HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017195.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

the warning to evildoers in Romans 13:4, that God had appointed ministers on earth to carry out his wrath against them. He believed it was his mission to conduct “search and destroy” operations against the porno industry. As a prosecutor of pornography, he had already secured more than forty convictions.

Many observers saw the decision to bring Reems to trial as evidence of Parrish’s creativity. As a Memphis lawyer, familiar with Parrish, put it: “Parrish figured that putting an actor on trial was the way to get publicity [and] a man is less likely to pick up public sympathy than a woman.” Parrish acknowledged that his purpose in prosecuting Reems was to made it clear that no one involved with a porno film was immune from criminal liability.

Reems came to see me after he had been convicted and was facing years in prison. He wanted me to argue his appeal. He told me he had no money and asked me to take his case on a pro bono basis. I agreed. I told him I preferred not to watch the film and explained to him my theory of “choice” and “externalities,” but assured him that I would make every argument that had any chance of freeing him.

There’s an old saying that goes this way: “If you have the law on your side, bang on the law. If you have the facts on your side, bang on the facts. If you have neither the law nor the facts on your side, bang on the table.” I have never believed that, but I do believe in a variation on that theme: If you don’t have the law or legal facts on your side, argue your case in the court of public opinion. In the Reems case, the Memphis jury had rejected Reems’ factual defense, and the judge had rejected his legal defense. The Supreme Court had rejected my “choice” and “externality” approach. I continued to believe, however, that the broader general public, or at least the most influential segment of the public, would be sympathetic to my libertarian approach to obscenity and free speech, especially in the context of an actor who was being prosecuted. Reems, to be sure, was not Helen Hayes or Marlin Brando, but to make the point that the principle was the same, we adopted the following slogan: “Harry Reems today, Helen Hayes tomorrow.” We made a determined effort to elicit support from the mainstream entertainment industry and from the media.

We succeeded in getting The New York Times to cover the case. Its initial story told how the Reems prosecution was first seen “as a joke,” but is now being understood “as a very serious issue”:

With Mr. Dershowitz as the lead lawyer and the American Civil Liberties Union and other prominent groups and individual prepared to help, Mr. Reems has some of the country’s most impressive legal talent working on his appeal.

He also has the support of some of the country’s best known entertainers: Colleen Dewhurst, Ben Gazzaza, Mike Nichols, Stephen Soundheim…Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson and Gregory Peck.

As Mr. Dershowitz interprets the Deep Throat case, “Any person who participates in any way in the creation, production, editing or distribution of a sexually explicit film,

108

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017195