Thaddeus Baklinski

'He cheapens the First Amendment': Pornographer gets 4 years in jail for obscenity

Thaddeus Baklinski
Thaddeus Baklinski
Image

LOS ANGELES, January 18, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) - A U.S. porn producer was sentenced to four years in jail and fined $10,000 at federal court in Los Angeles on January 16 for violating federal obscenity laws by producing scatalogical porn with actresses who claimed they were drugged.

Ira Isaacs, described by porn industry news service XBIZ as a "fetish producer and distributor," was found guilty in April 2012 on five counts of violating federal obscenity laws after two previous trials for producing and distributing pornography ended in mistrials.

Isaacs was convicted of one count of engaging in the business of producing and selling obscene videos and four counts of distributing obscene videos.

The Isaacs case is the last to be launched by the U.S. Department of Justice under President George W. Bush.

According to a statement on the conviction by porn watchdog Morality in Media (MIM), adult obscenity prosecutions were shut down during the Obama administration, when Attorney General Eric Holder disbanded the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force in 2011.

“U.S. District Judge George King, a Clinton appointee to the federal bench, is to be praised for understanding what the Obama Justice Department fails to see – that the sexual exploitation of women by the porn industry is a serious crime,” said Patrick A. Trueman, MIM’s President.

Trueman, who served as the chief prosecutor of the Justice Department’s obscenity prosecution section during the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, said he hoped the conviction would encourage Attorney General Holder to begin enforcing federal adult obscenity laws.

(Click "like" if you want to end abortion! )

"Morality in Media is asking the U.S. Congress to hold hearings on the pandemic of harm from pornography and the need to enforce federal obscenity laws," Trueman stated.

Prior to Isaacs' sentencing, U.S. prosecutors had attempted to increase his sentence to seven years and three months with evidence that the women appearing in the films had been drugged and forced to make the porn, and that after his conviction in April Isaacs had continued to promote his pornography business.

Two of the porn actresses told the prosecutors that they would not have taken part in the production of the films if they had not been high on drugs they alleged were fed to them by Isaacs, according to a report by the pornography industry news service XBIZ.

However, Judge King said that in his view the "vulnerable victim" sentencing adjustment did not apply in the case, because women who participate in the production of obscene material as consenting adults are better characterized as co-participants in the offenses than as victims.

Judge King rejected Isaacs' contention that his porn business was based on the vision of art as protected speech under the First Amendment.

"I have totally rejected during the course of the trial that he's a shock artist," King said. "He has cloaked himself as a First Amendment defendant. But the fact is that he did it for money. He's not a defender of the First Amendment. He cheapens the First Amendment."

Dawn Hawkins, MIM’s Executive Director, said, “Pornography leads to the degradation and dehumanization of women. It is a cause of increased prostitution and sex trafficking, as well as sexual violence against women and children.”

Hawkins noted that federal law prohibits the distribution of hardcore adult pornography (“obscenity”) on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops, through the mail, and by common carriers such as UPS and FedEx. “Morality in Media will not rest until the federal laws designed to protect women and children from the porn criminals are fully enforced,” she said.

For more information on Morality in Media's work focused on opposing pornography and indecency through public education and the application of the law visit www.PornHarms.com.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

Legal group seeks details on IRS agreement with atheists to monitor churches

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

After the Internal Revenue Service reached a settlement with an atheist group that claims the IRS is adopting new protocols and procedures for investigating churches,  the non-profit legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom has asked the federal agency to release all documents related to its settlement.

On July 22, ADF submitted a Freedom of Information Act request after learning of the IRS’s agreement with Freedom From Religion Foundation in a press release the group issued on July 17 concerning its lawsuit Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Koskinen, which accused the agency of failing to investigate churches the way the atheist group would like.

“Secrecy breeds mistrust, and the IRS should know this in light of its recent scandals involving the investigation of conservative groups,” said ADF Litigation Counsel Christiana Holcomb. “We are asking the IRS to disclose the new protocols and procedures it apparently adopted for determining whether to investigate churches. What it intends to do to churches must be brought into the light of day.”

The IRS claims it is temporarily withholding investigations of all tax-exempt entities because of congressional scrutiny of its recent scandals, but no one knows when it will decide to restart investigations based on any new or modified rules that it develops.

According to the Freedom From Religion Foundation press release, “The IRS has now resolved the signature authority issue necessary to initiate church examinations. The IRS also has adopted procedures for reviewing, evaluating and determining whether to initiate church investigations.”

The release mentions the ADF annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” event as one that promotes activity by churches that violates the Johnson Amendment, a federal law that activist groups often cite in an attempt to silence churches by threatening their tax-exempt status. The Johnson Amendment authorizes the IRS to regulate sermons and requires churches to give up their constitutionally protected freedom of speech in order to retain their tax-exempt status.

