Married couple get prison for operating "obscene" web site
Graphic depictions of rape and violence against women damage the fabric of our society and will not be tolerated.
- Assistant U.S. Attorney General Christopher A. Wray
I'm going to begin by issuing that this disclaimer....
This piece should in no way, shape, manner, or form be taken as a defense of the filth this couple was peddling. Rape is an indefensible from of violence against women, and those who would peddle such filth, even if staged, are beyond the pale. Period.
What concerns me, though, is the precedent being set here. Prosecuting this case under federal obscenity laws raises some disturbing issues. What is obscenity? Who gets to decide? Are we still using the "I know obscenity when I see it" ruler? And whose ruler are we to use? Obscenity is a horribly subjective concept, based on the prejudices and mores of whoever happens to be making that judgement. What you find "obscene", I may find merely offensive and unworthy of expending resources on prosecuting. In this scenario, whether or not an obscenity case is prosecuted depends on which one of us is making the ultimate decision. This means, of course, that the prosecution of an obscenity case is largely a political decision.
Surely there are other, less subjective statues that Garry & Tamara Ragsdale could have been prosecuted under. Justice should not be dependent on the mores and standards of a federal prosecutor. Until and unless obscenity laws can be interepreted by a standard less open to questioning than "I'll know it when I see it", this is a wrong and horribly misguided approach.
