The Feds vs. Obscenity: Putting the First out of Business

By Corn-Revere, Robert | The Nation, September 26, 1988 | Go to article overview

The Feds vs. Obscenity: Putting the First out of Business


Corn-Revere, Robert, The Nation


Around midday on November 18, 1987, a jury in Federal court in Virginia decided that Dennis and Barbara Pryba were subject to the forfeiture provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for selling six obscene magazines and four videotapes. By nightfall, U.S. Marshals had padlocked the Prybas' three adult bookstores and eight videotape clubs.

The case presents the first use of the RICO statute in an obscenity prosecution. RICO empowers the government to sei"interests," including every property interest, connected to a racketeering enterprise. Originally adopted in 1970 to combat organized crime, the law was amended by Congress in 1984 to get at smut. The "racket" for which the Prybas were convicted involved the sale of obscene merchandise valued at about $105. For this, they forfeited businesses worth approximately $1 million, including all the stock and personal property in their stores, nine bank accounts, five vehicles and a warehouse. And that was before sentencing.

About one month after the jury's verdict, Judge T.S. Ellis 3d sentenced Dennis Pryba under the Federal anti-obscenity law to three years in jail plus five years' probation, added a fine of $75,000 and ordered him to perform 300 hours of community service. Barbara was given a three-year suspended sentence and ordered to pay $200,000. She has had to sell her house to comply. Ellis, a recent Reagan appointee, described the punishment as "lenient."

The judge rejected arguments that govermnent confiscation of the contents of bookstores restricts freedom of expression. He explained, "Once it is decided that obscenity does not merit First Amendment protection and indeed, once it is decided that obscenity is so pernicious that it should be criminally proscribed, then a subsequent punishment, like RICO's forfeiture scheme, is a sensible and wholly legitimate law enforcement weapon. It is specially designed to chill or deter proscribed, unprotected speech." [Emphasis added.]

This view of the First Amendment sounds grimly reminiscent of the logic of censorship articulated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissenting opinion in the 1919 case A brain v. United States. "Persecution for the expression of opinion seems to me perfectly logical," Holmes wrote. "If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away aB opposition." But Holmes concluded that the theory of our Constitution rejects such logic, and that "the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas."

Nevertheless, every few decades the nation's policymakers stumble upon some end that they believe justifies the most drastic means. Now it is "obscenity," Congress recently passed a law banning interstate transmission of so-called dial-a-porn services; the Federal Communications Commission has been transformed into the morals police of the airwaves [see The F.C.C. Cleans Up the Airways," The Nation, December 5, 19871; and the Justice Department now devotes substantial resources to dreaming up new ways to sanitize the nation's reading material. Although Federal courts are currently reviewing the dial-aporn law and have ordered the F.C.C. to reconsider part of its indecency policy, the bureaucratic drive to censor continues unabated.

These efforts have been assisted by vague Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of obscenity. In the landmark 1957 Roth v. United States, Justice William Brennan defined obscenity as material that deals with sex "in a manner appealing to prurient interest" and that lacks "even the slightest redeeming social importance." The standard was intended to fury protect the portrayal of sex in art, literature and scientific works while allowing government the latitude to go after certain "hard- core" materials. But as Justice William 0. Douglas warned in his dissenting opinion, such a test "is too loose, too capricious, too destructive of freedom of expression" and it "creates a regime where in the battle between the literati and the Philistines, the Philistines are certain to win.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Feds vs. Obscenity: Putting the First out of Business
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.