If we had a legal forum

[chadknowslaw]

If we had a legal forum, we could talk about the US District Court's ruling in this case:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=465812&rfi=6

A federal judge dismissed obscenity charges Friday against a California pornography business, finding obscenity statutes unconstitutional in the case.

Because people have a right to view such material in the privacy of their own home, there's a right to market it, U.S. District Court Judge Gary L. Lancaster said in dismissing the case against Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., and their company, Extreme Associates.

Lancaster said prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the material from children and from adults who didn't want to see such material inadvertently.

The judge also found that the state cannot ban material simply because it finds it objectionable, based on the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2003 ruling that struck down a state ban on gay sex. The Supreme Court's ruled that the ban was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

"I think it's a significant victory for freedom and the exercise of our own personal liberties," said H. Louis Sirkin, attorney for the couple and their company. "I know the adult industry is very excited" by the decision, he said.

Sirkin, a Cincinnati lawyer, had also disputed that the materials were obscene, noting that they involve consenting adults.

In a written statement, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said prosecutors were "very disappointed" and were reviewing the case and examining options, including a possible appeal.

"As we set forth in the pleadings we filed in the case, we continue to believe that the federal obscenity statutes are valid and constitutional, including as applied in this case," she said.

When she announced the indictment in August 2003, Buchanan said the lack of enforcement of obscenity laws during the mid- to late-1990s "led to a proliferation of obscenity throughout the United States."

Buchanan has maintained that the case was not about banning all sexually explicit materials, just reining in obscenity. Extreme Associates' productions depict rape and murder, she said.

Prosecutors charged the couple and their company with distributing three videos to Pittsburgh through the mail and six images over the Internet.

Investigators didn't just happen upon the videos; they had to join and order them, Sirkin said.

A grand jury was later shown the video and Internet images and found them to be obscene. Pornographers must adhere to the community standards of where products are made and anywhere they might be seen, prosecutors had said.

Free speech advocates contended prosecutors were trying to find a conservative jury in hopes of securing a conviction, which Buchanan denied.

Sirkin said the community standards notion was outdated because of growing access to the Internet.

Extreme Associates is still doing business and still offers the movies at issue for sale.

[chadknowslaw]

This ruling was very well written; it is going to have a chilling effect on the Justice Department [that is a good thing] so it may very well put a damper on obscenity prosecutions by the US Dept of Justice. An appeal by the Justice Department would very likely lose, but they may just push it anyway. A ruling in favor of Extreme at the Circuit Court level would only fuel the fundies cries for appointing more right-wing judges, so they could potentially benefit from appealing this and losing.

The flip side is that it might steer the Dept of Justice away from prosecuting obscenity, so they look for other ways to nail you, such as 2257 violations or tax evasion.

AL Capone was never convicted of any violent crimes, ordered murders, theft or extortion--the only way the Dept of Justice could nail him was convicting him of tax evasion! The same thing happened to one of the porn industry leaders not so long ago--couldn't be convicted of obscenity violations but he was cheating on his taxes and went to prison.

So, this is great news but it means we also have to keep our houses in order elsewhere. Stay on top of your record keeping requirements, prepare an honest tax return, and run a good business.

[Squirt]

Thanks for the posts Chad! You've covered all the bases here.

Are you the one who was talking at Internext about setting up a company structure by creating a few companies to protect yourself?

Thanks again :high:

[Huskyhunks]

I get the feeling these prosecutors thought this was going to be a no brainer, open and shut case brought to a more conservative Pittsburg court and away from California. It seems they got just the opposite. The judge wrote a 45 page opinion on the case. That in itself tells me that he was expecting to receive a ton of scrutiny from federal prosecutors all the way up to the attorney generals office. I haven't read the opinion, only snipets, but it seems to me that even your middle of the road judges aren't ready to start enforcing obscenity laws even in this extreme case.

I applaud Judge Lancasters decision. You just can't pick and choose who and what you want the first amendment to apply to or not apply to.

[desslock]

I think it is interesting that the lower federal courts are now able to point to an array of Supreme Court decisions over the past several years in order to assert rights to privacy, and thwarting egregious prosecutions of obsenity cases.

A very significant legacy of the Rehnquist court.

I think a legal forum would add a very nice new dimension to the board.... my two cents.

Steve

[Matt 26z]

I haven't been watching TV lately. I know all the big news stations covered the initial charges. Did they say anything about this? Especially that hypocritical pervert, Bill O'Reilly.

[chadknowslaw]

Extreme Associates case will be featured on Nightline tonight, Monday the 24th, for those interested

Chad

[basschick]

chadknowslaw - there's no reason we can't discuss this here. i am not that optimistic about the dismissal. i DO respect the hell out of a judge who believes in our constitution. i would be curious to know more about his previous work. on the other hand, he may have slit his political throat. if the doj isn't happy with this decision, or any other legal/political group, could they not simply appeal it and use a judge that has been shown to be less concerned with the constitution and more concerned with "morality"?

i think a legal forum could make it appear that lee is endorsing legal comments, which could land him in hot water.