Court Opinion

ID: 9659917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:58:26.585381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:12.925574
License: Public Domain

Mues, Judge,
concurring.
From my personal viewpoint, Harrold’s videotape was bizarre and disgusting. That it was indiscriminately offered to television viewers enhances its offensiveness to me, but I am mindful that how it was distributed does not, as a matter of law, change the crime or make obscene that which is legally not obscene.
The first 1472 minutes can best be described as unintelligible garble. It reminds me of a small child’s making weird faces and sounds while peering in a mirror believing no one to be watch*872ing. Frankly, that anyone (with a choice) could sustain interest in the videotape long enough to get to the last 90 seconds would amaze me. But I digress.
The last 90 seconds of this videotape shows a male clown masturbating. Is this obscenity? Viewed from a dictionary’s definition of the term, it may be, although “absurd” seems the more fitting description when viewing the work as a whole. However, it is arguably indecent, tawdry, and uncouth. Nonetheless, personal disgust and dictionary definitions are not the benchmarks of our standard of review, rather, we are bound by the First Amendment and the definitions and standards promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Nebraska Supreme Court, and the Nebraska Legislature.
Applying those standards and definitions, Harrold’s videotape is not obscene. I therefore concur in the result reached by Judge Sievers’ well-reasoned opinion.