NCSF on Twitter   Subscribe to the NCSF RSS Feed   NCSF Blog

Displaying items by tag: Legal


Mission: To decriminalize consensual BDSM (Bondage, Discipline, Dominance/submission, sadomasochism) in U.S. law by ensuring that consent will be recognized as a defense to criminal charges brought under assault laws and other statutes.

Unlike most other sexual issues (rape, for example), BDSM activities—a “scene”, a dungeon party, a Dominant/submissive or Master/slave relationship—can result in a criminal prosecution and conviction even where the activity is entirely consensual. It’s important to remember that most BDSM activities are treated as violence and not sex. This is not speculation; in 2010, NCSF’s incident response help line received 204 requests for help concerning criminal prosecutions.

NCSF’s research of cases throughout the United States revealed that not a single appellate court decision has allowed consent as a defense to a BDSM-based criminal prosecution for assault, sexual abuse, etc. Even where a state law allows the consent defense in cases that do not involve “serious bodily injury,” appellate courts have ruled that the use of nipple clamps or hot wax produces “serious bodily injury”.

The realization that our communities are at risk of criminal prosecution led to the launch of the “Consent Counts” initiative in 2006 at a Leather Leadership Roundtable at NGLTF’s Creating Change. At this Roundtable and one held subsequently at the Leather Leadership Conference, decriminalization of consensual BDSM was determined to be the number one priority of the BDSM/Leather/Fetish communities.  It was subsequently determined that NCSF would take a leadership and coordinating role.  This is, with the related initiative to change the way BDSM is viewed by psychiatry in the DSM criteria, NCSF’s most important project.

Our “Consent Counts” initiative is multi-faceted. We have researched the statutes, court decisions and relevant law review articles in all 50 states, and the results of that research are available on the NCSF website. We are presenting programs and holding meetings with our communities across the country, to build understanding of the issues and to develop consensus on an effective approach to nationwide activism. A national discussion guide has been created to facilitate local discussions to assist in the drafting of a community-wide statement on consent at LLC at Seattle 2013 with the goal of decriminalization and to promote local and national activism.  This aspect of our initiative also includes an EOP focused on Frequently Asked Questions about the criminal law issues and on Best Practices by which individuals and groups can reduce the likelihood of prosecution and—equally important—enable us to argue more effectively that what we do is mutually pleasurable erotic activity (not violence) and
that care is taken to ensure consensuality and avoid excessive stimulation or unintended harm. In addition, NCSF has published primers for both alleged victims and for those accused of consent violations.

The activism aspect of “Consent Counts” will be equally multifaceted. We have already begun reaching out to law enforcement, to legislators and to educators. In the coming year, we will be presenting continuing legal education (CLE) programs to lawyers, working with bar associations and law student groups, and participating selectively with “friend of the court” briefs in legal cases. Further down the road is the development of grass roots activism to change state laws and law enforcement practices.

In all of this, we need your help. You can report BDSM-related criminal investigations and prosecutions to NCSF. Your local groups can host “Consent Counts” presentations and discussions on activism strategies and on community practices that can help avoid criminal problems. As we go forward, we are seeking volunteers for various forms of activism and educational outreach. And, of course, your continuing donations to the NCSF Foundation (tax-deductible) and NCSF are essential for making this project effective.

Every year, NCSF helps hundreds of people, events, groups and businesses that are being persecuted for their association with the BDSM, swing and polyamory communities.

NCSF is here to help you -- the SM, swing, and polyamory communities. If you have a problem with discrimination, persecution, or harassment because of your sexual expression, please contact NCSF for assistance.

The following are statements from events, businesses and individuals NCSF has helped.

Published in Incident Response

Because your sexual expression...

  • Can result in discrimination, prosecution, and even violence against you
  • Can cause you to lose your children
  • Can cause you to lose your job or your income
  • Can lead you into a maze of antiquated laws and regulations you never even knew existed
  • Is arbitrarily criminalized by state and local authorities
  • Is used by the radical right to marginalize minority groups
  • Can result in the invasion of your privacy by the government, both within your own home or in educational, social and group environments  
Published in Tabs

The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF)’s Incident Response (IR) Program uses three primary criteria for taking a case:

  1. The issue must openly, directly, and specifically relate to BDSM, swing or poly activities between consenting adults; in other words, the problems you face must relate to or be caused from your involvement in BDSM, swing or poly without question.
  2. The issue must be one whose outcome or precedent could affect not just the individual filing the complaint, but potentially a significant number of people with the same, or similar, problem.
  3. The incident needs to have a reasonable chance of a successful resolution: usually indicating that the individual filling has not also been found guilty of a crime other than behaviors currently considered illegal relating to BDSM, swing or poly. 
If you meet the above criteria file a INCIDENT RESPONSE (click hear).
You may also file a report by calling (410)539-4824
If otherwise, you may make a general contact with the NCSF by clicking hear
Published in Uncategorized


For more information and current press releases.  


S&M! Lewd Ken dolls! Worhington's wild weekend.
The Other Paper (Columbus, Ohio)
February, 12, 2009

Despite Right Wing Pressure, Straight BDSM Gathering Goes Forward
The Boston Edge
February 10, 2009

Interview with Susan Wright, Spokesperson for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
Kasidie Magazine
October 2008

Shrinks: Kinky Sex is a Mental Disorder
Mom Logic
September, 19, 2008


For some, Gitmo interrogation techniques are a real turn-on
New Jersey Star-Ledger
August 2008  

Leather Scene Not as Gay as Imagined: Many gay folk in the bondage S/M scene relate more to the leather community than the LGBT community
By Bill Schoell
NY Blade
August 08, 2008

Man on video in R. Kelly trial: He did what?
By Rex W. Huppke
Chicago Tribune
June 8, 2008    

Daddy do-right; The Sexies Awards
By Dan Savage
Detroit Metro Times
March 5, 2008  

Death shines light on dangers of sex play
By Carly Weeks
Globe and Mail
February 28, 2008  

Bound and Flagged: Members of Seattle kink community face discrimination in custody battles
By Jason Simms
The Stranger
February 21, 2007

When three's no crowd
By Rachel Breitman
Gay City News
October 25, 2007   

Media, critics get whipped into frenzy by Leather Fest
By Jefferson Siegel and Lincoln Anderson
The Villager (NYC)
October 10 - 16, 2007   

Pollard denied access to papers; Justices refuse to hear appeal
By Guy Taylor
The Washington Times
March 21, 2006

Arts Briefly: Justices reject photographer's appeal
By Ben Sisario
New York Times
March 21, 2006   

Foes of Anti-porn Law Prep Appeal To Supreme Court
By Fresia Rodriguez Cadavid
Technology Daily
August 22, 2005  

Spanking Jessica Cutler: Capitol Hill attorney sues Washingtonienne for exposing his kinks
By Rachel Kramer Bussel
Village Voice
May 31, 2005 

Nothing wrong with sex
UCLA Daily Bruin
Feb 14, 2005   

Waltham sex boutique aims to attract couples
By Joshua Myerov
Boston Globe
October 14, 2004

Sex, art & politics takes on John Ashcroft
By Susan Wright
San Francisco Bay Area Indymedia
August 30, 2004 

Iowa State U.: Iowa State Board of Regents next to receive Cuffs appeal.
By Morris L. Manning
The America's Intelligence Wire
June 1, 2004   

Iowa State U.: Members of Iowa State U. bondage group appeal assault verdict
By Tom Barton
The America's Intelligence Wire
May 3, 2004  

East Carolina U.: Club focusing on fringe sexuality denied East Carolina U. association.
The America's Intelligence Wire
April 8, 2004   

Iowa State U.: Group wants Iowa State U. Cuffs charges dropped.
The America's Intelligence Wire
By Tom Barton
February 23, 2004  

Kenner police heavy-handed
The Advocate (Baton Rouge, LA)
October 20, 2003  

Sex club is shut down: Restraining order targets 'private' fetish group in Lakewood
By Ann Schrader
Denver Post
May 21, 2003   

Queen of Pain, Dominatrix: I'll whip courts over sex rap
Philadelphia Daily News
August 27, 2003   

Slap leather, S&M lovers: 'Thunder' to peal soon
By Ann Schrader
Denver Post
June 1, 2003   

Controlling clubs a zoning matter
By Peter Ward
The Sun (Lowell, MA)
December 28, 2002   

A taste of the whip for Saddam: U.N. weapons inspector Jack McGeorge's leadership role in the Washington S/M scene isn't a liability, says a friend -- it'll help him distinguish between fantasy and reality.
By Kerry Lauerman
December 3, 2002   

Monitor irons out kinks with UN
By Joe Williams
NY Daily News
November 30, 2002   

U.N. begins searches in Iraq
By Maggie Farley, John J. Goldman And John Hendren
Los Angeles Times  
November 28, 2002   

No background checks on applicants: Critics say U.N. inspectors are inexperienced
By James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post
November 28, 2002  

Cendant, sex lobby communicate but don't make up
Lodging Hospitality
October 1, 2002   

Cendant spars with sexual freedom lobby
Lodging Hospitality
August 1, 2002   

Bound by a boycott
The Advocate
May 28, 2002   

Sex-Oriented convention opens today despite effort to ban it
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
April 27, 2002   

What is going on in that ballroom?
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
April 25, 2002   

Senator will try to block sadomasochism seminar
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
April 22, 2002  

Senator wants sex seminar outlawed,  says event is 'absolutely dangerous'
Belleville News-Democrat (St . Louis, MO)
April 22, 2002 

Hotel will host seminar, despite objections from Southern Baptists...
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
April 7, 2002   

One more faction whips Congress
The American Enterprise
March 1, 2002

Group with unconventional tastes draws ire over gathering
By Burt Constable
Daily Herald (Arlington Heights, IL)
February 7, 2002

The erotic web offensive
By Annalee Newitz
January 14, 2002   

New suit targets obscenity law
By Julia Scheeres
December 12, 2001 

Tough Love: Inside the city's growing sadomasochistic scene
Philadelphia Daily Ne
July 10, 2001

Kinky find a cause in 'Paddleboro'
By Amy Pagnozzi
Hartford Courant
March 9, 2001   

Lawsuit targets last scraps of Net-obscenity law
By Sam Costello
December 20, 2001   

New Suit Targets Obscenity Law
By Julia Scheeres
December 12, 2002

1976 case seen a key to Attleboro sex party charges
By Cindy Rodriguez
Boston Globe
July 17, 2000

N.Y. woman charged in Mass. spank party
By Leo Standora
NY Daily News
July 13th 2000

Safe, sane and consensual' is rule for sadomasochists
By Stacy Downs and Dawn Bormann
The Kansas City Star 
June 16, 2000 


NCSF Profile
An interview with Leigha Fleming, then-interim Executive Director of NCSF.

On Our Backs
Tristan Taormino interview former NCSF Executive Director Judy Guerin.



Published in NCSF in the News!

It is extremely important for members of NCSF constituent communities to understand the laws that may affect us. 


The law is interpreted – sometimes to our favor, and sometimes not. For example, while the NCSF firmly believes that consensual SM activity between adults is legal, there are those that have a differing opinion and will intentionally interpret the law in an unfavorable way. Therefore, it is extremely important for the SM-Leather-Fetish communities to have an understanding of the laws that may affect us. Knowing relevant laws will greatly assist our communities in safely organizing and maintaining SM-Leather-Fetish activities and functions.

There are numerous laws, ordinances, and regulations at all levels of government - federal, state, regional, county and city. It's not easy to locate all of the laws that may affect us, but it's very important. You should make every attempt to thoroughly research your laws if your activities may come under the scrutiny of law enforcement or local authorities. In addition, NCSF recommends that thorough legal research should include consultation with a knowledgeable attorney, state Attorney General, local prosecutor, or other legal authority, familiar with the current interpretation of the law for the jurisdiction in question.

Obviously, it is impossible to provide a comprehensive list of every law and its interpretation for every jurisdiction, so this material is designed to give the reader a basic understanding of legal research and the tools to get started.

Research Realities

The question "Is SM legal in my state?" is not an appropriate research question. What we call "SM" includes a wide variety of behaviors, attitudes and acts without common legal terminology. For example, a state may not specifically prohibit "bondage" or "mummification", but every state has laws against holding someone against his/her will. The key term is not "SM" but rather "consent." Therefore, the better question to research might be "What types of consensual sexual expression are allowed under state and local laws?" or "How is consent defined by statutory and case law in the state?"

