Incostituzionali le accuse di oscenità contro Extreme Associates
Gary L. Lancaster, giudice federale di Pittsburgh, ha prosciolto il produttore Rob Black e la moglie Lizzy Borden di Extreme Associates dalle accuse di oscenità , questa è una decisione che avrà un enorme impatto sull'industria dell'intrattenimento per gli adulti americana. Il giudice ha rilasciato un documento dove spiega che le leggi federali sull'oscenità limitano l'esercizio dei fondamentali diritti di libertà di parola e violano la privacy. Rob Black ha dichiarato: 'Ho determinato una fottuta decisione che farà la storia!' In realtà era già venuto fuori durante i seminari tenuti durante gli AVN di Las Vegas che, nonostante la vittoria di Bush e della destra conservatrice, l'industria dell'hard non sarebbe stata attaccata più di tanto. Certamente neanche i più ottimisti tra gli avvocati che si occupano della situazione legale del porno made in USA avrebbero potuto sperare in un risultato così favorevole. Prima Seymore Butts poi Max Hardcore e adesso Rob Black hanno vinto le loro battaglie in tribunale. Ora addirittura le leggi contro l'oscenità vengono ritenute incostituzionali, inizia bene il nuovo anno per l'industria dell'intrattenimento per adulti degli Stati Uniti. Ricordo che recentemente Silvio Bandinelli, proprio durante la fiera di Delta di Venere, mi ha parlato di creare anche in Italia un team legale, pagato delle maggiori case di produzione e distribuzione italiane che si occupi dei vari problemi del settore. Rinnoviamo a tutti l'invito ad un incontro, in quanto è di grandissima importanza che il porno italico esca il più velocemente possibile dal ghetto e sia unito almeno nelle battaglie comuni.
Maxxx
Incostituzionali le accuse di oscenità contro Extreme
Moderatori: Super Zeta, AlexSmith, Pim, Moderatore1
come non essere d'accordo?
alla faccia di tutti i moralistacci ipocriti che imperversano nelle cose pubbliche di questo paese...
pubbliche..e pubiche !
alla faccia di tutti i moralistacci ipocriti che imperversano nelle cose pubbliche di questo paese...
pubbliche..e pubiche !
You are what you is (Frank Zappa)
"Cosa c'entra il Papa con l'apertura dell'anno accademico? E' come se a un concistoro si decidesse di invitare Belladonna" (Sacre Scuole)
"Che ci posso fare? Le banalità non mi emozionano" (Breglia)
"Cosa c'entra il Papa con l'apertura dell'anno accademico? E' come se a un concistoro si decidesse di invitare Belladonna" (Sacre Scuole)
"Che ci posso fare? Le banalità non mi emozionano" (Breglia)
Re: Incostituzionali le accuse di oscenità contro Extreme
[quote:ee868d7679="Maxxx"]Incostituzionali le accuse di oscenità contro Extreme Associates
Gary L. Lancaster, giudice federale di Pittsburgh, ha prosciolto il produttore Rob Black e la moglie Lizzy Borden di Extreme Associates dalle accuse di oscenità , questa è una decisione che avrà un enorme impatto sull'industria dell'intrattenimento per gli adulti americana. Il giudice ha rilasciato un documento dove spiega che le leggi federali sull'oscenità limitano l'esercizio dei fondamentali diritti di libertà di parola e violano la privacy. Rob Black ha dichiarato: 'Ho determinato una fottuta decisione che farà la storia!' In realtà era già venuto fuori durante i seminari tenuti durante gli AVN di Las Vegas che, nonostante la vittoria di Bush e della destra conservatrice, l'industria dell'hard non sarebbe stata attaccata più di tanto. Certamente neanche i più ottimisti tra gli avvocati che si occupano della situazione legale del porno made in USA avrebbero potuto sperare in un risultato così favorevole. Prima Seymore Butts poi Max Hardcore e adesso Rob Black hanno vinto le loro battaglie in tribunale. Ora addirittura le leggi contro l'oscenità vengono ritenute incostituzionali, inizia bene il nuovo anno per l'industria dell'intrattenimento per adulti degli Stati Uniti. Ricordo che recentemente Silvio Bandinelli, proprio durante la fiera di Delta di Venere, mi ha parlato di creare anche in Italia un team legale, pagato delle maggiori case di produzione e distribuzione italiane che si occupi dei vari problemi del settore. Rinnoviamo a tutti l'invito ad un incontro, in quanto è di grandissima importanza che il porno italico esca il più velocemente possibile dal ghetto e sia unito almeno nelle battaglie comuni.
Maxxx[/quote:ee868d7679]
Senti Maxxx, sai bene che l'industria americana hard non ha un "team" legale che si occupa di accuse di oscenita' contro i produttori/distributori e negozi che vendono materiale pornografico. Se non ce l'hanno fatta fino ad ora nel USA, dubito che la Francia, Italia, Germania, Ungheria potranno mettere in su un organismo che viene alla difesa di casi legali di oscenita. Bill Margold ha o era in carico di un'associazione (che ora mi sfugge il nome esatto) che almeno su carta doveva fare certe cose, ma e' stata sempre criticata per la loro inefficienza e mancanza di coraggio di difendere certe cause.
