1. An Online Artist Challenges Obscenity Law
2. N.Y. Panel Refuses to Enjoin Anti-Pornography Statute
3. Judges Uphold Communications Decency Act
4. New York judges refuse to say Internet obscenity law is unconstitutional
5. List of 43 newspapers that printed the AP article
1. An Online Artist Challenges Obscenity Law
2. N.Y. Panel Refuses to Enjoin Anti-Pornography Statute
3. Judges Uphold Communications Decency Act
4. New York judges refuse to say Internet obscenity law is unconstitutional
5. List of 43 newspapers that printed the AP article
An Online Artist Challenges Obscenity Law
by Randy Kennedy
New York Times
July 28, 2005
In a landmark 1973 case, the United States Supreme Court defined obscenity in part as anything that "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find appealing only to prurient interests. But with the growth of the Internet, a difficult question has arisen: Which community's standards apply in cyberspace?
On Monday in a case brought against the government by a New York photographer, a panel of federal judges in Manhattan declined to answer that question, but the lawsuit could end up providing the Supreme Court with a chance to address the issue.
"I've had to self-censor images from my Web site, which is very, very disappointing to me," Ms. Nitke said in an interview. "It's impossible to know who's going to find what obscene, so everybody just has to make a guess at where the lines are."
"She has submitted objective evidence to substantiate the claim that she has been deterred from exercising her free-speech rights," the judges wrote, and this fear is based on a reasonable interpretation of the law.
But they ruled that she had not provided enough evidence about varying community standards and harm to free speech to prove that the law itself was unconstitutional.
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/arts/design/28obsc.html?oref=login
To respond, write to: letters@nytimes.com
N.Y. Panel Refuses to Enjoin Anti-Pornography Statute
by Mark Hamblett
New York Law Journal
July 27, 2005
A three-judge panel has rejected claims that a federal statute prohibiting the transmission of obscene material to a minor is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Refusing to enjoin the enforcement of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), the panel found that the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and a New York art photographer failed to present sufficient evidence on the "total amount of speech that is implicated by the CDA" and the amount of protected speech that is "inhibited" by the act.
Nor have they shown, the panel held, that different community standards subject them to a greater risk of prosecution than "traditional pornographers, who can control the dissemination of their own materials."
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1122368711307
To respond, write to the editors at letters_to_the_editor@corp.law.com
Judges Uphold Communications Decency
by Brendan Coyne
New Standard
July 28, 2005
A three-judge panel Monday shot down a challenge to a law barring the transmission of a wide variety of speech about alterative sexual expression because of the perceived threat such materials pose to minors.
The plaintiff, Barbara Nitke, is an artist who photographs various sexual activities. Her suit challenged the Act as overly broad and unconstitutional, Court papers state. She also holds that the ban has deterred her from exercising her free speech rights.
Joining Nitke in challenging the law was the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF), which bills itself as an "organization committed to creating a political, legal and social environment in the United States that advances equal rights of consenting adults who practice forms of alternative sexual expression," such as bondage, swinging and polyamory.
Following Monday's decision, NCSF attorney John Wirenius said, "artists and citizens who are sexual minorities are disproportionately censored by the government's ability to pick its own forum and standard for obscenity cases."
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2160
To respond, write to the editors at ed-letters@newstandardnews.net
New York judges refuse to say Internet obscenity law is unconstitutional
by Larry Neumeister
Newsday
July 26, 2005
Obscenity provisions in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 had been challenged by Barbara Nitke, a photographer who specializes in pictures of sadomasochistic sexual behavior, and by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, a Baltimore-based advocacy organization.
They contended in a December 2001 lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Manhattan that the law was so broad and vague in its scope that it violated the First Amendment, making it impossible for them to publish to the Internet because they cannot control the forum.
A judge from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and two district judges heard the facts of the case and issued a written decision saying the plaintiffs had provided insufficient evidence to prove the law was unconstitutional. The panel noted that evidence was offered to indicate at least 1.4 million Web sites mention bondage, discipline and sadomasochism, but the judges said that evidence was insufficient for them to decide how many sites might be considered obscene.
[continued]
To read this entire article, go to:
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny–sexsites-obscenit0725jul25,0,6680266.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork
To respond, write to: letters@newsday.com
(Webmaster Note: The above link appears to be invalid and I cannot find the article on the Newsday site.)
List of 43 newspapers that printed the AP article
***** Or, send a letter to your local paper that ran this AP article:
New York Times
Art Daily
Business Week
Forbes
WNBC
Akron Beacon Journal, OH
Boonville Daily News
Bradenton Herald
Canton Daily Ledger, IL
Carthage Press, MO
Ceres Courier, CA
Centre Daily Times, PA
Charlotte Observer, NC
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, GA
Contra Costa Times, CA
Durant Daily Democrat, OK
First Amendment Center
Gainesville Sun, FL
Kansas City Star, MO
Kansas.com, KS
Kentucky.com, KY
Macon Telegraph, GA
Miami Herald, FL
MLive.com, MI
MSN Money
Myrtle Beach Sun News, SC
New Albany Tribune, IN
Phillyburbs.com, PA
Philly.com, PA
Pioneer Press, MN
Porterville Recorder, CA
Rapid City Journal, SD
Sacramento Bee, CA
San Jose Mercury News
Schaeffers Research, Ohio
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Tahlequah Daily Press, OK
Tallahassee.com, FL
Times Picayune, LA
Tuscaloosa News, AL
Wilkes Barre Times-Leader, PA
Winnipeg Sun
WRAL.com, NC
HOW TO WRITE A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Feedback letters are an effective way to convey a positive image of alternate sexual practices such as SM, swinging, or polyamory. You can help to correct negative social myths and misconceptions about these types of practices. These letters help achieve the advocacy goals of the NCSF.
Generally, for a letter to be published, it's important to include your name (or first initial, last name), city and daytime phone (for verification only). For more information, see:
https://ncsfreedom.org/media/writelettertoeditor.htm
Please alert us to positive, negative or neutral stories about SM, swinging and polyamory at media@ncsfreedom.org