In many jurisdictions, only procreative consensual intercourse between married heterosexual couples in the privacy of the home is "legal." Therefore looking at all laws pertaining to sex may be a good place to start. Of course, sex laws are usually selectively enforced. And they can be contradictory: a local jurisdiction may recognize gay couples, but the state makes sodomy between people of the same sex a felony, then again, it doesn't enforce the law against anyone.

Finally, remember that if "they" want to get you, they'll look through everything including if your dog has the appropriate license or they will dig up laws that haven't been enforced in 30 or 100 years.


Statutes and Case Law in our Legal System

When people talk about "what the law says" or "what the law is," they are typically referring to statutes (sometimes called codes). When disputes arise over the meaning of statutes, state and federal courts issue court opinions that interpret the statutes -- this is "case law." In addition, numerous federal and state agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the IRS and the various Secretary of State's offices, issue regulations that cover the legal areas that the agencies control (such as environmental law, federal taxes and corporations law).


Researching Federal vs. State Statutes

States make the law in most of the areas related to alternative sexual practices, such as child custody, marriage, divorce, public indecency, assault, kidnapping, weapon violations, etc. A few areas now involve both state and federal statutes, including employment regulation. (Note: state laws usually give way to federal laws that address the same issue.)


Finding Relevant Statutes

There are two main ways to find a particular state or federal statute: (1) at a library or (2) on the web. We recommend using government websites to locate the applicable laws, where and when available, and as a preliminary research method. This should be followed up with hardcopy research at the library. You can locate relevant statutes on the internet by doing a keyword search or by browsing the table of contents. Not all states allow you to do a keyword search, but for the ones that do, you simply enter a few terms that relate to the subject you're looking for.


Searching Statutes

To do a good search you need to anticipate the words used in the statutes you are searching. Example: if you are looking for a statute that defines weapons in reference to the transportation of weapons on public highways, you might choose to use the search term "transport." If that search pulled up hundreds of statutes, you may try narrowing the search. You could try adding the words "weapon” and “public.” Or, if your search doesn’t pull up any statutes, you can try to broaden the search by using fewer or more common search terms.


Browsing Statutes

Browsing the table of contents of statutes is often a better way to find laws on your subject because it lets you look first at the general subjects (Titles, or sometimes Divisions). From there you can move to particular topics (Chapters, or sometimes Articles), and then to the precise statutes you need (Sections). By browsing, you also get a general idea of all the statutes there are on a specific subject.


Read Related Statutes / Ordinances

If you are interested in a particular area of the law (for example, adult entertainment regulations), you need to read all relevant statutes on that subject. If you don't, you may miss an important statute that contradicts the law you have found.


Example: A regulation may not specifically prohibit flagellation on the premises of an adult business, but a different regulation prohibits flagellation in instances where the adult business serves alcohol. Once you find a relevant statute/ordinance, you should continue searching until you are convinced that you’ve found every statute/ordinance that may affect that particular issue.


Understanding Statutes / Ordinances

Some statutes are clearly written, while others are very difficult to understand. Exceptions to the statute, "whereases" and cross-references to other statutes can make it very hard to understand what a statute means. Here are some rules to use when interpreting a statute:

• Read the statute several times.

• Pay close attention to all the "ands" and "ors." The use of "and" to end a series means that all elements of the series are included, or necessary, but an "or" at the end of a series means that only one of the elements need be included.

• Assume all words and punctuation in the statute have meaning. It’s tempting to skip words you don’t quite understand and ignore awkward punctuation. Don’t do it.

• If the statute is but one of a number you are studying, interpret it to be consistent with the other statutes if at all possible.

• Interpret a statute so that it makes sense rather than lead to some absurd or improbable result.

• Track down all cross-references to other statutes and sections and read those statutes and sections.


Making Sure the Statutes are Up to Date

Many state statutes on the web are not up to date, but the state website will usually tell you the year that the collection was last updated. If the statutes are out of date, you'll need to find out if any statutes you're interested in were amended or repealed by the legislature since the posting date. You can do this by doing a search of all the bills passed in the state since the posting date. These bills should be available on the state legislature's website.


The Importance of Case Law

When disputes arise over the meaning of statutes, judges are called on to interpret the statutes. Judges' interpretations of those statutes -- called "opinions", "decisions", or "cases" -- are as important to understanding what the law is as the words of the statutes itself. So once you find a statute that seems to address your situation, consider taking the next step and see how the courts have interpreted it.


The U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the country, and its opinions are the final word on what the law means. The Supreme Court can decide what a legislature meant when it wrote a law, or it can even overturn (revoke) a federal or state statute if it finds it unconstitutional.


Recommended Topics to Research

There is no common legal terminology for "SM" per se because SM includes a wide variety of behaviors that have not been categorized. So look for laws governing sexual behavior generally, including prostitution, rape, sexual assault, sodomy, etc. Other terms such as "flagellation" and "sadomasochistic abuse" may bring up some statutory, regulatory or case law, particularly when searching a large, cross-referenced database. Here are some keywords that may assist you in your research:




Adult Entertainment






False Imprisonment






















Selected Basic Legal Terms:

Annotated Codes - Publications that combine statutes with cases that interpret the statutes.

Bill - What a statute is called when it is introduced in Congress or a state legislature prior to becoming a law. An assigned number is used to refer to a bill. The number has two parts: HB (House Bill) or SB (Senate Bill) depending on where it was introduced, and the number that identifies the particular bill. Example: SB1137

Case Law – is an opinion from the state and federal courts that interpret statutes.

Chapter - A term that identifies a group of related state or federal statutes that have been gathered together within a particular Title or Code. Example: Virginia Statutes, Title 18.2, Chapter 4 is “Crimes Against the Person”

Citation - Is a reference to a statute that describes where it is published. Example: the federal citation “42 USC 1021” tells us that this cited federal statute can be found in Title 42, Section 1021 of the United States Code

Code - In general, "Code" refers to the main body of statutes of the jurisdiction. Example: the Arizona State Code

Ordinance / Regulation – A law at the local (city or county) level.

Statutory Schemes – Are groups of statutes that relate to one particular subject. Example: all of the federal statutes that make up Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (which forbids employment discrimination and sexual harassment) are known as a statutory scheme because they are all related to each other

Title - In the federal system and in some states, "Title" is used to denote a collection of state or federal statutes by subject matter, as in Title 42 of the U.S. Code for civil rights statutes.


Recommended Websites – Places to Start

ACLU’s Legal Research Resource

Cornell Univ. Legal Information Institute’s Law References Page

Georgia State Univ. Meta-Index for U.S. Legal Research

Guide to Internet Legal Research


Recommended Websites – Specific Topics

ACLU’s Guide to Sodomy Laws

ACLU’s State & Local Laws Protecting Lesbians and Gays Against Workplace Discrimination

Alternatives to Marriage Project

Dr. Bernardo Attias’ “Sexuality, Consent, and the Law in the US”

Ambrosio’s BDSM and the Law



Policy Emphasis

1. NCSF recommends thoroughly researching your local laws and ordinances including alcohol beverage regulations.

2. Each situation is unique - there are no blanket rules or tactics that will work in every situation. Decisions concerning law enforcement related issues must be decided based on all available information at the time.


Disclaimer: The material presented is not offered as legal advice. Many options are suggested for dealing with law enforcement and other authorities. The best course of action for you to take in a given situation is dependent on that situation and is entirely up to the parties involved. No single option is always going to work. Remember that situations, laws, and attitudes will vary from place to place and from time to time.


@ NCSF 2001-2002 3-10-02

Published in Legal Resources


Argued: March 31, 1998
Decided: June 25, 1998
Issue: Freedom of Speech -- Whether a law requiring the National Endowment for the Arts to consider "general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public" before awarding grants to artistic projects is impermissibly viewpoint-based and unconstitutionally vague.
Vote: 8-1; No, the law does not violate the First Amendment.

In 1990, Congress amended the statute governing the National Endowment for the Arts to require that the NEA chairperson consider "general standards of respect and decency for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public" when awarding art grants. Four artists Karen Finley, John Fleck, Holly Hughes and Tim Miller, known collectively as the "NEA 4" sued in federal court, claiming the so-called "decency clause" violated the First Amendment and forced artists to engage in self-censorship in order to obtain NEA funding.

The trial judge ruled in favor of the "NEA 4," ruling that the decency clause was both unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed for "essentially the same reasons as the district court." The 9th Circuit determined the decency clause was void for vagueness and for violating the First Amendmentâs general prohibition against content- and viewpoint-based discrimination.

Legal Principles at Issue: A bedrock principle of the First Amendment is that government may not prohibit speech just because it finds the speech offensive or disagreeable. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Sexual expression which is indecent but not obscene is also protected by the First Amendment. Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. Sable, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). The First Amendment protects against viewpoint discrimination above other forms of content discrimination. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). When the government promotes a particular program and defines the limit of a program, it can fund speech that promotes its goals, even to the detriment of other goals. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). "There is a basic difference between direct state interference with a protected activity and state encouragement of an alternative activity consonant with legislative policy." Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977).
Legal Basis for Decision: The decency clause only requires the NEA to consider "general standards of decency and respect" rather than directly precluding certain categories of speech. The nature of arts funding requires a certain level of content-based judgment. Because the NEA 4 did not allege "discrimination in any particular funding decision," the Court determined that it had not been presented with a grant denial on the basis of viewpoint.
This Case is Important Because: The Court did not express its usual heightened concern over viewpoint discrimination, because the statute only instructs the NEA to consider "decency and respect" rather than to make funding decisions based solely on those grounds. The decision seems to afford an opportunity for content- and even viewpoint-based laws to be ruled constitutional, as long as they do not directly target certain types of speech.
Quotable: "The terms of the provision are undeniably opaque, and if they appeared in a criminal statute or regulatory scheme, they could raise substantial vagueness concerns." (J. OâConnor)

"Finally, although the First Amendment certainly has application in the subsidy context, we note, that the government may allocate competitive funding to criteria that would be impermissible were direct regulation of speech or a criminal penalty at stake." (J. OâConnor)

"The decency and respect proviso mandates viewpoint-based decisions in the disbursement of government subsidies, and the government has wholly failed to explain why the statute should be afforded an exemption from the fundamental rule of the First Amendment that viewpoint discrimination in the exercise of public authority over expressive activity is unconstitutional." (J. Souter)

Writing for the Majority: Justice O'Connor
Concurrence: Justice Scalia
Writing for the Dissent: Justice Souter


Published in Nea vs. Findlay Case








Plaintiffs Barbara Nitke ("Nitke"), the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom Foundation (collectively, "NCSF") respectfully submit this memorandum is support of their motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the obscenity prong of the Communications Decency Act, Section 502 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (codified at 47 U.S.C. §223(a)(1)(B)) (the CDA), and in opposition to the motion of defendants John Ashcroft ("Ashcroft"), Attorney General of the United States and the United States of America (collectively, the "Government") to dismiss the complaint herein.


Plaintiffs have filed this civil action pursuant to Section 561 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Act of Feb. 8, 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Title V, Subtitle C §561, 110 Stat. 56), and have requested, pursuant to that section, that a three judge district court be empaneled as set out in 28 U.S.C. §2284. On April 1, 2002, by order of the Hon. John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Circuit Judge, plaintiffs' request was granted, and a three-judge court, comprised of the Hon. Robert D. Sack, C.J., the Hon. Richard M. Berman, D.J., and the Hon. Gerard E. Lynch, D.J., was convened to hear and determine this action.


Plaintiffs now move for the issuance of a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the CDA, asserting its facial unconstitutionality, while the Government conversely moves to dismiss on the grounds that the statute is plainly constitutional. An examination of the governing caselaw establishes beyond cavil that the Government's motion must be denied, and the plaintiffs' motion should be granted.


It is well established that the regulation of expressive content in each medium must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards tailored to that medium. Despite this long standing position, the Government argues for a mechanistic, cookie-cutter application of obscenity precedents arising in physically-sited media, well situated for a geographic community analysis, to a medium which is equally sited in and accessible from every jurisdiction, whether metropolis or hamlet. Absent the harms which the geographic interpretation of "local community standards" was created to address, the Government nonetheless asserts that the standard should be applied in a manner that concededly will transform the local community standards from a shield into a sword. This result has been characterized by the Supreme Court as creating a content-based restriction of speech of unprecedented breadth.


