January 14, 2012

"Oh, yes! There is a gossamer of a story line — the heroine’s all-engrossing search for sexual gratification..."

"... and when all sexual endeavors fail to gratify, her unique problem is successfully diagnosed to exist in her throat... The alleged story lines are the facade, the sheer negligee through which clearly shines the producer’s and the defendant’s true and only purpose, that is, the presentation of unmistakably hard-core pornography."

Wrote Judge Joel J. Tyler, finding "Deep Throat" obscene in 1973. The judge has died at the age of 90.

26 comments:

edutcher said...

The biggest obscenity was how Linda Lovelace was treated.

Nonetheless, I think this particular judge will get a big handshake from St Peter.

As the song said, "A knight without armor in a savage land".

David said...

His Honor was Old School. He was, of course, correct in his evaluation, but only based on his outdated sense of decorum and morality.

I hope heaven seems more familiar to him, but who knows how much that may have changed too.

Joe said...

I've not seen the movie, but I've assumed the correct description is "dumb as hell."

David said...

"As X-rated films emigrated from movie theaters to living rooms, “Deep Throat” continued to bring in revenue, much of it for organized crime, which controlled much of its distribution. The film, which was made for $25,000 by the director Gerald Damiano, a former hairdresser, earned an estimated $600 million."

Great Moments in American Capitalism.

David said...

And speaking of obscene, is anyone watching what Brady and the Patriots are doing to the Broncos?

Ann Althouse said...

@David LOL. We are.

ironrailsironweights said...

Porn was a lot different back then. Adult women actually looked like adult women.

Peter

27183 said...

@Joe, you can watch it for free here (NSFW)

It doesn't suck as much as many would think.

rcocean said...

"The alleged story lines are the facade, the sheer negligee through which clearly shines the producer’s and the defendant’s true and only purpose, that is, the presentation of unmistakably hard-core pornography."

True dat.

Bender said...

The biggest obscenity was how Linda Lovelace was treated.
__________________

I was going to say that, before we talk about whether it is a fundamental constitutional right to have a woman put an entire erect penis in her mouth, film it, and distribute and show the film to the public, there is first the issue of whether there is a right to grossly exploit the women who perform in porn and the sex industry in general.

That said, whether such constitutes "obscenity" or not, whatever that means, including the infinitely relative test of "community standards," such that, given the pervasiveness of Internet porn in every community, nothing can really be deemed "obscene" any more, does the First Amendment demand that such be given copyright protections?

Might it be perfectly constitutional for Congress to withdraw any copyright registration from porn or to make any arguable common law copyright unenforceable?

Revenant said...

Is it obscene, yes.

Does the government have any business regulating obscenity, no.

Revenant said...

there is first the issue of whether there is a right to grossly exploit the women who perform in porn and the sex industry in general

Before that comes the issue of how one goes about "exploiting" a consenting adult.

Chip Ahoy said...

It sounds like a very engaging story line. It got my attention.

The plot as the judge describes it presents so many opportunities for character development.

Carnifex said...

Never saw the movie. Was just a nipper when it came out. As I got older, other more salacious movies were available at regular theaters. Everyone remember "Caligula"? Ahh, porn as costume drama.

Later on, the ubiquitous "Debbie Does..." movies caught my attention. None as well as the first, with its young ingenue cum Dallas Cowboy Cheerleader dominating a young perverts imagination.

Later on, a barrage of National Geographics, mom's Cosmo's, and dads stolen Playboys, leading to a warped view of women foisted on a naive society devouring its own, leading to a need for eyeglasses.

Half a century later, I'm still trying to unlearn that women don't want to have sex with every pizza delivery, or pool guy. And that sex with someone you don't love is not nearly worth the cost.

I suppose the Womens Lib movement was the pendulum swinging back, but both extremes have caused more harm than not.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The alleged story lines are the facade, the sheer negligee through which clearly shines the producer’s and the defendant’s true and only purpose, that is, the presentation of unmistakably hard-core pornography."

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

george said...

I was never sure how prurient got to be conflated with obscene. Most of the things that are truly obscene occur in courtrooms and state houses. Our national budget deficit is obscene. What Michelle spends on vacations is obscene. Oral sex is just oral sex and it is pretty damn great. It has to be up there with the wheel as one of the greatest inventions of mankind.

Now if only I could find someone to "exploit" me!

Jose_K said...

right to grossly exploit the women who perform in porn and the sex industry in general earning far more than men

Phil 3:14 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
madAsHell said...

I was 17 years old, and I saw "Deep Throat" in a drive-in theater. I fell asleep while Ms. Lovelace was shaving her pussy at the beginning of the movie.

So, I don't know if it was pornography, but I do know that the movie sucked!!

Phil 3:14 said...

The judge watched the movie, stood tall, took a firm stance and came forth with a seemingly potent output.

mariner said...

27183,
It doesn't suck as much as many would think.

So it's not a very good movie?

We ARE talking "Deep Throat" here, right?

mariner said...

Bender,
... there is first the issue of whether there is a right to grossly exploit the women who perform in porn ...

I understand that men are treated a lot worse.

mariner said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mariner said...

Revenant,
Does the government have any business regulating obscenity, no.


That assertion depends on accepting that government is separate from other people, making and enforcing rules to control them.

In a free country, the people would decide what is to be allowed in their own communities. People should have that right, shouldn't they?

harrogate said...

Mariner, you write:

"In a free country, the people would decide what is to be allowed in their own communities. People should have that right, shouldn't they?"

There are pitfalls here of course. Big bruhaha for instance, over DC being told it cannot institute a handgun ban. Even though that ban was certainly "people decid[ing] what is to be allowed in their own communit[y]." yes?

Slavery certainly couldn't be instituted in a local community if the majority wanted it. Nor could a local community or a state declare that only people of a specific race could live there, go to school there, etc. Nor since Lawrence v. texas (2003) may a state declare sodomy a criminal act.

Ostensibly when we are talking about speech and publication, etc., we are also in this realm. Something about civil liberties. No always cut and dry, though it seems, since it is perhaps the case that a lot of people who would never brook a handgun ban would be all over criminalizing sodomy or porn.

Joe said...

With a minor change, this could also describe far too many books and movies:

The alleged story lines are the facade, the sheer negligee through which clearly shines the producer’s and the defendant’s true and only purpose, that is, the presentation of unmistakably hard-core intellectual bullshit.