How has pornography been prosecuted in the past? And why do some expect that it may soon be prosecuted again? Here's an overview of four recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings on pornography, a summary of the court's past rulings on obscenity, and a look at a closely watched obscenity prosecution in Los Angeles in 2002.
For months the adult movie industry had been gearing up for the Los Angeles pornography trial of Adam Glasser--it would have been the first obscenity trial in the city since 1993. Could Glasser's case become the first in a wave of obscenity cases brought by state and federal prosecutors emboldened by the Bush administration?
But on March 20, 2002--the day the trial would have started--Glasser and his attorney announced they had reached a plea agreement with the city attorney. Here's a summary of the agreement, the sex video the jurors would have been asked to watch ("Tampa Tushy Fest, Part 1"), and FRONTLINE's interviews (prior to the settlement) with Glasser, his lawyer Roger Diamond, and the deputy city attorney who brought the case.
Since the spring of 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided several cases involving pornography. In what will likely be the most significant, Ashcroft v. ACLU, the court upheld the constitutionality of using "community standards" to determine what sexually explicit material is harmful to minors. The other cases involve the legality of computer-generated "virtual kiddy porn" which involves no real children, a city ordinance barring X-rated "superstores," and libraries that use filtering software to block access to pornographic sites. Here are summaries of the cases, with links to the full text of the Supreme Court decisions.
For decades, the Supreme Court has struggled to define just what material is so offensive as to be legally obscene, and to delineate limits on the government's ability to regulate sexually explicit material. In its efforts to keep up with the adult industry, and with changing technology, the Court has issued scores of opinions on pornography and obscenity. Here's a summary of some of its more significant rulings from 1957 to 1997.
On Jan. 18, 2001, Adult Video News reported on the so-called "Cambria List" (named after Paul Cambria, a longtime attorney for the porn industry who was involved in the list's preparation). The list, which specifies various sex acts that should not be depicted if porn producers want to avoid trouble with the Justice Department, is controversial within the industry, and there are differing interpretations of how it was meant to be applied. Some in the industry say it represents guidelines for the box-covers of adult videos, not for the sex acts the films depict. Nevertheless, there is wide agreement that the Cambria List shows how the adult industry is seeking to be more careful, fearing a potential crackdown on pornography by the Bush administration. While some -- mainly the big adult-video producers that have hundreds of millions of dollars at stake -- are deciding to pull back, smaller pornographers like Rob Black of Extreme Associates (see Interviews section) still insist that they are willing to test the limits.
A federal prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice from 1989 to 1994, Bruce Taylor has been involved in more than 700 obscenity cases throughout his career. In the spring of 2001, he and others were invited to talk with Attorney General John Ash croft about the prosecution of pornography. Taylor's interview here offers an historical overview of hardcore pornography in the U.S., including the cases that have been prosecuted since 1973, Americans' shifting attitudes on porn, and what happened to obscenity prosecutions during the Clinton era.
She is the deputy city attorney in Los Angeles prosecuting the Adam Glasser case. Here, she discusses the offensive elements in Glasser's film and how she arrives at a definition of what is prosecutable under obscenity law. Sanchez also talks about whether the Los Angeles community supports the decision to prosecute Glasser and whether she thinks she can win.
FRONTLINE . wgbh . pbs online; some photos copyright © 2002 photodisc all rights reserved. web site copyright 1995-2012 WGBH educational foundation
Editor's Note: This page was updated February 3, 2004.
It's one of the hottest industries in America. Easier to order at home than a pizza, bigger than rock music, it's arguably the most profitable enterprise in cyberspace. AT&T has been in the business. Yahoo! has profited from it. Westin and Marriott have made more money selling it than selling snacks and drinks in their mini-bars. And with estimates as high as $10 billion a year, it boasts the kind of earnings that most American businesses would envy.
It's pornography. And with adult movies, magazines, retail stores, and the growth of the Internet, business is booming. But the leaders of the adult entertainment industry are worried. They viewed the election of George W. Bush and his appointment of Attorney General John Ashcroft as a signal that there is renewed interest in mounting obscenity prosecutions.
In "American Porn," FRONTLINE reports on the forces behind the explosion of sexually explicit material available in American society. Through interviews with adult entertainment executives and lawyers, porn producers and directors, federal and state prosecutors, anti-porn activists and a Wall Street analyst covering the entertainment industry, the program examines the business ties between respected corporations and porn companies, the rise of extreme hardcore porn, and the pending political battle that may soon engulf the multibillion-dollar pornography industry.
"American Porn" begins with an inside look at some of today's most successful pornography businesses -- from Larry Flynt Publications to the popular Internet site Danni's Hard Drive -- to see how their profits have exploded in the past few years. According to Flynt, his company -- a conglomerate of movies, strip clubs, sex emporiums (including the upscale Hustler Hollywood), and Internet sites -- is worth $400 million. Danni's Hard Drive proprietor Danni Ashe, a former exotic dancer turned dot-com millionaire and CEO, told FRONTLINE she expected to earn $8 million last year alone.
While most Americans decry the avalanche of sexually explicit material, the profits speak for themselves. FRONTLINE explores the range of pornography now available -- from soft porn "couples" entertainment to the most extreme of hardcore pornography -- and why large numbers of Americans are finding something alluring in the adult entertainment arena. Both Flynt and Ashe credit the 1990s explosion of adult material to the ease of viewing and ordering porn from the Internet. Equally important, they say, was the Clinton administration's relaxed attitude toward pornography. Some former Justice Department officials say that corporate America felt it was safe to enter the profitable porn market.
"Companies like AT&T bought up a cable company, signed contracts with the Hot Network, which is a hardcore pornographic site," says Patrick Trueman, former head of the Justice Department's obscenity section in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Trueman now represents the American Family Association, a nonprofit organization promoting traditional family values.
"Other mainstream companies thought, 'We can do this, too,'" he says. "And why not? There's a big market and no penalty."
Times are changing, however, and "American Porn" chronicles not only how porn has been prosecuted in the past -- but how it may soon be prosecuted again. With George W. Bush as president, porn moguls are nervous. In an attempt to head off a government crackdown, the top adult entertainment executives have created a list of 21 pornography no-no's. Dubbed the "Cambria List" after First Amendment attorney and porn industry defense counsel Paul Cambria, who was involved in the list's preparation, it warns porn producers against showing such acts as bestiality, urination, and facial ejaculation.
Some in the industry, such as Extreme Assocites producer Robert Zicari (known as "Rob Black" in the business), insist they will continue to test the limits despite the Cambria List. Zicari will get his chance. As of February 2004, he and his wife, Janet Romano, are awaiting trial on federal obscenity charges. It's the first time in more than a decade the federal government has filed such charges.
Other pornography producers are concerned that the very pioneers of the business are selling out in order to appear mainstream.
"It's a bunch of rich guys running scared," producer Mark Cromer tells FRONTLINE. "It's a bunch of guys who were, maybe, rebels in the 1970s and 1980s and don't want to fight anymore. They want to take their chips out of the bank and cash them in and go home and play golf."
But big pornographers aren't the only ones concerned. This FRONTLINE report looks at how mainstream companies have become wary as well. Yahoo!, for example, withdrew its bid to open a virtual sex shop following an anti-porn campaign waged by the American Family Association.Will the big distributors of pornography -- such as cable and satellite operators -- also be affected by a government crackdown? Until now, companies such as AT&T have argued that they are like the postal service -- delivering material that people want and have ordered. They claim that they are meeting a popular demand and see nothing illegal or wrong in what they are doing. But will the U.S. Supreme Court arrive at new standards for obscenity that could challenge these assumptions?
