• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Prosecutors Defend Indictment in Wone Case in D.C. Superior Court | Main | The Morning Wrap »

December 22, 2009


Brain Lutz

Congress shall make no law abridging or prohibiting the press. The term "the press" is a euphemism for publication devices.

So any attempt to stop or make illegal the showing of trailers on a website cannot be done by Congress, which means no law or prohibition thereof such activity. This means Net Neutrality. This means the Government is acting illegally as in the case of "The Miller Test".


sometimes porn is better chilled!

Seriously, though, isn't this supposed to be a government of limited powers?

Frank Tilley

if you have a right to own obscene materials, it necessarily follows that someone else has a right to manufacture and market them

Oscar in Miami Beach

John you are so wrong.The way the Bush Administration got us into the Iraq war is totally obscene.Those government officials that orquestrated this massacre of american in a war totally unneeded and arbitrary should be prosecuted.We do it to other Head of States that we do not like and commit the same things but not to our own.It is also obscene.Obscenity is not only carnal things but a lot of other activities.The carnal ones should not be regulated other that what is in regard to children.Consenting adults should be left to own pornografy since the latter is in the eyes of the beholder.For some Michelangelo David is obscene.Is it to you?.


Matthew: what does that have to do with obscenity law? You're a fool.


Seriously torture is now legal, but they will try to stop porn like drugs?

Arthur Brown

And good luck convincing anybody that adult entertainment can even BE "chilled."

Arthur Brown

Judge Leon seems pretty right to me... There is something inherently different between Lawrence's liberty interest in sexual "privacy" and the supposed right to "publish" sexual material.


The entire obscenity doctrine is hopelessly flawed. What is the compelling governmental interest in criminalizing sexual speech between consenting adults?

Moreover how do the statutes provide any guideance to internet speakers as to what a local jury may determine it's "community standards" to be?

Matthew Carmody

But God forbid we should prosecute the war criminals from the previous administration.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad