.^[12]

Awards[link]

• 2010 XBIZ Award - Industry Pioneer - Web ^[13]

• 2011 XBIZ Award - Man of the Year ^[13]

Private life[link]

Stagliano was in a relationship with pornographic actress Krysti Lynn (a.k.a. Shawna Yager) during 1993. She was driving Stagliano's Acura Legend when she died on December 7, 1995, in an accident in Calabasas.^[14]

In 1997, Stagliano tested positive for HIV. To date, medication has kept the virus in check.^[2] He continues to produce adult films and still acts in non-sexual roles.

He married former porn star Tricia Devereaux, who is also HIV positive, on November 26, 2008.^[15] They had previously been common-law married since 1999,^[16] and they have a daughter Isabella Joi, who was born March 3, 2001. She is HIV negative.^[2] Stagliano espouses a libertarian political philosophy, and has been a significant financial contributor to the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation, both libertarian think tanks.^[17]

Pornography trial[link]

On April 8, 2008, Evil Angel and Stagliano were indicted on federal obscenity charges by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C.^{[18][19][20][21]}

On April 14, 2008, Stagliano launched a website, DefendOurPorn.org to post articles, news, and updates regarding the court proceedings.^[22]

On July 16, 2010, a federal trial began in Washington, D.C. with Stagliano as defendant, but all charges were dismissed^[23] with the judge saying the evidence linking Stagliano to the production and distribution of two DVD videos "woefully insufficient".^[24][25]

References[link]

External links[link]

Pornography portal

• Official website
• John Stagliano at the Internet Movie Database
• John Stagliano at the Internet Adult Film Database
• John Stagliano at the Adult Film Database
• evilangel.com
• Buttman.com
• Buttman interview from Las Vegas

System of a Down
System of a Down at Download Festival On June 12, 2005.
Background information
Also known as	Soil (1992–1994) SOAD System
Origin	Los Angeles, US
Genres	Alternative metal, progressive rock, hard rock, experimental
Years active	1994–2006, 2011–present
Labels	Sony Music, American, Columbia
Associated acts	Achozen, Axis of Justice, George Clinton and His Gangsters of Love, Scars on Broadway, Serj Tankian and The F.C.C., The Apex Theory
Website	www.systemofadown.com
Members
Daron Malakian Serj Tankian Shavo Odadjian John Dolmayan
Past members
Ontronik Khachaturian

System of a Down, also known by the acronym SOAD and often shortened to System, is a rock band from Southern California, formed in 1994. It consists of Serj Tankian (lead vocals, keyboards, rhythm guitar), Daron Malakian (guitar, vocals), Shavo Odadjian (bass, background vocals) and John Dolmayan (drums).

The band achieved commercial success with the release of five studio albums; from which three debuted at number one on the Billboard 200. System of a Down has been nominated for four Grammy Awards, and won the award in 2006 for Best Hard Rock Performance for the song "B.Y.O.B.". The group went on hiatus in August 2006, but reunited in November 2010, embarking on a worldwide tour in 2011.

History[link]

Soil (1992–1994)[link]

Serj Tankian, Daron Malakian, and Shavo Odadjian all attended Rose and Alex Pilibos Armenian School while children, although because of their eight-year age difference they did not meet until 1992 while working on separate projects at the same recording studio.^[1] They formed a band named Soil with Tankian on vocals and keyboards, Malakian on vocals and guitar, Dave Hakopyan (who later played in The Apex Theory/Mt. Helium) on bass and Domingo "Dingo" Laranio on drums. The band hired Shavo Odadjian (another Rose and Alex Pilibos alumnus) as manager, although he eventually joined Soil as rhythm guitarist. After three years, only one live show, and one jam session recording, Hakopyan and Laranio quit the band, feeling that it was not going anywhere.

