The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Free Speech

"Suggestion of Sexual Conduct Alone Cannot Constitute Obscenity,"

whether as to anime, "great literature," "soap operas," or "internet memes."

|

From Bedtelyon v. State, decided today by the Indiana Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge Leeanna Weissmann joined by Judges Edward Najam and Nancy Vaidik:

Forbidden by the terms of his probation from accessing obscene material, Michael Bedtelyon landed in hot water with his probation officer after watching sexually suggestive anime cartoons. The court concluded the material constituted obscenity and revoked four years of Bedtelyon's suspended sentence. On appeal, Bedtelyon argues that the State failed to prove the videos constituted obscenity as defined by statute. We agree….

Bedtelyon was convicted of Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor for criminal acts he committed with a 14-year-old girl he met on a dating app. After serving part of his eight-year sentence, Bedtelyon was released on probation. As a term of his probation, Bedtelyon was "prohibited from accessing, viewing, or using internet websites and computer applications that depict obscene matter as defined by [the Indiana obscenity statute]."

Through software required by the terms of his probation, Bedtelyon's probation officer learned that Bedtelyon had viewed several anime videos on YouTube with concerning titles, including: My Mother and Sister Pretend to Be Expecting My Babies After I Lost My Memory; I Seduced My Cousin and Let Him Do Everything He Wanted; and I am the Seventh of Sextuplet Girls and I Am a Boy. After viewing these videos, Bedtelyon's probation officer determined they were obscene and therefore violated the terms of Bedtelyon's probation….

Statutory definitions shape our analysis. Per [the Indiana] statute [which tracks the First Amendment obscenity exception -EV], something is obscene if:

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the dominant theme of the matter or performance, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex;

(2) The matter or performance depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and

(3) The matter or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Sexual conduct is defined by statute to mean:

(1) Sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5);

(2) exhibition of the uncovered genitals in the context of masturbation or other sexual activity;

(3) exhibition of the uncovered genitals of a person under sixteen (16) years of age;

(4) sado-masochistic abuse; or

(5) sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) with an animal.

"'Other sexual conduct' means an act involving: (1) a sex organ of one … person and the mouth or anus of another person; or (2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object."  Finally, this Court has acknowledged that the word "depict" can mean "to form a likeness of by drawing or painting … to represent, portray, or delineate in other ways than in drawing or painting." A more recent Merriam-Webster entry defines "depict" as "to represent by or as if by a picture." It defines "describe" as "to tell someone the appearance, sound, smell, events, etc., of (something or someone): to say what something or someone is like" and "to represent or give an account of in words." …

The videos were not admitted into evidence, and we cannot determine that the court actually viewed them. Instead, the court relied on the testimony of Bedtelyon's therapist and probation officer who watched the videos and obliquely described the content. Their testimony reveals that the cartoons feature "provocatively dressed," though never naked, women. The animated characters all experience incestuous attraction. Overall, the evidence suggests that these videos might have erotic themes, are erotic in tone, and describe erotic feelings. But the State did not present evidence that sexual conduct as defined by statute was depicted or described, rather than merely implied.

In the first video, My Mother and Sister Pretend to Be Expecting My Babies After I Lost My Memory, the titular mother and sister pretend to care for their shared brother and son. Bedtelyon's probation officer testified, "At some point he impregnated them both and they were carrying his children." {Bedtelyon testified that neither woman was actually pregnant, which the video's title corroborates. Considering only the evidence in favor of the judgment, however, we accept Bedtelyon's probation officer's description here.} The sister "was clearly in love with him."  These details suggest that the video heavily implies incestuous sex but not that such sex was depicted or described. This is so even though two of the characters become pregnant. Without evidence that the video showed or recounted the act leading to conception, we cannot say the video depicted or described sexual conduct.

The second video, I Seduced My Cousin and Let Him Do Everything He Wanted, features an "attractive" sixteen-year-old girl telling a story about her crush on her sixteen-year-old male cousin. "After great efforts of trying to seduce [him], he ended up spending the night with her cuddling, kissing all over."  The two begin dating and wrangle with how to disclose their relationship to their family. Again, none of the actions depicted or described satisfy the statutory definition of "sexual conduct." "Kissing all over" could describe "other sexual conduct"—namely mouth to genital contact—but it could also describe behavior squarely outside the bounds of the Sexual Conduct Statute. Where multiple witnesses testified that the characters were never nude, and there was no testimony that any character exhibited their genitals, it is too great a deductive leap to determine that this testimony describes the sexual conduct the Obscenity Statute was intended to reach.

