There is a debate going on in the opinion section of the Los Angeles Times this week between John Stagliano, an adult moviemaker and distributor who is currently facing federal obscenity charges that could put him in prison for almost 40 years, and Barry McDonald from Pepperdine Law School about free expression. Briefly, Stagliano is for it, McDonald not so much.
Today's piece focuses on the question: Should there be an obscenity law that outlaws a product that is made with informed adult consent with no laws being broken, and that is increasingly distributed and consumed in complete privacy?
Stagliano is right on the money:
Barry, your point is that people must be forced to not think things that you don't like, and for that you'd have me put in jail. Your comment that it "seems" to you that viewing images "to obtain sexual pleasure cannot be the healthiest way of experiencing sex" seems not a good enough reason to imprison me for 39 years. In fact, using a proper concept of morality based on individual rights, it is you and those who would put me in jail when I did not infringe on anyone's rights who are behaving immorally.
From a political point of view, this is just another extension of the nanny state trying to control an individual's life. Essentially, the government uses its power to stop people from smoking, eating trans fats, consuming drugs or gaining sexual gratification without hurting anyone else. No person can decide for himself; the feds know better.
