Byte-Sexual: Recognizing the evolving relationships with our electronic devices

Does the virtual assistant on your smartphone just “get you”? For many smart phone users, interacting with a natural speech-recognizing, intelligent, digital assistant – ever-present on their devices – has become a way of life. It was impossible to imagine just a few years ago that we would become a society dependent on our bots, for everything from driving to a place we’ve never been to seeking out the latest movie reviews.  Perhaps predictably, some individuals prefer interacting with artificial intelligence over human beings.  Others have even developed ‘feelings’ for their digital devices.  Yes, there is even a name for such a fetish: mechanophilia.

For the past several years, the popular online dating website Match.com has been defending a lawsuit alleging that the company utilizes fake user profiles in order to encourage real members to renew their subscriptions. The suit also claims that Match does not adequately vet their profiles, and that the site may be filled with hundreds of profiles that are inactive or scams.

The concept of interacting with a ‘bot’ or artificial intelligence is not new.  Many of us have clicked a ‘live chat’ help button, only to quickly realize that we were ‘speaking’ with a computer program designed to help resolve our issue before a paid employee was required to spend time figuring it out.  But the technology driving modern artificial intelligence like Apple’s Siri is astounding – and only getting better.  Soon it may be difficult to discern the difference between live chat with a human being as opposed to a programmed bot.  For website users seeking purely online interaction or flirtation, the distinction may be unimportant.

The use of ‘virtual’ or ‘fantasy’ profiles is not new (or unique) to the online dating world, but recently the government has begun to question whether this practice is “fair” or “deceptive.”    But is there anything inherently ‘wrong’ with individuals flirting with bots or artificial intelligence?  Is it possible that some socially awkward or shy individuals may actually prefer virtual relationships rather than the thought of real human interaction?

Director Spike Jonze recently released his film “Her,” staring Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson, about a man who falls in love with his operating system. Eventually, the OS, who goes by “Samantha,” tells the main character, Theodore, that she must leave (along with all the other operating systems). The implication is that the incredible number of relationships she was having with humans became too much for her and that she and the other systems no longer wanted to be among humans.

The question seemingly posed in the film was why any human would choose interaction with a bot over interaction with another human. A more relevant question might be:  must we question why?

Many of the online dating websites using virtual profiles do so with full consumer disclosure, including statements on landing pages, in user agreements, and through distinct labels placed on the profiles and any messages they may send. Despite the disclosures, millions of individuals willingly interact with these programs, and apparently enjoy the process.  The role of the government in regulating, or even prohibiting, this form of entertainment must be questioned.

This issue has increasingly made headlines.  Just this month, a man petitioned the State of Florida to allow him to lawfully wed his laptop computer. In the case of Chris Sevier, the laptop wasn’t exactly his original object: His computer was filled with porn and due to this, he claims he “fell in love” with his computer and began “preferring having sex” with it over living persons. Sevier, in fact, argued that his “love” for his computer should be validly recognized by the court. While an extreme and perhaps humorous example, this case is illustrative of a trend on the horizon that can no longer be ignored: People are developing relationships with their digital devices and programs.

Maitresse Madeline, a fetish webcam model, has also spoken out about this very issue. Earlier this year, a man paid $42,000 for a single webcam session with her. Madeline believes that this exorbitant sum can be explained by the fact that individuals are actually paying for the virtual relationship, not paying in spite of it. According to CNET, Madeline told Kinky.com, “They’re often paying for the ambiguity that a Webcam relationship can create and that relationship over Webcam is, essentially, their fetish.”  Sometimes, it seems, virtual relationships on the Internet are exactly the experience users seek. Madeline went on; “They often want to be whoever they can dream up over the Internet and prefer to only have a relationship online.”

This new world of virtual love has already been alluded to within the confines of the law. Michael Froomkin, a law professor at the University Miami, leads an annual conference called We Robot,” where the goal is simply to get people thinking about the legal implications of a world with robots in it. According to Froomkin, it’s not unusual for technology to get ahead of the law.  “You design stuff to make it work and you don’t think a lot about the legal and social consequences,” Froomkin told NPR. “So by the time the lawyers get in the room, the standards are already baked and the stuff is already deployed.”

Froomkin’s point is a valid one and has played out repeatedly, as the law lags behind technology. Although we may be years off from a fully functional, human-like bot with a deeply developed personality like “Samantha,” we do currently live in the world of Siri’s and virtual profiles. The future of bots may not be here just yet, but who’s to judge how humans should be permitted to interact with the bots of their choice? The one aspect that distinguishes humans from bots is free will.  As creatures born with free will, should we not have the choice to interact with, and be entertained by, our digital creations?

Isaacs Obscenity Case & Life Without Miller

In a not-so-surprising, albeit disappointing, decision affecting the adult entertainment industry, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the obscenity conviction of fetish producer, Ira Isaacs. Isaacs was originally charged with violating federal obscenity statutes in 2007, after the distribution of several of his fetish films via U.S. mail.  Isaacs’s 2008 trial was placed on hold and eventually resulted in a mistrial, amid judicial controversy.  Judge Alex Kozinski, who presided over the obscenity prosecution, recused himself within days of commencing the trial, after it was discovered that the Judge had been maintaining a personal humor website exhibiting sexually explicit images.  After another attempt to try the case in 2011 was delayed when prosecutors added more charges, the Isaacs case eventually went to a full trial in March of 2012. For a second time, however, a mistrial was declared after jurors deadlocked on the verdict, 10-2 in favor of the government. The case was tried for a third time in April of 2012, which resulted in conviction and is the basis for the recent appeal.

