Are they more aggressive recently? In the last years of the Clinton
administration, there wasn't a focus on obscenity law; the locals went a little
easier. Is there a feeling out there that the police are getting more
aggressive?
I haven't seen it. They claim that this is not an Ashcroft-related phenomenon,
because, as they properly point out, this investigation began before Bush
defeated Gore, before Ashcroft was approved by the Senate as the new attorney
general. ... But beyond that ... I have heard that the police have also gone
after two other groups of defendants, because I got calls from their attorneys.
So I would gather that maybe there's something new happening, because I have
tried obscenity cases for years, both nationally as well as in Los Angeles, and
I have not had an obscenity case for a number of years.
The Cambria list that came out. Industry people will tell you that they feel that they've got to protect themselves, they've got to be more
careful. Is that just imagined?
I've heard that also. Keep in mind you have to consider two separate
jurisdictions -- the federal government and the states. The federal government
can set up an obscenity unit, and they did that in the past, because the
federal government has access to the FBI, and more importantly, to the Postal
Service. And I've had over the years -- not recently -- a number of cases
involving federal obscenity prosecutions. But not during the Clinton
administration; the obscenity cases that I've dealt with over the years
predated Clinton. And I do know that once Bush took office, a lot of people
said, "Gee, we think they're now going to go after the adult industry,"
especially because Ashcroft was selected by Bush and approved by the Senate. So
there is a fear out there. But that would be for national prosecutions. ...
This [Glasser] case here is a local matter.
... Getting found guilty of obscenity and misdemeanor locally -- how does that affect one's future as far as endangering one for future federal
prosecution?
It wouldn't increase or decrease federal prosecution. But what it does do under
California law is make that person eligible for a felony prosecution the next
time around [if found guilty]. The district attorney could, in effect,
charge you with a felony by alleging in the felony filing a prior obscenity
conviction.
So, yes, when you are convicted, you become eligible for felony filing, so that
would discourage you from continuing to engage in the activity. In addition to
that, even if you're convicted of a misdemeanor and you're not worried about a
future felony, usually when you're convicted of a misdemeanor, you're put on
probation for as much as three years. And during the time, you're on probation;
you can be monitored. And if you do it again, you can be yanked back to court
and put in jail, county jail, for up to a year.
But a plea bargain normally is a small penalty. Why not get rid of the
hassle of going to court? Just pay the penalty.
Because you then have a conviction on your record. Also, Adam Glasser feels
very much dedicated to what he's doing. And I believe on an abstract
level that what he's doing is right in terms of freedom, in terms of
censorship, forgetting about the particular material, which I also do not
believe is legally obscene.
This is his whole life, this is his profession. He is really sincere in what he
does. He believes he's providing a benefit to society. And I agree, because
he's providing entertainment and information and knowledge to consenting
adults. The people who participate in his movies are all consenting adults.
There's no violence. There are no children involved.
If there are no children involved, and no violence, I don't see what interest
the government has at all in prosecuting this stuff. But that's why Adam is
choosing to fight it -- on a matter of principle.
There's also a feeling out there that basically there's a war coming. And
what happens, when you plead guilty, is that you're setting yourself up for
future prosecutions by the feds that bring on the RICO laws and such, and
longer criminal sentences. Is that the case at all?
Well, in the last few years there have been attempts by the federal government
to use the racketeering laws, the so-called RICO laws, to confiscate assets on
the theory that your wealth, your assets, were derived from illegal activities.
... And so there is that fear that you could lose your house or your car or
whatever if you are convicted, and later prosecuted again. Now, in this
particular case, they're not using any forfeiture laws against him. But there's
always the potential.
And is this is a "put up or shut up" time, basically?
Some people might think that. It's a dramatic change. We're making the stand.
We're choosing to fight, not to give in. I think if we win, the government will
be deterred from doing this in the future. A long time ago, I thought the
government gave up when they lost the "Deep Throat" prosecutions. The
government, in my opinion, sort of went away from criminal prosecution, and
tried to use licensing laws and zoning laws and those sorts of things to
control the distribution of pornography, making it more difficult to be in the
retail business.
Maybe with the Internet and everything, they realized now they can't control
retail sales, and they're trying to go after it this way. But I had thought
that at least the federal government was more interested in child molestation,
kiddy porn, that sort of thing, which is obviously a very important area of the
law, and should never be confused with the adult entertainment industry. The
adult entertainment industry frowns upon, condemns and cooperates with the
government with respect to any kiddy porn. There's just no connection between
the two.
And I think the government has a legitimate interest in going after that sort
of material, protecting children, for example. But not the adult industry. I
don't know why they're going after the adult industry; it makes no sense.
...
What would your best guess be? After seeing a lot of these cases over the
years, what's your supposition here about what might be taking place as shown
by the tactics used?
That's certainly one interpretation, and it's very possible what they're doing
is to get him to plead guilty, to get a conviction and to be aggressive. Of
course, if they were super-aggressive, I suppose they wouldn't have offered a
plea bargain that would have allowed him to plead and get probation. That was
the offer: pay a small fine and be put on probation.
I suppose, in their defense, they would probably say, "Look, if we were that
super-aggressive, we wouldn't have offered that deal; we would have said we're
taking no prisoners." I think that they know that they perhaps cannot get a
conviction. And, therefore, the most important thing in their mind is getting a
conviction, because then they could issue a press release. Whenever the city
attorney gets a conviction, they always issue a press release and brag about
it. So that's probably what they were going to do in this particular case:
proclaim their victory over obscenity and take advantage of it.
