FBI on witch hunt campaign against renowned photographer

Scan page 3

of the 1990s that "comsymp" was in the tographer Rajiv Seth, with aid from "Photo1950s? It's possible. A rash of laws cover- graphy 501(c3)," are organizing a defense ing child pornography have been passed on fund to launch a counterattack. They will file both the state and federal levels. These laws a motion challenging the legality of the are Draconian and extend police powers to search and seizure. This will force the federal In 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled civil suit for damages will be filed. that child pornography is not entitled to Winning this case will be a great victory First Amendment protection. More recently, for the First Amendment. People are asked a federal appeals court ruled that the intent of to write The Semien/Sturgis Defense Fund, the photographer is not to be considered by a 2660 3rd St., #205C, San Francisco, CA jury. It has also been held that obscenity 94107. Telephone (415) 550-0719.

SOCIALIST ACTION OCTOBER 1990 3 By ROD The FBI is at it again. On April 25, 1990, not seeing any drug pushers on their doorstep that day in San Franciscó, these watchdogs of our moral purity launched a full-scale assault on artistic and intellectual freedom.

Joe Semien is a fine-arts photographer and also a superior photo-technician whose skills are widely used throughout the art community. Joe dropped off some negatives at a local lab for routine processing. It was there that a technician called the FBI, obediently following an FBI "directive" 10 report any "suspicious" material.

Soon "suspicious" became "pornographic," and the FBI informed the lab technician that they-and they alone-were the judges of what was pornographic and what was not. The negatives were seized.

Augmented by the city police, an FBI raiding party forcibly entered Semien's residence, handcuffed him, and did what they could to terrorize him for nearly three hours. He watched them remove all his equipment, negatives, and personal workbooks.

The FBI threatened Joe Semien with charges of producing "kiddy porn," waving in his face the negatives they had taken from the processing lab. At last, not believing that there was even a hint of bad taste in these casual photographs of naked women and children, Joe gave his tormentors the name and address of the photographer, Jock Sturgis.

Joe Semien went to jail, of course. And Jock Sturgis had to watch helplessly as the fruit of 20 years' work was carelessly tossed into boxes and sacks, scratched and scrunched —over a million negatives, a thousand 8×10 plates, his museum-grade prints, his camera and enlarger. Not stopping there, these champions of our morals also took his personal computer, all diskettes, diaries, and address and telephone books. They left the light bulbs and hand soap.

Sturgis was able to obtain counsel within hours, which probably saved him from jail. Semien was booked on one felony and 54 misdemeanors and had to pay a lawyer an enormous fee to obtain a suspension of the charges.

A campaign of slander Five months after the FBI raid, no charges have been brought against Sturgis. The federal prosecutor simply states that Sturgis is under continuing investigation for "child pornography."

In addition, the FBI is pursuing a nationwide campaign of slander by innuendo. Typically, a couple of agents visit a gallery selling the works of Sturgis and inform the management that Jock Sturgis is under investigation for child pornography. Then they ask the gallery managers whether they've seen anything like this, displaying some really sick photos. The photographs are not by Sturgis, of course, but the agents neglect to tell the gallery people that. Most gartues, uuwever, nave Icsisitu lIs anllariao harrariar harre raciotad thir pressure after a phone call to Sturgis.

Why has the FBI gone after such a well-known art photographer as Jock Sturgis, whose works are on view in over 200 art galleries and museums worldwide? No one seems to know except those inside the Justice Department. A lot of photographers have been frightened by this case and by the events around the Mapplethorpe exhibit.

The new bogeyman?

Is "kiddie nor" to become the bozevman unprecedented levels. laws concerning children can be much broader that those relating to adults and that prosecutors can determine what is "lewd" until a judge or jury finds otherwise.

The new (1986) federal law on the sexual exploitation of children covers almost any depiction of a naked child under the age of 18. Finally, it is not the child (or the pose) that is to be judged lascivious, nor the photograph, but the exhibition or intended exhibition of the photograph (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, March 18, 1987). Murt of Annasle March 18 10871 The artistic process may be interrupted. Negatives, internegatives, and proofs may be seized and used as evidence without any consideration of the artistic merit of what may become the finished artwork-and without allowing that the artist may discard the work. Almost every person in this country who uses a camera, sketches, or paints children could be searched and charged under this sweeping law.

To stop this threat. Jock Sturgis and nhoprosecutor to return all the materials. Then a