Ira Isaacs Jury Hung

I have been hesitating to weigh in on this because generally I didn’t care which way it went really.

I got the letter and everyone else printed it so I kinda let it go…I can see it going either way and I wouldnt be TOO upset (I know now its a hung jury)

If I had my druthers I’d say consenting adults, no harm no foul, nobody did anything illegal so why is the act of filming it illegal.

Scat videos are certainly not something I’d watch but where do you draw the line? Till the line is clearly drawn it rubs me the wrong way that you don’t know what crosses it till after the jury finds you guilty.

58740cookie-checkIra Isaacs Jury Hung

Ira Isaacs Jury Hung

Share This

2 Responses

  1. I posted this on LIB but I will post the same here. I will add however on Mike’s blog that I am not sure how I feel about beastiality movies other than having a tad bit of twisted curiousity when I hear of a hot girl having sex with a horse or something crazy like that. The issue for me would be if this is a form of entertainment that consenting adults have the ‘right’ to produce or view since the animal has no ability to voice consent. Here is what I posted on LIB regarding Isaacs hung jury and third upcoming trial:

    I still find it a bit mind-blowing that our federal government continues to waste taxpayer’s money on very expensive obscenity trials. I have never met Ira Issacs nor have I seen any of his movies but from what I have been told they are over the top crude and disgusting. I am certainly not a fan of that type of production however, with that said I strongly believe in the right of consenting adults to entertain other consenting adults with whatever type of content they wish to create as long as those consuming it are adults. The real obscene part of this for me is that taxpayers continue to allow money to be wasted on cases like this. Americans should be outraged that their hard-earned dollars are being wasted in this fashion. This guy- like him or hate him has not been convicted over the course of two trials and the government now wants to pony up our money to try their luck again and go for a third shot at a knockout. This to me is anti-American and a complete waste of time and money and we should let our representatives know. Of course they aren’t listening to ‘we the people’.

  2. Shameful indeed. And Mike is right that there is something profoundly perverse about any “crime” where you not only don’t know if you’ve committed it or not (until it’s too late and you’re on the bus to jail), but also where you CANNOT POSSIBLY know if you’ve committed it. The elements of the crime are by definition so vague, and so variable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, that no one can know in advance what will constitute obscenity.

    I don’t know if there is any other crime like it in that respect.

    Alas, the First Amendment challenge to obscenity statutes have all failed. Though I don’t know if there has yet been a robust substantive due process challenge to them. Lawrence v. Texas would be the starting point; there is also that great case from the Fifth Circuit which used a substantive due process argument to invalidate laws banning the sale of sex toys (though the Eleventh Circuit has come to the opposite conclusion). I think there may be a viable way of getting rid of obscenity laws altogether using a substantive due process argument.

    Of course, all three of the leading candidates for the republican presidential nomination have said that they reject the very notion of a right to privacy–so any chance we have of invalidating obscenity laws would probably depend on them not getting into office…

Leave a Reply