Scat porn maker Ira Isaacs is currently being tried in California Civil Court for distributing icky material on the Interwebs. Well, technically not “currently,” because the judge presiding over the case was found to also be distributing questionable images on the Interwebs so the case has been briefly suspended.

As soon as it picks back up, jurors will be watching a series of bestiality and scat fetish films by Isaacs over the course of six hours. Forcing jurors to endure six hours of fetish film is way too Clockwork Orange! Los Angeles is going to end up with 12 different versions of a mind-numbed Alex de Large post Ludovico Treatment Technique all limping around West Hollywood. Oh wait... I should say an additional 12 versions.

Isaacs' films involve bestiality and coprophilia. I'm squicked by that, but not sure how I feel about legality. In my opinion, the First Amendment should cover all consensual sex acts. If you don’t like it, don’t look. And there are some people out there who get into coprophilia, so they should have access to it. It’s not hurting anyone; the participants are being paid and choose to engage in the work. As for the other part, I feel like a PETA spokesperson needs to address the bestiality issue. I’m just not qualified and probably too creeped out and unsure about the consensualism. It will be interesting to see what happens with this case.

Isaacs claims his work contains artistic and scientific merit and will be using Duchamp's Fountain to defend his films. Yay Dada, but what an odd application of Dadaism and the Surrealists? To his defense, if we really look back, how much of a stretch are Isaacs' scat films from Bataille and Sade? I would like to hear Grace Moon's commentary on this. To put it all in context, I’ll give you a little background on obscenity cases and distribution of obscene materials on the Interwebs.

The 1996 Communications Decency Act was the first attempt by the government to regulate obscene stuff online. The full text of the act can be found here. “Obscene” was defined during the 1973 Supreme Court case Miller v. California. Marvin Miller sold dirty books by mail-order and sent out mass mail ads for his business. The mass mailing got him pinched and prosecuted. After the Miller case it was much easier to prosecute people on obscenity charges because the courts had finally defined what constituted obscenity.

To be considered obscene something must meet the following criteria:

1. The material is found to appeal to prurient interest by community standards as judged by the average person.

2. The work depicts sexual conduct or excretory functions in a patently offensive way.

3. The work lacks any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Fast forward to the CDA again. In 1997, the Supreme Court case Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union partially overturned the law, but certain sections were upheld because, even though “community standards” are hard to define on the Internet, technically the material could be made available to minors. This ruling lead to the creation of gateway technology such as cybernanny, etc. which would theoretically prevent children from accessing obscene materials on the Interwebs.

In 2001, the National Coalition of Sexual Freedom and photographer Barbara Nitke filed a proactive suit challenging the CDA and obscenity laws. I think Nitke's work is beautiful and clearly not obscene. I published many of her images in On Our Backs. Nitke could definitely fall under the protective category of artistic merit. As for Isaacs, I haven’t seen his work, nor would I like to, so I can’t judge. The Nitke case was in court for several years, but in March of 2006, the Supreme Court ruled that they failed to provide sufficient evidence that obscenity laws violated free speech.

A few obscenity cases since that time include a 2005 FBI sweep that shut down a rash of BDSM sites, including sites by dykes and women I know personally. They also raided the offices of extreme porn maker Max Hardcore in 2007, indicted him on 10 counts of obscenity and subsequently found him guilty on all counts.

In 2001, another porn maker named Seymore Butts got busted by the LAPD for a film called Tampa Tushy Fest in which my favorite porn star, Chloe, consensually fists porn star Alisha Klass and there were loud orgasms all around. Chloe is a fisting lover and says so, even going so far as to make a fisting porn of her own.

There’s really no reason to make a sex act enjoyed consensually between two adults illegal, but nothing makes sense in sex laws. For the record, four fingers is okay, but once the thumb goes in, you’re busted. I was still editing On Our Backs during this time and that magazine was full of fisting. We were like the cheerleaders of fisting — the handball newsletter! Fisting is a pretty basic sex act among us dykes and you know it. I’m pro red hanky, either pocket. And claiming that a much-beloved sex act happening all over dyke land seems ridiculous and homophobic. Luckily for me, dyke sex falls below the radar. The feds think we’re all busy scissor kicking.

As soon as the Isaacs case gets back underway I’ll work to keep you posted about obscenity laws and how they affect us as queers. I see censoring sexual material as a potential slippery slope to censoring queer sex. I’m not for censorship in any form and, as long as it doesn’t involve children, coercion or violence, anyone should have the right to create, distribute and view it.