Judge refuses to view 'Deep Throat' in obscenity case, allows public screening

4.2.12 WC: 191694 After some legal argument, Judge Alberti declared that he was ready to see Deep Throat to decide whether it was obscene. I argued that the judge need not view the film: no matter what its content, I said, it would be unconstitutional for him to enjoin the showing of any film. If the D.A. thought the film was obscene, he could wait until it was exhibited and then arrest those responsible for its being shown. Judge Alberti insisted, however, on having Deep Throat screened for him. As the equipment was being wheeled in the courtroom, I informed the judge that I had no intention of watching the film. I was preserving an important point for any jury trial that the students might have in the future. I would tell the jurors that I had never seen Deep Throat because I had chosen not to, and that they had never seen Deep Throat because they had chosen not to. I would argue that the right to choose not to see a film is just as important as the right to choose to see a film. Indeed, most countries that prevent their citizens from seeing certain films also require their citizens to see other films. I would remind the jurors that it was the District Attorney who was making them see a film they had chosen not to see, in order to have them decide whether other people, who have also chosen not to see would be offended if they were to see it. I hoped, by this argument, to point out the absurd nature of the jurors’ task in an obscenity prosecution, and to get them to focus on the important issue —namely, whether the outside of the movie theater, the only thing that the unwilling public may have to endure, is offensive to those who cannot avoid it. Judge Alberti excused me from watching Deep Throat, and Stork, Hagen and I left the courtroom while the judge, half a dozen assistant D.A.’s, and a few court house personnel watched Linda Lovelace and Harry Reems on a small video machine. After about forty minutes Judge Alberti abruptly stopped the videotape and summoned us back into court. “I’ve seen enough,” he declared with a disgusted look on his face. Then, turning to me, he said, “You’re the lucky one. I had to sit through that trash.” The judge then declined to issue an injunction against the scheduled showing of Deep Throat, because although he regarded it as degrading both to men and women, he found that it was not obscene under the relevant Massachusetts standards. The film would be shown that night. When IJ arrived at Quincy House shortly before eight o’clock, a circus atmosphere prevailed. Hundreds of pickets marched outside urging potential viewers to stay away. There was some pushing and shoving. Slogans were shouted: “Freedom of the Press is not Freedom to Molest.” “Pornography is an incitement to violence.” I walked past the pickets and spoke to the assembled viewers and protesters: Whether you folks like it or not, you are part of a rather important political event...I am not here to either encourage or discourage the students who decided to see this film...Were I not involved in this lawsuit, I would be out there defending the rights of those picketers to...persuade you not to see this film. 114 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017201