The Government would have this Court hold, contrary to the concerns expressed by the United States Supreme Court in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 877-878 (1997), and by a clear majority of the Justices in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. ___ (May 13, 2002), that the placing of expressive materials on the Internet should be treated as a simultaneous physical distribution of those materials to each community within all 50 states with Internet access. Such a holding would transform the Internet from a free-ranging, open forum into a forum in which only speech that is inoffensive under the most prudish standard is safe from fear of prosecution. As much speech considered obscene in some communities would be found non-obscene in others, the Government's approach would allow for prosecution in the most restrictive community of speech which is fully protected throughout the vast majority of the United States and abroad. This result would chill much protected speech, and would destabilize the regime of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), under which each community was permitted to define for itself the required level of decorum for sexually-themed speech, but not for neighboring or even far-flung communities which may have dramatically different norms.


Accordingly, the complaint is not subject to dismissal, and plaintiffs have demonstrated the traditional requirements for the issuance of preliminary relief : (1) the prospect of irreparable injury inflicted by deprivation, however brief, of First Amendment rights; (2) the required showing of likelihood of success on the merits; and (3) a balance of equities favoring relief.






Plaintiffs Have Asserted And Demonstrated The Requisites For Entry of A Preliminary Injunction


In support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs "must establish irreparable injury, and either (a) a likelihood of success on the merits, or (b) a sufficiently serious question going to the merits, with a balance of hardships tipping in favor of the party requesting a preliminary injunction." Tunick v. Safir, 209 F.3d 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2000). Where, as here, the plaintiffs seek to "stay governmental action taken in the public interest pursuant to a statutory or regulatory scheme," they must show "irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and a likelihood of success on the merits." Id.; see also, Latino Officers Association v. City of New York, 196 F.3d 458, 462 (2d Cir. 1999) (granting injunction); Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 694 (2d Cir 1996)(granting injunction); Metropolitan Council , Inc. v. Safir, 99 F. Supp.2d 438, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citing cases; granting injunction); Amandola v. Town of Babylon, 251 F.3d 339, 342 (2001) (granting injunction and awarding judgment as a matter of law to plaintiffs). In this case, "because violations of First Amendment rights are presumed irreparable, the very nature of plaintiffs' allegations satisfy the requirement that [they] show irreparable injury." Tunick, 209 F.3d at 70 (internal quotations and citations omitted); quoting, Bery, 97 F.3d at 694; citing, Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); Amandola, 251 F.3d at 342. As the Supreme Court made amply clear in Elrod, "[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." This strong recognition of the fragility of speech rights in the face of governmental actions has led the Second Circuit to repeatedly hold that "a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm arises in First Amendment cases." Id.; citing, Tunick, 209 F.3d at 70; Beal v. Stern, 184 F.3d 117, 123 (2d Cir.1999); Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d at 694.


The Court in Amandola acknowledged that in other cases the Courts in this Circuit have required the plaintiffs establish "an actual chilling effect" by competent testimony. Id.; see also, Pugh v. Goord, 184 F. Supp.2d 326, 332, n. 3 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (Lynch, J.). In the instant case, the accompanying declarations of Barbara Nitke, Arthur C. Danto, Howard Rheingold, Candida Royalle, Robert and Carleen Thomas and Susan Wright present just such testimony of actual and potential chill of speech, as further set forth at Point III, based on their own individual observations and/or experiences. As these declarations establish, the speech of several speakers has actually been impacted by the prospect of prosecution. Ms. Nitke's work, for example, has been well received in some communities, but challenges the standards of others. (Nitke Decl. at ¶¶14-17). In addition to Ms. Nitke, many of the members of NCSF have websites, and have legitimate grounds to fear that the application of the most restrictive community standards to their speech could result in a colorable prosecution of their speech. (Wright Decl. ¶¶at 9-13). Moreover, as established by the testimony of Professor Danto, a sufficient divergence of views as to the proper quantum of value to be accorded artistic works exists such that the absence of clarity, along with the Government's claim to a roving commission, deprives the artist or commentator of a safe harbor in dealing with sexual themes on the Internet.


Because plaintiffs have, under either standard, established irreparable injury, the sole question remaining is whether they have established a clear likelihood of success on the merits. As courts within the Second Circuit have noted, "the issue of irreparable injury merges with the question of success on the merits." Metropolitan Council, Inc., 99 F. Supp. 2d at 443; following, Latino Officers Ass'n, 196 F.3d at 462; Beal, 184 F.3d 117, 123-124 (2d Cir. 1999); see also, Tunick, 209 F.3d at 70. As will be seen in the succeeding sections of this memorandum, plaintiffs have established a clear likelihood of success on the merits of this action, and thus the requested injunction should be granted.




Speech Regulations Evolved in Traditional Media Do Not Perfectly Translate To the Internet


The starting place for evaluation of the CDA under the First Amendment is a recognition of the simple fact, repeatedly recognized by the Supreme Court, that each medium of expression "must be assessed for First Amendment purposes by standards suited to it, for each may present its own problems." Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557 (1975); Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 868. Thus, it is not sufficient to flatly state that obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. That truism, established since Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957),1 does not resolve the questions of definition.


The nature of the Internet creates difficulties in applying concepts evolved in more physically limited media; problems which the Supreme Court and other courts, as opposed to the Government, have recognized as impacting upon the application of such content-based regulations as involved herein. Thus, in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 851, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the battery of Internet communication devices "constitute a unique medium-known to its users as cyberspace-located in no particular geographic location but available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the Internet." See Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa, 265 F.3d 1232, 1236-1237 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 152 L.Ed.2d 115 (2002) (declining to apply local zoning ordinance governing adult entertainment establishments to premises where internet content is generated because "the public offering occurs over the Internet in 'virtual space'"); Gucci America, Inc. v. Hall & Assocs., 135 F. Supp.2d 409, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (Berman, J.) (Noting that "there are crucial differences between a 'brick and mortar outlet' and the online Web that dramatically affect a First Amendment analysis," distinguishing trademark law's application to Internet)(quoting and approving as "no doubt true" observation to the same effect in ACLU v. Reno, 217 F.3d 162, 169-170 (3d Cir. 2000), cert granted sub nom. ACLU v. Ashcroft, vacated other grounds, 535 U.S. ___, No. 00-1293 (May 13, 2002) (internal citation omitted)); Cyberspace Communications, Inc. v. Engler, 55 F. Supp.2d 737-743-744 (E.D.Mich. 1999), aff'd, 238 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 2000) summ. judg. granted same grounds, 142 F. Supp.2d 827 (E.D.Mich. 2001) (same).


The application of existing constitutional principles to the Internet medium is a functional, not a formal one. Indeed, the evolution of the "borderless world of the Internet raises profound questions concerning the relationship among the several states and the relationship of the federal government to each state." Swedenburg v. Kelly, 2000 WL 1264285 (September 5, 2000) (Berman, J.) (quoting American Libraries Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160, 168 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)); PSINET, Inc. v. Chapman, 167 F. Supp.2d 878, 887-891 (W.D. Va. 2001) (applying Commerce Clause analysis to Internet to strike down state statute regulating adult websites). In short, the mere enunciation of settled principle does not automatically resolve the questions of application of these principles to the new medium at hand.


The Government seeks to analogize this new medium of expression to the ban on obscene "dial-a-porn" upheld in Sable Communications v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). However, that case involved a facial challenge to the very concept of regulating commercialized obscenity over any interstate medium, in that case, telephone communications. In view of the individualized nature of telephone communications, and the readily identifiable location of callers-in, the Court found it appropriate that commercial providers be held to the standard of the area comprising the market from which they solicited and accepted calls. 492 U.S. at 125-126. Under those circumstances, the statute was held not to create a "national standard" of what is obscene, in violation of the Court's rule in Miller. Id. The Court explicitly ruled that in Sable that the "cases before us do not require us to decide what is obscene or what is indecent, but rather to determine whether Congress is empowered to prohibit transmission of obscene telephonic communications" to the various locales, each of which is equipped with its own local community standards. Plaintiffs herein, unlike those in Sable, do not claim a global immunity from the application of obscenity law to this new medium.


This case, as opposed to the facts in Sable, genuinely poses a problem of definition. In a manner rather reminiscent of its argument in Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), soundly rejected by the Supreme Court in that decision, the Government herein ignores the problem, rotely intoning that just as mailing books or magazines to another state subjects the mailer to the local community standards of the destination, dissemination through the Internet subjects the speaker to any and all communities which can access the speech. (Government memo at 13, quoting Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 106 (1974)). Unlike the books and telephone calls at issue in Sable and Hamling, the Internet "is wholly insensitive to geographic distinctions, and Internet protocols were designed to ignore rather than document geographic location." Cyberspace Communications, Inc., 55 F. Supp.2d at 744 (citing Pataki, 969 F. Supp. at 167, 170). See Reno, 521 U.S. at 851.


This contrast and its implications were the basis of the opinions of a clear majority of the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. ACLU. In that case, the Government's argument, reiterated here, that the rulings in Sable and Hamling apply to the Internet to foreclose a facial challenge to community-standard based regulation, was explicitly rejected by the opinions of a majority of the Supreme Court. Thus, Justice O'Connor opined that "I agree with Justice Kennedy that, given Internet speakers' inability to control the geographic location of their audience, expecting them to bear the burden of controlling the recipients of their speech, as we did in Hamling and Sable may be entirely too much to ask, and would potentially suppress an inordinate amount of expression." (Ashcroft v. ACLU, O'Connor, J., slip op. at 2). Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, similarly rejected the application of those precedents: "In striking down COPA's predecessor, the Reno Court identified this precise problem, and if the Hamling and Sable Courts did not find the problem fatal, that is because those cases involved quite different media. The national variation in community standards constitutes a particular burden on Internet speech." (Ashcroft v. ACLU, Kennedy, J., slip op. at 7). Justice Breyer similarly distinguished Sable and Hamling, finding that "To read the statute as adopting the community standard of every locality in the United States would provide the most puritan of communities with a heckler's veto affecting the rest of the nation. The technical difficulties associated with efforts to confine Internet material to particular geographic areas make the problem particularly serious." (Ashcroft v. ACLU, Breyer, J., slip op. at 2).2 Justice Stevens likewise denied the applicability of Sable and Hamling to the Internet. (Stevens, J. dissenting, slip op. at 5, 6-7). While other factors split the Justices, a clear majority of six Justices rejected the argument, made again by the Government here, that Sable and Hamling control as to the Internet.


Rather, the six Justices who declined to join the opinion of Justice Thomas each opined that, upon an appropriate showing, enforcement of geographic local community standards to speech on the Internet under an obscenity theory would violate the free speech rights of content providers. In Point III, the various factors set forth in establishing the appropriate showing at least according to five of the six justices are discussed in the context of the sweeping prohibitions of the CDA. That showing, and the inherently overbroad and vague sweep of the CDA, plaintiffs submit, warrant the entry of the order which they seek.




The CDA's Reliance On Geographic "Local Community Standards" in Defining Obscenity on the Internet Renders the Statute Overbroad


The CDA, as it presently stands, bans materials which are deemed to be "obscene" from the Internet. Although couched as a provision for the protection of minors, the CDA by its terms has been authoritatively held to burden much adult speech. The CDA is codified at 47 U.S.C. §223, and prohibits the "knowing transmission of any ... communication which is obscene or indecent ... knowing that the recipient under 18 years of age."3 In Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997), the Supreme Court authoritatively found that the section above quoted would burden communications between adults, stating that "Given the size of the potential audience for most messages, in the absence of a viable age verification process, the sender must be charged with knowing that one or more minors will view it." 521 U.S. at 876. Thus, the Court concluded, "these limitations must inevitably curtail a significant amount of adult communication on the Internet." 521 U.S. at 877. See also Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. at ___, (Thomas, J.) slip op. at 4 ("existing technology did not include any effective method for a sender to prevent minors from obtaining access to its communications on the Internet without also denying access to adults"); (quoting Reno); see also, PSINET, Inc. v. Chapman, 167 F. Supp.2d at 887-890. This fact remains true whether the section of the statute applied is the indecency prong at issue in Reno, or the obscenity provision at issue here. See e.g., PSINET, (similar state statute invalid as to both obscene and harmful to minors speech).