Se ricordi bene Rob Black si era lamentato molto apertamente che l'industria gli si era voltatato le spalle, quando era sotto le accuse di oscenita' per i 3-4 film che la Extreme aveva prodotto.
Sono contento per Black, non per lui personalmente, ma come vedi le autorita' americane prima sparano, perdono le cause, e fanno spendere un sacco di soldi a quelli che si devono difendere, e il risultato e' che questo ha un fattore dissuadivo per quelli che lavorano nell'industria hard. Piu' di 30 anni fa, le autorita' facevano causa ai Mitchell Bros e Alex de Renzy tutte le settimane a San Francisco. Ma loro non si arrendevano mai, e le vincevano tutte. E' sempre stata una lunga e dura lotta, e il risultato di questa decisione, non mettera' a fine l'intenzione di ogni nuova amministrazione governativa americana di fare "piazza pulita" sulla pornografia.
Ecco l'articolo pubblicato al sito AVN.com
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Na ... _ID=214089
[b:ee868d7679]Extreme Associates Case Dismissed; Obscenity Laws Ruled Unconstitutional
By: Jared Rutter
Posted: 10:57 am PST 1-21-2005
CHATSWORTH, Calif. - In a decision that is bound to have enormous impact on the Adult entertainment industry, obscenity charges against producer Rob Black and his wife Lizzy Borden of Extreme Associates were thrown out of court today by a federal judge in Pittsburgh.
"I'm still speechless," Black told AVN.com. "All ten counts against us were dismissed." He said that U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster made the dismissal on the grounds that obscenity laws are unconstitutional.
"We find that the federal obscenity statutes place a burden on the exercise of the fundamental rights of liberty, privacy and speech," wrote Judge Lancaster in his opinion (printed in full below).
"I now have made fucking history," said the jubilant Black.
The Extreme Associates case was the first federal obscenity prosecution against a video manufacturer in over a decade.
"It makes everything perfect," he added. "The business has been going great and all of a sudden my lawyer calls up and said I won."
"This is the greatest news I've ever had," Black said.
Black's laywer, H. Louis Sirkin, told AVN.com, "It's very gratifying to have been a part of what I think is a historic landmark decision. Even though it's on the first level, hopefully this will have a catalyst effect across the country on any federal obscenity cases that are currently pending."
Sirkin said it shows the importance of the Bill of Rights, not just the right to free speech but the right to substantive due process. "We have a liberty interest to find sexual entertainment and to find media material that might be stimulating, and we have a right to view that, for whatever purposes we want to use it for," he said.
Noting that the judge based his decision on the Supreme Court's Lawrence vs. Texas ruling last year, which struck down a Texas sodomy statute, Sirkin said, "This court has adopted the language of what Justice Scalia had said in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence." Scalia wrote in part that the decision "called into question" laws against obscenity and various other offenses.
In a statement from the Justice Department, U. S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said, "We are very disappointed by the court's decision to dismiss the indictment in U.S. v. Extreme Associates, et al. As we set forth in the pleadings we filed in the case, we continue to believe that the federal obscenity statutes are valid and constitutional, including as applied in this case.
"We are reviewing the ruling and examining our options, which could include an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit."
Internet attorney Lawrence G. Walters, a partner in the firm of Weston, Garrou & DeWitt, called the decision "a tremendous victory for Rob Black, for the Adult industry, and for the First Amendment."
He told AVN.com that before the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling, government had been able to show it had a "compelling interest" in restricting sexual activities. But Lawrence v. Texas said in effect that the government can no longer use "compelling interest" as a rationale for suppressing what adults many do in private.
The Black ruling extends this concept to Adult entertainment. In effect, Walters said, "you should be able to see what you're able to do."
Quoting once again from Judge Lancaster's opinion: "After Lawrence, the government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code, i.e., preventing consenting adults from entertaining lewd or lascivious thoughts, as a legitimate, let alone a compelling state interest."
Walters cautioned that since the case ended in a dismissal, not an acquittal, the government will likely appeal. "You can't count your chickens too soon," he said. "But we must have faith that the appellate courts will do the right thing."
Well-known First Amendment attorney Paul Cambria told AVN.com, "I applaud this judge for the decision and, furthermore, his standing up and being counted."
Cambria compared the case to his own successful fight on behalf of Al Goldstein in the 1970s. Then, he said, the government chose not to appeal, stating that by appealing it elevates the case to a higher level, which means that it will have a broader scope.
This means, he said, that if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, the only aspect of X-rated films that will be illegal will be child porn. "If this case is elevated through a higher court and is dismissed, on up to the Supreme Court and gets dismissed, that will change everything. Everybody will get into the business of making Adult entertainment," he said.
Greg Piccionelli, an Internet and patent attorney with the Los Angeles-based law firm Piccionelli & Sarno, told AVN.com, "This is a banner day for the First Amendment, and the equivalent of Pearl Harbor for the Religious Right.
