What You Need to Know About the ExtremeAssoc. Case

Aly_AVN · 01-25-2005

What You Need to Know About the Extreme Associates Case ~by Mark Kernes

PITTSBURGH - The end of obscenity? Don't bet the farm on it... yet.

That's only one of the cautionary pieces of advice from First Amendment attorneys from around the country who, while extremely (no pun intended) gratified by the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster in the Ashcroft v. Extreme Associates case, brilliantly argued by Cincinnati attorney H. Louis Sirkin, aren't counting their chickens before they're hatched.

"This decision binds no other court and it is very, very possible that other judges in other jurisdictions will disagree as the issue comes before them," wrote J.D. Obenberger, a Chicago-based First Amendment attorney "You can count on the proposition that a motion similar to that granted here will be filed and argued in every obscenity case in which the defendant is represented by capable First Amendment lawyers. Attorney Lou Sirkin of Cincinnati brought this motion, but this was not the first time he advanced the arguments it contained."

Most recently, Sirkin did make such an argument ... ...read more... (it's rather long)

Raven · 01-25-2005

"At least one commentator on this case has declared that the defendants have simply admitted that the material is obscene. That would be an incorrect reading of the opinion; the defendants have admitted it only hypothetically for purposes of the motion to dismiss, and the admission would have no weight in any other proceedings in the case.) "

I wonder if this will come back and haunt Extreme Associates.

Eddie · 01-25-2005

Wow, really interesting read... Yes long but worth reading. I'ts going to be interesting to see how this does effect us.

gonzo · 01-25-2005

Id rather know whats up for Florida...

Hammer · 01-25-2005

One would think that since the Justice Department lost this case in Pennsylvania, where they purposely tried the case because they assumed it was a slam dunk given the state's convervative stand on obscenity, that other states will follow. After all, this is a pretty strong precedent.

*KK* · 01-25-2005

While I find it amusing that the attorney who wrote the opinion makes his living off telling us the sky is falling, I'll leave that for others to disect.

I was having lunch yesterday with arguably the largest distributor in the video business, and his take on it was pretty simple. As long as people like Rob Black are out there with the "out there" content, it makes the possibility of prosecution for less "cutting edge" content much less likely.

The bottom line is that the government doesn't prosecute cases it doesn't think it can win. The money and time invested in these trials is enormous, and any time there is a precedent set -- which there really wasn't in this case, since there was no verdict, let me point out -- it can go either way towards establishing circumstances that could prove as unfavorable for the government as they might for the defendant.

No one really knows what twelve men and women will decide in a case, especially if both sides have good attorneys.

Hell Puppy · 01-25-2005

Quote:

Originally posted by *KK*@Jan 25 2005, 08:57 PM
While I find it amusing that the attorney who wrote the opinion makes his living off telling us the sky is falling, I'll leave that for others to disect.

I was having lunch yesterday with arguably the largest distributor in the video business, and his take on it was pretty simple. As long as people like Rob Black are out there with the "out there" content, it makes the possibility of prosecution for less "cutting edge" content much less likely.

The bottom line is that the government doesn't prosecute cases it doesn't think it can win. The money and time invested in these trials is enormous, and any time there is a precedent set -- which there really wasn't in this case, since there was no verdict, let me point out -- it can go either way towards establishing circumstances that could prove as unfavorable for the government as they might for the defendant.

No one really knows what twelve men and women will decide in a case, especially if both sides have good attorneys.

As I said about Steve Sweet.... I'm happy everytime one of the canaries of this industry survives to go back into the coal mine.

*KK* · 01-25-2005

Quote:

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jan 25 2005, 07:32 PM
As I said about Steve Sweet.... I'm happy everytime one of the canaries of this industry survives to go back into the coal mine.

How aptly put. And how much that statement puts you into the same group with the 100 million a year man

01-25-2005	#1
Aly_AVN Members Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Porn Valley Posts: 130	What You Need to Know About the Extreme Associates Case ~by Mark Kernes PITTSBURGH - The end of obscenity? Don't bet the farm on it... yet. That's only one of the cautionary pieces of advice from First Amendment attorneys from around the country who, while extremely (no pun intended) gratified by the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster in the Ashcroft v. Extreme Associates case, brilliantly argued by Cincinnati attorney H. Louis Sirkin, aren't counting their chickens before they're hatched. "This decision binds no other court and it is very, very possible that other judges in other jurisdictions will disagree as the issue comes before them," wrote J.D. Obenberger, a Chicago-based First Amendment attorney "You can count on the proposition that a motion similar to that granted here will be filed and argued in every obscenity case in which the defendant is represented by capable First Amendment lawyers. Attorney Lou Sirkin of Cincinnati brought this motion, but this was not the first time he advanced the arguments it contained." Most recently, Sirkin did make such an argument ... ...read more... (it's rather long) __________________ I want your Internext & AVN feedback! - aly@avn.com

01-25-2005	#2
Raven Internet Annoyance Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Washington State Posts: 575	"At least one commentator on this case has declared that the defendants have simply admitted that the material is obscene. That would be an incorrect reading of the opinion; the defendants have admitted it only hypothetically for purposes of the motion to dismiss, and the admission would have no weight in any other proceedings in the case.) " I wonder if this will come back and haunt Extreme Associates. __________________ Raven If You'd Just Do It My Way, Your Life Would Be Better 27331641 Celeb Traffic? Go here: RevshareRewards

01-25-2005	#3
Eddie Members Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati OH Posts: 114	Wow, really interesting read... Yes long but worth reading. I'ts going to be interesting to see how this does effect us. __________________ Get Real...Get Paid

01-25-2005	#4
gonzo Fat Fucking Nobody Want to see your own Advertising Here! Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Atlanta,Ga. Posts: 17,795 Blog Entries: 11	Id rather know whats up for Florida... __________________ We are putting the bastards of this world on notice; greed and corruption will always be met with "a voice made of ink and rage." "Never try and be like anyone else" - Hunter S. Thompson "The truth is the truth no matter how you try and package a lie" - Shellee Hale

01-25-2005	#5
Hammer Master of My Domains Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Florida Posts: 1,701	One would think that since the Justice Department lost this case in Pennsylvania, where they purposely tried the case because they assumed it was a slam dunk given the state's convervative stand on obscenity, that other states will follow. After all, this is a pretty strong precedent. __________________ Porn Site Pros - Custom Website Design, Turnkey Webcam and Pay Sites, SEO, and Consulting

01-25-2005	#6
KK Members Respin bullshit press Your Comments Are Welcomed Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,581	While I find it amusing that the attorney who wrote the opinion makes his living off telling us the sky is falling, I'll leave that for others to disect. I was having lunch yesterday with arguably the largest distributor in the video business, and his take on it was pretty simple. As long as people like Rob Black are out there with the "out there" content, it makes the possibility of prosecution for less "cutting edge" content much less likely. The bottom line is that the government doesn't prosecute cases it doesn't think it can win. The money and time invested in these trials is enormous, and any time there is a precedent set -- which there really wasn't in this case, since there was no verdict, let me point out -- it can go either way towards establishing circumstances that could prove as unfavorable for the government as they might for the defendant. No one really knows what twelve men and women will decide in a case, especially if both sides have good attorneys.