Thus, the question before this Court is not whether the CDA limits speech directed at adults by adults in the interest of protecting the interests of children; that question has been litigated and resolved. Nor is the question whether obscenity, long deemed speech outside the protective ambit of the First Amendment, has somehow acquired a talismanic immunity based upon the fact that it is disseminated over a new medium. Plaintiffs have not alleged that it does. Rather, the question is whether the application of the CDA's unelaborated use of the word "obscenity" in the absence of a further statutory definition, creates a definition of obscenity that would unconstitutionally "restrict[] substantially more speech than is justified." Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at ___, (Kennedy, J., concurring) at 1 (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 (1973)). Plaintiffs submit, with respect, that the statute does just this, and is as a result violative of the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.


In Ashcroft, the Supreme Court rendered no one opinion disposing of the principal question raised herein: does the application of local geographic community standards to determine patent offensiveness and prurient appeal in a federal obscenity Internet statute render that statute overbroad? However, in that case, four of the opinions, adhered to by a clear six-member majority, reaffirmed the constitutionally problematic nature of such regulation under the First Amendment, as originally asserted in Reno, 521 U.S. at 877, and stated that an obscenity provision like that in question here was subject to facial challenge.


Justice O'Connor stated that the failure of the plaintiffs in that case left open the prospect that "[i]n future facial challenges to regulation of obscenity on the Internet, litigants may make a more convincing case of substantial overbreadth." (O' Connor, J., concurring, slip op. at 2). She continued: "Where adult speech is concerned, for instance, there may in fact be a greater degree of disagreement about what is patently offensive or appeals to the prurient interest." Id. Thus, the statute at issue, upon the appropriate factual showing of variation, "would potentially suppress an inordinate amount of expression." Id.


Justice Breyer who would apply a narrowing saving construction to COPA, explicitly concluded that quot;[t]o read the statute as adopting the local community standards of every community in the United States would provide the most puritan of communities with a heckler's Internet veto affecting the rest of the Nation." (Breyer, J., concurring, slip op. at 2). Like Justice O'Connor, he concluded that the technical difficulties of controlling the destination of speech via the Internet rendered this problem "particularly serious." Id.


Justice Stevens, dissenting in Ashcroft, stated that, "[i]n the context of the Internet, however, community standards become a sword rather than a shield." (Stevens, J., dissenting, slip op. at 1). He went on to find that, under the approach laid out in the CDA, "the community that wishes to live without certain material not only rids itself, but the entire Internet of the offending speech," in a manner inimical to the First Amendment. Id. at 11.


Along the same lines, Justice Kennedy opined that "[t]he national variation in community standards constitutes a particular burden on Internet speech," (Kennedy, J. concurring, slip op. at 7). Prior to declaring COPA unconstitutional on these grounds, Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Souter, sought clarification of factors potentially limiting the scope of the statute: (1) the scope of the definition of community; (2) any statutory specification as to what the "work" to be judges as a whole is; (3) any limitations on venue that could reduce the number of potentially applicable community standards; and (4) evidence as to the factual divergence of local community standards between jurisdictions, to ascertain that indeed speech would be subject to contrary rules under the statute. Upon such a showing, Justice Kennedy opined, "the ultimate conclusion" that this burden on Internet speech is unconstitutional "may prove correct."


Below, plaintiffs first address the absence of a definition of obscenity under the CDA, and the resultant breadth of the statute's application of the "default" definition to the Internet. Then, plaintiffs establish the failure of the drafters to narrow the statute's scope by either limiting the universe of speakers subject to it, or by defining what constitutes a "work" subject to its prohibitions in the context of the Internet. A similar failure to limit the statute's sweep by means of any venue restrictions follows. Finally, plaintiffs discuss the First Amendment consequences of this statute's undisputed holding all speech to the standards of the most puritan community in the Nation, the factor most important to each of the six justices.


1.  The CDA's Obscenity Provision and the Miller Test


As acknowledged by the Government, the CDA does not contain a definition of what transmissions are "obscene." (Government memorandum of law ("Gov. Memo.") at 17). The parties agree that the silence of Congress in delineating the scope of the term obscene leaves as the Court's only guidance in understanding what Congress sought to proscribe the permissive language of the Supreme Court in describing the range of materials that could fall within the unprotected class of speech deemed obscene in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973). As Chief Justice Burger wrote for the majority in Miller, the basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.


Id. (Internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. at ___, slip op. at 10. As subsequently enunciated, this standard can apply to federally defined obscenity regulation. Hamling, 418 U.S. at 118. Moreover, subsequent decisions have made clear that, in the context of traditional so-called "bricks-and-mortar media," the local community standards applied are geographical in nature. Ashcroft v. ACLU slip op. at 11, n. 7 (Thomas, J. for plurality), citing, Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500 (1987). Consistent with this, both parties acknowledge and all of the justices in Ashcroft held, both the appeal to prurient interest prong and the patently offensive prong of the definition are "question[s] of fact to be decided by a jury applying contemporary community standards." Id. It is the absence of content and context to define what that community standard is that renders the CDA overbroad as to speech that may be deemed obscene under the most restrictive community standard in the Nation.


2.   The CDA Applies to All Internet Speakers and Speech


The CDA's "open-ended prohibitions," as the Supreme Court has twice noted, "embrace not only commercial speech or commercial entities, but also all nonprofit entities and individuals posting" on the Internet. Ashcroft v. ACLU, 535 U.S. at ___, slip op. at 4 (quotation marks omitted), quoting ACLU v. Reno, 521 U.S. at 877. This observation, made by the Court in the context of the indecency provision, is equally true for the obscenity provision, which is, after all, included in the same sentence. Moreover, the CDA does not limit its coverage to any specific kind of online communication, but applies to all online communications, wholesale or retail.


That the sweep of the CDA does not distinguish between commercial purveyors of pornography and artistic explorers of sexual themes, or even spouses corresponding via e-mail eliminates one of the "crucial" potential narrowing factors, the limitation of targeted speech to commercially purveyed materials, cited by a three of the six justices rejecting the Government's argument herein in Ashcroft v. ACLU. (Kennedy, J., joined by Souter and Ginsburg, J.J., slip op. at 2-3, 10-11).


Likewise, the CDA does not address the thorny question of applying to the Internet the requirement under Miller that the works in question be "judged as a whole." As Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer pointed out, the "notion of judging work as a whole is familiar in other media, but more difficult to define on the World Wide Web. It is unclear whether what is to be judged as a whole is a single image on a Web page, a whole Web page, an entire multipage site, or an interlocking set of Web sites." Id. at 3, 11-12. By extrapolation, it is even possible-although not compelling-that the Web must itself be viewed as a "single, integrated system," and thus possibly the work itself. Id. at 11, quoting ACLU v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d at 483, 484.


Because the nature of the work effected is not defined, speakers on the Web can find themselves held accountable based upon either too focused or to expansive a view as to the "work" at issue. A single photograph from a Website, ripped from the context that gives it its artistic value, may be hard-pressed to escape prosecution; a Website itself not obscene may find itself held accountable for the speech of those who link to it. Under the CDA, prosecutors and triers-of-fact are accorded no guidance in determining the correct answer. Thus, the statute imperils the broadest possible category of online speech. Id.


3.  The Venue Factor


Most importantly, the CDA does not address venue in explicit terms. Thus, as Justice Kennedy noted in the context of COPA, "prosecution may be proper in any district in which an offense was begun, continued, or completed." Id. at 12, quoting, 18 U.S.C. §3237(a). Thus, "it seems likely that venue would be proper where the material originates or where it is viewed." Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. §3237(a), 47 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3)). As the overwhelming majority of online speech may be viewed from anywhere in or outside of the Nation that has access to the Internet,4 the Government here is able to forum shop around the United States, or even, potentially, offshore possessions. Because, as Justice Kennedy noted, the choice of venue may be determinative of the choice of standard," the "more venues the Government has to choose from the more speech will be chilled by variation across communities." Id. At 12. Indeed, the Government here asserts just such unlimited venue, requiring speakers to be prepared to defend themselves before the most puritan tribunals to be found. (Gov. Memo. at 22-23). This contention, vitally necessary to sustain the CDA, would transmute local community standards from a means of protecting local diversity of cultural climate into a means of stifling it-turning the purpose of Miller on its head.


4.  Material Obscene in One Jurisdiction May be Protected in Another


It cannot be contested, and has recently been reaffirmed, that "[p]eople in different States vary in their tastes and attitudes, and this diversity is not to be strangled by the absolutism of imposed uniformity." Miller, 413 U.S. at 33; Ashcroft v. ACLU, Kennedy, J., slip op. at 7. It "is neither realistic nor beyond constitutional doubt for the Congress, in effect, to impose the community standards of Maine or Mississippi on Las Vegas and New York." Ashcroft, op cit. As demonstrated below, the actual evidence of such variation that plaintiffs will present establishes that material deemed acceptably non-obscene in some jurisdictions may nonetheless be prosecuted in others.


To the contrary of the Government's assumption that any errors or chilling effect here is negligible, it is well-established that material that is not obscene under each and every one of Miller's three prongs is fully protected speech under the First Amendment, and chilling such speech violates the First Amendment, despite the disapproval by some of the message conveyed therein. Reno, 521 U.S. at 874 (citing Sable, 492 U.S. at 126); United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group 529 U.S. 803, 807 (2000). Indeed, material that is allegedly "obscene" is and has long been recognized, to be "presumptively under the protection of the First Amendment." Roaden v. Kentucky, 413 U.S. 496, 504 (1973); New York v. P.J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 871-874 (1986) (noting, id. at 874, that such materials are "presumptively protected"; following Roaden); United States v. Jasorka, 153 F.3d 58, 59-60 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that in obscenity cases, specially careful examination of proof by magistrate required prior to issuance of a warrant because "of the danger that constitutionally protected materials may be suppressed and because of the subtlety of the inquiry required to distinguish obscenity from protected matters"; following P.J. Video); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 63 (1989) (materials allegedly be obscene are "materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment."); see also United States v. Any and All Radio Equipment, 93 F. Supp. 414, 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (following Fort Wayne Books, distinguishing seizure of equipment from seizure of expressive materials alleged to be obscene).


On behalf of the CDA, the Government claims that only speech that is "utterly lacking in any literary, artistic, political or scientific value in any community" stands in peril from this statute (Government Memorandum at 24). This is simply incorrect; as the Government's prior correct encapsulation of Miller establishes, speech which "flunks" the prurience and patently offensive prongs of Miller can only be saved if it has "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." (Gov. Memo. at 17, quoting Miller, 413 U.S. at 24). Indeed, the very next sentence of the Miller opinion makes clear that the Government's representation as to the scope of speech that may fall prey to the CDA is untenable: "We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the utterly without redeeming social value test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. at 419." Id. (emphasis in original), citing, Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229, 231 (1972).


The Government's argument that the only speech "that even the most cautious Internet content provider would withhold from publication" would work a "de minimis impact on protected, yet utterly valueless, pornographic speech" (Gov. Memo. at 24) is belied by the very authorities the Government relies upon to establish the proposition. Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana, 489 U.S. at 60 is not to the contrary, but merely upheld the application of state-defined obscenity statutes, which were appropriately limited in scope as required under the First Amendment as establishing predicate acts under the state RICO statute. 489 U.S. 57-58 (holding that the statute in question "is closely tailored to conform to the Miller standard" and the petitioner did not raise "any alleged defect in the underlying obscenity law." Id. Here, by contrast, the appropriate scope of the obscenity law on this new medium is the very issue to be decided. In delineating the scope of protection, it is crucial to note that much speech of literary, artistic, political or scientific value may fall beneath the censor's lash because its seriousness of intent may not measure up to the level deemed by the finder of fact to be sufficiently serious. As the Court reaffirmed in Playboy Entertainment, "the line between speech unconditionally guaranteed and speech which may be legitimately regulated, suppressed or punished is finely drawn," and any "[e]rror in marking that line exacts an extraordinary cost." 529 U.S. at 817.


5.  The Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific Value Prong Does Not Save the CDA


The Supreme Court has not held, as the Government urges the Court to find, that the application of a "reasonable person" standard to the inquiry of whether material involved is of sufficient value to resist categorization as "obscene" is sufficient to cure the overbreadth of the statute. As the principal Supreme Court decision relied upon by the Government, Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-501 (1987), simply reversed a conviction, and remanded for harmless error analysis, an obscenity conviction based upon the application of the local community standards to this third prong of the Miller test, the contention rests wholly upon the citation to lower court, outside of circuit authority. The Supreme Court has twice declined to follow this logic, with ample reason.


