A
federal judge in Washington, D.C., refused to dismiss a case
against pornography producers who were charged with trafficking
hard-core porn films across state lines and displaying illicit
movie trailers online.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon rejected their claim that
federal obscenity laws are unconstitutional.
John Stagliano and Evil Angel Productions Inc. claimed that
federal laws criminalizing the interstate trafficking of
obscenity were unconstitutional. They argued that the law
barring a Web site from displaying obscene materials was
unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, because made online
material subject to the community standards of the most
conservative jurisdictions in the country.
But Judge Leon said the law was confined to a very narrow legal
definition of obscenity. He said he is certain that online
material will be judged as a whole and not individually
according to obscenity laws, quashing filmmakers concerns that
the trailer would be taken out of context.
Federal obscenity statutes require items to be judged in context
of surrounding work. The government will have to show that the
trailer is obscene in the context of the Web page, Leon said.
He also rejected their claim of a right to sexual privacy,
saying such a right does not cover the distribution of obscene
materials. He said the producers' case pales in comparison
and does not even remotely approach the sexual privacy
cases concerning homosexual rights and rights to obtain birth
control. However you look at it, obscene material is not
protected by the First Amendment, Leon concluded.
Update:
Trial Set
26th March 2010. See
article
from
xbiz.com
A federal judge has set a July 7 trial date for the obscenity case
against John Stagliano and his two production companies, Evil Angel
Productions Inc. and John Stagliano Inc.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, at a status conference in
Washington at 3 p.m., set the trial date one month and one day after he
rejected Stagliano's claim that federal obscenity laws are
unconstitutional.
Leon said last month that obscene material is not protected by the
1st Amendment: Having considered the defendants' overbreath of
arguments, I am not convinced that such strong medicine is warranted in
this case. Nor am I convinced that the federal obscenity statutes are
unconstitutionally vague as applied to Internet speech.