Obscenity case can proceed

[mongo]

Obscenity case can proceed
By Jason Cato
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, December 9, 2005

A federal appeals court Thursday reversed a lower court's decision to dismiss obscenity charges against a California couple who produced and distributed pornographic videos depicting rape and murder.

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, who argued the case before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, praised yesterday's ruling and said the case will now go to trial.

<snip>

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster dismissed 10 charges against Zicari, Romano and their company, rejecting the government's arguments that it had the right to restrict distribution of obscene materials to protect minors and those who do not want to be exposed to it.

In 2002, an undercover U.S. Postal Service inspector bought pornographic videos through Extreme Associates' members-only Web site. Titles of the videos included "Lizzie Borden's Forced Entry" and "Extreme Teens No. 24." Lancaster said technological devices can restrict access to Web sites and shield those who do not want to be exposed to such material.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_402201.html

Here's a better article than the main stream press can provide:

Extreme Associates Loses Obscenity Appeal, Court Ducks Privacy Issue in Reversing Lancaster

<snip from middle of article>

The decision is a setback for the adult entertainment industry, since obscenity laws are based on subjective tests that make it virtually impossible to know what kind of content is allowed and what kind of content is outlawed. Obscenity laws are a favorite of anti-porn “family values” censorship groups like Morality in Media and The American Family Association, who regularly lobby the federal government for more content-based prosecutions and imprisonments.

Adult industry attorney Jeffrey Douglas, who is also Chairman of the Free Speech Coalition, told YNOT that while the decision is not a best case scenario for the adult industry, there is some cause for optimism. According to Douglas, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals completely ducked the privacy issues raised by Sirkin, as well as the First Amendment issues raised by several other groups, and instead overturned Lancaster on procedural grounds.

“It’s both disappointing and encouraging,” Douglas explained. “It’s disappointing that they did not address the important issues raised by the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas as to either privacy as argued by Extreme Associates or the First Amendment issued as argued by Free Speech Coalition, First Amendment Lawyers Association or ACE. On the other hand, it’s encouraging that they did nothing to suggest that the merits of those arguments are wrong. They just said procedurally the question should not be answered by anyone but the United States Supreme Court.”

(WARNING -- from an adult industry news site, may contain explicit advertising, blah, blah, blah)
http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=10012&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

My guess at this point is that the SC will treat this like a hot potato and do everything it can to NOT hear this case.

[bluestateguy]

1. big government conservatism at work

n/t

[Deep13]

2. Look! Look! Look over here at the shiney thing. OoooH!

No, pay no attention to Cheney's war profits. Oooh. Bad pictures! Real bad. What? Do you support rape and murder?! Global warming is not real. Shiney thing! Isn't it pur-ty? Who needs medical care anyway? You don't want these nast porn types ensnaring your daughter do you?

[mongo]

3. Yep - and take a look at the first article that came out from the AP

Appeals court reinstates obscenity charges against porn sellers

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/13361510.htm

I won't quote the article at length, but check out these fine examples of yellow journalism.

But U.S. District Judge Gary L. Lancaster ruled that prosecutors had overstepped their bounds by trying to block the material from children and adults who did not want to see it inadvertently.

No one has EVER said that CHILDREN should have access to this material. DANIEL LOVERING of the Associated Press is making judge Lancaster look like some kind of pedophile here.

The federal government has stepped up obscenity prosecutions under the Bush administration, with dozens of people indicted since 2001. That number far exceeds the number of cases pursued under former President Bill Clinton.

Know why the number FAR EXCEEDS the number under Clinton? There were exactly ZERO prosecutions of adult obscenity under Clinton. Clinton took this unit of the FBI and focused it on CHILD PORN. But if he had said Clinton did zero, it would have raised doubts that these kinds of cases are valid.

Daniel Lovering is a fucking hack. I hope he googles himself and finds this.