raveneye

Just when I thought the U.S. had become more puritan than the Puritans themselves, we have this court decision (appended below).

I really hope this does not get overturned on appeal. State standards really have become irrelevant in the age of the internet. We're a global village now.

In any case, it sure is refreshing to see individual liberties being upheld in the U.S. for a change.



Court Strikes Down Federal Obscenity Statute

In U.S. v. Extreme Associates, Inc., Judge Lancaster of the Western District of Pennsylvania struck down the federal law criminalizing obscenity as applied to a distributor of internet pornography:

"We find that the federal obscenity statutes burden an individual's fundamental right to possess, read, observe, and think about what he chooses in the privacy of his own home by completely banning the distribution of obscene materials"

In reaching its holding, the court relied heavily on the Supreme Court's holding in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared state anti-sodomy statutes unconstitutional. The court in Extreme Associates construed Lawrence broadly, holding that in the wake of Lawrence "public morality is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify infringing on adult, private, consentual, sexual conduct, even if that conduct is deemed offensive to the general public's sense of morality."

The government argued, in part, that "entertaining lewd and lustful thoughts stimulated by viewing material that appeals to one's purient interests . . . . is immoral conduct even when done by consenting adults in private." The court, however was unmoved by this Comstockian argument, declaring that after Lawrence, "upholding the public sense of morality is not even a legitimate state interest."

UPDATE 1/23/05, 2:44pm, by Ian: Professor Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy argues that this case is inconsistent with existing doctrine, and will likely be overturned on appeal.upheld upheld

MSD

As soon as the government lawyers said "imoral conduct," they lost their argument. The government has no right to legislate morality, and it's nice to see a trend of courts supporting this.

f6twister

I would find it very odd that none of the legislators ever watched porn on the internet or otherwise and that they never had a lustful thought because of it. A number of legislators have gone far beyond what is described above over the past few years and much of that happened outside of the home. Just another attempt to prevent us from thinking for ourselves.

__________________
A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day. Calvin

lurkette

O...K.

So does that include a wife giving her husband a strip tease? A husband ogling his wife as she gets out of a shower? Writing your own erotica? Videotaping you and your partner getting it on and watching it later? Showing that video to friends?

Come on, people...exercise a little common sense. Even Jimmy Carter lusted in his heart

The fact that the government even attempted to make this lame-ass argument is chilling. Glad to see someone on the bench is actually thinking. I hope this goes some way toward striking down the "no dildos" laws in Alabama and elsewhere.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

kutulu

There have been strong pushes by the right to legislate their version of morality. It's nice to see the system of checks and balances working for once.

CSflim

Wow! I'm impressed. Great news for reason and rationality .

__________________

ObieX

*does the moonwalk in celebration*

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Hardknock

Score one for the people for a change!

The religious right has started making their assult on my personal freedoms and it's nice to know that there are judges out there who still call bullshit.

TexanAvenger

"Professor Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy argues that this case is inconsistent with existing doctrine, and will likely be overturned on appeal"

Can we get rid of that too, the existing doctrine? We need to uphold our Puritan roots like we need a nail in the kneecap... It's confining, ridiculous, outdated, and held up mostly by religious ideologies that often conflict with its preachings.

raveneye

Like I said, I really do think we're more puritan now about sex than the original Puritans were.

The reason might be that so few people live on farms anymore, where sex is obvious and all over the place and no big deal.