Breaking News: Extreme Associates Loses, Decision Overturned

[Connor]

Just found out...

https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=...rder=0&thold=0

[Jace]

uh oh, that kinds of sucks

[Connor]

Yes it does.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

2 years in court.

Brutal.
Costly.

There is no justice.
Lady Justice has been murdered.

[SilentKnight]

This definitely ain't good news for the industry.

[pornguy]

Lady justice fled the country.

[davecummings]

Ouch!

Dave

[cherrylula]

I wonder if it will make it to the supreme court?

[reynold]

Fucked up individual..

[Ron Bennett]

The Ynot link doesn't work ... what is this "breaking news" all about? ...

Ron

[bigdog]

i wonder if this will change the thoughts of the some of the guys with the more extreme web sites

[LiveDose]

Damn that sucks.

[TDF]

mail order is not safe

[CDSmith]

Interesting...

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.?

That is a key point for sure. Hopefully the case gets chosen for review by the supreme court where the merits of those arguments will be taken into consideration.

This is a setback, not a total loss.

[Kimmykim]

EA doesn't lose, per se. They simply have to go back into court again. The dismissal was tossed out on procedural issues, not the actual facts of the case.

[latinasojourn]

Originally Posted by Kimmykim

EA doesn't lose, per se. They simply have to go back into court again. The dismissal was tossed out on procedural issues, not the actual facts of the case.

i suspect if put in front of a jury EA will lose.

rough or nonconsensual appearing sex acts are not palatable to the average person. this isn't about hard core, this is about psuedo rape material, and forced sex.

and it doesn't matter what people think, this is a fact---this content is VERY risky in this political climate.

and even if EA "wins" they lose. the legal fees will probably break them.

max hardcore is playing it out now. and convictions are happening:

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...le &sid=10001

just yesterday i saw some sample vids on GFY of forced face fucking, piss drinking, and girl puking.

and many of you kids think it's "hot stuff", and you pontificate about what "should be" legal. it doesn't matter what YOU think---understand that it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK UNLESS YOU ARE ON THE JURY.

very, very risky. it is not the DOJ that decides what's obscene in the USA---it's 12 ordinary folks---people forget that.

people can either run a business, or play in traffic. and many are playing in the traffic.

[directfiesta]

Legal fees and loss business will finishe them up , so it's a loss-loss situation.

I have a very good idea of that

[XPays]

Originally Posted by latinasojourn

i suspect if put in front of a jury EA will lose.

rough or nonconsensual appearing sex acts are not palatable to the average person. this isn't about hard core, this is about psuedo rape material, and forced sex.

and it doesn't matter what people think, this is a fact---this content is VERY risky in this political climate.

and even if EA "wins" they lose. the legal fees will probably break them.

max hardcore is playing it out now. and convictions are happening:

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...le &sid=10001

just yesterday i saw some sample vids on GFY of forced face fucking, piss drinking, and girl puking.

and many of you kids think it's "hot stuff", and you pontificate about what "should be" legal. it doesn't matter what YOU think---understand that it DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK UNLESS YOU ARE ON THE JURY.

very, very risky. it is not the DOJ that decides what's obscene in the USA---it's 12 ordinary folks---people forget that.

people can either run a business, or play in traffic. and many are playing in the traffic.

some people want to be the test case, but it really is not worth it from my experience. they should settle that shit asap imho if at all possible.

[reed_4]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

This definitely ain't good news for the industry.

it is.

[Marshal]

this really sux!

[jonesy]

dont be surprised when it goes to the supreme court and extreme wins.

[FlogTheLog]

DAM!!! not good

[buran]

I cant imagine extreme winning when faced up with our all new super-conservative S.C.

Ew. This is gonna be gross for the whole industry.

danielle

[FightThisPatent]

Losing the appeal is certainly very concerning, and even more so if the Supreme Court agrees.

I have been advocating about not putting graphic images on the tours, or on the home pages, blocking side doors, etc.. all in the idea that kids or adults don't unwittingly or without their choice, see graphic image pop in their face (note - this is one of the issues that created CAN-SPAM), but it seems that even doing that, may not work.

Extreme Associates had their members area behind closed doors, they shipped product discreetly....so even if you did all the things above, it looks like the community standards of some po-dunk district (that clearly does not have any strip clubs, adult stores, and no pre-marital sex, kids are all virgins, and everyone goes to church on sundays) could still get you in hot waters.

The supreme court overturned a texas law about how a gay couple coudn't have sex in their home (ie. sodomy law)....which was a big victory and cited in the EA case, since what people do in the privacy of their own homes is a freedom we have in the U.S.

It appears the attorneys for EA are atleast optimistic because the overturning on appeal was based on procedural court rules, rather than the basis of their defense arguments, so it's really up to the Supreme Court, which is basically how i read the outcome.

It's always amazing to see how people are so offended by "sex", but yet behind doors, even the most conservative and religious going people can be superfreaks.


Fight the hypocrits!

[twinkley]

oops, that was me posting as buran ... forgot to check the user before posting hahahaha

like buran would say ewww...

twinkley

[Gunni]

Originally Posted by XPays

some people want to be the test case, but it really is not worth it from my experience. they should settle that shit asap imho if at all possible.

wtf are you talking about?
How can they settle?

[buran]

wtf! I need to change me password. Just because you get my handme down PC doesn't mean you can h4x0r my superl33t pw. ;)

[Connor]

Originally Posted by Gunni

wtf are you talking about?
How can they settle?

By agreeing with the govenment prosecutors to some penalty lighter than you'd get if you tried the case and lost in exchange for pleading guilty.

[LAJ]

I agree that this is bad news and a setback for the industry but feel confident nonetheless that while the fundies may feel that they are winning the battle... in this specific instance, free speech will win the war.

[ElvisManson]

Originally Posted by buran

wtf! I need to change me password. Just because you get my handme down PC doesn't mean you can h4x0r my superl33t pw. ;)

get a room you two.



Lets hope EA keeps the battle going.

[mikesouth]

from www.mikesouth.com

It'll be a couple of years before Rob Black stands trial.

Sirkin's a smart lawyer. He is going to want a re-hearing in front of the whole court because he knows that win or lose, someone is going to take this to the Supreme Court.

That's going to kill six to 8 months.

The full court can do what the three-judge panel could do: uphold the district judge or send it back for trial.

Either way, one or the other will appeal to the Supreme Court. I believe they'll take it. That's because it's an interesting case with real constitutional questions:

Start with Sirkin's basic position: under present law, we have a right ot privacy in our own homes, and thanks to that right, have the right to view obscene materials. At the same time, Sirkin says, it's illegal to manufacture and distribute obscene materials. Constitutionally, that doesn't make sense (By the way, your view and my view of Rob Black's material are one and the same. Throw away the key).

But now it gets really really interesting. Conservatives think that Griswald V. Connecticut, the case that established the right to privacy (and it's a right to privacy that allows Roe v. Wade to stand) was wrongly decided and that there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution. And, they think that under the constitution obscenity laws should be tougher.

So, this is a case that could explore:

1.) Do we have a right to privacy in our own homes, and if so, to what extent?

2.) If so, do we have a right to view vile obscene material like that which Rob Black produces?

3.) If so, are their limits to how obscene is the material? We know that you can't view child pornography or snuff films, if they exist. But how far back can you draw the line?

4.) Once you've established the limits of what you can view, are their limits to what a production company can produce? Right now, the real limit seems to be that you can't produce material where the act itself is a violation of the law -- it's illegal to have sex with a minor, whether it's being filmed or not, so you can't film it; it's illegal to rape someone so you can't film an actual rape; it's illegal to maim or kill someone so you can't do a snuff film. But are there other acts which you just can't film because society is harmed as a result? Does the government have the right to determine that?

This is interesting stuff.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

....it looks like the community standards of some po-dunk district (that clearly does not have any strip clubs, adult stores, and no pre-marital sex, kids are all virgins, and everyone goes to church on sundays) could still get you in hot waters.

i forgot to add "and no marital affairs or masturbation going on". The community would have to be a episode from Leave it to Beaver or the movie Pleasantville.. and there are towns like that in the US still.. but they probably don't have internet anyways


Fight the moral hypocrasy!

[scoreman]

My prediction is that this case will be settled for fines, a plea to a lesser charge, no jail and convictions. EA walks away poorer but free, the DOJ walks away with a conviction, cash flow positive prosecution and something to appease the right wingers with.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

from www.mikesouth.com

This is interesting stuff.

don't forget about Lawrence v. Texas
http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm

which goes right to the point about privacy in ones own home.


Fight the Freedom v. Moral Agendas!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by scoreman

... the DOJ walks away with a conviction, cash flow positive prosecution .....

i thought that the DOJ was not bound by finances.. since their 25+ attorneys are all on salary and they have all the time in the world (and governmental resourceS) to pursue their case.

it would seem to be their advantage, to be able to bleed out defendants, who usually have to pay for their attorneys (unless someone like ACLU, EFF, FSC steps in to absorb the cost).


Fight the flow!

[FightThisPatent]

..posted twice..delete

[scoreman]

The DOJ prides themselves on the fact that they run prosecutions that in the end net fines that cover the costs of prosecutions. For example take a look at the Bruce Taylor interview he did for PBS a while back:

PBS:As you've said, you're the most experienced prosecutor in this territory in the history of the country. What did you say to the attorney general about prosecuting these cases?

Bruce Taylor: When it was my turn ... I wanted him to know that this is something that has been done in the past -- we made money on it, we didn't cost the taxpayers money. The pornography industry had to pay more in fines than it cost the criminal justice system to prosecute them, and it wasn't just animals, bondage, and children that we prosecuted.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by scoreman

The DOJ prides themselves on the fact that they run prosecutions that in the end net fines that cover the costs of prosecutions.

true, but that's just to refute critics who are saying they are wasting taxpayers money on pursuing obscenity, instead of going after more serious crimes.

so that argument can be used against them... great, it's not costing taxpayer dollars, but you are wasting tax payer resources/time.. go bust the pedofiles, focus on drugs and crime, focus on homeland security.. .declare a war on poverty and address problems that are more deeply rooted to us, then looking at porn.


Fight the bean counters!

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

don't forget about Lawrence v. Texas
http://www.sodomylaws.org/lawrence/lawrence.htm

which goes right to the point about privacy in ones own home.


Fight the Freedom v. Moral Agendas!

that decision was in fact derived from Griswald V Connecticutt, Girswald is the ruling establishing the "right to privacy" that many conservatives believe does not exist. This is going to be a constitutional issue in this case.

this one wont end in a plea anytime soon, there are far too many real constitutional issues around it...unless the supreme court pussies out on it this one is going to end up there

[latinasojourn]

i would lay odds that supreme court will not look at this case.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

that decision was in fact derived from Griswald V Connecticutt,

thanks, updating my memory bank on that fact.


Fight the Family Vacation!