A similar claim was made and properly rejected in Reno, where the application of Miller's "patent offensiveness" prong as a test for indecency was argued to sufficiently withstand a vagueness and an overbreadth challenge. As the Supreme Court explained, "Just because a definition including three limitations is not vague, it does not follow that one of those limitations, standing by itself, is not vague. Each of Miller's additional two prongs ... critically limits the uncertain sweep of the obscenity definition." 521 U.S. at 873. Here, of course, two of the three prongs relied upon in the definition are subject to overbreadth and vagueness challenge; the Government asserts, absent support in law and logic, that the one remaining prong uninfected by the taint complained of is sufficient to salvage the statute. Such a contention, for the reasons set forth by the Court in Reno, must fail.


Moreover, a majority of the Court in Ashcroft declined to join Justice Thomas' opinion to that effect, each indicating that an overbroad application of the local community standard prongs of the Miller definition to obscenity regulation of the Internet would establish a First Amendment violation. Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at ___, (O'Connor, J., concurring slip op. at 2 ), (Breyer, J., concurring, slip op. at 2), (Kennedy, J., concurring, slip op. at 5, 7-8, 10); (Stevens, J., dissenting, slip op. at 10). While the Government argued this exact point in Ashcroft (see Government Reply Brief on Petition for Writ of Certiorari in Ashcroft v. ACLU, Exhibit B to the Wirenius Declaration, at 4), that argument failed to command a Court, and should be rejected here.


Factually, as attested to herein by Professor Danto in his declaration, the "existence of serious literary, artistic, or political social value of speech requires evaluation of the content of a speech that calls for subjective value judgments in a manner not entirely predictable by a reasonable speaker." The difficulty of this analysis has led to much controversy as to the presence or lack of such value in the context of various works of art. (Id.) Such conflicts can be seen even in the context of the Supreme Court's review of obscenity convictions. In Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153, 156-157 (1974), a divided panel of the Supreme Court of Georgia had affirmed the finding that the acclaimed film Carnal Knowledge was obscene under Miller, finding not only that the film appealed to the prurient interest and was patently offensive, but also that it lacked the serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value needed to avert an adjudication of obscenity.5


By not employing any of the available potential means of narrowing the universe of speakers impacted by the statute's scope, the CDA entirely fails to ameliorate the extreme breadth of its prohibition. Thus, the sole remaining question of overbreadth analysis here is whether the variety of community standards is such that the application of the local standards in any district where the Government might choose to bring a case would result in the chilling of a substantial body of speech protected in other communities.


6.  The Nature and Variety of Communities


In establishing the required showing to satisfy the concerns of four members of the Supreme Court, the last element required to be established by plaintiffs at trial is the existence of a substantial variance as to standards amongst different communities. Justice Kennedy's opinion especially sought such proof in order to determine the constitutional validity of COPA, because in that case the Government asserted, and the plaintiffs denied, that Congress had established a national standard as to what sexual speech was considered to appeal to the prurient interest of minors and would be patently offensive as to minors. As Justice O'Connor noted, a simple obscenity provision such as that remaining in the CDA, raises a far more problematic question for the Government: does the variation among what is considered prurient and patently offensive for consenting adults to be exposed to create a substantial overbreadth? Plaintiffs, in seeking to establish that they are clearly likely to prevail on the merits have adduced sworn testimony in the form of declarations as follows:


  • Robert and Carleen Thomas, long time residents of the San Francisco Bay area, testify that they disseminated via the Internet material that law enforcement determined was wholly unobjectionable for consenting adults in the areas in which they resided. Under the local community standards of the district the United States chose to prosecute them within, the Western District of Tennessee, these materials were deemed to be patently offensive and prurient in nature;
  • Candida Royalle has almost 20 years' experience as a director and producer, with the hazards of nation-wide distribution amongst community standards, and testifies to the variety of local community standards throughout the nation;
  • Arthur C. Danto, Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy at Columbia, testifies, both in general and in the specific context of the work of Robert Mapplethorpe, considerable regional variation from community to community exists in the standard of what is considered offensive or prurient;
  • Barbara Nitke, plaintiff herein, testifies that her work which has been well-received by sex-positive, artistically oriented communities has been greeted with hostility in more traditionally minded locales, and that, in 2001 when she sought advice as to posting her speech on the Internet, she was cautioned that she could face prosecution under less receptive community standards; and
  • Susan Wright, Policy Director of plaintiff NCSF, testifies that the speech of members of NCSF have been targeted for harassment on the grounds that some local communities deem their speech "offensive" and "prurient."


This testimony establishes the variety as to local community standards, providing the evidence which Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsburg sought as an element of a facial challenge. Combined with the broader holding of Justice Stevens, and likely concurrence of Justice Breyer, a majority of the Supreme Court in Ashcroft, would be "clearly likely" to find the CDA and its application of local community standards to the Internet unconstitutional on this showing. Accordingly plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction should be granted.




The CDA's Obscenity Provisions Are Unconstitutionally Vague


Plaintiffs have asserted that the obscenity provisions of the CDA will chill and would actually subject to criminal liability an inordinate amount of constitutionally protected expression. They have pleaded, alternatively, that the obscenity provision of the CDA is unconstitutionally vague. The CDA, as above argued, and as conceded by the Government, does not specify what the applicable "local community standard" is. Indeed, the CDA does not define "obscene" in the context of the Internet, but the plaintiffs and the Government have extrapolated from prior caselaw and the traditional definition of obscenity in the context of federal regulation of obscenity that the statute applies the local geographic community standards of any community from where the material may be accessed. (Gov. Memo. at 18). However, alternate theories of what "community" standards should apply to the Internet have been proposed, and plaintiffs have pointed out no fewer than six equally feasible possible approaches to constructing a community standard. (Complaint &182;32). Two of the Justices of the Supreme Court have suggested in Ashcroft that a nation-wide standard could apply to the Internet, a sort of rough sense of the Nation's views of what is appropriate for adults on the Internet. (Ashcroft, supra, opinions of O'Connor, J. and Breyer, J.). Other courts have suggested, as has expert Howard Rheingold, that specific communities, by membership affiliation or by a computer online provider, or even a specific bulletin board-specific standard might provide a viable approach to community online. United States v. Maxwell, 45 M.J. 406, 426 (1996); Rheingold Declaration.


Plaintiffs simply urge that, in the event the Court deems the CDA to mean something other than the "most restrictive" standard (which the Government has argued, and plaintiffs have alleged) applies, that the failure to explain what such a standard is fails to provide meaningful notice as to what conduct is forbidden by the statute. Where a content based regulation, such as the CDA, is vague, it "raises special First Amendment concerns because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech." Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 871-872 (striking CDA's indecency provision as vague). Moreover, the fact that the CDA is a criminal statute, bearing the concomitant stigma of conviction, the risk of imprisonment, and the prospect of discriminatory enforcement, poses special First Amendment concerns. Id.; citing Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 494 (1965).


Additionally, as noted above at page 15, the utter lack of specification of what the work that is to be taken as a whole in the context of the Internet is raises problems of definition that a speaker should not be forced to confront for the first time in a criminal trial. Ashcroft, (Kennedy, J., concurring, slip op. at 11); Playboy Entertainment, 529 U.S. at 817.


The Government argues that this vagueness challenge is "foreclosed" by the judgment of the three-judge panel in Shea v. Reno, 930 F. Supp. 916, aff'd mem. 521 U.S. 1117 (1997). The Court in Shea rejected a vagueness claim analogous to the overbreadth challenge herein presented, stating that it "appears to raise questions of overbreadth rather than vagueness." 930 F. Supp. at 938. In view of the factual showing before that panel, and the main holding of the three judge panel, which was to strike the statute on overbreadth grounds, the panel declined to resolve the vagueness/overbreadth challenge. Id. Moreover, the affirmance in Shea upheld the judgment, not the opinion, of the three judge panel. That summary affirmance endorses only the logic employed by the panel necessary to its ultimate conclusion: that the CDA's indecency provision was overbroad. See Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977) (judgment, not dicta, of three judge panel as affirmed summarily by Supreme Court, entitled to deference); 640 Broadway Renaissance Co. v. Cuomo, 740 F. Supp. 1023, 1029 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (same).


In the instant case, to follow the logic of the Shea panel would be to ignore the reasoning of a majority of the Supreme Court in ACLU v. Reno, which found the CDA vague as well as overbroad, in open rejection of the language from Shea relied upon by the Government. 521 U.S. at 871. Moreover, it would ignore the reasoning of the six justices in Ashcroft as described in Point III. The Government's argument based on the panel's ruling in Shea, which is inconsistent with Reno itself as well as with Ashcroft, sets form against function, and shows just how meritless the Government's argument that the statute is not overly vague is. This Court should follow Reno, not the contrary dictum in Shea, and strike the statute as both vague and overbroad.




For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny the motion to dismiss in toto, grant plaintiffs' cross-motion for preliminary relief, and set an expeditious discovery and trial schedule.


Dated: Carle Place, New York
May 24, 2002


Respectfully submitted,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
One Old Country Road
Carle Place, N.Y. 11514
(516) 873-9550




1 The concept that obscenity fell within the class of "low-value" speech outside the protections of the First Amendment dates to Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), in which it is expressed as dictum in a case scrutinizing a disorderly conduct conviction under a different class of "low value" speech, so-called "fighting words." Ex Parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727 (1877) did not involve a general ban of the kind the Government seeks to find within it, but merely denied the facility of the federal mails to materials deemed "lewd" or "obscene." Far from upholding a generalized obscenity prohibition, the Court explicitly declared that Congress was free to not participate in the distribution of materials deemed by it to be immoral, but stated that "[i]f , therefore, matter be excluded from the mail, its transportation in any other way cannot be forbidden by Congress." Id. at 733.


2 Justice Breyer engaged in a "saving construction" of the purported "national community standard" enacted in COPA, a standard even attempted by Congress in the CDA. After the language quoted, he found that application of even similar local community standards of what is harmful to minors to the Internet posed "special difficulties" which "potentially weaken the authority" of Sable and Hamling in which those difficulties did not arise. Id.


3 The complaint, at 7, quotes the section above encapsulated, 223(a). The CDA, at §507, further amended section 223; as summarized by the conference committee report, "a new section 223(d) is added to prohibit the use of a telecommunications device to make or make available an obscene communication." Senate Conference Report No. 104-230 (Feb. 1, 1996) (Schilling Declaration at Exhibit C) at 187; Ashcroft v. ACLU, slip op. at 3. As the Supreme Court has construed the section relied upon in the complaint as discussed above, the plaintiffs have not relied upon this effectively cognate provision as establishing their cause of action. However, should the Court read section (d) to sweep differently than the cited section, the complaint should not be dismissed, but at most amended, although the citation of a wrong theory of recovery or statute does not render a pleading insufficient. Nothrop v. Hoffman of Simsbury, Inc., 134 F.3d 41, 46 (2d Cir. 1997).


4 This statement is based on the fact that e-mail or BBS or list postings are directed to the recipient's e-mail account, which may be accessed by the recipient from a remote location, or through a remailer service, and not merely their home computer. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. at 851-852 (various internet fora), 855-856 (impossibility of identity, address or age verification through e-mail address).


5Because the Supreme Court reversed the factual findings as to prurience and patent offensiveness, it did not explicitly address the third prong; however, the Court's discussion strongly suggests that the film would have been rescued under that test as well. 418 U.S. at 158-159.


March 20, 2006 - Washington D.C. 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.
Published in Barbara Nitke Case

March 20,2006 | WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court turned back an appeal on Monday from a photographer who claimed a federal decency law violated her free-speech rights to post pictures of sadomasochistic sexual behavior on the Web.

Justices affirmed a decision last year by a special three-judge federal panel upholding the 1996 law which makes it a crime to send obscenity over the Internet to children.

The court could have used the case to set online obscenity standards. The subject of children and indecency has gotten more attention recently.

Last week the government renewed its crackdown on indecent television by proposing nearly $4 million in fines for controversial broadcasts.

The Supreme Court appeal was brought by photographer Barbara Nitke, whose work is featured in the book "Kiss of Fire: A Romantic View of Sadomasochism," and by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom.