The third video, I am the Seventh of Sextuplet Girls and I Am a Boy, stars sextuplets, the seventh of which identifies as a boy. {Careful readers will notice that sextuplets are only six, not seven, siblings. The record contains no explanation for this discrepancy.} By the end of the video, two of his sisters fall in love with him.

They are feeling his bulgy muscles. They are continuously all over their brother to the point where they make him feel uneasy about the situation. They end up sleeping in his room … And I think at the very end of the video, the brother wakes up and actually finds his two sisters in bed with him. And, you know … they are sitting there smiling.

This video, too, fails to depict or describe anything more than implied sexual intercourse. That the sisters were "all over" their brother and "in bed with him" alone is not "sexual conduct" as defined by statute. The content is certainly suggestive, but suggestion of sexual conduct alone cannot constitute obscenity. If sexual suggestion alone triggered the Obscenity Statute, censors could train their scopes on clearly constitutional expression, from great literature to soap operas to internet memes.

 

Bedtelyon's probation officer conceded that the type of sexual conduct forbidden by statute was left to the viewer's imagination, describing the videos as largely "thought provoking" and "intended to … provoke … deviate thinking." Bedtelyon's therapist testified that the videos were concerning because their content "feeds that deviate fantasy."  But matters that encourage deviate thinking are not necessarily obscene—which Bedtelyon's probation officer also acknowledged when he testified, "I guess where I said obscene maybe doesn't necessarily make it illegal." Here, the probation officer is right. The United States Supreme Court has limited regulation of obscene materials to those that "depict or describe patently offensive 'hard core' sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law, as written or construed." …

In defense of the revocation, the State invokes Fordyce v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). In Fordyce, a bookseller was convicted of distributing obscene books that depicts or describes someone less than sixteen years old, a Class D felony at the time…. These books detailed "various sexual activities" between a mother and son, the "sexual experiences" a mother, her teenage daughter, and her daughter's friend have with two dogs, and a teenage boy who "shows up to engage in a sexual romp." The State argues that because the books in Fordyce were obscene, the videos Bedtelyon viewed are, too. After all, both feature incest and neither include pictures of nudity.

This argument glosses over what actually made the materials in Fordyce obscene. Per the Obscenity Statute, it was not only that the books featured incestuous attraction, but also that incestuous sexual conduct was depicted or described. Though Fordyce does not detail what acts are described in these books, the language our Court used implies sexual conduct as defined by our Sexual Conduct Statute, and the Court's finding of obscenity required such acts. Likewise, the issue of nudity is a red herring. The only relevant inquiry on appeal is whether these videos depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner. The State fails to meaningfully engage in this inquiry, instead broadly citing the probation officer's testimony of the sexually suggestive topics in the videos and making the conclusory assertion that "the probation officer described sexual conduct." We cannot infer that sexual conduct occurred from such a slim record

The State failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Bedtelyon violated his probation when it produced no evidence that he had accessed or viewed obscene videos—that is, videos depicting or describing sexual conduct in a patently offensive manner. The trial court therefore abused its discretion in finding a violation and revoking four years of Bedtelyon's suspended sentence….

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "After viewing these videos, Bedtelyon's probation officer" ... probably wished for a different job. Or maybe thought "best! job! ever!"

  2. I don't really understand why society is so hellbent on protecting the honor of fictional lines of ink and pixels. If anything this should be encouraged as an outlet instead of...you know actual people who are kinda more important don't you think?

      1. Davie, are you watching Sailor Moon naked again? Back to your room patient!

        1. Is Sailor Moon naked or is Davie naked?

        2. No idea. What are you saying, Queenie?

  3. When porn was legalized in Denmark in 1967, the rape of real women dropped 40%. In historical on-off experiment, child porn was legalized then prohibited. When it was legalized, the sexual abuse reports about real children dropped, and rose again after prohibition.