"If the ruling is appealed and ultimately upheld - and I can say with absolute certitude that [this ruling] will be on the front burner for every conservative and religious right-winger in the country - it means that privacy law has evolved. It will alter what is permissible for the government to do, and it will obliterate the notion that community standards trump personal privacy."
Regarding an appeal, Sirkin said, "I'm certain the government will explore it. They don't take losses well. If they appeal it we're prepared to defend our position. We'll just take it a step at a time, but it's a beginning, and it's a very important beginning."
Asked about the decision's effect on new federal obscenity indictments, Sirkin said, "I should think it would make [the Justice Department] start to think again about the prosecutions. I think this is a momentum-shifting event. It will hopefully slow them down and cause them to rethink the positions that they're taking."
Perhaps most importantly, he said, the adult industry "can really feel protected that they are making available to the public that which the public is entitled to receive." [/b:ee868d7679]
La decisione resa
http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/21/40/8 ... 16a863.pdf
Gary L. Lancaster, giudice federale di Pittsburgh, ha prosciolto il produttore Rob Black e la moglie Lizzy Borden di Extreme Associates dalle accuse di oscenità , questa è una decisione che avrà un enorme impatto sull'industria dell'intrattenimento per gli adulti americana. Il giudice ha rilasciato un documento dove spiega che le leggi federali sull'oscenità limitano l'esercizio dei fondamentali diritti di libertà di parola e violano la privacy. Rob Black ha dichiarato: 'Ho determinato una fottuta decisione che farà la storia!' In realtà era già venuto fuori durante i seminari tenuti durante gli AVN di Las Vegas che, nonostante la vittoria di Bush e della destra conservatrice, l'industria dell'hard non sarebbe stata attaccata più di tanto. Certamente neanche i più ottimisti tra gli avvocati che si occupano della situazione legale del porno made in USA avrebbero potuto sperare in un risultato così favorevole. Prima Seymore Butts poi Max Hardcore e adesso Rob Black hanno vinto le loro battaglie in tribunale. Ora addirittura le leggi contro l'oscenità vengono ritenute incostituzionali, inizia bene il nuovo anno per l'industria dell'intrattenimento per adulti degli Stati Uniti. Ricordo che recentemente Silvio Bandinelli, proprio durante la fiera di Delta di Venere, mi ha parlato di creare anche in Italia un team legale, pagato delle maggiori case di produzione e distribuzione italiane che si occupi dei vari problemi del settore. Rinnoviamo a tutti l'invito ad un incontro, in quanto è di grandissima importanza che il porno italico esca il più velocemente possibile dal ghetto e sia unito almeno nelle battaglie comuni.
Maxxx[/quote:ee868d7679]
Senti Maxxx, sai bene che l'industria americana hard non ha un "team" legale che si occupa di accuse di oscenita' contro i produttori/distributori e negozi che vendono materiale pornografico. Se non ce l'hanno fatta fino ad ora nel USA, dubito che la Francia, Italia, Germania, Ungheria potranno mettere in su un organismo che viene alla difesa di casi legali di oscenita. Bill Margold ha o era in carico di un'associazione (che ora mi sfugge il nome esatto) che almeno su carta doveva fare certe cose, ma e' stata sempre criticata per la loro inefficienza e mancanza di coraggio di difendere certe cause.
Se ricordi bene Rob Black si era lamentato molto apertamente che l'industria gli si era voltatato le spalle, quando era sotto le accuse di oscenita' per i 3-4 film che la Extreme aveva prodotto.
Sono contento per Black, non per lui personalmente, ma come vedi le autorita' americane prima sparano, perdono le cause, e fanno spendere un sacco di soldi a quelli che si devono difendere, e il risultato e' che questo ha un fattore dissuadivo per quelli che lavorano nell'industria hard. Piu' di 30 anni fa, le autorita' facevano causa ai Mitchell Bros e Alex de Renzy tutte le settimane a San Francisco. Ma loro non si arrendevano mai, e le vincevano tutte. E' sempre stata una lunga e dura lotta, e il risultato di questa decisione, non mettera' a fine l'intenzione di ogni nuova amministrazione governativa americana di fare "piazza pulita" sulla pornografia.
Ecco l'articolo pubblicato al sito AVN.com
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Na ... _ID=214089
[b:ee868d7679]Extreme Associates Case Dismissed; Obscenity Laws Ruled Unconstitutional
By: Jared Rutter
Posted: 10:57 am PST 1-21-2005
CHATSWORTH, Calif. - In a decision that is bound to have enormous impact on the Adult entertainment industry, obscenity charges against producer Rob Black and his wife Lizzy Borden of Extreme Associates were thrown out of court today by a federal judge in Pittsburgh.
"I'm still speechless," Black told AVN.com. "All ten counts against us were dismissed." He said that U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster made the dismissal on the grounds that obscenity laws are unconstitutional.
"We find that the federal obscenity statutes place a burden on the exercise of the fundamental rights of liberty, privacy and speech," wrote Judge Lancaster in his opinion (printed in full below).
