Come on guys, help me out do something stupid…..
BT Writes:
Mike: I read the AVN story on Extreme today, and in my view, they just don’t get the issues here.
They write that for the Justice Department, filing an appeal in the Third District must’ve been a tough decision because they have a reputation for being strong on First Amendment issues.
They’re wrong here on two points:
First, Sirkin and Extreme did not make this a First Amendment or obscenity case.
They admitted for the purposes of the prosecution that what Extreme produced was obscene under any definition. So, that’s off the table.
Nor did they argue that obscenity was protected commercial speech under the First Amendment.
Instead, they made this a right to privacy case, just like birth control, consensual homosexual sex and abortion. In effect, they argued for the rights of the consumer to purchase obscene materials.
Here’s why. Under the law, as I understand it, it’s illegal for a company like Extreme to produce obscenity. But within certain limits — child pornography is clearly off the table — it’s not illegal for consumers to possess obscene materials in the privacy of their own home.
There have been several “right to privacy” cases that have found that people have a right to conduct certain acts in the privacy of their own home without the fear of government intrusion. One legalized wide access to birth control; another made abortion legal. More recently, they made homosexual activity legal in Georgia and Texas. And, again, it’s legal to view material that is illegal to produce in your own home, within limits.
What I think Sirkin argued, and what the Judge found, is that if people have a right to own and enjoy those materials, then Extreme must have the right to produce them. It’s not that the First Amendent protects Extreme’s right to produce them on some freedom of expression grounds. It’s that by denying Extreme the right to produce them, you’re denying the private consumer the right to view material that he or she is legally entitled to view.
Extreme did not make this an obscenity case or a First Amendment case. That’s why I think Sirkin was so brilliant.
The second place where they’re wrong is when they state that the Third District has a history of strong First Amendment rulings. Just not the case. To the contrary, the Third District actually has a history of being fairly hostile to the press, at least when it comes to libel and defamation cases, which is where the First Amendment normally comes up. They’re a fairly pro-plaintiff court, meaning they tend to side with the poor guy who thinks he was libeled by the media.
But again, as argued by Sirkin, this wasn’t about the First Amendment. It was about the right to privacy.
Writer Hunter S Thompson Dead At 67 Of Self Inflicted Gunshot Wound:
“On February 20, Dr. Hunter S. Thompson took his life with a gunshot to the head at his fortified compound in Woody Creek, Colorado,” said a statement issued by Thompson’s son, Juan Thompson, to the Aspen Daily News as reported by the Denver Post.
Read Hunters Last Story Here!
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?id=1992213