    If I were the probation officer of a sex offender, I would be forcing him to watch porn, to masturbate 5 times a day so he should leave real victims alone.

    But then, the lawyer is too stupid to understand that effect.

    1. " I would be forcing him to watch porn, to masturbate 5 times a day so he should leave real victims alone. "

      Your mother's technique Davie?

      1. Queenie, what is your preferred pronoun?

  4. In the meantime this guy has been sitters no innjai for the past six months. In my opinion they should now take six months off the remainder of his sentence.

    1. “In jail” not no innjai. I would say damn autocorrect but I done even know what it corrected to.

      1. Flights from Innsbruck to Jaipur (INN-JAI)?

        I am continually amazed by auto co wrecked and what happens when computers try to wreck a nice beach.

  5. The real question in cases like this is why probation conditions purport to prohibit people from looking at adult pornography.

    1. Bureaucrats get paid the same whether the rules make sense or not.

      1. One thing about prison and sentencing cases is because we are dealing with guilty defendants whom nobody (including courts) sympathize with, they become something of the dumping ground for pop psychology arguments that would never fly in cases involving a different kind of litigant.

      2. Yeah, Dilan has the issue right IMO. It's about peripatetic public support, not negligent administration.

        To be sure there are some spiteful/lazy/stupid bureaucrats but that should not be the assumption off the break.

  6. It is mindboggling and absolutely disgusting that so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyberstalking and online harassment.

    Rather, Eugene Volokh has tried his best to HARM victims of cyberstalking by trying to argue, incorrectly and foolishly, that online harassment and cyberstalking is "Free Speech". He fights for the "rights" of a bunch of criminals, sociopaths, and mentally ill malicious individuals who want to use the internet to ruin innocent victim lives.

    Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyber-stalkers and sociopaths. Instead, he works hard to protect the rights of these mentally ill criminals and leave victims with no legal recourse to regain their lives and stop this atrocious behaviour. Eugene basically supports the criminals.

    Who in their right mind thinks "Free Speech" should be abused by plainly malicious individuals who are often mentally ill and are purposely using the internet to harm the victims by revealing private, personal information (doxing) or slandering them online, or posting their personal private pictures?

    Rather than help the courts in the USA understand that cyber-harassment is NOT protected speech, Eugene Volokh has taken money ("bribes") from Google, Big Tech to peddle the false notion that harassment websites dedicated to tormenting a victim are "Free Speech" and "one-to-many speech." Eugene has disclosed that several of his "First Amendment" papers were funded by Google. Not surprisingly, all of his papers have concluded that Google should be able to do WHATEVER THE FUCK it wants while having no responsibility for removing harmful content and hosting cyberstalking webpages. Eugene's conclusions are highly likely to be result of bribes by Big Tech to try to sway the legal landscape in their favour at the expense of innocent American victims.

    Eugene is a dishonest lawyer and speaker taking bribes from Big Tech that favour lack of regulation and allowing crimes to take place online.

    Plainly, Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutism is dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyber-harassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish, totally ignoring the social harm of this type of criminal behaviour. Eugene Volokh seems blind to the reality that Free Speech especially on the internet needs to be balanced against other "rights", such as a victim's right to be free from harassment, right to be left alone, right of privacy.

    Sadly, Eugene Volokh completely (and purposefully) ignores the impact of these crimes to the hapless victims. He doesn't understand the nature of the internet yet poses as if he's some "First Amendment" expert.

    Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyber-harassment victims to file a civil suit against their perpetrators using a "pseudonym", to protect their privacy from even further harm. Rather than sympathizing with the unfortunate and undeserved situation of the victims and finding ways to help these people stop their attackers, Eugene dishonestly tries to argue that for the victim to file pseudonymously would be somehow "unfair" to the malicious defendant, a psychopath who DESERVES to be held accountable for his criminal and harassing behaviour.

    Eugene Volokh reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an agenda - to de-regulate Big Tech so they can maximize profits at the expense of making Americans totally unprotected from cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking by mentally ill individuals online. He probably gets a cut of this profit, at the expense of American victims of cyber-stalking.

    Try and refute me, Eugene Volokh. Everything I said was fact.

Please to post comments