Demo tapes and signing (1994–1997)[link]

After Soil split up, Tankian, Odadjian, and Malakian formed a new band, System of a Down. The group took its name from a poem that Malakian had written titled “Victims of the Down."^[2] The word "victims" was changed to "system" because Odadjian believed that the alteration would appeal to a much wider audience and also because the group wanted their records to be alphabetically shelved closer to their musical heroes, Slayer. Odadjian switched from guitar to bass and passed on his managerial duties to Velvet Hammer Music and Management Group and its founder David “Beno” Benveniste.^{[citation needed]} The band recruited drummer Ontronik "Andy" Khachaturian, an old school friend of Malakian's and Odadjian's who had played with Malakian in a band called Snowblind during their teens.^[2]

System of a Down quickly made what is known as Untitled 1995 Demo Tape, which was not commercially released but appeared on file sharing networks around the time of the band's success with Toxicity about six years later. Demo Tape 2 was released in 1996. At the beginning of 1997, System of a Down recorded their final publicly released demo tape, Demo Tape 3. In mid 1997, drummer Khachaturian left the band because of a hand injury (he subsequently co-founded The Apex Theory, which included former Soil bassist Dave Hakopyan).^[2] Khachaturian was replaced by John Dolmayan.

The band's first official release of a professionally recorded song was on a collection called Hye Enk ("we're Armenian" in English), an Armenian Genocide recognition compilation, in 1997. Soon after playing at notable Hollywood clubs such as the Whisky-A-Go-Go and Viper Room the band caught famed producer Rick Rubin's attention who asked them to keep in touch with him. Showing great interest, the group recorded Demo Tape 4 near the end of 1997. Unlike the previous demo tapes, however, Demo Tape 4 was made only to be sent to record companies (although it has since been leaked onto the internet). Rubin signed the group onto his American/Columbia Records, and System of a Down began to record in Rubin's studio, laying down tracks that would eventually be released on their debut album.

Also in 1997, the group won the Best Signed Band Award from the Rock City Awards.^[3]

Debut album (1998–2000)[link]

In June 1998, System of a Down released their debut album, System of a Down. They enjoyed moderate success as their first singles "Sugar" and "Spiders" became radio favorites and the music videos for both songs were frequently aired on MTV. After the release of the album, the band toured extensively, opening for Slayer and Metallica before making their way to the second stage of Ozzfest. Following Ozzfest, they toured with Fear Factory and Incubus before headlining the Sno-Core Tour with Puya, Mr. Bungle, The Cat and Incubus providing support.

In November 1998, System of a Down appeared on South Park's Chef Aid album, providing the music for the song "Will They Die 4 You?" Near the end of the song Tankian can be heard saying, "Why must we kill our own kind?" a line that would later be used in the song "Boom!" Although System of a Down is credited on the album, South Park character Chef doesn't introduce them as he does for all other artist featured on the record.

System of a Down's former drummer, Ontronik Khachaturian, briefly reunited with the band at a show at The Troubadour in 1999, filling in on vocals for an ill Tankian.^[2] In 2000, the band contributed their cover of the Black Sabbath song "Snowblind" to the Black Sabbath tribute album Nativity in Black 2.

[edit] Toxicity and Steal This Album! (2001–2003)

Guitarist Daron Malakian met Serj Tankian for the first time in 1993 before forming the band a year later.

On September 3, 2001, System of a Down had planned on launching their second album at a free concert in Hollywood as a "thank you" to fans. The concert, which was to be held in a parking lot, was set up to accommodate 3,500 people, however, an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 fans showed up. Because of the large excess number of fans the performance was cancelled by police officers just before the group took the stage. No announcement was made that the concert had been cancelled. Fans waited for more than an hour for the group to appear, but when a banner hanging at the back of the stage that read "System of a Down" was removed by security, the audience rushed the stage, destroying all the band's touring gear (approximately $30,000 worth of equipment) and began to riot, throwing rocks at police, breaking windows, and knocking over portable toilets. The riot lasted six hours, during which six arrests were made. The band's manager, David "Beno" Benveniste, later said that the riot could have been avoided if the group had been permitted to perform or had they been allowed to make a statement at the concert regarding the cancellation. System of a Down's scheduled in-store performance the next day was cancelled to prevent a similar riot.^[4]

The group's big break arrived when their second album Toxicity debuted at No.1 on the American and Canadian charts, despite the events of September 11. The album eventually achieved multi-platinum certification^{[citation needed]} and has since sold over 12 million copies worldwide.^{[citation needed]} It was still on top in America during the week of the September 11, 2001 attacks and the political environment caused by the attacks added to the controversy surrounding the album's hit single "Chop Suey!" The song was taken off the radio as it contained politically sensitive lyrics at the time such as "(I don't think you) trust in my self-righteous suicide." Regardless, the video gained constant play on MTV as did the album's second single, "Toxicity". Even with the controversy surrounding "Chop Suey!" (which earned a Grammy nomination), System of a Down still received constant airplay in the United States throughout late 2001 and 2002 with "Toxicity" and "Aerials". In May 2006, VH1 listed Toxicity in the No.14 slot in the 40 Greatest Metal Songs.

