Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News



Message


MasterZChicago -> Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (3/20/2006 11:30:38 PM)

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom

Contact:
Susan Wright, NCSF Spokesperson
(917) 848-6544

Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA)

March 20, 2006 - Washington D.C. b Today the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the
Federal District Court's decision in Barbara Nitke and NCSF v. Alberto Gonzales,
the challenge to the Communications Decency Act, #01 CIV 11476 (RMB). The Supreme
Court has affirmed the lower court's decision without hearing oral arguments,
sending a clear signal that the court will not protect free speech rights when it
comes to sexually explicit materials.

The NCSF and Nitke lawsuit was successful in weakening the Miller standard of
judging obscenity: the District Court for the Southern District of NY made a
factual finding that the SLAPS prong of Miller does not provide protection against
prosecution as it was intended to do. The Miller decision (1973) stated that
materials were constitutionally protected if the work, taken as a whole,
has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." However the
District court accepted evidence from NCSF and Nitke that prosecutors and juries in
more restrictive communities are less likely to extend protection to artistic and
literary materials that are outside the mainstream of traditional sexuality.

"We have proven that Miller does not work," says Susan Wright, Spokesperson for
NCSF. "But the Supreme Court has declined to strike it down at this time. That
means every website on the Internet can be judged by the most repressive local
community standards in the U.S."

The Supreme Court decision shows the importance of supporting NCSF, one of the few
organizations proactively fighting obscenity laws. The CDA makes it a crime to post
obscenity on the Internet because those materials may be viewed by children. NCSF
and Nitke believe that adults should have the right to post and view sexually
explicit materials involving consenting adults on the Internet.

"We knew that the Bush administration was laying its plans to prosecute sexually
explicit material on the Internet," says John Wirenius, attorney for the
plaintiffs. "By filing our lawsuit in 2001, we may have slowed the Justice
Department from prosecuting obscenity in 2002-3, but the number of obscenity
prosecutions has steadily increased ever since. We believe in fighting this battle
and we took our fight all the way to the Supreme Court."

"I think we've achieved a great victory in drawing attention to how politicized our
judicial system has become," says co-plaintiff Barbara Nitke, a fine art
photographer who explores sexual relationships in her work. "Our obscenity laws are
outmoded, especially in conjunction with the Internet. We've made a huge dent in
how obscenity will be judged in the future, and I hope others will now stand up and
continue to fight against repressive laws like this."

NCSF and Barbara Nitke would like to thank everyone who contributed to fund this
important lawsuit, as well as the many dedicated witnesses and lawyers who assisted
in bringing this case to court. In particular, NCSF and Nitke thank John Wirenius
for his outstanding efforts in this case and his dedication to First Amendment
rights. NCSF intends to continue the fight against obscenity laws in the U.S.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom - www.ncsfreedom.org
Barbara Nitke - www.barbaranitke.com

###

A project of NCSF

The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a national organization committed to
creating a political, legal, and social environment in the United States that
advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual
expression. NCSF is primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-
leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, who often face discrimination
because of their sexual expression.

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
822 Guilford Avenue, Box 127
Baltimore, MD 21202-3707
410-539-4824
[email protected]
www.ncsfreedom.org

Please cross-post
 POSTED BY:

Master Z

National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
Board of Directors and
Coalition Partner Representative
http://www.ncsfreedom.org/




lovingmaster5880 -> RE: Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (4/22/2006 4:29:53 PM)

Well, I would have to disagree with some of what this lady says about the miller test she is leaving out 2 of the prongs for a three prong test. Needless to say without listing a bunch of legal jargon. I would have to disagree, especially when this lady doesn't give much information. I would say that this is no suprise, and that the facts of the case involve minors which would be reason for the court to rule in this way. She also does not list the code to find it in the federal observer.

This is propoganda to provoke the poorly informed to react, because they do not have all the facts. This is like a protest of idiots to end women's sufferage, before they figure out what it is. Oh shit.




TheHungryTiger -> RE: Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (4/22/2006 7:03:54 PM)

I wouldn't flat out disagree with the case Nitke had, but I am a lot firmer in the “maybe” category than the general BDSM community seems to be.
The thing that troubles me is that the entire thing was based on a hypothetical situation. Nitke never said she WAS being oppressed, only that she COULD be oppressed. The lower court said there was no proof that she was genuinely at risk. In that aspect I kind of agree with the court decision of “Hey, come back when there is an actual case to try and not just a theoretical possibility”
If I were Nitkie I would be publishing as much smut on the net as I could possibly manage. If I ever got arrested I could simply claim “Hey, the supreme court said I wasn't at risk of being prosecuted”
Now on the other hand, the time to fight something like this is before shit hits the fan. If we were to actually wait until a real case happened then by that time it would be too late. Instead the court decides to hear the issue of Anna Nichole Smith and her inheritance, but skips past this thing without comment.
I should also point out that the issue of “porn on the net” was already deemed ok in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. Nitke v. Gonzales dealt with “art photos” on the net, not porn on the net. ..... So we are now in the very odd situation where if the feds break down your door and take your dirty magazines then your best defense would be to say “Thats not porn, its art photos” but if they take your computer files your best defense is “Those are not art photos, thats porn”




Alumbrado -> RE: Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (4/23/2006 8:33:31 AM)

quote:

"But the Supreme Court has declined to strike it down at this time...."



This may not be the case the Court wants to issue a definite ruling on. 




MaitresseMissAnn -> RE: Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (5/7/2006 9:24:50 AM)

quote:

 If I were Nitkie I would be publishing as much smut on the net as I could possibly manage. If I ever got arrested I could simply claim “Hey, the supreme court said I wasn't at risk of being prosecuted”


Brilliant point.




JohnWarren -> RE: Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) (5/7/2006 9:49:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

"But the Supreme Court has declined to strike it down at this time...."



This may not be the case the Court wants to issue a definite ruling on. 


One factor may have been the quality of the material that would have been deemed "indecent."  They are probably looking for a case with a high "gag quotient."  This way the public will be lulled into thinking that all the subsequent cases involve similar material.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625