Obscenity bust in Connecticut?

[sarettah]

Or was it. Doesn't sound like the person busted knows what it was about and sounds like the cops might not know what it was about. The world just gets scarier and scarier

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...ticle&sid=9986

ENFIELD, CT – Michelle Silva thought that things were starting to settle down in her life. She was getting her finances in order and had found that selling home-made bondage videos through her website provided her with the economic independence she needed to accomplish her goals. She had her professional ducks in a row and was preparing for a successful and satisfying future.

In order to comply with all local laws, she possessed the appropriate business zoning permits. In order to comply with national 2257 regulations, she kept appropriate model documentation. Yet on the afternoon of Wednesday, November 16, she says that as many as 30 members of the Enfield Connecticut police force unexpectedly entered her home, repeatedly made derogatory comments about her lifestyle, and confiscated not only all of her computer and internet technology related possessions, but also every piece of bondage furniture and BDSM equipment likewise involved.

No arrests were made. So what happened?

“We can only speculate at this point,” her newly appointed attorney Daniel Silver told YNOT. “I know that they did not come in looking for child stuff – and there is no child stuff. The authorities admit that this is not a seizure for the purpose of child pornography.”

Could the seizure be related to an obscenity prosecution?

According to Silver, who was recommended to Silva by the Free Speech Coalition, there has not been an obscenity arrest in Connecticut in at least 20 years, which makes this situation all the more baffling.

Although the Enfield police department insists that it presented Silva with a search warrant, which would provide information about the reason for entering her home-based business, she insists that such is not the case. According to an email sent by Silva, the police insisted that they were “looking for something specific” and that they would present the warrant once that had been located.

Regardless of whether or not Silva was presented with a warrant, her attorney is clear about the fact the “at this point, I don’t have it. I have requested it and Ill get it, but needless to say, I’m not waiting for them to do that.”

Indeed Silver, a First Amendment attorney who exclusively represents members of the adult industry, says that “appropriate measures are in the process of being filed with the Superior Court in Connecticut seeking immediate return of all items seized.” As Silver explains, he views all confiscated items as “protected material,” which are covered by different laws from those concerning other forms of contraband.

Silver insists that nothing on Silva’s EmpressM.net website is unusual or extreme.

“I think the important thing is that it’s disturbing that in the state of Connecticut they would even bother with this type of situation because, as I indicated, there has not been an obscenity arrest in 20 years.”

[MorganGrayson]

Now, I fully admit my "law degree" came off repeats of "Law and Order," where they have to hand you the search warrant before their feet cross the threshold. The search warrants are limited to specific things, with the exception of "plain sight" items. (Don't leave the blood soaked butcher knife on the coffee table.)

I have relatives that live in Enfield. I remember it as a pretty little town.

With a very stupid police department.

I wonder what cop got caught with a membership to her site?

[TheEnforcer]

That lady should sue the living shit out of that town. That's so blantantly abusive of the consitution it's not even funny.

[Osiris]

America, america, it's such a disgrace to me, america, america.. FUCK IT!

[Nickatilynx]

What is the definition of obscene?

Community Standards?

Honestly , I am amazed there is not more busts in the US.

...throw in a DA with ambitions and away you go...

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

That lady should sue the living shit out of that town. That's so blantantly abusive of the consitution it's not even funny.

I'd be with you on that one if it wouldn't remove what shred of privacy or dignity she has remaining.

Of course, there is the "I've been outted, fuck it, now I'm going to be rich."

It's sad that being right doesn't mean a damned thing anymore. It's getting so that - unless you're on the short PC list of people who still *have* Constitutional rights - demanding protection under the Constitution gets you even more screwed.

It's like the "not establishing a religion, separation of church and state, yadda yadda" ammendment that got tossed out the window before there even was a window. All the people who sue, whatever for whatever, are right...but they manage to lose anyway.

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

What is the definition of obscene?

Community Standards?

