Extremely Protected
The obscenity case against the pornmakers Extreme Associates, which Greg Beato covered in Reason last year, hit a snag Friday when a federal judge dismissed the charges.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer's account:
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….
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.
bOING bOING has a roundup of links here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The most obscene part of this fiasco is the cost to the taxpayers and the cost to Extreme Associates to fight it, only for it to be thrown at, as it should have been when charges were first filed. We are so caught between the looney left and the retarded right.
Wait, wait, wait...you mean that the State can't just wontonly ban whatever it doesn't like? Coulda fooled me. Isn't that the entire premise of the war on drugs?
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....
Wait a minute. They banned gay sex? That is the funniest thing I think I've heard in years.
They banned gay sex? "Hey you! Stop that this instant! That is BANNED!"
I can't stop laughing.
it's funnier now that most of the punatives have been removed. less funny when followed in some countries with building demolition, etc.
I think DHS should be cracking down on organizations developing "Weapons of Ass Destruction".