"I now have made fucking history," said the jubilant Black.
The Extreme Associates case was the first federal obscenity prosecution against a video manufacturer in over a decade.
"It makes everything perfect," he added. "The business has been going great and all of a sudden my lawyer calls up and said I won."
"This is the greatest news I've ever had," Black said.
Black's laywer, H. Louis Sirkin, told AVN.com, "It's very gratifying to have been a part of what I think is a historic landmark decision. Even though it's on the first level, hopefully this will have a catalyst effect across the country on any federal obscenity cases that are currently pending."
Sirkin said it shows the importance of the Bill of Rights, not just the right to free speech but the right to substantive due process. "We have a liberty interest to find sexual entertainment and to find media material that might be stimulating, and we have a right to view that, for whatever purposes we want to use it for," he said.
Noting that the judge based his decision on the Supreme Court's Lawrence vs. Texas ruling last year, which struck down a Texas sodomy statute, Sirkin said, "This court has adopted the language of what Justice Scalia had said in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence." Scalia wrote in part that the decision "called into question" laws against obscenity and various other offenses.
In a statement from the Justice Department, U. S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said, "We are very disappointed by the court's decision to dismiss the indictment in U.S. v. Extreme Associates, et al. As we set forth in the pleadings we filed in the case, we continue to believe that the federal obscenity statutes are valid and constitutional, including as applied in this case.
"We are reviewing the ruling and examining our options, which could include an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit."
Internet attorney Lawrence G. Walters, a partner in the firm of Weston, Garrou & DeWitt, called the decision "a tremendous victory for Rob Black, for the Adult industry, and for the First Amendment."
He told AVN.com that before the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling, government had been able to show it had a "compelling interest" in restricting sexual activities. But Lawrence v. Texas said in effect that the government can no longer use "compelling interest" as a rationale for suppressing what adults many do in private.
The Black ruling extends this concept to Adult entertainment. In effect, Walters said, "you should be able to see what you're able to do."
Quoting once again from Judge Lancaster's opinion: "After Lawrence, the government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code, i.e., preventing consenting adults from entertaining lewd or lascivious thoughts, as a legitimate, let alone a compelling state interest."
Walters cautioned that since the case ended in a dismissal, not an acquittal, the government will likely appeal. "You can't count your chickens too soon," he said. "But we must have faith that the appellate courts will do the right thing."
Well-known First Amendment attorney Paul Cambria told AVN.com, "I applaud this judge for the decision and, furthermore, his standing up and being counted."
Cambria compared the case to his own successful fight on behalf of Al Goldstein in the 1970s. Then, he said, the government chose not to appeal, stating that by appealing it elevates the case to a higher level, which means that it will have a broader scope.
This means, he said, that if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, the only aspect of X-rated films that will be illegal will be child porn. "If this case is elevated through a higher court and is dismissed, on up to the Supreme Court and gets dismissed, that will change everything. Everybody will get into the business of making Adult entertainment," he said.
Greg Piccionelli, an Internet and patent attorney with the Los Angeles-based law firm Piccionelli & Sarno, told AVN.com, "This is a banner day for the First Amendment, and the equivalent of Pearl Harbor for the Religious Right.
"If the ruling is appealed and ultimately upheld - and I can say with absolute certitude that [this ruling] will be on the front burner for every conservative and religious right-winger in the country - it means that privacy law has evolved. It will alter what is permissible for the government to do, and it will obliterate the notion that community standards trump personal privacy."
Regarding an appeal, Sirkin said, "I'm certain the government will explore it. They don't take losses well. If they appeal it we're prepared to defend our position. We'll just take it a step at a time, but it's a beginning, and it's a very important beginning."
Asked about the decision's effect on new federal obscenity indictments, Sirkin said, "I should think it would make [the Justice Department] start to think again about the prosecutions. I think this is a momentum-shifting event. It will hopefully slow them down and cause them to rethink the positions that they're taking."
Perhaps most importantly, he said, the adult industry "can really feel protected that they are making available to the public that which the public is entitled to receive." [/b:ee868d7679]
La decisione resa
http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/21/40/8 ... 16a863.pdf
dai, Len, mi sa che questa cosa continuerà all'infinito negli U.S.A....
qualcuno fa cause, qualcuno le vince, qualcuno le perde, ogni tanto va bene da una parte, ogni tanto va bene dall'altra...
non credo si arrivi a fermare il porno. Soprattutto, non in Cali-fuckin'-Fornia...
qualcuno fa cause, qualcuno le vince, qualcuno le perde, ogni tanto va bene da una parte, ogni tanto va bene dall'altra...
non credo si arrivi a fermare il porno. Soprattutto, non in Cali-fuckin'-Fornia...