Material that is obscene is not protected by the First Amendment, but Nitke's lawyer contends her work is art that is not obscene.

Justices were told by attorney John Wirenius of New York that if they turned down the case, "many more Internet users will likely face the constitutionally unsupportable choice faced by Ms. Nitke: either to censor her published images or risk prosecution."

The law requires that those sending obscene communications on the Internet take reasonable actions to keep it away from children, like requiring a credit card, debit account or adult access code as proof of age.

The Bush administration had urged justices to stay out of the case.

The case is Nitke v. Gonzales, 05-526

Published in Barbara Nitke Case
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 Next > End >>
Page 3 of 4
Resources for Media

Resources for Media

Includes vital statistics on alternative sexual expression, interview contact list, and a selection of articles from national publications.

Community Resources

Community Resources

Includes tips on how to speak to the media, sound-bites on alternative sexual expression, and a primer on how to write a letter to the editor.

NCSF in the News

NCSF in the News

  • NCSF Steps Up for Detroit

    NCSF Steps Up for Detroit NCSF is there to help you when you need it. Just ask the Detroit BDSM community, who recently came under fire from a local news affiliate. The NBC Channel 4 Defenders were out to get a sensational story on Robert Bashara, whose wife was murdered in January, 2012. Since Bashara's BDSM activities had become public, the Defenders took concealed cameras in to a local BDSM…

    Tags: Detroit
  • NCSF Wins - Large Non Profit

    At the recent PANTHEON OF LEATHER XX awards held August 15th in Los Angeles, the NCSF received the award for "Large Non Profit Organization of the Year".  Yay NCSF! Full list of Pantheon of Leather XX Award Recipients  

    Tags: NCSF
  • NCSF Condemns the Atlanta Police Department's Raid on the Eagle

    NCSF Condemns the Atlanta Police Department's Raid on the Eagle September 15, 2009 - On September 10th, the Atlanta Eagle was raided by local police who used excessive force and voiced anti-gay slurs while handcuffing 62 patrons and 8 employees, forcing them to lie face-down on the floor for over an hour. The strong use of force included the presence of the "Red Dog unit" which typically deals with crimes…

    Tags: Susan Wright Eagle Raid Gay
  • NCSF Statement on NYC Pro-doms

    NCSF Statement on Professional Dominatrices in New York February 11, 2009  NCSF has been contacted by over a dozen concerned members of the BDSM community in New York about the arrests of dozens of professional Dominatrices in Manhattan that started in early 2008. The pro-Domme community in New York City, which has been a vibrant part of the BDSM community for decades, has been ravaged by these prosecutions for prostitution…

    Tags: Susan Wright Dominatrics
  • NCSF in the News

      For more information and current press releases.                 S&M! Lewd Ken dolls! Worhington's wild weekend. The Other Paper (Columbus, Ohio) February, 12, 2009 Despite Right Wing Pressure, Straight BDSM Gathering Goes Forward The Boston Edge February 10, 2009 Interview with Susan Wright, Spokesperson for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom Kasidie Magazine October 2008 Shrinks: Kinky Sex is a Mental Disorder Mom Logic September, 19, 2008   For some,…

    Tags: Media Rights Sexual Behaviors Alternative Sexual Expression Media Outreach Articles Legal Advocate News
  • NCSF Proudly Celebrates 10 Years of Advocacy

    August 27, 2007 - NCSF proud to be the only group in the country with a national mission committed to changing the political, legal and social environment for those involved with the BDSM, swinging and polyamory communities. NCSF's six programs have directly helped thousands of practitioners, businesses and groups. Four of NCSF's programs began with the founding of NCSF in 1997: the Media Outreach Project, Media Updates, Incident Response, and…

    Tags: Advocate
  • Now Seeking Entries for 2008 "Sexies"

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Susan Wright, 917-848-6544 or Miriam Axel-Lute, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it For more details: 2008 Sex-Positive Journalism Awards Now Seeking EntriesNationally known journalists and sex-positive advocates to judge "Sexies" November 5, 2007 - To hear some people tell it, all of "the media" is a degenerate, sex-drenched affair. But although there's plenty of talk about the sex lives of celebrities and a willingness to use a scandal to sell…

    Tags: Sexies
  • NCSF 10th Anniversary pins!

    NCSF is proud to produce a limited supply of 10th Anniversary pins. Only a 100 of these specially designed 10th Anniversary pins will be produced, and they're already selling fast!   Are you a pin collector?   Do you wear your leather vest proudly, showing off your many club affiliations?   Then you MUST have this very special pin.      

    Tags: NCSF PINS
  • Swing Clubs - Why NCSF Matters to You!

    A letter from NCSF to the swing club community explaining why NCSF is important to your issues, and how we are furthering those goals. Written and signed by NCSF Board member Doug Wilson. April 27, 2007 Dear Club Owners, I am writing to you on behalf of the lifestyle organizations and businesses affiliated with the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF). I am writing to urge you to join the…

    Tags: Swing
  • Creating Change Conference - Has Your Voice Been Heard?

    November 11, 2006 - Next week the NCSF and ITCR will be represented at the 19th Annual "Creating Change" conference, the largest annual convening of LGBT activists in North America! This groundbreaking conference works to provide LGBT activists and their allies with the information, tools and technical assistance necessary to successfully mobilize our local communities, to combat homophobia and to strengthen our political power in the fight to preserve sexual…

    Tags: Creating Change Conference
  • NCSF Adopts Kink-Aware Professionals List

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE National Coalition for Sexual Freedom NCSF adopts Kink Aware Professionals February 10, 2006 - Race Bannon and NCSF announce the transfer of management of Kink Aware Professionals to NCSF. The National Coalition of Sexual Freedom is proud to continue and grow the Kink Aware Professionals program which was founded and has been managed by Race Bannon for many years. To find a Kink Aware professional, go to:…

    Tags: KAP
  • Supreme Court Appeal for Communications Decency Act Lawsuit

    August 22, 2005 - New York, NY - Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom have filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court of the District Court's decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) challenge. Their appeal contends the District Court applied an incorrect legal standard for determining whether protected material was improperly banned under the CDA. The District Court also committed legal error in…

    Tags: CDA Nitke
  • NCSF + FSC = Powerhouse!

    July 5, 2005, The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) and the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) are pleased to announce their official partnership! As of July 1, 2005, two of the nation's leading organizations dedicated to the rights of consenting adults and free speech will team up to network, educate the public on overlapping issues, raise funding, and reach out to new members. This announcement is being made on the…

    Tags: FSC
  • Free Speech Coalition Files Motion Seeking 2257 TRO

    CANOGA PARK, Calif. – The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) today filed a complaint and motion in the United States District Court of Colorado seeking a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining enforcement of the recently re-issued federal record-keeping and labeling requirements, 18 U.S.C. § 2257, which are due to go into effect June 23, 2005. The case is Free Speech Coalition v. Alberto Gonzales, # 05 CV 1126 WDM. The lawsuit,…

    Tags: FSC
  • NCSF and Barbara Nitke File Amicus Brief in "United States vs. Extreme Associates"

    May 26, 2005 - New York, NY - The obscenity case against Extreme Associates was dismissed by a Federal judge in Pittsburgh, PA, in January, 2005. But the battle isn't over yet: U. S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. NCSF and Barbara Nitke have joined the fight challenging the constitutionality of obscenity laws by filing an Amicus Brief in…

    Tags: Legal Supreme Court Obscenity
  • Sex, Art & Politics Takes on John Ashcroft

    September 7, 2004 New York City The Communications Decency Act (CDA) trial date has been set for October 27-29, 2004, at the United States District Court in New York City. Plaintiffs Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom are contesting the remaining CDA provisions allowing "local community standards" to be used to define obscenity on the Internet. These provisions were not the subject of the 1997 Supreme Court…

    Tags: Susan Wright CDA Nitke
  • Leather Archives & Museum Capital Campaign

    On August 4th, 2004 the Leather Archives & Museum has a $225,000 balloon payment due on its facility at 6418 N. Greenview Avenue in Chicago. $175,000 of this has been raised. Any balance due can be refinanced, but that means thousands of dollars in interest over the next 10 years. The community can do much better things with that money. If you have not donated to the campaign, we're asking…

    Tags: Leather Archives Museum
  • Barbara Nitke visit to SF - PR and calendar of events for Sept 2004

    Mark I. Chester ( and Dr. Carol Queen's non-profit Center for Sex and Culture (, announce a series of events in mid-September 2004 on radical sex photography and artistic freedom, featuring New York City photographer Barbara Nitke ( The events coincide with the upcoming Folsom St. Fair, Sun Sept. 26th, San Francisco's annual leather street fair, California's third largest public outdoor event. Barbara Nitke visit to SF - pr and…

    Tags: Nitke
  • CDA Fundraising Countdown!

    NCSF needs your help fighting our battle against increasing obscenity prosecutions. NCSF's Communications Decency Act lawsuit, filed with Barbara Nitke in Federal Court, is scheduled to go to trial this Fall! John Wirenius, our attorney, has graciously agreed to donate his services pro bono, but we need money to bring in expert witnesses to testify on our behalf (all of the expert witnesses are donating their time to this case).…

  • NCSF's IML Raffle a Success!

    The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is pleased to announce the winner of our 2004 International Mr. Leather Weekend Giveaway Raffle. We would like to thank the producers of IML for the donation of the winner's event packages. The room at the host hotel and air transportation to Chicago is being provided by NCSF. NCSF netted approximately $2,000 after raffle expenses. LadyKuanYin from Florida was the winner, having purchased her…

    Tags: Raffle IML
  • NCSF Spearheads First National Swing Leadership Conference

    March 10, 2004 - Chicago, Illinois - The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and Club Adventure, Inc. held a leadership conference for swing club owners in Chicago on February 28 and 29, 2004. The conference was attended by over 50 people, representing dozens of swing clubs across the country. Primarily focused on the rights of consenting adults in the SM-leather-fetish, swing, and polyamory communities, NCSF is committed to creating a…

    Tags: Swing
  • NCSF Calls for Reinstatement of Cuffs at Iowa State University

    The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom supports the rights of adults at Iowa State University to maintain their educational and social SM group, Cuffs. NCSF condemns any form of discrimination or persecution of consenting adults who engage in SM educational activities, and calls for Cuffs' organizational privileges to be reinstated and for the assault allegations to be dropped at the March 1st investigative hearing by Iowa State University. University-approved SM…

    Tags: Susan Wright SM
  • NCSF Announces Swing Leadership Conference

    The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, in conjunction with Club Adventure, is pleased to present a Leadership Conference for owners of swing clubs and community members, scheduled to take place in Chicago, February 28 and 29, 2004.

  • NCSF in Time magazine

    National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is proud to be mentioned by Time Magazine in an article entitled "Bondage Unbound" by John Cloud in the January 19th issue. National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is proud to be mentioned by Time Magazine in an article entitled "Bondage Unbound" by John Cloud in the January 19th issue. To read the article, go to: It is the policy of the National Coalition for…

  • PPF Fund Announcement

    The PPF Fund is an exciting way to support two fantastic organizations dedicated to protecting the past and future of our Community. Help support the cause by making a donation directly to either organization by snail mail (at the address listed below). Please make your check payable to either Leather Archives & Museum, National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, or send a check for each! You can also make a direct…

  • NCSF Call to Action

    A social and educational event, Fetish in the Fall, scheduled to take place in Kenner, Louisiana (part of greater New Orleans) has been attacked by the local police chief. Please see the press release below that was sent by the police to the New Orleans media.

  • NCSF Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on the Texas Sodomy Law

    WASHINGTON DC, JUNE 26, 2003 -- The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom applauds the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the Texas sodomy law. The justices voted 6-3 to overturn their 1986 decision on Bowers v Hardwick (GA), stating that the sodomy law is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy and that by singling out gay people, it violates the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

  • Eden Sarfaty Named Executive Director of NCSF

    WASHINGTON DC, JUNE 24, 2003 -- The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) has named Eden Sarfaty as Executive Director. Sarfaty, a Washington, DC attorney, is an expert in the area of legislative and administrative law, with experience in the management of national associations, lobbying at all levels of state and federal government, and criminal defense. He will take the helm from Leigha Fleming, acting Executive Director, on July 1st,…

  • Hotel Outreach Project

    The religious extremist organization, Concerned Women for America, continues to attack hotels that host SM events. CWA has a petition up now targeting IML that will be sent to their host hotels (CWA Petition). An NCSF volunteer has kindly offered to head up the NCSF Hotel Outreach Project to counter their sensationalized rhetoric by gathering data and supporting evidence that SM events aren't dangerous and can be profitable for businesses.…

  • NCSF Reaches Agreement with Cendant Hotels on SM Events

    September 30, 2002 - Responding to concerns that it was prohibiting franchisees from hosting events for "sadomasochism enthusiasts," the Cendant Corporation Hotel Group, the world's largest hotel franchisor, has assured the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom that it will honor the right of franchisees to host the events of their choice.

