Residents concerned with the Springer’s haphazard need to be forced to comply with federal obscenity laws regarding minor children may contact the Springer’s season sponsors.
COLUMBUS, Ga. — Evidence shows The Springer Opera House scrambled to become as legally-compliant as possible in the eleventh hour after originally planning to disregard federal obscenity laws altogether — but only after they had their feet held to the fire just days before their opening of an explicit adult-only show.
As revealed in our original article on April 17, 2023, the Springer originally made the conscious decision to permit children to attend the adult show instead without even so much as providing parents with a warning of the show’s content so they could decide for themselves if their child should attend.
Here’s the timeline and evidence showing how the Springer scrambled to avoid legal trouble after their abhorrent deception was exposed.
THE WALLS HAVE EARS
According to information provided by Springer insiders, internal communications revealed the Springer’s executive staff and box office were so concerned over the raunchy adult-only nature of the performance that they originally discussed requiring even adults to sign an in-depth waiver to attend.
The executive staff then trashed that idea entirely, feeling as if it would hurt sales too much and discourage people from attending.
Instead, the executive staff deliberately chose to include no warning whatsoever on any public-facing communications in hopes of increasing sales at the box office while simultaneously feeling as if they were “getting away” with the content of the performance — which is fairly sick to do, considering the plan deliberately involved conveying obscenity to minor children.
In doing so, the staff knowingly prevented parents from even having the option to decide for themselves if they wished to expose their children to the contents of the show. Instead, the Springer made that decision for them by withholding the information and not providing a prominently-displayed warning for parents to read prior to purchasing tickets.
Go look at the poster on the front of the building and show us where there is a warning. We’ll wait.
THE EXPOSÉ
When we at the Muckraker became aware of this vetted and verified information, we published an article exposing the Springer’s purposeful avoidance of disclosing the show’s content.
According to insiders with intimate knowledge of the play’s content, the performance was originally planned to include:
- Continuous mature themes, language and dialogue;
- Frequent use of sexual profanity;
- Graphic and prolonged real-world nudity;
- Strong simulated homosexual sexual acts.
A simple google of the play revealed the same. It was very clear that this was an adult-only performance, which explained the Springer’s original-but-disregarded plan to require even adult patrons to sign an in-depth waiver to attend.
The article exposed how the Springer failed to include any sort of information whatsoever on their website informing parents of the show’s content, as well as the several federal laws the theater was blatantly violating by failing to do so.
By not having even so much as a warning of what the play actually contained, the Springer merely made the “suggestion” that patrons be 16 years of age or older — though anyone would still be permitted to attend.
That is a blatant violation of federal law — and the Springer knew that, as shown in their earlier communications.
Their plan was to convey obscenity to minor children (18 U.S.C. § 1470) while using misleading words in their communications to hide the obscenity from potential viewers (18 U.S.C. § 2252C).
Once that was exposed, the Springer very quickly moved to cover up their actions — and not because they were learning some new legal information they didn't already have, but merely because they got caught.
THE FIRST PARLAY
On April 17, within mere hours after the publication of our first exposé of the Springer’s noncompliance with federal law, the Springer altered the webpage for the performance by including a “message from the producer.”
That last-minute “message” — conveniently hidden at the very bottom of the page — only contained a misleading statement saying: “With an adult theme (16+) it contains occasional language that some audiences may find objectionable.”
The message made no mention of the explicit sexual nature of the entire plot, the simulated sex scenes, nor the originally-planned nudity — all of which was sexually-controversial enough for the Springer to hire an Intimacy Director for the play’s production.
THE FOLLOW-UP ARTICLE
The following day on April 18, we published a follow-up article that listed the Springer’s season sponsors.
Given that the Springer was not being forthright with the public about the sexual content of their production, we advised our readers that their sponsors were likely completely unaware as well.
THE SECOND PARLAY
Within just a few hours of the publication of our follow-up article containing the contact information for the Springer’s season sponsors, the Springer snuck in an entirely new warning to their website.
Our article was published at 5:00 that morning. At 10:55, the Springer published a blog post that now stated the following, completely negating and contradicting the “message from the producer” that still remained published elsewhere on their website:
“(The Show) is rated 16+ for adult themes and language. Anyone under the age of 18 must be accompanied by an adult. ID REQUIRED AT THE DOOR.”
Prior to that publication, the Springer had not published any communication warning parents and patrons of such a requirement, nor of the show’s content.
In a mere 24 hours, and just two days before the opening show, the Springer moved through the following slew of inconsistent warnings throughout their website that all contradicted each other:
- No warning at all;
- “With an adult theme (16+) it contains occasional language that some audiences may find objectionable”;
- “(The Show) is rated 16+ for adult themes and language. Anyone under the age of 18 must be accompanied by an adult. ID REQUIRED AT THE DOOR.”
If that seems to suggest the Springer was purposefully misleading the public by hiding the content of the show in a way that prevented parents from knowing what they were bringing their kids to, you're right — because that’s exactly what it is.
THE INTIMACY DIRECTOR
Despite the Springer’s misleading lack of prominently-displayed warnings as required by federal law, the play’s original content was known by the Springer to be sexual enough to require what is known as an intimacy director.
According to Intimacy Directors and Coordinators (IDC), the premier organization for consent and intimacy training in the entertainment industry:
“An intimacy director or coordinator is a choreographer, an advocate for actors, and a liaison between actors and production for scenes that involve nudity / hyper-exposed work, simulated sex acts, and/or intimate physical contact.”
An intimacy director is not a standard hire for just any production. They are brought on in specific cases of nudity and sexual content that requires them.
The position is listed in the show’s playbill, though the bill also lacked any sort of warning about the show’s content.
Ask yourself: if the content of the play was intimate enough to require an intimacy director, why did the Springer choose not to inform parents of the play’s content?
The thing speaks for itself.
OPENING NIGHT REVIEWS
On April 20, the play’s premiere resulted in several patrons confirming that the nudity originally included in the production was not present in the show, though the very adult simulated sex scenes did remain.
Parents continued to stress that the show was absolutely an adult-only performance and children should absolutely not attend. Several patrons confirmed that children were denied entry after not being able to show ID proving they were of-age.
Isn’t it strange how that completely contradicts the Springer’s original claims of the performance being a family-friendly show by ‘suggesting’ patrons be 16 or older?
They moved to cover their behinds — quite literally.
Residents concerned with the Springer’s haphazard need to be forced to comply with federal obscenity laws regarding minor children may contact the Springer’s season sponsors.
Facts are stubborn things — and we’ll keep publishing them, whether Paul Pierce & Co. and city officials like them or not.
-30-
© 2023 Muscogee Muckraker. All rights reserved.
Be sure to follow Muscogee Muckraker on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter to see all the muck that’s fit to print as it breaks throughout the coming week.