In general, the Obama administration has been decidedly less interested in obscenity prosecutions than was its Republican predecessor. Since 2009, the administration’s prosecutors have tried only two adult obscenity cases, in contrast to the volumes of obscenity prosecutions that took place under President George W. Bush. Notably, Obama’s Department of Justice has not initiated any of its own obscenity prosecutions, but merely followed through with pending cases initially filed by the prior administration.

Isaacs’ most recent, unsuccessful appeal relied more on procedural due process arguments, as opposed to disputing his guilt of violating obscenity laws.  The numerous due process claims were rooted in allegations of uncertainty directly related to the Miller Test; specifically, the concept of “prurient interest” as set out in the first prong of the test. According to the ruling, the District Court adopted a proposed jury instruction defining an “appeal to ‘prurient interest” as “an appeal to a morbid, degrading, and unhealthy interest in sex.” After a question was posed by a juror, the Court revised the instruction to read “morbid, degrading or unhealthy.” Isaacs argued that the change “undermined the credibility of his lawyer,” as the attorney, in closing argument, referred to the original instruction. The District Court rejected this contention, finding that the attorney had in fact used both formulations of the instruction during argument so it was “unclear how the revision might have implied to the jury that Isaacs misled it as to applicable law.” Further, the District Court noted that while Isaacs argued that it was error for the Court to correct the instruction, there was an obligation on the Court to clarify issues for the jury, so that they did not abuse their discretion in doing so.

The 1973 case Miller v. California established the standard that is still used today for what defines obscenity. The Miller test, as it is known, has three essential prongs:

1. Whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest
2. Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law and
3. Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value

Miller has been a source of controversy and debate in the adult industry, since its inception.  The difficulty with the average juror understanding and applying the inherently vague terms of the Miller test can produce unpredictable results.  Unfortunately for Isaacs, the odds were against him from the beginning, given the nature of the content at issue.  Scat material has typically been some of the most difficult to defend, and explain to juries who tend to be shocked when exposed to the content.  While some fetish material has survived obscenity prosecution, this case resulted in a conviction, and now an affirmance on appeal.

Any time an adult industry participant is convicted of obscenity, discussions ensue regarding the continued viability of the Miller test in today’s world, and whether the industry should support a constitutional challenge to the test.  Given the Supreme Court’s repeated validation of the Miller test for obscenity, even in recent years, it is unlikely to be changed any time soon. But even if the Court was inclined to replace the current obscenity test, the question becomes: With what? Outright abandonment of the well-entrenched concept of obscenity laws is an unlikely result of any such case brought to the Supreme Court, despite some of the encouraging language in Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.  If the challenge was based on the claim that the Miller test was insufficiently clear for common understanding, one could envision the Court handing down a crystal clear, bright-line prohibition on the depiction of specific sex acts, fetish behavior, or BDSM activity, under the guise of more clearly defining obscenity for adult content producers.  In situations like this, it is always wise to reflect on what the parties are really asking for – because they might just get it.

While Miller suffers from its vague concepts and outdated language, it has provided opportunities for creative arguments, and stunning victories.  While the test is difficult on defendants, it is equally difficult for prosecutors, who are used to well-defined criminal offenses that are not dependent on notions of societal tolerance or considerations of literary value.  Obscenity prosecutions have dwindled to a virtual halt in modern times, and the difficulty in applying the Miller test in today’s society may be partially to thank.  The “community standards” element suffers from outdated concepts of unified values and social mores based on geography, which arise from something out of Andy Griffith or Leave it to Beaver.  Today, neighbors have more in common with their Facebook friends spread out across the world than they do with their neighbor – most of whom they never met.  Fortunately, the decision in U.S. v. Kilbride recognized this inherent weakness of using local community standards, and required juries to apply national standards – at least in online obscenity prosecutions.  With tweaks like these, Miller may be more of a benefit than a hindrance to producers of erotic content, as compared to some other bright line test.  Certainly, all obscenity laws are forms of censorship, and antithetical to First Amendment values.  The Miller test does little to logically separate specific types of content from constitutionally protected speech.  However, it may be as good as it gets for the time being, even if it results in the stray, unfortunate conviction.

So what’s next for Ira Isaacs and obscenity prosecutions?  Isaacs recently petitioned the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear his case, with his lawyer arguing, among other things, that the case was not given the “special care that the First Amendment requires.” The likelihood of Isaacs’ petition for rehearing being granted, however, is slim. Assuming it is denied, the chances of the Supreme Court accepting the case are not promising, either.   However, should the Court take interest in the case, it would likely be for the sole reason of again affirming the viability of the Miller obscenity test. For Isaacs and his counsel, they have every reason to try, and should not be faulted to doing everything in their power to undo the conviction.  But in the off chance that the Supreme Court takes the case, it’s time to buckle up.  If the decision results in anything other than a re-affirmance of Miller, things could get dicey.

Perhaps the Isaacs case will be the last federal obscenity prosecution for a while, as the futility of reigning in the human desire for sexual expression begins to set in for the DOJ.  But as long as we have laws on the books that permit the government to put people in cages for making movies involving consenting adults, the guardians of liberty must remain ever-vigilant.