  • 300 People Attend Barbara Nitke Photography Exhibit

    On July 10, 2002, the opening reception of Barbara Nitke: Twenty Years was attended by 300 people at Art @ Large. The Nitke show can be viewed until August 3rd at Art @ Large, 630 Ninth Ave, No. 707, New York, NY. On July 10, 2002, the opening reception of Barbara Nitke: Twenty Years was attended by 300 people at Art @ Large. The Nitke show can be viewed until…

  • NCSF Counters Attack by Radical Right on Sexual Minority Groups

    WASHINGTON, DC (February 14, 2002) The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF), a national organization committed to protecting freedom of sexual expression among consenting adults, today a launched a new initiative that provides support to sexual minority groups under attack by radical right wing groups.

  • Challenging Internet Obscenity Law, Historic Lawsuit is Filed by NCSF and Artist Barbara Nitke

    NEW YORK CITY (December 11, 2001) The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF), a national civil liberties organization, and Barbara Nitke, an acclaimed New York City artist who operates her own Web site (, today filed a court challenge that aims to overturn the last remaining Internet censorship provision of the flawed Communications Decency Act.

Action Alerts!

Action Alerts!

  • Action Alert - Take Action Californians!

    Our BDSM communities could be adversely impacted by a well-intentioned, but overly broad, piece of proposed criminal legislation that has been introduced by Senator Christine Kehoe in the California Senate.  NCSF is asking all of you to sign and send to NCSF letters (a draft is attached below) that we can introduce if necessary at a hearing likely to be held in April, 2011. The purpose of the bill, SB…

    Written on Sunday, 03 April 2011 21:11
    Tags: Consent Counts action alerts california SB 430
  • Action Alert: Atlanta Eagle Update

    Lawless cops are a threat to everyone in America NCSF joins state and local representatives in urging everyone to file a complaint if they were present at the Eagle on September 10th, when the Atlanta police illegally detained 62 patrons and 8 employees and searched them without a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or probable cause. You can file a complaint with the Atlanta Police Department and the Atlanta Citizen Review Board…

    Written on Thursday, 05 November 2009 10:17
    Tags: Susan Wright Action Alert Human Rights
  • Action Alert - DSM Petition 10/15/09

    Kinky is NOT a Diagnosis Help make history by signing the DSM Revision Petition now! The diagnoses in the DSM-IV-TR still subject people who practice BDSM, fetishes and cross-dressing to bias, discrimination and social sanctions without any scientific basis. We need 3,000 signatures, but we only have 2,200 now. If you don't speak up and call on the American Psychiatric Association to adhere to empirical research when revising the diagnoses…

    Written on Thursday, 15 October 2009 10:22
    Tags: DSM Leather Fetish
  • Action Alert - Stop the Arrests in NYC

    Action Alert National Coalition for Sexual Freedom SHERIDAN SQUARE RALLY Christopher St & 7th Ave SATURDAY February 21, 2009 4-5PM IN SUPPORT OF THOSE FALSELY ARRESTED FOR PROSTITUTION This is a big protest and rally at Sheridan Square this Saturday. Susan Wright, Spokesperson for NCSF, will be speaking out at the rally against the arrests of professional Dominatrices for prostitution. In order to help raise awareness of the arrests of…

    Written on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 07:48
    Tags: Action Alert Dominance Gay AntiViolence
  • Action Alert - Winter Wickedness

    Support the Holiday Inn - Worthington, OH!  February 4, 2009 Please make a phone call now to support the Holiday Inn Worthington, the host hotel for Adventures In Sexuality's (AIS) Winter Wickedness Event taking place February 6-8th. The religious extremist group, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, along with a local religious radio station in the Columbus, Ohio, area are running a smear campaign against this pansexual BDSM event.  Peter LaBarbara of Americans…

    Written on Wednesday, 04 February 2009 11:22
    Tags: Winter Wickedness Action Alert
  • Action Alert - DSM Revision Petition

    Written on Monday, 15 September 2008 09:00

  • Action Alert - Religious political extremists attack The Task Force for "Leather Leadership Award"

    February 13, 2008 - The American Family News Network posted an inflammatory article condemning the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force for honoring Guy Baldwin with  their Leather Leadership Award at the 20th National Conference on LGBT Equality:  Creating Change, on February 6-10, 2008 ( According to the February 7th article: Peter LaBarbera, executive director of Americans for Truth commented that he is  not sure if he is more surprised…

    Written on Wednesday, 13 February 2008 11:12
    Tags: DSM Creating Change Conference Task Force Award Leather LGBT
  • Action Alert: Folsom Street Fair Needs Your Help

    October 12, 2007 - The Catholic League, Concerned Women for America and Americans for Truth have called for a boycott of Miller Brewing Company because they are one of the sponsors of Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. "Miller is sponsoring an incredibly outrageous and palpably anti-Christian event," said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League.  Miller is feeling the heat, and we need you to email Miller Brewing Company…

    Written on Friday, 12 October 2007 08:04
    Tags: CWA Folsom Street
  • Action Alert - Support the Palmer House Hilton

    June 6, 2007 - Please write a short note of support for the Palmer House Hilton, host hotel for International Mr. Leather, thanking them for not discriminating against any guests or groups based on their sexual orientation. The anti-gay group, Americans For Truth, posted an action alert calling for people to protest the "homosexual orgies" that take place at the "sadistic sexual perversion-fest known as International Mr. Leather."   NCSF…

    Written on Wednesday, 06 June 2007 01:00
    Tags: Leather
  • Action Alert -

    March 8, 2007 - An informational hearing has been scheduled for March 8 at San Francisco City Hall from 10-12:30. needs lots of people to show up and support's right to be in business. NCSF recommends that you wear business or casual clothes so that our community looks like the neighbors – we need to show them that we won't abide discrimination and persecution against alt sex practices…

    Written on Thursday, 08 March 2007 01:00
    Tags: Action Alert
CDA Media Reports

CDA Media Reports

Media reports covering the Communications Decency Act lawsuit launched by co-plaintiffs NCSF and Barbara Nitke.

  • NEWSBYTES - December 19, 2001

    Net Obscenity Provisions Revocation Sought NEWSBYTES By David McGuire December 19, 2001, Washington, DC -- A small civil liberties group has asked a federal judge in New York to revoke what remains of an Internet pornography law that was gutted by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997. In a complaint filed in a New York City Federal Court [ ] last week, the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom […

    Tags: Media News
  • San Francisco Bay Guardian - January 14, 2002

    Techsploitation By Annalee Newitz San Francisco Bay Guardian, January 14, 2002   HERE'S YET ANOTHER wacky fact you probably didn't know about the Communications Decency Act ole Bill Clinton signed into law way back in 1996: the good citizens of some small town in Arizona or southern California might have the power to send you to jail if they think the contents of your Web site are "obscene." The CDA…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • San Francisco Frontiers - January 23, 2002

    Communications Decency Act A Lingering Coup de Grace? By Tim Kingston   January 23, 2002   You may dimly recall the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which unsuccessfully attempted to define and proscribe "indecency" on the Internet. That law's legal core--its indecency provision--was immediately challenged and rapidly struck down as unconstitutional by free- and electronic-speech advocates. But, what many may not know is that another portion of the law, prohibiting…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • Ynot News - January 2, 2002

    Can David Beat Goliath in the Battle of Obscenity? Part 2   By Judd Handler   Ynot News, January 2, 2002   Last week's editorial featured an interview with John Wirenius, lead counsel for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and Barbara Nitke, an adult content photographer. Wirenius, on behalf of the NCSF and Nitke, filed a lawsuit on December 11 against Attorney General John Ashcroft seeking to overturn Internet…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • Ynot News - December 20, 2001

    Can David Beat Goliath in the Battle of Obscenity? By Judd Handler   Ynot News, December 20, 2001   One would think it would take the giants of the industry to force the government to rethink existing, not-applicable-to-the-Internet obscenity laws. On the contrary, the little players may be the ones who are successful in getting the federal government and the Supreme Court to throw out irrelevant local community standards when…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • Wired - December 12, 2001

    New Suit Targets Obscenity Law By Julia Scheeres Wired, December 12, 2001    A national organization that promotes sexual tolerance and an artist who photographs pictures of couples engaged in sadomasochism filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to overturn Internet obscenity laws. The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and photographer Barbara Nitke argue that the obscenity provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) is so broad that it violates free speech.…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • Spectator Magazine - January 11, 2002

    STANDING UP TO BE COUNTED: BARBARA NITKE CHALLENGES JOHN ASHCROFT ON S/M AND INTERNET OBSCENITY By David Steinberg Spectator Magazine, January 11, 2002 "No matter how we're wired to express love, freedom is having the courage to be who we are." - Photographer/plaintiff Barbara Nitke On December 11, Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom brought suit in New York City's Federal District Court, seeking to have the…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • New York Press - August 28, 2002

    What's Obscene in Podunk By John Strausbaugh New York Press, August 28, 2002   Barbara Nitke is a well-known and much-seen photographer in her field. She's president of the New York Camera Club and teaches a course in darkroom technique at SVA. A nice, neat, sweet individual, she's the very very last person in New York City you'd suspect of being a pornographer. Which she's not, not exactly. She's more…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • New York Newsday - July 25 2005

    New York judges refuse to say Internet obscenity law is unconstitutional By LARRY NEUMEISTER Associated Press Writer, July 25, 2005, 7:58 PM EDT  NEW YORK -- A special three-judge federal panel on Monday refused to find unconstitutional a law making it a crime to send obscenity over the Internet to children. The Communications Decency Act of 1996 had been challenged by Barbara Nitke, a photographer who specializes in pictures of…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • New York Daily News - July 15, 2002

    Fotog vs. Feds in Obscenity Law: Files suit to keep photos on Web by Veronica Vera New York Daily News, July 15, 2002 Photographer Barbara Nitke is used to being behind the lens, but if legal matters heat up, she may soon find the government focusing on her. Nitke is ready to step into the foreground as the chief plantiff in Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • Nerve - December 11, 2001

    Nerve December 11, 2001 Photographer Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) filed a lawsuit today, claiming the Internet censorship provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The provision stipulates that "local community standards" will judge whether or not something is indecent. Yet attorney John Wirenius argues that "By allowing the most restrictive jurisdiction to define what speech can…

    Tags: Media CDA
  • CNN - December 20, 2001

    Lawsuit targets last scraps of Net-obscenity law By Sam Costello (IDG News) CNN, December 20, 2001 The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) and artist Barbara Nitke have filed a lawsuit challenging the remaining provisions of the Communications Decency Act, much of which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997. The act, or CDA, was passed in 1996 and was the first U.S. law designed to allow…

    Tags: CDA Media
  • Adult Video News - February, 2002

    NCSF Tackles "Community Standards" For The Web By Mark Kernes Adult Video News, February Issue Washington, DC The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom may not be a household name, even in the adult entertainment industry, but if their recently-filed lawsuit succeeds, they may go down in history as the first group to secure Americans' core constitutional speech rights.  NCSF is based in the nation's capital [~] in fact, only a…

    Tags: Media CDA News
  • ABC News - July 29, 2002

    Love or Obscenity? S/M Photographer Challenges Internet Decency Standards By Dean Schabner, July 29, 2002 When Barbara Nitke wanted to put her photographs of loving couples on the Internet, she thought she should check into the laws first. That's because Nitke's recent photographs have been focused on how some couples express their love through sado-masochism. What Nitke found after reading up on Internet law and talking to lawyers was…

    Tags: Media CDA
NCSF Newsletters

NCSF Newsletters

A quarterly newsletter produced by the NCSF staff to inform our communities about the important work our coalition is doing.

