Adult entertainment industry lawyer Lawrence Walters told XBIZ that the real question of interest to the adult industry is whether or not the material meets the definition of obscenity.
Marcus’ site featured various scenes of hardcore bondage, torture, domination and humiliation, and it is speculated that these acts might influence the jury’s decision as to whether the content is legally obscene.
Walters said that the violence, bondage and humiliation was significant and that it would likely play on the jury’s emotions.
“The conviction rates on bizarre fetishes is higher than with mainstream stuff,” Walters said. “It’s easier to put together as obscene or illegal.”
Marcus’ attorney, Maurice Sercarz, was unavailable for comment at press time.
According to the New York Daily News, Sercarz said, “if the jury is willing to look beyond the bondage, dominance, sadomasochism context of this case, and examine the evidence, it will be very clear that my client is innocent.”
In order to prove Marcus’ content is not obscene, Sercarz will have to establish it has artistic or educational value. Walters said one of the ways Sercarz can do this is by proving the site was beneficial to viewers looking to learn BDSM techniques.
As for the forced labor dispute, two of Marcus’ past “slaves” are providing conflicting testimonies.
Both witnesses said they consented to the sex acts performed, but one claims she felt too afraid to decline and leave Marcus’s home. Her attorney, Pamela Chen, argues that her client was “made captive by the fear.”
According to Walters, this testimony will also enter into the jury’s psyches and affect the obscenity decision.