You are what you is (Frank Zappa)
"Cosa c'entra il Papa con l'apertura dell'anno accademico? E' come se a un concistoro si decidesse di invitare Belladonna" (Sacre Scuole)
"Che ci posso fare? Le banalità non mi emozionano" (Breglia)
"Cosa c'entra il Papa con l'apertura dell'anno accademico? E' come se a un concistoro si decidesse di invitare Belladonna" (Sacre Scuole)
"Che ci posso fare? Le banalità non mi emozionano" (Breglia)
Si infatti, se leggi i commenti e "press release" del governo, dicono che studiano la possibilita' di appello. Hanno i soldi, tempo e risorse (che probabilmente Black non ha), non si arrendono, e se perdono la causa, continuano con altre cose.Squirto ha scritto:dai, Len, mi sa che questa cosa continuerà all'infinito negli U.S.A....
qualcuno fa cause, qualcuno le vince, qualcuno le perde, ogni tanto va bene da una parte, ogni tanto va bene dall'altra...
non credo si arrivi a fermare il porno. Soprattutto, non in Cali-fuckin'-Fornia...
fratelli mitchell.
len scatenati.
ce ne sono di cose da raccontare su sti 2.
len scatenati.
ce ne sono di cose da raccontare su sti 2.
Il link alla mia pagina subscribestar, se volete sostenere il mio lavoro come illustratore zozzo qui potete:
https://subscribestar.adult/stokkafilippo
https://subscribestar.adult/stokkafilippo
Come lo sospettavo, il governo (Department of Justice, nel distretto della Pennsylvania) ha deciso il 16 febbraio 2005 di fare appello alla decisione per la causa di oscenita' contro Extreme Associates.
Ecco il testo del "press release" del governo:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/Februa ... rm_066.htm
[b:1c176d0e6f]WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRM
(202) 514-2008
TDD (202) 514-1888
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO APPEAL DISTRICT COURT RULING DISMISSING OBSCENITY CHARGES IN THE EXTREME ASSOCIATES CASE
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice announced today that it will appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a recent ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Pennsylvania that dismissed a criminal obscenity indictment in the case of U.S. v. Extreme Associates, Inc., Robert Zicari and Janet Romano. U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan filed the government's notice of appeal today in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
On Jan. 20, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster dismissed the 10-count indictment charging the defendants with conspiracy to distribute obscene materials, three counts of mailing obscene films, and six counts of transmitting obscene material over the Internet.
"The Department of Justice places a premium on the First Amendment right to free speech, but certain activities do not fall within those protections, such as selling or distributing obscene materials," said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. "The Department of Justice remains strongly committed to the investigation and prosecution of adult obscenity cases."
As alleged in the indictment, Extreme Associates, based in Los Angeles, California, offered obscene materials for sale through its website. Customers could purchase videos through the website and could also purchase video clips by becoming a member of the website and downloading videos. Extreme Associates and its principals and owners, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 6, 2003. The Justice Department believes that the reasoning of the District Court in dismissing the indictment, if upheld, would undermine not only the federal obscenity laws, but all laws based on shared views of public morality, such as laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy.
The Extreme Associates case is being prosecuted by the office of U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan of the Western District of Pennsylvania, with assistance from the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, headed by Section Chief Andrew Oosterbaan. [/b:1c176d0e6f]
Ecco il testo del "press release" del governo:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/Februa ... rm_066.htm
[b:1c176d0e6f]WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2005
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
CRM
(202) 514-2008
TDD (202) 514-1888
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO APPEAL DISTRICT COURT RULING DISMISSING OBSCENITY CHARGES IN THE EXTREME ASSOCIATES CASE
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice announced today that it will appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a recent ruling by a U.S. District Court judge in Pennsylvania that dismissed a criminal obscenity indictment in the case of U.S. v. Extreme Associates, Inc., Robert Zicari and Janet Romano. U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan filed the government's notice of appeal today in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
On Jan. 20, 2005, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster dismissed the 10-count indictment charging the defendants with conspiracy to distribute obscene materials, three counts of mailing obscene films, and six counts of transmitting obscene material over the Internet.
"The Department of Justice places a premium on the First Amendment right to free speech, but certain activities do not fall within those protections, such as selling or distributing obscene materials," said Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. "The Department of Justice remains strongly committed to the investigation and prosecution of adult obscenity cases."
As alleged in the indictment, Extreme Associates, based in Los Angeles, California, offered obscene materials for sale through its website. Customers could purchase videos through the website and could also purchase video clips by becoming a member of the website and downloading videos. Extreme Associates and its principals and owners, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on Aug. 6, 2003. The Justice Department believes that the reasoning of the District Court in dismissing the indictment, if upheld, would undermine not only the federal obscenity laws, but all laws based on shared views of public morality, such as laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy.
The Extreme Associates case is being prosecuted by the office of U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan of the Western District of Pennsylvania, with assistance from the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, headed by Section Chief Andrew Oosterbaan. [/b:1c176d0e6f]
AVN.com ha pubblicato questo articolo sull'appelo (17 febbraio):
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Na ... _ID=217009
[b:e863aa0f82]Extreme Attorney Discusses Pending Appeal
By: Mark Kernes
Posted: 5:21 pm PST 2-17-2005
CINCINNATI - H. Louis Sirkin, attorney for Extreme Associates, is thinking about writing a letter to one of the larger advertisers in local newspapers.