In 2001, the band went on tour with Slipknot throughout the United States and Mexico. Following a performance in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Odadjian was harassed, ethnically intimidated, and was physically assaulted by security guards backstage, who then dragged him out of the venue. Odadjian received medical attention from police and later filed a suit against the security company.^[5] Despite the incident, the tour was a success and System of a Down and Slipknot went on the Pledge of Allegiance Tour with Rammstein in 2001.

In late 2001, unreleased tracks from the Toxicity sessions made their way onto the internet.^[6] This collection of tracks was dubbed Toxicity II by fans. The group released a statement that the tracks were unfinished material and subsequently released the final versions of the songs as their third album, Steal This Album!, which was released in November 2002. Steal This Album! resembled a burnable CD that was marked with a felt-tip marker. 50,000 special copies of the album with different CD designs were also released, each designed by a different member of the band. The name of the album is a reference to Abbie Hoffman's counter-culture book, Steal This Book as well as a message to those who leaked the songs onto the internet. The song "Innervision" was released as a promo single and received constant airplay on alternative radio. A video for "Boom!" was filmed with director Michael Moore as a protest against the War in Iraq.

[edit] Mezmerize and Hypnotize (2004–2006)

Serj Tankian has gained reputation for his large vocal range along with his unusual vocal tactics.

Between 2004 to 2005, the group recorded the follow-up to Steal This Album!, a double album, which they released as separate installments six months apart from each other, notably including album cover artwork by Malakian's father, Vartan Malakian, which was designed to connect the two separate album covers. The first album, Mezmerize, was released on May 17, 2005 to favorable reviews by critics. It debuted at No.1 in the United States, Canada, Australia and all around the world, making it System of A Down's second No.1 album. First week sales rocketed to over 800,000 copies worldwide. The Grammy Award-winning single "B.Y.O.B.", which questions the integrity of military recruiting in America, worked its way up the Billboard Modern Rock and Mainstream Rock charts. The next single, "Question!" was released with Shavo Odadjian co-directing the music video. Following the release of Mezmerize, the band toured extensively throughout the United States and Canada with The Mars Volta and Bad Acid Trip supporting.

The second part of the double album, Hypnotize, was released on November 22, 2005. Like Mezmerize, it debuted at No.1 in the US, making System of a Down, along with The Beatles, Guns 'N Roses, and rappers 2Pac and DMX, the only artists to ever have two studio albums debut at No.1 in the same year.^[7] In February 2006, System of a Down won the Grammy for Best Hard Rock Performance for "B.Y.O.B.", beating out other established artists such as Nine Inch Nails and Robert Plant. Their second single off the Hypnotize album, "Lonely Day" was released in March in the United States. System of a Down released "Kill Rock 'N Roll" and "Vicinity of Obscenity" as their next promo singles. The band headlined Ozzfest 2006 in cities where tour founder Ozzy Osbourne opted not to appear or wasn't playing on the main stage.

Whereas on System of a Down's previous albums most of the lyrics were written and sung by Tankian and the music was co-written by Tankian and Malakian (and sometimes Odadjian) much of the music and lyrics on Mezmerize/Hypnotize were written by Malakian who also took on a much more dominant role as vocalist on both albums, often leaving Tankian providing keyboards and backing vocals.

Concert footage and interviews with the band concerning the importance of helping create awareness and recognition of the Armenian Genocide were featured in the 2006 film Screamers, directed by Carla Garapedian. An interview with Tankian's grandfather, a survivor of the Genocide, was also included in the film as well as Tankian's and Dolmayan's meeting with (then) Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert during which the two musicians campaigned for the United States government's official recognition of the Genocide. Footage of Tankian and Dolmayan marching with protesters outside of the Turkish embassy in Washington D.C. was also used in Screamers.

