Posted on 10/23/2005 7:47:38 PM PDT by dukeman
An attorney with the Family Research Council (FRC) says a case before the Third U.S. Court of Appeals could have a big impact on obscenity laws nationwide.
Two years ago, California-based Extreme Associates and its owners Robert Zicari and Janet Romano were indicted by the Department of Justice for selling videos with brutal and graphic depictions of sexual violence. However, earlier this year -- in a blow to the government's renewed crackdown on extreme, hard-core, violent porn -- U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster threw out those indictments, ruling that the government's ban on distribution of obscenity violated the public's constitutional rights to possess such material.
The pro-porn attorney had argued that if individuals were unable to purchase the material, "there really is no right. In order to be able to possess it, I need to be able to buy it."
This week, lawyers for both sides argued the case before a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pittsburgh. Pat Trueman, legal counsel for FRC, says the case is another example of judicial activism.
"Congress has said that distribution of obscenity is illegal," Trueman points out. "[But] this judge [Lancaster] says obscenity should be legal. Unfortunately he has that power, even though it's an abusive power, and we hope the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit will agree with previous rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States that obscenity is properly illegal."
Trueman, who expects a ruling by next spring, contends the outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications. "[This] could have a very big impact," he says. "If this kind of material is legal, anything is legal."
And what will happen if the case is appealed even further? Truemen issues a warning. "There are members of the United States Supreme Court, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- former general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union -- who would gladly rule that all obscene material is legal in America," he states.
For that reason, the FRC spokesman says, "we have to watch and pray for this case very closely."
These federal judges certainly know what they like.
I still don't know WHERE in the Constitution anyone finds the "right to sell obscenity." Be obscene on your own property if you want, but you don't have a RIGHT to sell it or distribute it.....and NO I'm not a lawyer.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
"The pro-porn attorney had argued that if individuals were unable to purchase the material, "there really is no right. In order to be able to possess it, I need to be able to buy it.""
That is an interesting argument though.... I can see how if it's upheld it could apply to a lot of other things. Like gun sales.
Hello, you can buy illegal immigrants too! Just ask any real estate developer in Kommiefornia.
The First Amendment as I understand it, refers to POLITICAL speech.
Emanation of which penumbra?
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
TELL me....where in that, is the RIGHT to SELL obscenity? It is NOT "freedom of speech." If it was, we'd hear every dirty word possible on all TV stations, not just cable.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What part of "no law" don't you understand?
"The First Amendment as I understand it, refers to POLITICAL speech."
Well it just says "speech." But the issue here is distribution of speech, I'm not sure that's the same thing. If it is then it will have widespread consequences.
See post 11. Beat ya.
"TELL me....where in that, is the RIGHT to SELL obscenity? It is NOT "freedom of speech." If it was, we'd hear every dirty word possible on all TV stations, not just cable."
The reason usually given for broadcast TV to be different is that they belong to the public and thus can be licensed with conditions by the government.
Of course, it's not really speech if no one else hears (reads) it. Which reminds me of that classic, philosophical question: If a man says something in a forest and there's no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong? Hehe.
Then, why can't I shout "FIRE" in a theatre? It's a private business.....I know the reason - public danger....and THAT'S the reason I think obscenity/porno should NOT be part of "free" speech - public danger. Does that make any sense to you?
Only if he hears his wife chastising him in his head????
public danger...........lol
Gary L. Lancaster
United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Born: Brownsville, Pennsylvania-August 14, 1949.
Education: Slippery Rock State College (B.S. 1971); University of Pittsburgh School of Law (J.D. 1974).
Judge Gary L. Lancaster was appointed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by President Clinton on November 20, 1993.
Judge Lancaster was raised in Brownsville, Pennsylvania where the value of hard work, self-discipline and self-confidence was instilled in him by his parents. His father managed a state-owned liquor store. His mother was a bank teller who returned to college after retirement and received her bachelor's degree at the age of 72.
Judge Lancaster decided to become a lawyer because of the civil rights movement. He states:
Although Martin Luther King was inspirational, Thurgood Marshall won Brown v. Board of Education. I thought that a career in law would afford me the best opportunity to effect social change.
Judge Lancaster began his professional career by serving as regional counsel for the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and as an Assistant District Attorney for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In 1978, he entered private practice specializing in criminal and civil litigation. He was appointed as a United States Magistrate Judge and took the oath of office on October 23, 1987. He was appointed to the district court in 1993.
Judge Lancaster currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Slippery Rock University Foundation and is a member of various civic, religious and charitable groups. He is also the author of several law-related articles and other published works.
Judge Lancaster considers being a judge "the best of all worlds," a place where he can combine "the intellectual aspect of law as a philosophy, the drama in the courtroom, and the interaction with real people with real stories."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.