  • NCSF Newsletter: 1st Quarter 2012

    NCSF Newsletter 1st Quarter, 2012 In this issue The NCSF Annual Meeting is the 3rd Weekend of March! Sexual Freedom Stories in the News What happened at Spanksgiving? Spanksgiving, an Addendum Coalition Corner - The Eulenspiegel Society Meet Your Board! Returning Member- Vivienne Kramer The NCSF Annual Meeting is the 3rd Weekend of March!  Join us in St. Paul Minnesota this spring! We are pulling out all the stops for a…

    Written on Wednesday, 01 February 2012 00:24
    Tags: Newsletter News newletters
  • NCSF Newsletter: 4th Quarter 2011

    NCSF Newsletter 4th Quarter, 2011   In this issue NCSF Annual Meeting, March 2012 in Minnesota Consent Counts: Report & Looking to the Future Consent Counts: Words from Our Board Chair Coalition Corner: Siege Works Meet Your Board! Returning Member- Mercury  NCSF Annual Meeting, March 2012 in Minnesota  By: Sassy, CP Rep - Minnesota Stocks Debentures & Bonds March is known for "March Madness" in Minnesota. It's a time of high school…

    Written on Friday, 11 November 2011 02:28
    Tags: Newsletter News Newsletters
  • NCSF Newsletter: 3rd Quarter 2011

    NCSF Newsletter 3rd Quarter, 2011    In this issue Membership Drive...Keep that Independence Day Spirit Minnesota Welcomes NCSF next March! Meet Your Board!...New Member- Julian Wolf Update: Kinky is NOT a Diagnosis Consent Counts Expands Educational Focus Coalition Corner - Meet the New Mexico Leather League Membership Drive Keep that Independence Day Spirit and become a freedom fighter by joining NCSF! NCSF is having a membership drive until July 31st! NCSF is…

    Written on Wednesday, 20 July 2011 00:52
    Tags: Newsletter News
  • NCSF Newsletter: 2nd Quarter 2011

    NCSF Newsletter 2nd Quarter 2011 In this issue NCSF's Coalition Partners Meet in Cambridge Annual Meeting Letter From the Chair Hosting the Annual Meeting New Coalition Partner, FetFest, Launches Ticket Donations Creating Change at Creating Change Why KAP (Kink Aware Professionals) Affecting the Law In California NCSF's Coalition Partners Meet in Cambridge The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom held its annual Coalition Partner meeting in Cambridge, MA from March 26-27,…

    Written on Wednesday, 11 May 2011 15:07

  • NCSF Newsletter: 1st Quarter 2011

    NCSF Newsletter: 1st Quarter 2011 In this issue   Letter from the Chair Boston Annual Meeting Interview with a Coalition Partner DSM Revision Project a Success Why support the NCSF?   From the ChairBy: Leigha FlemingNCSF Board Chair Hello to all of you and an especially warm greeting to all of our supporting and coalition partners. 2010 has been an exciting year for NCSF. We had some major successes with…

    Written on Friday, 25 March 2011 14:28

  • NCSF Newsletter: 4th Quarter 2010

    Winter: January 2010 In this issue   NCSF Publishes Two Important Mental Health Guides NCSF Protests Raid on Atlanta Eagle Consent Counts- Get Involved! Coalition Partner Stewardship NCSF Publishes Two Important Mental Health Guidesby: Susan Wright NCSF and the Foundation are thrilled to announce two new and valuable additions to its line of publications. The first is A Guide to Choosing a Kink-Aware Therapist , created by Keely Kolmes Psy.D.…

    Written on Friday, 25 March 2011 14:23
    Tags: Newsletter Notes
  • NCSF Newsletter: 3rd Quarter 2010

    NCSF Newsletter: 3rd Quarter 2010   In this issue Next Annual Meeting AASECTH NCSF & FetLife NCSF Comes to You Tube Next Annual Meeting in BostonBy: Opn Heartd CP Rep, MOB New England New Englanders, maybe you belong to a NCSF Coalition Partner group like NELA or NE-DS or Mob New England or you are an individual supporting member of NCSF.  Maybe you've attended an event that donated to NCSF,…

    Written on Tuesday, 22 March 2011 14:40
    Tags: Newsletter Notes
  • NCSF Newsletter: 2nd Quarter 2010

    NCSF Newsletter Spring: May 2010 In this issue Annual Meeting Board of Directors Volunteer of the Year New Papers ___________________________________________________________________________________ Annual Coalition Partner's Meeting  The Annual Coalition Partner's Meeting was held in Seattle this year. It was the NCSF's first time in the city of Seattle and this could not have been done without the efforts of the Seattle community - particularly Jim Duvall and Allena Gabosch. We would like…

    Written on Sunday, 20 March 2011 15:35
    Tags: Newsletter Notes
  • NCSF Newsletter: 1st Quarter 2010

    NCSF Newsletter: Winter January 2010 In this issue NCSF Publishes Two Important Mental Health Guides NCSF Protests Raid on Atlanta Eagle Consent Counts- Get Involved! Coalition Partner Stewardship  _____________________________________________________________________________ NCSF Publishes Two Important Mental Health Guides by: Susan Wright NCSF and the Foundation are thrilled to announce two new and valuable additions to its line of publications. The first is A Guide to Choosing a Kink-Aware Therapist , created by…

    Written on Sunday, 20 March 2011 14:58
    Tags: Notes Newsletters
  • NCSF Newsletter: 4th Quarter 2009

    Download NCSF Notes Winter 2009-2010

    Written on Thursday, 14 January 2010 07:12
    Tags: Newsletter Notes
Media Activity Reports

Media Activity Reports

Reports about the activities of the NCSF Media Committee.

  • NCSF Media Activity Report - 2007

    September 2007 to August 2008 The NCSF Media Committee reviews, edits, and refines the documents that NCSF distributes. The media committee is chaired by Susan Wright, spokesperson for NCSF, and consists of Levi Halberstadt, Keith Richie, Lisa Vandever, Lolita Wolf, and Howie Z. Over the past year, Susan gave five media trainings including one for the board of a national event, and one at the annual CP meeting for CP…

    Tags: BDSM Susan Wright Task Force
  • Media Activity Reports

    Reports about the activities of the NCSF Media Committee NCSF has an active media committee which provides interviews for print, radio, and television. We creates press releases, action alerts, and entertainment media updates. The Media committee also provides media training and coaching to coalition partners, advocacy groups and responds to hundreds of media related queries. With the action around the CDA lawsuit as well as other media events, this has…

    Tags: Activist Media Coalition Partners
  • NCSF Media Activity Report - 2006

    September 2005 - September 2006 The NCSF Media Committee reviews, edits, and refines the documents that NCSF publicly distributes. The media committee consists of Susan Wright, Allena Gabosch, Anita Wagner, Lisa Vandever, Lolita Wolf, Howie Z., and Keith, who creates and distributes the NCSF Media Updates. Interviews Susan Wright gave 57 interviews with most of the media outlets contacting NCSF, indicating that NCSF has much higher profile than before the…

    Tags: Susan Wright Media CDA
Press Releases

Press Releases

  • NCSF: Moving Forward

    What is the difference between NCSF and the NCSF Foundation?   The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is a 501c4 nonprofit membership organization that advocates for those in the kink and polyamory lifestyles. The Coalition Partners oversee NCSF’s Board of Directors, who in turn run the projects and programs of both organizations. The NCSF Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit charitable organization that educates about BDSM, swinging and polyamory to destigmatize…

    Written on Monday, 10 March 2014 00:56

  • 2013 Advocacy Roundup

    National Coalition for Sexual Freedom 2013 Advocacy Roundup NCSF faced some difficult challenges in 2013, but the dedicated volunteer staff worked hard to advocate for the BDSM, swing and polyamory lifestyles: Kink is Okay                   The biggest news of 2013 was that the American Psychiatric Association depathologized consensual sadism, masochism, cross-dressing and fetishes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). NCSF’s DSM-Revision project began in April…

    Written on Thursday, 06 February 2014 00:52

  • Take the Consent Violations Survey!

    Please take this survey even if you’ve never had a consent violation. We want to know what are your power exchange and sexual identities? Are you “out” about being kinky? How often do you go to BDSM groups and online communities?   NCSF will use these results to help perform its advocacy, such as helping law enforcement, prosecutors and health care professionals understand the experiences of kinky people and provide…

    Written on Wednesday, 22 January 2014 00:47

  • The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and Leather Archives & Museum proudly present: “BDSM? Erotic Play? What Are the Legal Risks?”

    Where: Leather Archives & Museum6418 N. Greenview AvenueChicago, IL 60626 When: Saturday, October 19th from 2:30-5 p.m.followed by awine and cheese reception for the benefit of LA&M and NCSF from 5-7 p.m.Presentation is free of charge.Wine and cheese reception has a suggested donation of $20 and is open to the public.   Program description:You and your BDSM partner may be having a great time, but you need to know about…

    Written on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 00:42

  • The DSM-5 Says Kink is OK!

    The DSM-5 Says Kink is OK!   The American Psychiatric Association has depathologized kinky sex – including cross-dressing, fetishes, and BDSM – in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Now the paraphilias are considered to be “unusual sexual interests,” while those who have sex with children or people who haven’t consented, or who deliberately cause harm to themselves or others, may be diagnosed with a…

    Written on Saturday, 22 June 2013 00:32
    Tags: DSM
  • NCSF’s Coalition Partners Join Together for Consent Summit

    NCSF’s Coalition Partners Join Together for Consent Summit   The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom held its annual Coalition Partner meeting in Phoenix, Arizona from February 8-10, 2013. The Consent Summit took place Friday evening, and Coalition Partners were able to participate via streaming video to give their input on the new Consent Statement. Go to to see the Consent Statement and comment on it.   “The Consent Statement…

    Written on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 00:22
    Tags: Consent_Counts
  • Office Fire Fundraiser

    Our Office Burned! We need YOUR help February 13, 2013 – The NCSF office in Baltimore, MD, was destroyed in a fire a few weeks ago. We’ve lost everything: computer, office supplies and furnishings, tee shirts, and all of our stored printed literature are gone.    Please donate to the NCSF Fire Recovery Fund drive:      Donations are tax deductible! In order to continue helping the BDSM-leather-fetish, swing…

    Written on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 00:15

  • NCSF Survey on Consent

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE National Coalition for Sexual Freedom NCSF Survey on Consent The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) wants to hear from you! Please take our Consent Counts survey and tell us what you think about consent: As part of decriminalizing BDSM in the legal codes, we need to be able to articulate a clear definition of consent that the BDSM communities believe in. The results of this…

    Written on Monday, 09 July 2012 10:19
    Tags: Survey Consent Counts consent fetlife
  • Mark Frazier Joins the NCSF Board of Directors

    Mark Frazier Joins the NCSF Board of Directors July 1, 2012 - The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom is pleased to announce the addition of a new board member, Mark Frazier. Mark will fill an appointed board seat until the 2013 Coalition Partner meeting. Mark Frazier is the owner and executive producer of the International LeatherSir/Leatherboy and community bootblack contests. He has been involved in the leather and kink lifestyle…

    Written on Tuesday, 03 July 2012 02:26

  • NCSF at AASECT 2012

      NCSF at AASECT  On behalf of NCSF, Jim Fleckenstein and Susan Wright attended the American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) Annual Conference on June 8-10th in Austin, Texas. The NCSF booth in the Exhibit Hall featured free copies of NCSF’s newly refreshed guide: "What Psychology Professionals Should Know About Polyamory." 150 copies were given away to professional service providers courtesy of a grant by Alan of Polyamory…

    Written on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 01:33
    Tags: NCSF aasect

Support this program!

Media Outreach: We're Making a Difference

  • NCSF has successfully changed the discussion in the media by debunking stereotypes about BDSM, swinging, and polyamory
  • NCFS has developed a strong media outreach and training program for its coalition, supporting, and other partners.
  • NCSF has successfully become through dedicated advocacy, the leading media authority on BDSM, swinging, and polyamory


About Media Outreach

The Media Outreach Program is designed to reach outward to educate media and respond to media stories about alternative sex. In addition it is designed to reach inward to our own constituents to teach and train them in how to respond and deal with media effectively.

Program Goals:
The goal of the goal of the Media Outreach Program is to change the public discussion about alternative sexuality and to educate and support our members when they have occasion to deal with the media.
    Support this program!
    Join Now!
    Reach out!