"I should write to the United Dairy Farmers, 'You better watch your cows; they're endangered,'" he chuckled.
The inspiration for the letter was a statement in the Department of Justice's press release announcing that the government had decided to appeal Judge Gary Lancaster's decision in United States v. Extreme Associates.
"The Justice Department believes," stated the press release, "that the reasoning of the District Court in dismissing the indictment, if upheld, would undermine not only the federal laws, but all laws based on shared views of public morality, such as laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy."
"Prostitution, bestiality and bigamy?" Who knew?
"This guy from the Times, when he called me yesterday, I said, 'I didn't realize the extent of the bestiality problem in this country,'" Sirkin deadpanned. "And I didn't even realize that bigamy was a problem; I thought we took care of that when we got rid of it with the Mormons. So I guess the floodgates are open.
"They must have put in that bestiality thing because they knew I was involved in a bestiality case 20 years ago in North Carolina," he added.
The Feb. 16 decision to appeal was one of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' first official actions since being sworn into office on Feb. 14, although Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra claimed that, "The decision was in the works before he took over."
That decision had to be a difficult one for the Justice Department, since the first stage would take the case to the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a long history of pro-First Amendment decisions, including the striking down of part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act and two opinions upholding an injunction against the Child Online Protection Act. A loss there would make Judge Lancaster's opinion the law for the entire Third Circuit, which only includes Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but would set the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decisions affect the entire country.
AVN.com asked Sirkin what would happen now that the government has filed notice of its intent to appeal.
"First they [U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's office] receive a docket statement from the Third Circuit, after which they have to gather whatever transcripts or whatever that they have to have transported up [to the clerk of the Third Circuit]," Sirkin detailed. "And then at some point, the Third Circuit will issue a scheduling order. That's when they'll know when they, and we will have to file our briefs."
"I think we're in a good Circuit, and I think that's very, very encouraging, and hopefully, that's a very crowded docket and that appeal will take quite some time."
Sirkin also sees the government's notice of appeal as a portent of the Bush administration's intentions to move against the adult industry.
"Everybody that Bush is putting on board right now are people that are very, very close and aligned completely, 100 percent, to him," Sirkin observed. "I think that he had some big differences with Ashcroft. I think Ashcroft was hurting him with the PATRIOT Act stuff - not the obscenity crap, but I think that they were clashing over that. I think that Ashcroft was probably stepping on some toes dealing with the bank records and other stuff of people that are around or supporters of Bush, and I think that's why they parted ways. Ashcroft wasn't talked about at all during the campaign, and he was one of the first to resign. I just have a feeling that Bush is now completely surrounding himself with everybody who's clearly a yes-man."
In fact, on Feb. 15, Gonzales announced three appointments to the Justice Department's senior staff, at least two of whom can probably be counted on to help push the administration's anti-adult agenda: New Chief of Staff Theodore W. Ullyot was Associate Counsel to President Bush when Gonzales was Bush's Chief Counsel; and after law school, Ullyot clerked for ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during the 1995-1996 term.
Ullyot's new deputy, D. Kyle Sampson, served as Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1999-2001.
And yet, with all of the publicity surrounding the Extreme case, Sirkin still can't get a break in his local newspapers.
"But the really good thing is," Sirkin joked, "the Cincinnati paper had an article today about the Justice Department appealing the case, but they still didn't use my name. They will not put my name in it, even though they were aware of the decision and everything. And they were the first media in Cincinnati that had anything on the case, except for an article in the alternative weekly paper that said, 'Isn't it interesting that a decision like that, if it had been about a sporting event or something in Pittsburgh, it would have been reported here, but since it had something to do with something positive to the adult industry, the local papers wouldn't carry it.'" [/b:e863aa0f82]
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Na ... _ID=217009
[b:e863aa0f82]Extreme Attorney Discusses Pending Appeal
By: Mark Kernes
Posted: 5:21 pm PST 2-17-2005
CINCINNATI - H. Louis Sirkin, attorney for Extreme Associates, is thinking about writing a letter to one of the larger advertisers in local newspapers.
"I should write to the United Dairy Farmers, 'You better watch your cows; they're endangered,'" he chuckled.
The inspiration for the letter was a statement in the Department of Justice's press release announcing that the government had decided to appeal Judge Gary Lancaster's decision in United States v. Extreme Associates.
"The Justice Department believes," stated the press release, "that the reasoning of the District Court in dismissing the indictment, if upheld, would undermine not only the federal laws, but all laws based on shared views of public morality, such as laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy."
"Prostitution, bestiality and bigamy?" Who knew?
"This guy from the Times, when he called me yesterday, I said, 'I didn't realize the extent of the bestiality problem in this country,'" Sirkin deadpanned. "And I didn't even realize that bigamy was a problem; I thought we took care of that when we got rid of it with the Mormons. So I guess the floodgates are open.
"They must have put in that bestiality thing because they knew I was involved in a bestiality case 20 years ago in North Carolina," he added.