If anybody is focusing on this case, it's other pornographers, others in the
adult business. Adult Video News covers it. So how much support do you have [from the
industry]?
Adult Video News offered to supply witnesses on issues such as the prevalence
of this sort of material out in the community. They're in a very good position
to provide that information in terms of how many movies of this kind are out
there, what percentage deal with anal sex and oral sex and so forth. And
they've agreed to cooperate and have witnesses testify. So they're very
helpful.
People in Washington who are talking to Ashcroft, ... they see this as a
possibility to shut down the adult entertainment world.
... Have you ever been to an adult bookstore? It's just out there. So to start
prosecuting -- where would you begin? There's just tons of this stuff out there.
It's sort of like a thousand people charging the beach, and you've got the
machine gunner who is trying to get you. If you have so many people going,
you're going to get through. I think that's what happened with the adult
industry. There's so much material out there, I don't think it can be
prosecuted.
But some people are going to fall on that beach?
Well, they're going to have to pick somebody different. Who are they going to
pick?
Adam Glasser.
Maybe they did that, to pick him. I don't know. You'll talk to the police and
ask them why they went after him. I don't know. It didn't seem to me like the
material was that different than anything else. ...
Have community standards changed?
Oh, certainly. They used to prosecute cases where there was a suggestion of
sexual activity going on underneath the covers. You have a man and a woman
under covers and maybe the cover was slightly pulled and you could see one
breast of the woman. And they would prosecute that. In 1969, there was such a
prosecution in Newhall. And over the years, the conduct has gone in the
industry [to] more revealing, more sexual explicit. There's no question about
that -- the standards have changed. Evolving, more sexual explicit activities are
being revealed in these movies and magazines.
... So where's the line on what's obscene?
The law does not set a line. It has a vague test for what is obscene. It
doesn't say, "Graphic, hardcore, sexual penetration is obscene, but simulated
is OK." Those words are not in the statutes. People would be surprised to
actually read the definition of obscenity. After reading it, they probably
wouldn't know what it means. It's a very vague test.
So how does one who is a producer of this material know when you're crossing
the line?
You don't really know. It's sort of like trial and error, I suppose. You kind
of test the waters, put the material out there, and see whether or not there's
a reaction. And it's been a gradual evolution over the years.
There is sort of a common understanding as to what is taboo and what is not,
but it's not officially written down. There's no written agreement. But there
was sort of an implied understanding that if you stayed away from certain
activity, you were not going to be prosecuted. Obviously, you don't want
violence in there. You don't want sadomasochism. Obviously, children is a
separate category. Animals would be banned, and also urination and defecation.
Those kinds of things would be frowned upon and probably prosecuted, which
comes back to Adam Glasser's movie. None of that is in there. It's just
consensual sex with adults. So what's the problem?
But fisting has always been sort of on that line. ...
I don't now whether it's ever been prosecuted before. But clearly, if one sees
this movie, the participants are enjoying themselves. And there are books that
have been written about the subject with approval. Obviously, not everybody
engages in this activity, but enough do to warrant books having been written
about it; sex therapists having described it, and people filming it. And again,
voluntary by adults, women. Maybe there's a thing about lesbians, I don't
know. Maybe there's a gay prejudice. I do know that, in years gone past, that
was sort of one key element that prosecutors sometimes used. They never
admitted it. ... Sometimes what they'll do is prosecute interracial sex. They
would never say, "That's why we're doing it," but they're always hoping that
there would be some residual prejudice from the jury to convict. But basically
it's erotic activity that some people like to watch.
In the end, what does it say, and what if the jury finds Adam guilty?
On a more immediate level, we would appeal any such conviction, and take it all
the way through the state appellate courts and through the federal courts and
U.S. Supreme Court. Usually it takes a couple of years for that process to be
completed. I don't think there would be an immediate effect, but I don't know.
There are only five officers in this unit, so I don't know what they're going
to do. The officers tell me they have other work to do. This is not the only
thing to do. So I'm not sure whether in L.A. City there would be an immediate
response, just because I think they lack the resources to go after
everybody.
What happens if you win?
We would hope that the city attorney and the police and others would take the
hint and drop this altogether, and go on to more important things -- like
protecting us from gang shootings, protecting us from robbers, murderers and so
forth -- and not waste our time, and waste the taxpayers' money on censorship.
Is this an important case?
It's obviously very important to us. And I think it's also important to the
industry. ... It's possible that law enforcement could become encouraged by
conviction, and become more aggressive. To that extent, it would hurt the
industry. And also, as I said, a win would perhaps deter future prosecutions of
this sort.
In the end, why is it important that a fisting movie, a movie like this, be
supported to the fullest extent of the law?
Because of the danger of censorship. This particular movie may, or may not, be
so important that Western civilization depends on its being exhibited; it's the
principle behind it. We don't want government telling consenting adults what
they can see, what they can read, especially in the privacy of their own
bedrooms. We think it's a danger to free society that the government can tell
us what to do. It's censorship, and that's bad.
home . introduction . prosecuting . the business . special reports
watch the program . if you were the juror ... . quiz . do you use porn? . discussion
interviews . readings & links . tapes & transcripts . press reaction . credits . privacy
FRONTLINE . wgbh . pbs online
some photos copyright © 2002 photodisc all rights reserved.
web site copyright WGBH educational foundation
|