Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today On Line Out. | Happy Juneteenth! »

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The Dirtiest Criminal Complaint Ever

posted by on June 19 at 17:00 PM

Federal prosecutors were shocked—shocked!—by the content of three porn movies that were distributed to a man in Utah, where porn is illegal. So shocked, in fact, that they had to watch—and describe in minute detail—every single second of it.

RSS icon Comments


For those who don't like reading all the way through 14-page legal documents, the description of the dvds begins on page 6.

Posted by Skimmer | June 19, 2007 5:17 PM

Where is a YouTube link for the Shakespeare vs. The Bible Smut-Factor Showdown from Porky's 2?

Posted by matthew fisher wilder | June 19, 2007 5:20 PM

It's so weird they specially note that none of the movies has a plotline. Did that bother them particularly?

Posted by Gloria | June 19, 2007 5:23 PM

To be fair, they HAVE to describe the contents. How would you like to see a porn prosecution where they wouldn't even describe what was in the movies? Or a prosecution based on a movie that the prosecutors didn't even watch? I don't think they coppers were "shocked"; I think they were recording the facts.

As for what bothered them, I don't think it was the lack of plot; I think it was the humiliation, crying and vomiting girls, and scenes like "she then turned herself upside down while what appeared to be pina colada mix and ice was poured and shoved into her anal cavity. She righted her self and excreted the pina colada mix and ice from her anus into the bowl with the spit and ejaculate. She then picked up the bowl and drank the concoction." Later she is asphixiated with a plastic bag, and drinks her own milk enema. In one of the other movies, the girl is presented to be in elementary school, talking in baby talk (not just "teen"), and another girl is choked with chest compresses until she "reflexively gags and convulses".

I'm not a fan of censorship but these movies are not your average pornos; they sound pretty brutal.

Posted by Fnarf | June 19, 2007 5:35 PM

Max Hardcore porn is definitely my least favorite. on not a big fan of how aggressive he is. I have a hard time telling in these that the women are doing this because they're having a good time. Of the Max Hardcore that I've seen for free on Internet video clips I've never watched more than a few minutes. Just can't do it.

Posted by Sam | June 19, 2007 5:59 PM

Thanks all for the comedy gold! Milk enemas are the new punchlines for Summer!

Posted by jackie treehorn | June 19, 2007 6:04 PM

hehehe three prong test.

Posted by spiffy | June 19, 2007 7:04 PM

Were the pages of the report stuck together?

Posted by Gomez | June 19, 2007 7:11 PM

The fact that the movies have no plotlines is relevant because of the Miller test for obscenity. If they had plots, it would be easier to claim that they had literary or artistic value.

Posted by Brian | June 19, 2007 7:31 PM

I think there is some level of irony in describing the 'obscenity' in such detail and in a public document at the time you are arguing for it to be censored.

Personally, I feel more then capable of choosing my porn without government help. While I am sure many in congress have a good deal of experience with porn, I generally don't solicit the help of others in such matters.

Posted by Giffy | June 19, 2007 8:58 PM

The "Max" series is super hardcore. Even though I whole-heartedly support the right to make movies featuring consenting adults doing pretty much anything, I personally found Max's way of "relating" to the actresses to be damn pretty depressing.

Posted by Not signing my name to this one | June 19, 2007 10:49 PM

#4 - I don't think it was the humiliation that bothered them.

The federal government has a history of selecting a locality where the "community standards" are very prudish, then ordering porn to be delivered there.

This is because there are some bad people there who want to stamp out all porn, but the law doesn't say that all porn is illegal. Instead they have to try to find something "obscene", and ask for it to be delivered to some anti-porn locality like Utah, hoping it will be "obscene" by Utah standards.

Why not San Francisco or New York? Because people in those cities don't seem to care as much what their neighbors look at to get off.

Now they want to arrest a guy in Ohio and drag him out to Utah for a trial. Apparently, federal law expects mail order houses to be familiar with the community standards of every small town in the entire country.

Federal judges have held that the first amendment doesn't apply to all publishers. They have also held that the law doesn't have to define what is and is not illegal speech -- instead of giving publishers a definition they can follow, they use the vauge "community standards" and "I know it when I see it".

Now THAT is offensive!

And the especially stupid thing is that porn is so easy to avoid if you don't like it. All you have to do is DON'T GO LOOKING FOR IT.

Posted by -/mm | June 19, 2007 11:17 PM

zlqi pmokwah mogazur nepjdzb utpolf fbxngrk rsuhqyolt

Posted by ysntubig elnph | June 25, 2007 4:03 PM

zlqi pmokwah mogazur nepjdzb utpolf fbxngrk rsuhqyolt

Posted by ysntubig elnph | June 25, 2007 4:05 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).