The Feb. 16 decision to appeal was one of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales' first official actions since being sworn into office on Feb. 14, although Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra claimed that, "The decision was in the works before he took over."
That decision had to be a difficult one for the Justice Department, since the first stage would take the case to the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has a long history of pro-First Amendment decisions, including the striking down of part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act and two opinions upholding an injunction against the Child Online Protection Act. A loss there would make Judge Lancaster's opinion the law for the entire Third Circuit, which only includes Pennsylvania and New Jersey, but would set the stage for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, whose decisions affect the entire country.
AVN.com asked Sirkin what would happen now that the government has filed notice of its intent to appeal.
"First they [U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's office] receive a docket statement from the Third Circuit, after which they have to gather whatever transcripts or whatever that they have to have transported up [to the clerk of the Third Circuit]," Sirkin detailed. "And then at some point, the Third Circuit will issue a scheduling order. That's when they'll know when they, and we will have to file our briefs."
"I think we're in a good Circuit, and I think that's very, very encouraging, and hopefully, that's a very crowded docket and that appeal will take quite some time."
Sirkin also sees the government's notice of appeal as a portent of the Bush administration's intentions to move against the adult industry.
"Everybody that Bush is putting on board right now are people that are very, very close and aligned completely, 100 percent, to him," Sirkin observed. "I think that he had some big differences with Ashcroft. I think Ashcroft was hurting him with the PATRIOT Act stuff - not the obscenity crap, but I think that they were clashing over that. I think that Ashcroft was probably stepping on some toes dealing with the bank records and other stuff of people that are around or supporters of Bush, and I think that's why they parted ways. Ashcroft wasn't talked about at all during the campaign, and he was one of the first to resign. I just have a feeling that Bush is now completely surrounding himself with everybody who's clearly a yes-man."
In fact, on Feb. 15, Gonzales announced three appointments to the Justice Department's senior staff, at least two of whom can probably be counted on to help push the administration's anti-adult agenda: New Chief of Staff Theodore W. Ullyot was Associate Counsel to President Bush when Gonzales was Bush's Chief Counsel; and after law school, Ullyot clerked for ultra-conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia during the 1995-1996 term.
Ullyot's new deputy, D. Kyle Sampson, served as Counsel to Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.) on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 1999-2001.
And yet, with all of the publicity surrounding the Extreme case, Sirkin still can't get a break in his local newspapers.
"But the really good thing is," Sirkin joked, "the Cincinnati paper had an article today about the Justice Department appealing the case, but they still didn't use my name. They will not put my name in it, even though they were aware of the decision and everything. And they were the first media in Cincinnati that had anything on the case, except for an article in the alternative weekly paper that said, 'Isn't it interesting that a decision like that, if it had been about a sporting event or something in Pittsburgh, it would have been reported here, but since it had something to do with something positive to the adult industry, the local papers wouldn't carry it.'" [/b:e863aa0f82]
Un'aricolo pubblicato dal Pittburgh Action News (16 febbraio):
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/new ... etail.html
Government Targets 'Extreme' Porn Couple
POSTED: 3:06 pm EST February 16, 2005
UPDATED: 3:34 pm EST February 16, 2005
PITTSBURGH -- The federal obscenity case against a husband-wife pornography business is moving to the next level.
U.S. Department of Justice officials said Wednesday that the government will appeal a recent Pittsburgh ruling that dismissed obscenity charges against Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., and their company, Extreme Associates.
Zicari and Romano, also known by the stage names "Rob Black" and "Lizzie Borden," were charged in August 2003 with distributing obscene videos to Pittsburgh addresses through the mail and transmitting obscene images over the Internet.
At the time, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said Extreme's videos showed "violent, brutal, degrading" material that depicted rape and murder of women.
Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster threw out the charges, saying that people have a right to view such material in the privacy of their homes and Extreme has the right to market it.
If upheld, Lancaster's ruling "would undermine not only the federal obscenity laws, but all laws based on shared view of public morality, such as laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy," according to a Justice Department press release.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the sale and distribution of obscene materials are not protected under the First Amendment.
"The Department of Justice remains strongly committed to the investigation and prosecution of adult obscenity cases," Gonzales said.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/new ... etail.html
Government Targets 'Extreme' Porn Couple
POSTED: 3:06 pm EST February 16, 2005
UPDATED: 3:34 pm EST February 16, 2005
PITTSBURGH -- The federal obscenity case against a husband-wife pornography business is moving to the next level.
U.S. Department of Justice officials said Wednesday that the government will appeal a recent Pittsburgh ruling that dismissed obscenity charges against Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., and their company, Extreme Associates.
Zicari and Romano, also known by the stage names "Rob Black" and "Lizzie Borden," were charged in August 2003 with distributing obscene videos to Pittsburgh addresses through the mail and transmitting obscene images over the Internet.
At the time, U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said Extreme's videos showed "violent, brutal, degrading" material that depicted rape and murder of women.
Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster threw out the charges, saying that people have a right to view such material in the privacy of their homes and Extreme has the right to market it.
