An Insult to the First Amendment

Pittsburgh-area U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has done it again, trampling on other people's freedoms to advance her own moral agenda. As the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports, Rob Zicari and Janet Romano, the heads of the now defunct Extreme Associates, a pornography production company, have both been sentenced to a year in prison after being prosecuted for five years by Buchanan.

Their company produced highly graphic, sadomasochistic pornography, known as "horror porn" which the U.S. Government under President George W. Bush deemed obscene. As an episode of the PBS television show Frontline documented, their videos could include subject matter such as rape.

My Gut Reaction: U.S. Attorney Buchanan is a Puritan throwback who should not have anywhere near the power she now has.

Analysis: In my opinion, the prosecution of Extreme Associates by Buchanan violates the spirit, if not necessarily the wording, of the First Amendment. Over a period of five years, spending who knows how much taxpayer money, she wore down Zicari and Romano, who are married, driving them out of their careers and ultimately their home for making films with consenting adults. When their resources ran out, they had no real choice other than to plead guilty.

That's right. No snuff films. No actual rape took place. No children were involved. All this for a fictional movie. This is unacceptable.

As an article published by the Pittsburgh City Paper demonstrates, Buchanan has a habit of pursuing cases that revolve around morality rather than the public safety. For instance, she pursued a drug paraphenalia case against Tommy Chong, and another obscenity case against an internet author whose work focused on child molestation.

Is this really the kind of person we want enforcing our laws? Someone whose main interest appears to be forcing her ideas of morality on the rest of the world. Is this what we think American justice should be like?

Some may point out that the majority of people would find the work of Extreme Associates disgusting and offensive. They would probably be right. I would probably find their videos difficult if not impossible to watch, as I personally find it uncomfortable to watch a female get hurt, even if I know it is simulated. But that is not the point.

Others may point out that Extreme Associates and its owners to a certain extent courted government prosecution by going on Frontline. Furthermore, after the charges were filed, Extreme Associates continued to sell the videos being targeted, labeling them as the "Federal Five." But that is also not the point.

The point is that the government should not be regulating the type of films people can produce when they involve consenting adults, and government officials certainly should not be pursuing filmmakers for periods of over half a decade. This is an abuse of government power, and sets a precedent that threatens the liberty of all.

What particularly makes this prosecution galling is that Extreme Associates, Zicari, and Romano were all based in California. Buchanan had a government agent based in Pennsylvania order a copy of one of the company's videos so that she could prosecute them herself. This is a practice known as forum shopping.

We need to stand up to such prosecutions, and label them as what they are-abuses of government power, and infringements on American liberty and the freedom of speech.

A Humorous Quote on Humor

"A weak thinker fears strong images."

Jack Shafer in a recent Slate Press Box column about the New Yorker cartoon.

Reason's Hit and Run blog has a new post about the Washington Post's recent censoring of a column satirizing drunk driving. It's amazing how uptight we are becoming in some respects in this society.

Defending the New Yorker

I think the current flap over the cover of the New Yorker represents a terrible over-reaction to what is clearly a piece of satire. The cartoon represents a caricature of the constant internet rumors that have been circulating about Sen. Obama's religion, showing just how implausible their import is.

Some bloggers will no doubt take issue with this interpretation. For instance, Swan McSwannessy at the Swan's Politics Blog compares the cartoon to a racist t-shirt. The only problem with this analogy is that it was not on a racist t-stirt. It was on the over of the New Yorker, a magazine that often has satirical covers.

Think about this for a second. To believe this was a racist attack, one would have to believe that the editors of the New Yorker had suddenly become rabid down-home bigots, whereas the magazine itself is historically liberal. Context matters, people! I would unfailingly oppose such a cartoon if it appeared on the cover of National Review or NewsMax, conservative publications with an interest in spreading smears against Sen. Obama.

It's time to abandon knee-jerk accusations of bigotry and try to recognize satire for what it really is. Long live free speech.

[Note: I do not own the image of the cartoon I have posted. If the cartoonist or the New Yorker have any objection to my using it, they can contact me, and it will be deleted.

Politics in the Pulpit

This past Sunday, I saw something rather disturbing when I attended services at a local church. For reasons that will become obvious, I will not identify the church except to say that it was of a liberal Protestant denomination.

The service in question was a special congregation-led affair that featured a segment where people could talk about what they were doing over the summer. One woman talked about her attendance at an AIDS conference, and mentioned that many other people who attended the conference hoped a new president in the White House would change American AIDS policy. She left no doubt that she meant Barack Obama, although she did not explicitly mention him.

The political endorsements became more explicit, however, with one of the next people to speak. She declared that she would be volunteering for Barack Obama over the summer in order to convince Hillary Clinton supporters not to vote for John McCain. She urged other people also to volunteer, if I remember correctly.

Although I agree fully with these congregants’ choice of candidate, I think they seriously erred in using the church as a forum for their chosen political campaign. This is not the first time this has happened at the church in question. Several months ago, in the lead up to the Pennsylvania primary, the minister (who it should be noted was not present at this Sunday’s service) reminded the congregation to register as Democrats so they could choose between Obama and Clinton. Although he did not endorse either candidate, it is difficult to imagine that a Republican or Libertarian congregant would have been made to feel comfortable by this announcement.

The significance of these incidents increases when one considers that churches are not supposed to endorse specific candidates for office if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. Several evangelical churches have gotten into trouble for endorsing Republican candidates, and it would be hypocritical and unfair for more liberal churches to engage in the same behavior. Lobbying for social justice is one thing, endorsing a specific candidate is entirely another.

Some will no doubt object that this is an infringement upon free speech, and it may well be in some respects. I would have no difficulty allowing ministers to endorse specific candidates, if churches paid taxes like any other part of civil society, as I feel they should. Those who will not contribute their fair share to civil society have no right to expect the full rights it offers. The government should not subsidize, in the form of tax breaks, a partisan organization that directly endorses candidates. Since there is no reason to expect in the near future that churches will begin paying their fair share, I feel this is the best compromise that can be worked out.

George Carlin, RIP

Yesterday in the Philadelphia Inquirer, I saw yet another letter from professional right wing fanatic Oren M. Spengler, who regularly fills that letter page with his ravings. This time, however, he went too far. Spengler dumped a pile of garbage on the grave of the late comedian George Carlin, claiming he "offended civilization" by using foul language.

As Carlin himself pointed out, language is basically a tool. Words are not offensive in and of themselves, but only by the meaning we give them. Carlin often used rough language to make good social points.

I have posted the clip below to prove Carlin's point. This clip is especially for you, Mr. Spengler. (Warning: Adult Language)



(Note: I do not own this clip. If HBO, George Carlin's estate, or any other owner wants it taken down, just contact me and it will be done posthaste.)