http://bootytape.com
http://webop.me
http://deviloid.net
http://pornbay.org
http://torrents.empornium.me

In First Amendment jurisprudence, at least, no work is presumed to be obscene — in fact, it is the opposite: all creative works (outside of patently illegal depictions like child porn) are presumably protected by the First Amendment, and are assumed to NOT be obscene until after the trier of fact, be it a judge in a bench trial or a jury, determines them to be such.

Wong may have a problem here, in that none of the works in question have even been indicted as obscene, much less determined to be obscene through a fully adjudicated trial. I’m not a civil litigator, so I suppose it is possible that there’s some twist of civil litigation that would allow the judge/jury in this case to determine that the works are obscene, but I sort of doubt it, as obscenity is a criminal matter.