If upheld, Lancaster's ruling "would undermine not only the federal obscenity laws, but all laws based on shared view of public morality, such as laws against prostitution, bestiality and bigamy," according to a Justice Department press release.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said the sale and distribution of obscene materials are not protected under the First Amendment.
"The Department of Justice remains strongly committed to the investigation and prosecution of adult obscenity cases," Gonzales said.
-
armageddom
- Impulsi avanzati
- Messaggi: 732
- Iscritto il: 26/01/2002, 1:00
- Località: Lecco
-
Maxxx
- Veterano dell'impulso
- Messaggi: 2617
- Iscritto il: 26/03/2003, 21:01
- Località: somewhere over the rainbow
- Contatta:
vedi len801 mentre tu ti facevi google andata e ritorno io ero a las vegas dove c'erano dei seminari con un discreto numero di avvocati
non li ho visti mai in una fiera itaGliana
quanto ai vari max harcore e seymore butts x me non sono dei pixel sullo schermo ma delle persone che conosco da tempo
e mentre si stava discutendo di come organizzare il taglio del nastro a las vegas mi sono trovato dietro a a seymore butts proprio mentre seymore chiedeva a seka il suo biglietto da visita e quindi subito gliene ho chiesto uno anch'io
seka non mi conosceva e mi ha guardato con un certo sospetto
al che seymore si è voltato mi ha visto ed ha esclamato
massimo!!! this is massimo!
massimo do you know that they still want me in italy?
al che ho risposto
of course you know that they love you over there
e lui
no the police!!!
gran risata di tutti compresa seka
seymore si riferiva al suo arresto in quel di firenze tantti anni fa
in video è molto più divertente hehehehehehehe
questo x dire che c'è tutto un mondo fuori dai motori di ricerca
non li ho visti mai in una fiera itaGliana
quanto ai vari max harcore e seymore butts x me non sono dei pixel sullo schermo ma delle persone che conosco da tempo
e mentre si stava discutendo di come organizzare il taglio del nastro a las vegas mi sono trovato dietro a a seymore butts proprio mentre seymore chiedeva a seka il suo biglietto da visita e quindi subito gliene ho chiesto uno anch'io
seka non mi conosceva e mi ha guardato con un certo sospetto
al che seymore si è voltato mi ha visto ed ha esclamato
massimo!!! this is massimo!
massimo do you know that they still want me in italy?
al che ho risposto
of course you know that they love you over there
e lui
no the police!!!
gran risata di tutti compresa seka
seymore si riferiva al suo arresto in quel di firenze tantti anni fa
in video è molto più divertente hehehehehehehe
questo x dire che c'è tutto un mondo fuori dai motori di ricerca
What is the point MAXXX, that you (can) travel to Las Vegas where you mix with known porn personalities and I don't? I have never said or suggested that I am part of the hard-core scene. I have made this very plain in my previous posts.Maxxx ha scritto:vedi len801 mentre tu ti facevi google andata e ritorno io ero a las vegas dove c'erano dei seminari con un discreto numero di avvocati non li ho visti mai in una fiera itaGliana
quanto ai vari max harcore e seymore butts x me non sono dei pixel sullo schermo ma delle persone che conosco da tempo
I have no reason to go to Las Vegas and see people like Seymore Butts, who I dislike (including his TV show "Family Business"). I did post pictures of Seka as the L.A. meet, and I am a great fan of hers, and if you got to meet her personally, well I am happy for you.
But what does this all have to do with the fact that the gov has decided to appeal the case they lost against Rob Black and Extreme, or are you referring to some other obscure point??
-
zuccherina.italiana
- Nuovi Impulsi
- Messaggi: 237
- Iscritto il: 18/01/2005, 20:01
- Località: piemonte
-
Inchiostro Simpatico
- Veterano dell'impulso
- Messaggi: 3290
- Iscritto il: 01/05/2001, 2:00
Su Len e sulle sue capacità non si puó avere un solo dubbio.
Molto spesso la tecnologia ti aiuta a conoscere cose, fatti e documenti che chi beve lo champagnino e taglia il nastro alla fiera di Las Vegas non puó conoscere (e forse mai leggerà ).
Gli atteggiamenti da "senti ragazzino io ho conosciuto tizio, caio e semprugna (prontamente fotografata e leccata)" non mi sono mai piaicuti.
Poi ogniuno è libero di esprimersi come vuole.
Molto spesso la tecnologia ti aiuta a conoscere cose, fatti e documenti che chi beve lo champagnino e taglia il nastro alla fiera di Las Vegas non puó conoscere (e forse mai leggerà ).
Gli atteggiamenti da "senti ragazzino io ho conosciuto tizio, caio e semprugna (prontamente fotografata e leccata)" non mi sono mai piaicuti.
Poi ogniuno è libero di esprimersi come vuole.
Non sottovalutate la potenza di questo utente
[url=http://www.superzeta.it/viewtopic.php?t=5578&highlight=vademecum]Vademecum sul P2P[/url]
[url=http://www.superzeta.it/viewtopic.php?t=5578&highlight=vademecum]Vademecum sul P2P[/url]