sarettah
12-08-2005, 07:25 PM
It is now back on :blink:
https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=10012&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
From YNOT:
Extreme Associates Loses Obscenity Appeal, Court Ducks Privacy Issue in Reversing Lancaster
PENNSYLVANIA - The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed on Thursday an earlier decision by federal judge Gary Lancaster to throw out the obscenity indictment against adult entertainment company Extreme Associates. Judge Lancaster had thrown the indictment out after hearing arguments from Extreme Associates' attorney, H. Louis Sirkin, that obscenity laws as applied in he case violate the privacy rights of the company’s customers.
“This appeal requires us to decide whether the District Court erred by dismissing an indictment brought against Extreme Associates, Inc. and its proprietors under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 1465, which criminalize the commercial distribution of obscene materials, on the grounds that those statutes violate the privacy rights of Extreme Associates’ customers under the Fifth Amendment doctrine of substantive due process,” the decision read. “Because we conclude that the District Court improperly set aside applicable Supreme Court precedent which has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity in the face of both First Amendment and substantive due process attacks, we will reverse the judgment of the District Court.”
https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=10012&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
From YNOT:
Extreme Associates Loses Obscenity Appeal, Court Ducks Privacy Issue in Reversing Lancaster
PENNSYLVANIA - The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed on Thursday an earlier decision by federal judge Gary Lancaster to throw out the obscenity indictment against adult entertainment company Extreme Associates. Judge Lancaster had thrown the indictment out after hearing arguments from Extreme Associates' attorney, H. Louis Sirkin, that obscenity laws as applied in he case violate the privacy rights of the company’s customers.
“This appeal requires us to decide whether the District Court erred by dismissing an indictment brought against Extreme Associates, Inc. and its proprietors under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461 and 1465, which criminalize the commercial distribution of obscene materials, on the grounds that those statutes violate the privacy rights of Extreme Associates’ customers under the Fifth Amendment doctrine of substantive due process,” the decision read. “Because we conclude that the District Court improperly set aside applicable Supreme Court precedent which has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating the distribution of obscenity in the face of both First Amendment and substantive due process attacks, we will reverse the judgment of the District Court.”