Quote:
Judge Sentences **** Producer To 46 Months In Prison
[...]
Federal prosecutor Edward McAndrew, a lawyer with the Justice Department, said the videos were "some of the most extreme material available on the Internet."
"This case is not about the conduct," McAndrew said. "It's not about consenting adults. It's about commercial distribution. … He made a choice that his material would be more extreme than others. What he creates gives mainstream pornography a bad name."
McAndrew said Little was undeterred by his conviction and had sold two of the videos in question after his was convicted.
In seeking a more lenient sentence, one of Little's attorneys argued that the videos were not sadomasochistic. "Urine and vomit, our argument is, isn't sadistic or masochistic," James Benjamin said.
"What about humiliation?" the judge asked.
That, Benjamin replied, isn't in the legal definition of sadomasochistic.
"Clearly, there seemed to be pain," Bucklew said.
That was acting, Benjamin said. "The person that was involved in the conduct sat [in court] with a smile on her face and wrote your honor a letter saying, 'Judge, this was a beautiful part of my life.' "
"I don't even think this is a close call," the judge said. The videos portrayed "sadistic conduct. …This is clearly degrading, clearly humiliating and intended to be so."
[...]
Until the videos were ruled by a jury to be obscene, Douglas said, Little had "no way of knowing the activity he was engaged in was criminal."
It was unprecedented, Benjamin said, "to consider a purveyor of dirty movies in the arena of criminal conduct."
[...]
[...]
Federal prosecutor Edward McAndrew, a lawyer with the Justice Department, said the videos were "some of the most extreme material available on the Internet."
"This case is not about the conduct," McAndrew said. "It's not about consenting adults. It's about commercial distribution. … He made a choice that his material would be more extreme than others. What he creates gives mainstream pornography a bad name."
McAndrew said Little was undeterred by his conviction and had sold two of the videos in question after his was convicted.
In seeking a more lenient sentence, one of Little's attorneys argued that the videos were not sadomasochistic. "Urine and vomit, our argument is, isn't sadistic or masochistic," James Benjamin said.
"What about humiliation?" the judge asked.
That, Benjamin replied, isn't in the legal definition of sadomasochistic.
"Clearly, there seemed to be pain," Bucklew said.
That was acting, Benjamin said. "The person that was involved in the conduct sat [in court] with a smile on her face and wrote your honor a letter saying, 'Judge, this was a beautiful part of my life.' "
"I don't even think this is a close call," the judge said. The videos portrayed "sadistic conduct. …This is clearly degrading, clearly humiliating and intended to be so."
[...]
Until the videos were ruled by a jury to be obscene, Douglas said, Little had "no way of knowing the activity he was engaged in was criminal."
It was unprecedented, Benjamin said, "to consider a purveyor of dirty movies in the arena of criminal conduct."
[...]
Seriously? I didn't know you could be convicted for this. Why is our legal system even concerned with this? I'd like to see the judge do a little Googling to see what's really out there.
I'm sure it'll get appealed. Maybe we'll get a nifty Supreme Court decision to make these laws unconstitutional (damn activist judges!)