Dynadot

Webmasters Of Poop Site Sent To Prison

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

RJ

Domain BuyerTop Member
Impact
3,028
Jail Terms and Fines Issued For Internet Obscenity Case
>> Scott Ross

December 20, 2003

BECKLEY, W.Va. - On Friday a federal judge sentenced the people behind an adult Website that sold defecation and urination videos and DVDs to jail terms, ending one of the first federal obscenity cases involving the Internet.

Michael J Corbett and his ex-wife Sharon Bates, who were married when running the site in question, had pled guilty to one count each of mailing obscene material in August.

The Associated Press reports that U.S. District Judge David Faber on Friday sentenced Corbett to 18 months in prison, a $30,000 fine and three years of supervised release. Bates was sentenced to 13 months in prison, a $10,000 fine and three years of probation.

The couple had run the Website GirlsPooping.com, where they sold titles such as Outdoor Pooping Paradise, which showed ten women defecating outdoors, and an enema tape called Simone’s Daddy’s Little Girl.

The Corbett’s had earned $70,000 in three months, shipping out six to 30 orders a day through the U.S. mail. GirlsPooping.com offered 53 titles.

United States Postal Service Inspectors were responsible for investigating Girlspooping.com, starting in January of this year. By March, they had enough information to obtain an indictment from a federal grand jury against everyone involved with the site.

Faber also sentenced the Webmasters for the site, Joseph Tanner and Randall Rogers, who maintained the site through their company Tdigital Services, Inc. The company shared in the profits of the Website.

Tanner will spend 13 months in prison and pay a $20,000 fine, while Rogers was sentenced to three years' probation.

Each of the charges could have led to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000.

According to the Associated Press, Faber cited both Rogers' minor role in the crime and a physical condition that confines him to a wheelchair as reasons for his lesser sentence.

Tanner and Rogers each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to mail obscene material and conspiracy to use the Internet for the purpose of sale and distribution of obscene material.

The Corbett and Bates had previously forfeited $15,010 seized from their bank accounts, the domain name associated with their website, and all obscene materials and equipment used to produce or manufacture obscene materials. They also agreed to pay the United States $60,000 in lieu of forfeiting their home, which was used in the sale of obscene materials.

Joseph Tanner forfeited $80,000 and all obscene materials and equipment used to produce obscene materials.

Source: http://www.avnonline.com/issues/200312/newsarchive/news_122003_1.shtml
 
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
what the f***?

first, that is sick and nasty.

second, glad they stopped sending that.

third, it is worrisome what people do on their own is so closely monitored and that is scary. I dont know what is obscene if people requested it and paid for it. I would like to look over that law.
 
0
•••
That was one sick thing on the net that came to an end.
There are lots more to get rid of.
 
0
•••
I don't understand why it was such a bad thing. If they were sending this stuff without people ordering it, thats one thing, but if people pay for it, then it means they want it.

The whole thing is disgusting, don't get me wrong, but I think they have the freedom to sell what they want.

Just look at the porn industry, people say it's sick and twisted, but people are still allowed to sell it.
 
0
•••
I'm with Kode on this subject 100%

Mike
 
0
•••
OMG that is the nastiest thing i have ever heard
 
0
•••
Oh s***.I think phrone ordered himself a copy .
LOL
 
0
•••
As the saying goes, to each thier own, whom are we to judge...
 
0
•••
0
•••
What a stinky ending

:bah:
 
0
•••
Er, it's one thing to get the pervs and those who purvey such disgusting fare.. but it's quite another to consider this type of obscenity criminal isn't it? No one was apparently kidnapped, hurt; nothing was stolen, vandalled, maligned, etc. etc...?

Quick run for cover, the Puritans are coming!
 
0
•••
Sounds like this news is disgusting on many levels for most of you? I would also like to find the text on this law.
 
0
•••
well a think the acts being taped/sold are disgusting. I dont have any opinion on the people purchasing the viseos or the people making them . If thats what gets them off so be it . I cant see where it would be illegal to send this stuff thru the mail . Is it illegal to poop outside and tape it then sell it for a profit . Well i guess it is . I could see where it may be illegal to sell adult material from a home that is not zoned commercial .


Why would it be legal for GGW to sell tapes ...Im sure tons of older people would concider those videos to be very obscene. I agree with RJ . I would like to see the test on that law as well
 
0
•••
That is sick. Those people must be retarted.
 
0
•••
I nearly shit my pants when I read this
 
0
•••
I hope you took some pics Sharpy, they might be worth $ :lol:
 
0
•••
Originally posted by Tippy
I hope you took some pics Sharpy, they might be worth $ :lol:

:lol:
 
0
•••
Tippy: Laughing so hard I almost wet myself (I guess those wouldn't be worth as much, would they?!) :lol:
ST
 
0
•••
The verdict stinks and the judge is full of crap!

The defendants should not have pleaded guilty but rather, should have claimed freedom of expresssion; they should have challenged it.
 
0
•••
Originally posted by Tippy
I hope you took some pics Sharpy, they might be worth $ :lol:

I said nearly, but I guess I could send pics to ratemypoo.com
 
0
•••
>>The Corbett’s had earned $70,000 in three months, shipping out six to 30 orders a day through the U.S. mail. GirlsPooping.com offered 53 titles.<<

lol, good god...

Talking about a great ROI!
 
0
•••
While most of us probably find the subject matter they dealt in fairly distasteful, as said above what business is it of government to say what people can or cannot look at / buy?

First, its not like some kid came across this site looking for cartoonnetwork or disney ... there was no misrepresentation of contents of site.

the question is where does the line get drawn with these people tellling us what we can and can't look at or do. And then jailing and excessively fining us for what they don't approve of. Its a crock of sheeet...

No loss to the world when this site disappeared but there is a loss of freedom of speech.
 
0
•••
Maybe the Civil Liberties Union should spend more time defending crap and less time harassing schools for having "Christmas" celebrations..
 
0
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back