“The IRS cannot force churches to give up their precious constitutionally protected freedoms to receive a tax exemption,” explained ADF Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley, who heads the Pulpit Freedom Sunday event. “No one would suggest a pastor give up his church’s tax-exempt status if he wants to keep his constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure or cruel and unusual punishment. Likewise, no one should be asking him to do the same to be able to keep his constitutionally protected freedom of speech.”

This year’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday will be held on Oct. 5.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

,

Arguments don’t have genitals

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
By Jonathon van Maren

“As soon as he grows his own uterus, he can have an opinion.”

That was a comment left on The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada’s Facebook page by a woman who presumably opposes men speaking out against misogyny, domestic abuse, rape culture, and female genital mutilation as well. Apparently, you see, male genitals disqualify people from speaking out on various human rights issues deemed by women who define themselves by their uteruses while protesting angrily against being defined by their uteruses as “women’s issues.”

Which abortion isn’t, by the way. It’s a human rights issue.

To break it down really simply for our confused “feminist” friends: Human beings have human rights. Human rights begin when the human being begins, or we are simply choosing some random and arbitrary point at which human beings get their human rights. If we do not grant human rights to all human beings, inevitably some sub-set of human beings gets denied protection by another group with conflicting interests. In this case, of course, it is the abortion crowd, who want to be able to kill pre-born children in the womb whenever they want, for any reason they want.

Science tells us when human life begins. Pro-abortion dogma is at worst a cynical manoeuvre to sacrifice the lives of pre-born human beings for self-interest, and at best an outdated view that collapsed feebly under the weight of new discoveries in science and embryology. But the abortion cabal wants to preserve their bloody status quo at all costs, and so they make ludicrous claims about needing a uterus to qualify for a discussion on science and human rights.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In fact, feminists love it when men speak up on abortion, as long as we’re reading from their script, which is why the carnivorous feminists have such a support system among the Deadbeat Dads for Dead Babies set and the No Strings Attached Club.

Male abortion activists have even begun to complain about “forced fatherhood,” a new cultural injustice in which they are expected to bear some responsibility for fathering children with women they didn’t love enough to want to father children with, but did appreciate enough to use for sex. Casual fluid swaps, they whine, should not result in custody hearings.

This is not to mention a genuine social tragedy that has men forcing or pressuring women to have abortions or abandoning them when they discover that the woman is, indeed, pregnant.

Or the fact that abortion has assisted pimps, rapists, and misogynists in continuing the crimes of sex trafficking, sexual abuse, and sex-selection abortion.

And coming against these disgusting trends are thousands of men in the pro-life movement who believe that shared humanity means shared responsibility, and that when the weak and vulnerable are robbed of their rights, we have to stand up and speak out.

We are not at all convinced by the feminist argument that people should think with their reproductive organs or genitals. We think that the number of people currently doing that has perhaps contributed to the problems we face. And we refuse to be told that protecting the human rights of all human beings is “none of our business” and “outside of our interests.”

Arguments don’t have genitals, feminists. It’s a stupid argument trying to protect a bloody ideology.

Reprinted with permission from CCBR.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Rachel Daly

,

Gvmt strikes UK Catholic school admission policy that prefers Mass attendees

Rachel Daly
By Rachel Daly

St. Joseph's Catholic Primary School in Epsom, England, was ordered to change its admissions policy after it was ruled discriminatory by the nation's Office of Schools Adjudicator, according to Your Local Guardian. St. Joseph's reportedly had been granting preferred acceptance to students whose families attended Mass at the affiliated church.

St. Joseph’s School is for students from age 4 to 11 and describes itself as “enjoy[ing] a high level of academic success.” The school furthermore places high priority on its Catholic identity, affirming on its homepage that “We place prayer and worship at the center of everything we do.”

The school states in its current admissions policy that it was "set up primarily to serve the Catholic community in St Joseph’s Parish" and that when the applicant pool exceeds 60 students, its criteria for prioritizing students includes "the strength of evidence of practice of the faith as demonstrated by the level of the family's Mass attendance on Sundays." 

Opponents of this policy reportedly argue that since donations are asked for at Mass, it could allow donation amounts to influence acceptance, and that forcing non-accepted local students to seek education elsewhere imposes a financial burden upon their families. 

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

As Your Local Guardian reports, the adjudicators dismissed claims that donation amounts were affecting school acceptance, given that it is impossible to track donations. Nonetheless, the adjudicators maintained that "discrimination ... potentially arises from requiring attendance at the church rather than residency in the parish."

The Office of Schools Adjudicators, according to its website, is appointed by the United Kingdom’s Secretary of State of Education, to perform such functions as mediating disputes over school acceptances. The Office's ruling on St. Joseph's will require the school to release a revised admissions policy, which is expected in the next few days.

Reprinted with permission from the Cardinal Newman Society.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook