Lilith
06-11-2008, 09:57 PM
Judge suspends trial while prosecutors consider implications of his Web site
'Shock artist' Ira Isaacs is on trial for obscenity in L.A.'s federal court
His fetish films include bestiality, sexual activity involving feces and urine
Newspaper reports judge has sexually explicit material on his own site
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge has suspended the obscenity trial of a Los Angeles porn distributor after a newspaper report that the judge had sexually explicit material on his own Web site.
Ira Isaacs is accused of violating community obscenity standards in the nation's reputed porn capital.
Judge Alex Kozinski granted a joint motion to suspend the trial Wednesday after the prosecution said it needed time to look into the issue of the judge's Web site.
The judge told the jury to return Monday.
The panel spent hours at the Pasadena offices of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals watching videos depicting bestiality and extreme fetishes.
Kozinski is chief justice of the 9th Circuit but is serving as a trial judge in the obscenity case of Ira Isaacs.
Isaacs readily admits that he produced and sold movies depicting bestiality and sexual activity involving feces and urine.
"It's the most extreme material that's ever been put on trial. I don't know of anything more disgusting," said Roger Jon Diamond -- Isaacs' own defense attorney.
The case is the most visible effort of a new federal task force designed to crack down on smut in America. Isaacs, however, says his work is an extreme but constitutionally protected form of art.
"There's no question the stuff is disgusting," said Diamond, who has spent much of his career representing pornographers. "The question is, should we throw people in jail for it?" Watch more on the art vs. porn debate »
Isaacs, 57, a Los Angeles advertising agency owner who says he used to market fine art in commercial projects, calls himself a "shock artist" and says he went into distributing and producing films about fetishes because "I wanted to do something extreme."
"I'm fighting for art," he said before his federal trial got under way. "Art is on trial."
He plans to testify as his own expert witness and said he will cite the historic battles over obscenity involving authors James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence.
One of his exhibits, he said, will be a picture of famed artist Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain," a porcelain urinal signed by the artist in 1917.
Diamond said Isaacs also will tell jurors that the works have therapeutic value for people with the same fetishes depicted onscreen.
"They don't feel so isolated," Diamond said. "They have fetishes that other people have."
Isaacs makes a brief appearance in one of the videos he produced; others that he distributed were imported from other countries.
The business has been lucrative. At one point, he has said, he was selling 1,000 videos a month at $30 apiece. Then his office was raided by FBI agents who bought his videos online with credit cards.
The government obtained an indictment against Isaacs on a variety of obscenity charges, including importation or transportation of obscene material for sale. Prosecutors have declined to comment about the case.
Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, said that such prosecutions were rare until the creation of the U.S. Department of Justice Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. Child pornography cases are handled by a separate unit.
"The problem with obscenity is, no one really knows what it is," she said. "It's relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it's offensive."
The test of obscenity still hinges on a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held that a work is not legally obscene if it has "literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
Jurors also are asked to determine whether the material in question violates standards of what is acceptable to the community at large.
"This task force was quite controversial, and many in the Department of Justice felt that it was a waste of resources," Rosenbluth said. "Because of the pressure, they seem to have chosen the worst cases they can find to prosecute."
Each of the four counts against Isaacs carries a five-year maximum prison sentence. Prosecutors also are seeking forfeiture of assets obtained through his video sales. Two of the original six counts were dropped.
"A lot of this is about sending a message: 'Don't make this stuff. Don't put it on the Internet. We don't want it here,' " Rosenbluth said.
Rosenbluth said prosecutors would be emboldened to pursue similar cases if Isaacs is convicted, though there would be lengthy challenges on appeal.
'Shock artist' Ira Isaacs is on trial for obscenity in L.A.'s federal court
His fetish films include bestiality, sexual activity involving feces and urine
Newspaper reports judge has sexually explicit material on his own site
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge has suspended the obscenity trial of a Los Angeles porn distributor after a newspaper report that the judge had sexually explicit material on his own Web site.
Ira Isaacs is accused of violating community obscenity standards in the nation's reputed porn capital.
Judge Alex Kozinski granted a joint motion to suspend the trial Wednesday after the prosecution said it needed time to look into the issue of the judge's Web site.
The judge told the jury to return Monday.
The panel spent hours at the Pasadena offices of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals watching videos depicting bestiality and extreme fetishes.
Kozinski is chief justice of the 9th Circuit but is serving as a trial judge in the obscenity case of Ira Isaacs.
Isaacs readily admits that he produced and sold movies depicting bestiality and sexual activity involving feces and urine.
"It's the most extreme material that's ever been put on trial. I don't know of anything more disgusting," said Roger Jon Diamond -- Isaacs' own defense attorney.
The case is the most visible effort of a new federal task force designed to crack down on smut in America. Isaacs, however, says his work is an extreme but constitutionally protected form of art.
"There's no question the stuff is disgusting," said Diamond, who has spent much of his career representing pornographers. "The question is, should we throw people in jail for it?" Watch more on the art vs. porn debate »
Isaacs, 57, a Los Angeles advertising agency owner who says he used to market fine art in commercial projects, calls himself a "shock artist" and says he went into distributing and producing films about fetishes because "I wanted to do something extreme."
"I'm fighting for art," he said before his federal trial got under way. "Art is on trial."
He plans to testify as his own expert witness and said he will cite the historic battles over obscenity involving authors James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence.
One of his exhibits, he said, will be a picture of famed artist Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain," a porcelain urinal signed by the artist in 1917.
Diamond said Isaacs also will tell jurors that the works have therapeutic value for people with the same fetishes depicted onscreen.
"They don't feel so isolated," Diamond said. "They have fetishes that other people have."
Isaacs makes a brief appearance in one of the videos he produced; others that he distributed were imported from other countries.
The business has been lucrative. At one point, he has said, he was selling 1,000 videos a month at $30 apiece. Then his office was raided by FBI agents who bought his videos online with credit cards.
The government obtained an indictment against Isaacs on a variety of obscenity charges, including importation or transportation of obscene material for sale. Prosecutors have declined to comment about the case.
Jean Rosenbluth, a former federal prosecutor and law professor at University of Southern California, said that such prosecutions were rare until the creation of the U.S. Department of Justice Obscenity Prosecution Task Force. Child pornography cases are handled by a separate unit.
"The problem with obscenity is, no one really knows what it is," she said. "It's relatively simple to paint something as an artistic effort even if it's offensive."
The test of obscenity still hinges on a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that held that a work is not legally obscene if it has "literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
Jurors also are asked to determine whether the material in question violates standards of what is acceptable to the community at large.
"This task force was quite controversial, and many in the Department of Justice felt that it was a waste of resources," Rosenbluth said. "Because of the pressure, they seem to have chosen the worst cases they can find to prosecute."
Each of the four counts against Isaacs carries a five-year maximum prison sentence. Prosecutors also are seeking forfeiture of assets obtained through his video sales. Two of the original six counts were dropped.
"A lot of this is about sending a message: 'Don't make this stuff. Don't put it on the Internet. We don't want it here,' " Rosenbluth said.
Rosenbluth said prosecutors would be emboldened to pursue similar cases if Isaacs is convicted, though there would be lengthy challenges on appeal.