Honestly , I am amazed there is not more busts in the US.

...throw in a DA with ambitions and away you go...

There is no definition of "obscene" and never will be.

We have communities that have racism and homophobia as "standards." Just the phrase "community standards" makes me ill.

The frigging Constitution and courts are supposed to protect the individual *against* "community standards."

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

There is no definition of "obscene" and never will be.

We have communities that have racism and homophobia as "standards." Just the phrase "community standards" makes me ill.

The frigging Constitution and courts are supposed to protect the individual *against* "community standards."

Sorry to be Devils advocate here...but do you really think the Constitution was written to allow people to endulge in BDSM and then sell the movies?

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by Nickatilynx

Sorry to be Devils advocate here...but do you really think the Constitution was written to allow people to endulge in BDSM and then sell the movies?

No. The Constitution, if read through carefully, is based on "contract law" and was written to protect businessmen. What I call "the Beloved Afterthought," the "Bill of Rights," was tacked on later because somebody went "oops, we don't have one and probably should have."

The ammendments are vague for a reason. The framers had no idea of what the future would hold. "Freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" was meant to protect people's right to speak/write for or against political issues. Later interpretations have made it what it is today.

And now we have the phrase "slippery slope," which is tossed around on a multitude of issues. To specifically answer your question, no, of course that's not what it was written for. However, it *must* protect things like BDSM or it won't be able to protect anything.

Either we all have rights, or nobody has rights. Damn shame sometimes, but there we have it.

[Nickatilynx]

hmmmmmm

Wonder if the search is an as a result of a complaint by one of the "actors"

30 cops raiding ...does not sound like a minor obscenity bust

[Robin]

Having a written constitution is an interesting thing - especially the Bill of Rights. In the UK there are all the laws telling you what you may *not* do and none at all telling you what you *may*. Theoretically this means that in the UK if it's not against the law it's legal. But in practise it means if someone doesn't like what you do they can find a way to make it illegal.

On the other hand, in the US it seems that allowing local decency rules etc to override the constitution removes those rights wherever a local community sees fit.

So I'm of two minds which system offers the more freedoms (if either - because the state always wins in the end )

[MorganGrayson]

Originally Posted by Robin

Having a written constitution is an interesting thing - especially the Bill of Rights. In the UK there are all the laws telling you what you may *not* do and none at all telling you what you *may*. Theoretically this means that in the UK if it's not against the law it's legal. But in practise it means if someone doesn't like what you do they can find a way to make it illegal.

On the other hand, in the US it seems that allowing local decency rules etc to override the constitution removes those rights wherever a local community sees fit.

So I'm of two minds which system offers the more freedoms (if either - because the state always wins in the end )

Robin...a long time ago, a British acquaintance was complaining about his future job opportunities, because he was "so old." I goggled, as we have laws protecting people from age discrimination. I goggled again because the man was only 40 years old. I couldn't believe that companies in Britain could discriminate on the basis of age...or that the age in question could be such a youthful one.

State laws can not, in fact, override federal ones, as a lot of "States Rights" advocates have repeatedly discovered.

The referendum for the use of medical marijuana passed easily in California. Implementing it has been difficult.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally Posted by MorganGrayson

Robin...a long time ago, a British acquaintance was complaining about his future job opportunities, because he was "so old." I goggled, as we have laws protecting people from age discrimination. I goggled again because the man was only 40 years old. I couldn't believe that companies in Britain could discriminate on the basis of age...or that the age in question could be such a youthful one.

Again ,They can't in theory , but they do in reality.

[Mike AI]

Bush's fault!

