NEW YORK- PRNewswire-USNewswire] — On Monday, a federal
District Court jury in the Eastern District of New York (encompassing
Brooklyn and Long Island) determined that hardcore pornographic depictions
of sadomasochistic sex did not violate the federal obscenity law. The jury,
however, did convict the defendant of sex trafficking one woman who
appeared in the pornography.

The basic guidelines for a jury in determining whether sexual material
is obscene are (1) whether the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, would find that the material, taken as a whole,
appeals to the prurient interest; (2) whether the material depicts or
describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) whether a
reasonable person would find that the material, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, had the following
comments:

“I don’t know how any unbiased and properly instructed jury could
conclude that the average New Yorker would find that pornographic material
as debased and violent as was involved in this case did not appeal to the
prurient interest or depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.
Surely, no reasonable person could conclude that it had serious First
Amendment value.

“Contrary to what some people may think New York isn’t a modern-day
Sodom, at least not yet. New York is a place where people of many religions
live and where many immigrants who come from traditional cultures live. New
York is a place where one doesn’t have to be religious or foreign born in
order to understand that pornography is demeaning to women (and men).

“So, how do we explain twelve jurors concluding that hardcore
pornographic material that degraded and brutalized women wasn’t obscene?
There are a number of possible explanations.

“First, the jury was composed of 7 men and 5 women; and men are more
prone to both view pornography and to consider it acceptable to do so. The
result of having more men than women on the jury was a compromise verdict,
convicting on one count, acquitting on the other.

“Second, the defense attorney persuaded the jury that widespread
availability of pornography in New York and on the Internet is an
indication that New Yorkers find it acceptable, despite the fact that the
Supreme Court has said that availability isn’t the same as community
acceptance.

“Third, the prosecutor didn’t do his or her homework on the obscenity
charge or didn’t spend sufficient time during the trial responding to the
defense’s evidence and arguments on the obscenity charge because
trafficking, not obscenity, was the heart of the prosecution’s case.

“Fourth, the judge’s ruling on an evidentiary matter or jury
instruction was erroneous.

“Whatever the explanation, citizens should not assume that most New
Yorkers act like or sanction the behavior of perverse and brutal beasts. In
this writer’s opinion, community standards still exist in New York,
regardless of what one Brooklyn jury may think.”

Headquartered in New York City, MORALITY IN MEDIA works through
constitutional means to curb traffic in illegal obscenity. MIM operates the
http://www.obscenitycrimes.org website, where citizens can report possible
violations of federal Internet obscenity laws.