The Daily Beast has a
new story up about a recent criminal trial in Los Angeles, where Ira Isaacs was on trial on obscenity charges for distributing a variety of movies with titles like
Hollywood Scat Amateurs.
Testifying that the films should be considered art, Isaacs pointed to examples of artforms that are considered both socially acceptable and excretory based, like Marcel Duchamp urinal sculpture "Fountain" and Christopher Ofili's elephant dung paintings. Isaacs was
nonetheless convicted and awaits sentencing, which could be as long as twenty years.
The
Beast writer correctly points out that Isaacs's argument about art is a specious one, but his lawyer may have thought that was necessary to satisfy requirements in the law that something cannot be considered obscene if it has "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." I presume the law would define "serious" as meaning the creator was serious in thinking the work was art, not that serious as a synonym for "significant." If it's the latter, then an awful lot of clowns on velvet paintings would have to be considered obscene.
The article discusses the familiar "community standards" issue as it relates to the trial. The prosecutor asked, for example, what the jury members' neighbors might think about
Hollywood Scat Amateurs.
That's the law as it stands now, whether or not something meets "community standards" or not. But what if one's neighbors might not think garden variety anal porn did not have "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value"? What about a poorly written and badly acted sitcom? Or a wretchedly bad romance novel?
The article's writer correctly underscores the real issue here: do consenting adults have the right to watch what other consenting adults do, even if it might disgust some or many people? If you want to buy poo DVDs shipped to you in a plain wrapper, what does it matter if your neighbor or even a majority of people might not like them? I certainly don't want to watch scat movies, but if you do, why should I have the right to decide what you can't watch consenting adults do?
This was Isaacs's third trial. The first one ended with a mistrial after beastiality porn was found
on the judge's personal website. The second ended with a hung jury. The prosecutors finally got lucky with the third one.
It's nice to know crime has dropped to such low levels that prosecutors are forced to spend their time on trivial issues like this one.