Offline
Are we just moving past his child pornography conviction? I’m not shedding any tears
was charged with misdemeanor possession of obscene material improperly depicting a child under the age of 18 in sexual conduct.[77] The district attorney looked at Reubens's collection and computer and found no grounds for bringing any felony charges against him, while the city attorney, Rocky Delgadillo, formally charged Reubens on the last day allowed by statute.[78] Reubens was represented by Hollywood criminal defense lawyer Blair Berk.[79]
In December he pleaded not guilty through Berk, who also complained that the city attorney failed to turn over evidence to the defense, to which City Attorney Richard Katz countered that prosecutors were not required to do so until after arraignment. Later, evidence was secured by the defense. Neither side disclosed its contents.[80]
In March 2004, child pornography charges were dropped in exchange for Reubens's guilty plea to a lesser misdemeanor obscenity charge. For the next three years, he was required to register his address with the sheriff's office, and he could not be in the company of minors without the permission of their parent or legal guardian.[29]One thing I want to make very, very clear, I don't want anyone for one second to think that I am titillated by images of children. It's not me. You can say lots of things about me. And you might. The public may think I'm weird. They may think I'm crazy or anything that anyone wants to think about me. That's all fine. As long as one of the things you're not thinking about me is that I'm a pedophile. Because that's not true.
Reubens later stated that he was a collector of erotica, including films, muscle magazines, and a sizable collection of mostly homosexual vintage erotica,[1] such as photographic studies of teen nudes.[29] Reubens said that what the city attorney's office viewed as pornography he considered to be innocent art, and that what they described as people underage engaged in masturbation or oral copulation was, in fact, a judgmental point of view. Reubens described the nude images as people "one hundred percent not" performing sexual acts.[29]
Being an avid collector, Reubens often purchased bulk lots, and one of his vintage magazine dealers declared that "there's no way" he could have known the content of each page in the publications he bought, and he recalled Reubens asking for "physique magazines, vintage 1960s material, but not things featuring kids".[1]