[dukeman]

I understand Lawrence v. Texas was one of the primary grounds cited by the District judge for his ruling. Soon, anything goes.

[muawiyah]

These federal judges certainly know what they like.

[goodnesswins]

"....ruling that the government's ban on distribution of obscenity violated the public's constitutional rights to possess such material."

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.

[goldstategop]

Liberalism is a philosophy that knows no limits. The only restrictions are the ones applicable of course to conservatives.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

[gondramB]

"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.

[COEXERJ145]

It is only a matter of time before someone tries the same thing to toss out laws that prohibit child porn and other such garbage. We know that at least one Supreme Court Justice without any doubt that would rule in favor of the perverts.

[Cicero]

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."

[Feiny]

Where will it end? What one person finds obscene may be perfectly fine to someone else. Some find the naked human body obscene while others consider it a thing of beauty. I don't want some judge deciding what is "obscene" for me. I can do that myself & not purchase the videos I find offensive. Fairly simple soultion.

[Antoninus]

1st Amendment.

Here's a little historical background on this issue for you. First, two Supreme Court decisions:


Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (1942):

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words....It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

Roth vs. The United States (1957)

"Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press--either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States.... In the light of history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.... The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.... All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests; but implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance.

This all changed in the 1960s and 70s when our currently prevailing attitude was born--that a photo of a man sodomizing another man suddenly qualified as "speech" worthy of 1st Amendment protection. The SCOTUS had no trouble overturning the precedent established above. So much for stare decisis. Why did this happen? Well, here's an excerpt from the Current Communist Goals read into the Congressional Record in 1963 by A. S. Herlong, Jr., Democrat representative from Florida:

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

You be the judge.

[OmegaMan]

From what I understand these are essentially x-rated versions of slasher films, and therefore I don't see how they could be illegal. I would think that all the defense would have to do is show the jury some nasty scenes from some mainstream horror movies and they may even seem more disturbing, especially considering how amateurish the 'obscene' movies probably are. The difference is the explicit sex, but I don't see how you can consider that obscene with all the porn there is now. There probably shouldn't be 'obscenity' at all. If there are consenting adults making the movie I don't what the problem is.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

If anyone thinks that hardcore porn is what the founding fathers considered protected "speech" by the First Amendment, they've been watching too much of it or smoking too much dope.

Interesting to note that Texas versus Sodomy is influencing this Nazgul's pro-porn ruling. What these fiends want is to turn the entire country into hardcore free-for-all, and any parents who want to protect their children will have to move to an isolated island somewhere.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

Note: Can a nation of wankers continue as a great Republic? Does it deserve to?

[kingu]

If I was to devise a litmus test for Supreme Court judges, it wouldn't be based upon Roe alone, it would also include Lawrence.

The Federal government has no standing in choosing the moral standards of a community, the community holds that power alone.

[HiTech RedNeck]

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.

Why can't California itself shut them down. We don't need Uncle Sam to wipe every snotty nose in America.