Steve Sweet Goes To Trial

Angus Fitzpatrick

Vancouver, BC – The head of Canadian based Sweet Entertainment Group (www.sweetentertainment.com), Steve Sweet, will go to trial next Monday, February 16th, 2004 in Vancouver, British Columbia on charges of making and distributing obscene material contrary to s.163 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The case is centered on the Crown’s allegation that eleven video vignettes produced by Sweet are obscene under Canadian law. The videos consist of one Pee Lovers scene, two Miss Pain scenes, and eight Sado Slaves scenes. With the exception of the Pee Lovers scene, the performances in question all document bondage and discipline/sado-masochistic play.

The Crown alleges that the videos are obscene because they combine explicit sex with cruelty, and violence, which is statutorily prohibited in Canada under s. 163 (8) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Sweet will be launching a vigorous defense to the charges including leading expert evidence regarding the popularity of BDSM, the safe, sane and consensual nature of the acts depicted in the vignettes, and the unlikelihood of any substantial risk of harm. Live Internet demonstrative evidence will also be tendered at trial concerning the popularity, ease of availability and sheer number of BDSM websites since the World Wide Web came into its own.

The case will raise new and important issues concerning contemporary Canadian community standards, over what Canadians will tolerate other Canadians viewing, which is one aspect of the obscenity test set out in the seminal Supreme Court of Canada decision Regina v. Butler – which was decided in 1992, well before the explosion of adult-based entertainment on the Internet.

The trial is presently scheduled to last for as long as six weeks, and further information will be forthcoming at the conclusion of the trial. In the meantime, Sweet Entertainment Group will continue to provide cutting edge adult entertainment to its many members and customers as Mr. Sweet rises to meet this important legal challenge.