System of a Down was honored at a University of Southern California game at the Los Angeles Coliseum in Los Angeles, California in 2006. The Trojan Marching Band, along with Dolmayan and Odadjian, performed three System of a Down songs: "Toxicity," "Sugar," and "Hypnotize." System of a Down's song "Lonely Day" was nominated for Best Hard Rock Performance in the 49th Grammy Awards in 2007, but lost to "Woman" by Wolfmother.

In May 2006, the band announced they were going on hiatus. Malakian confirmed the break would probably last a few years, which Odadjian specified as a minimum of three years in an interview with Guitar magazine. He told MTV, "We're not breaking up. If that was the case, we wouldn't be doing this Ozzfest. We're going to take a very long break after Ozzfest and do our own things. We've done System for over ten years, and I think it's healthy to take some rest."^[8]

May 2006 also saw the UK publication of a biography of the band entitled System Of A Down: Right Here In Hollywood by writer Ben Myers. It was published in the US in 2007 through The Disinformation Company.

Hiatus (2006–2010)[link]

Malakian announced he was forming a band called Scars on Broadway, which was joined by Dolmayan. System of a Down's final performance before their hiatus took place on August 13, 2006 in West Palm Beach, Florida. "Tonight will be the last show we play for a long time together," Malakian told the crowd during Sunday's last performance. "We'll be back. We just don't know when."^[9]

Tankian released his debut solo album Elect the Dead in the autumn of 2007 to great critical and commercial acclaim. Malakian and Dolmayan released Scars On Broadway's debut self-titled album on July 29, 2008. Dolmayan, alongside working with Scars on Broadway, formed his own band, Indicator, as well as opened Torpedo Comics, an online comic book store.^[10] Odadjian pursued his project with RZA of Wu-Tang Clan, a hip-hop group named AcHoZeN, worked on his urSESSION website/record label, and performed as a member of funk legend George Clinton's backing band.

Reunion and tour (2011–present)[link]

On November 29, 2010, following several weeks of internet rumors, System of a Down officially announced that they would be reuniting for a string of large European festival dates in June 2011.^[11] Among the announced tour dates included UK's Download Festival, Switzerland's Greenfield Festival, Germany's Rock am Ring/Rock im Park, Sweden's Metaltown, Austria's Nova Rock Festival and Finland's Provinssirock. In their reunion statement posted on their website, the band was unclear as to the extent of their reformation. It read, "We have no master plan of sorts – we are playing these shows simply because we want to play together again as a band and for you, our amazing fans."^[12] On March 1, 2011 the band announced they will play several shows in western North America in May and June. The reunion tour commenced on May 10, 2011 in Edmonton, Alberta.^[13] On May 4, 2011, Brazil event organiser and promoter Roberto Medina announced that System will be headlining, alongside Guns N' Roses, his Rock in Rio 2011 festival on October 2 in Rio de Janeiro.^[14]

System's first tour through Mexico and South America began on September 28, 2011 in Mexico City, ending in Santiago, Chile on October 7, 2011.^[15] From late February to early March 2012, they will headline five dates at the Soundwave festival.^[16] This will be the band's first visit to Australia since 2005.

Asked in October 2011 whether System of a Down will record a new album, drummer John Dolmayan replied, "We're gonna take it day by day. [...] For the people who are waiting for an album — I know there's a lot of people waiting for an album; I'm waiting for an album just like they are. It's gonna happen when it's right and when we can make something that tops what we've done in the past. Because we don't really wanna rest on our laurels — where what you've done in the past is what you depend on. Well, I don't wanna do that, and I know the rest of the guys don't wanna do that. Instead of resting on our laurels, we wanna throw them away and create something new and specific for this generation that they can say that's their System of a Down."^[17]

On August 11 and 12, 2012, System will play the Heavy MTL and Heavy T.O. music festivals in Montreal and Toronto, respectively.^[18]

On April 23, 2012, it was announced on the band's website that they would do a summer tour of the eastern United States and Canada with special guests, Deftones.

Style[link]

Lyricism[link]

System of a Down's lyrics are often oblique^[19] or dadaist,^[19] and have discussed topics such as drug abuse,^[19] politics^[19][20] and sexual intercourse.^[19][20]

All four members are of Armenian descent, and are widely known for their outspoken views expressed in many of their songs confronting the Armenian Genocide of 1915 as well as the ongoing War on Terrorism.

Music[link]