Justices let stand lower court ruling on obscenity

TheEnforcer · 03-20-2006

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-20-10-27-28

Justices Pass on Internet Obscenity Case

By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court turned back an appeal on Monday from a photographer who claimed a federal decency law violated her free-speech rights to post pictures of sadomasochistic sexual behavior on the Web.

Justices affirmed a decision last year by a special three-judge federal panel upholding the 1996 law which makes it a crime to send obscenity over the Internet to children.

The court could have used the case to set online obscenity standards. The subject of children and indecency has gotten more attention recently.

Last week the government renewed its crackdown on indecent television by proposing nearly $4 million in fines for controversial broadcasts.

The Supreme Court appeal was brought by photographer Barbara Nitke, whose work is featured in the book "Kiss of Fire: A Romantic View of Sadomasochism," and by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.

Material that is obscene is not protected by the First Amendment, but Nitke's lawyer contends her work is art that is not obscene.

Justices were told by attorney John Wirenius of New York that if they turned down the case, "many more Internet users will likely face the constitutionally unsupportable choice faced by Ms. Nitke: either to censor her published images or risk prosecution."

The law requires that those sending obscene communications on the Internet take reasonable actions to keep it away from children, like requiring a credit card, debit account or adult access code as proof of age.

The Bush administration had urged justices to stay out of the case.

The case is Nitke v. Gonzales, 05-526.

Dianna Vesta · 03-20-2006

This was such a fiasco. I admit that she took a stand but dearly paid for it.

"obscene communications" is this only in reference to images & video? Or does it include stories, etc?

TheEnforcer · 03-20-2006

I'd have to look more throughly to really know the specifics of the case.

PornoDoggy · 03-21-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dianna Vesta

This was such a fiasco. I admit that she took a stand but dearly paid for it.

"obscene communications" is this only in reference to images & video? Or does it include stories, etc?

They will settle for images and video for now ... they'll get to print later.

TheEnforcer · 03-21-2006

Yeah.. the government has time....

Dravyk · 03-21-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Yeah.. the government has time....

Yeah, the Bush overthrow isn't scheduled for another seven months.

03-20-2006	#1
TheEnforcer Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,781	Justices let stand lower court ruling on obscenity http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...03-20-10-27-28 Justices Pass on Internet Obscenity Case By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court turned back an appeal on Monday from a photographer who claimed a federal decency law violated her free-speech rights to post pictures of sadomasochistic sexual behavior on the Web. Justices affirmed a decision last year by a special three-judge federal panel upholding the 1996 law which makes it a crime to send obscenity over the Internet to children. The court could have used the case to set online obscenity standards. The subject of children and indecency has gotten more attention recently. Last week the government renewed its crackdown on indecent television by proposing nearly $4 million in fines for controversial broadcasts. The Supreme Court appeal was brought by photographer Barbara Nitke, whose work is featured in the book "Kiss of Fire: A Romantic View of Sadomasochism," and by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom. Material that is obscene is not protected by the First Amendment, but Nitke's lawyer contends her work is art that is not obscene. Justices were told by attorney John Wirenius of New York that if they turned down the case, "many more Internet users will likely face the constitutionally unsupportable choice faced by Ms. Nitke: either to censor her published images or risk prosecution." The law requires that those sending obscene communications on the Internet take reasonable actions to keep it away from children, like requiring a credit card, debit account or adult access code as proof of age. The Bush administration had urged justices to stay out of the case. The case is Nitke v. Gonzales, 05-526.

03-20-2006	#2
Dianna Vesta Members Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: South Florida Posts: 2,087	Re: Justices let stand lower court ruling on obscenity This was such a fiasco. I admit that she took a stand but dearly paid for it. "obscene communications" is this only in reference to images & video? Or does it include stories, etc? __________________ Live radio and audio downloads have a definite place in marketing and promoting products. Not only will it capture new customers but it is an excellent way to promote new products to existing customers continuing to build good customer relationships. Click here for more info

03-20-2006	#3
TheEnforcer Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,781	Re: Justices let stand lower court ruling on obscenity I'd have to look more throughly to really know the specifics of the case.

03-21-2006	#5
TheEnforcer Scored VIP to Anton's Piss Tank Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,781	Re: Justices let stand lower court ruling on obscenity Yeah.. the government has time....