US vs. Extreme Associates

November 3, 2004 | Posted in Editorial Features by jonnobot


Should it be permissible for consenting adults to watch (simulated) rape and snuff films in the privacy of their own homes? That's what the sensational headline of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's article on the Extreme Associates obscenity case seems to be asking—though of course the bigger issue is one of privacy and the right to pornographic expression in general, even if the material in question "manages to offend, disgust and/or alienate not just feminists, politicians and most Americans with a conscience, but a great percentage of the unshockable pornography industry as well". AVN reports EA's defense as "pleased" with the preliminary hearings in the case this week, although given recent election results and the prospect of another four years of Ashcroftian vigilance and censorship in the US, it looks like your right to watch films like "Ass Clowns" and "Extreme Teens #24" isn't guaranteed yet by any means.

"Rape, snuff films protected, defense argues" (
"Extreme Associates Get First Day In Court" (AVN)

See also: Extreme Associates Catalog (
"Porn provocateur" (EA cofounder/director Lizzy Borden profile @ Salon, 2002)
Thumbnail: Lizzy Borden (videography @ Adult Film Database)

Previously: Nitke Vs. Ashcroft, Ashcroft Video Project, Protect Your Porn, Obscenity, Then and Now, "Perversion For Profit", Larry Flynt Interview, "Re-Penetrator" Banned

Tagged in: