Gonzales Seeks to Reinstate Obscenity Case

AP ^ | 2/16/05 | Mark Sherman

[Callahan]

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration said Wednesday it would seek to reinstate an indictment against a California pornography company that was charged with violating federal obscenity laws. It was Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' first public decision on a legal matter.

Billed as the government's first big obscenity case in a decade, the 10-count indictment against Extreme Associates Inc. and its owners, Robert Zicari, and his wife, Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., was dismissed last month by U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster of Pittsburgh.

Lancaster ruled prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the company's hard-core movies from children and from adults who did not want to see such material.

The Justice Department (news - web sites) said it will appeal the ruling to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in Philadelphia. While acknowledging the importance of the constitutional guarantee of free speech, Gonzales said selling or distributing obscene materials does not fall within First Amendment protections.

"The Department of Justice (news - web sites) remains strongly committed to the investigation and prosecution of adult obscenity cases," said Gonzales, who pledged during his confirmation hearing to pursue obscenity cases.

If allowed to stand, Lancaster's ruling would undermine obscenity laws as well as other statutes based on shared views of public morality, including laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy, the department said in a statement.

Zicari said he was not surprised by the decision to appeal. "They touted my case for almost a year and a half about this being an important step in kind of stamping out the adult product as we know it," he said in a telephone interview. "You'd think our government has a lot more things to worry about with the war in Iraq (news - web sites)."

Prosecutors charged Zacari and Romano and their company with distributing videos to Pittsburgh through the mail and over the Internet. Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney in Pittsburgh, has said the case was not about banning all sexually explicit materials, just reining in obscenity. Extreme Associates' productions depict rape and murder, Buchanan 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."

In his opinion, Lancaster said the company can market and distribute its materials because people have a right to view them in the privacy of their own homes.

Lancaster relied in part on the Supreme Court's June 2003 ruling that struck down Texas' ban on gay sex, which it called an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

[infidel29]

Pinging for the Pittsburgh (Judge Lancaster) connection.

[sgtbono2002]

That case in Texas opened a whole pail of worms.

[Callahan]

Predicted responses:

Social cons: about time

Libertarians: Don't we have more important things to worry about?

Liberals: This is terrible. Now that Bush is in charge smut that depicts young girls being raped is a form of artistic expression.

[Callahan]

The internet was teeming with digusting stuff before Lawrence.

[Dog Gone]

The court in Lawrence pretty much opened the door for this. Lawrence wasn't a First Amendment case, but they both involve how much the government can regulate sexually-related matters within your own home.

I don't think anyone could stretch Lawrence to bless sexual crimes like rape or sexual molestation of children within the home, but if you can engage in obscene behavior in your home legally, why can't you watch it?

This one will be interesting.

[naturalized]

Gonzales said selling or distributing obscene materials does not fall within First Amendment protections.

I like this approach.

[AdrianR]

I misread the title as
Gonzales Seeks to Reinstate Obesity Case
and thought
Is he suing McDonalds?

[Callahan]

To be honest the distinction between porn films and prostitution has always confused me. If you pay to have sex in your car, that's illegal. But if you video tape it and sell it online your free and clear.

[martin_fierro]

	It's a 'Burgh Thing.™
Send FReepmail if yunz want on/off BPT list, 'n'at
Learn Pittsburghese!

[Dog Gone]

Well, it doesn't. But the only reason it doesn't is that prior Supreme Court decisions have so ruled. It's not clear to all court watchers that they'll continue to rule that way.

[Callahan]

I think the AG can tackle more than one task, but that's certainly the way it will be portrayed.

[Callahan]

I think the AG can tackle more than one task, but that's certainly the way it will be portrayed.

[madprof98]

I'll take option #1.

[Dog Gone]

To be honest the distinction between porn films and prostitution has always confused me. If you pay to have sex in your car, that's illegal. But if you video tape it and sell it online your free and clear.

That's the truth and it doesn't make sense.

Of course, I'm not sure prostitution laws make sense, either. You can't sell your body for money, but you can sell it for a nice dinner and a bottle of wine.

[Servant of the 9]

I guess I had best stock up, just in case I develop an interest in porn in my perverted old age.

So9

[Texaggie79]

Lancaster ruled prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the company's hard-core movies from children and from adults who did not want to see such material

What about children and adults who WANT to see such material? :-P