[JR]

uhm.... sorry to be the voice of reality here... but i dont see where "obscenity" has anything to do with this other than the fact that the author planted that suggestion.

call me silly, but 30 members of the police force came to her house? i would think that would have been a pretty well planned out operation and part of a long, ongoing investigation and they knew what they were after... and its probably a safe assumption that they were following all legal procedures.

funny everyone is ready to assume the government is evil and discuss constitutional rights of the alleged "victem" ... and no one was ready to assume she was producing child porn or selling heroin online... or picking up hitchhikers, photographing their murder and selling the pics.

the fact is... you have no information at all to make any assessment of what happened.. all you know is the basics of what did happen and no clue as to why.

the day i become so paranoid about my government and my own sense of freedom and security will be the day i put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger.

[sudden]

Originally Posted by JR

the day i become so paranoid about my government and my own sense of freedom and security will be the day i put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger.

Who gets to photograph when you pull the trigger and sell the pics?

[Dravyk]

JR, do you forget already, or did you not know about the entire Mike Jones saga with CD Babes and L&M Entertainment.

Because, well, I guess you don't know all about it or you would have shot yourself by now.

[JR]

Originally Posted by Dravyk

JR, do you forget already, or did you not know about the entire Mike Jones saga with CD Babes and L&M Entertainment.

Because, well, I guess you don't know all about it or you would have shot yourself by now.

hmmmm... you mean one more massive government conspiracy against the totally innocent that i dont know about? odd. are you now going to base an arguement on 1:1,000,000 possibilities and conspiracy theories?

i am simple commenting on the lunacy of the automatic assumption of a massive government conspiracy by a bunch of men in black and the ensuing discussion on that basis --- where no one even wants to know what the other side of the story is. sorry. hate to be a kill joy... but THERE IS another side to the story. just because some dumb twit comments to YNOT that she is innocent.. doesn't make it so.

i must have too little faith in humanity to automatically presume the complete innocence of someone who has 30 cops kick in her door. from my distorted and obviously wrong perspective, thats a big operation, obviously part of a big investigation into something that required a lot of planning... and its a lot to answer for by the department. those kind of mistakes will end several carreers.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by JR

i am simple commenting on the lunacy of the automatic assumption of a massive government conspiracy by a bunch of men in black and the ensuing discussion on that basis --- where no one even wants to know what the other side of the story is. sorry. hate to be a kill joy... but THERE IS another side to the story. just because some dumb twit comments to YNOT that she is innocent.. doesn't make it so.

i must have too little faith in humanity to automatically presume the complete innocence of someone who has 30 cops kick in her door. from my distorted and obviously wrong perspective, thats a big operation, obviously part of a big investigation into something that required a lot of planning... and its a lot to answer for by the department. those kind of mistakes will end several carreers.

I don't know about anyone else but the part that scares me about this shit is the no arrests made - They come in, seize a bunch of stuff and don't make an arrest ?

If it was a big operation that was part of a big investigation then I would think there would be arrests or at least something in the public record as to why ??

[JR]

Originally Posted by sarettah

I don't know about anyone else but the part that scares me about this shit is the no arrests made - They come in, seize a bunch of stuff and don't make an arrest ?

If it was a big operation that was part of a big investigation then I would think there would be arrests or at least something in the public record as to why ??

what "scares" you is rooted in the fact that you don't have adequate information about it. kinda what i have been saying.

[WebairGerard]

this whole thing is getting stranger by the minute. Big Brother is not just watching he is right up our ass!

[MorganGrayson]

JR...you have several fair and rational points in your argument. The last paragraph wasn't necessary to make them and detracted from your argument.

"Being paranoid" about our governement and our own sense of security isn't based on this article. It's based on a *lot* of information on other subjects.

Sarettah is right, though. Even cutting the number of police officers in half for hyperbole, that many cops showing up at someone's door usually results in an arrest. It doesn't take that many to serve a warrant, especially on someone who is not suspected of being armed to the teeth.

The article is slanted, like most articles. Insufficient data is given to draw an accurate conclusion. I, like many, took the article to be "the total facts," and shouldn't have.

The last I saw of Enfield, admittedly decades ago, I wouldn't have thought they'd have a police department big enough to dedicate 30 officers to something like this.