NCSF on Twitter   Subscribe to the NCSF RSS Feed   NCSF Blog

CDA Expert Testimony in the Barbara Nitke Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------X

BARBARA NITKE, THE NATIONAL
COALITION FOR SEXUAL FREEDOM, and
THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR
SEXUAL FREEDOM FOUNDATION,
Plaintiffs,

-against-

JOHN ASHCROFT,
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
Defendants.

01 Civ. 11476 (RMB)
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES
AND OBJECTIONS
TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST
SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUEST FOR
DOCUMENTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------X

 

Plaintiffs Barbara Nitke ("Nitke") and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom ("NCSF"), by their attorney, John F. Wirenius hereby respond and object to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Documents (collectively, the "Requests") as follows:

 

GENERAL OBJECTION AND RESERVATIONS

  1. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' Requests to the extent they purport to require the disclosure of documents and information beyond the scope of that mandated under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable law.
  2. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' Requests to the extent that they seek the production of documents and information that are exempt from discovery under the attorney-client or work product privileges, or that are otherwise privileged or protected from disclosure.
  3. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' Requests to the extent that they seek the production of documents and information that are not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that cannot be produced without undue burden to Plaintiffs, and/or that require an unreasonable investigation on the part of Plaintiffs in order to be produced.
  4. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' Requests to the extent that they seek the production of documents and information already in the possession of, publicly available to, or readily obtainable to Defendants and their counsel, on the ground that with respect to such production, Defendants' Requests are thereby rendered unduly burdensome.
  5. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' Requests to the extent that they seek the production of documents and information in the possession, custody or control of entities other than Plaintiffs, on the ground that such demanded production is beyond the scope of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable rules and law.
  6. Plaintiffs object to Defendants Requests to the extent that they seek the production of identic documents and information more than once, on the ground that such production is unduly burdensome. Where documents are responsive to more than one request, an effort has een made to avoid duplicative production.
  7. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' Requests to the extent that they seek the production of documents and information that implicates the privacy interests and rights of freedom of association of non-parties to this litigation, and of members of plaintiff NCSF, pursuant to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, other applicable statutory law (including but not limited to, the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a), as applied in decisions including but not limited to NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462-463 (1958); Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2003).
  8. Plaintiffs object to Defendants' interrogatories in toto as violative of Local Rule 33.3 of the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York.
  9. Plaintiffs expressly reserve the right to supplement, clarify, revise or correct any or all of the responses herein at any time. By making any response to Defendants' Requests. Plaintiffs do not waive, and hereby expressly reserve, the right to assert any and all objections as to the admissibility of such responses into evidence at the time of trial of this action, or in any other proceeding, on any and all grounds, including but not limited to, competency, relevance, materiality and privilege. Further, Plaintiffs provide the responses herein without in any manner express or implied admitting that the items in Defendants' Requests or in any response thereto is relevant or material to the subject matter of this action.

SPECIFIC INTERROGATORIES RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

Interrogatory No. 1 Identify all persons with knowledge and information relevant to the subject matter of this action, including but not limited to:

  1. All witnesses or other persons with knowledge or information regarding the alleged infringement of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights;

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this interrogatory on the ground that it calls for information outside of the possession, custody or control of the Plaintiffs, and publicly available, or in the possession, custody or control of the Defendants.

    Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the Specific responses below.

  2. All members of plaintiff organization NCSF who
    1. Claim their potential Internet-based speech has been chilled by the threat of prosecution for obscenity;

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This interrogatory is further objected to on the ground that it calls for the production of information protected by the constitutional right to freely associate for lawful purposes without fear of reprisal or public exposure at the hands of the Government. NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958); Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2003); see also Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services, 333 F.3d 88, 95 (2d Cir. 2003) (complainants need not expose themselves to injury to challenge injurious policy; ADA claim).

      Notwithstanding these objections, members of NCSF or its constituent organizations whose speech has been chilled by their concerns that they could be subject to prosecution were they to publish materials via the Internet which they desire to publish, and whom Plaintiffs anticipate calling as witnesses at trial include:

      • Barbara Nitke
      • Michele Serchuk
      • "Amity Harris"
      • Michele Buchanan
      • Jack McGeorge
      • The Eulenspiegel Society (by its webmaster, Dov Hechtman)
      • Tristan Taormino
      • Theresa Reed
      • Carol Queen
      • Females Investigating Sexual Terrain ("FIST")
    2. Has ever been arrested, indicted, charged or otherwise prosecuted for violating any obscenity law on account of the transmission of allegedly obscene material over the Internet, and, for each such member, identify the material alleged to have been obscene.

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Response to Interrogatory 1.b.i, supra. This Interrogatory is further objected to on the ground that is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence. In addition, this interrogatory is further objected to on the ground that it seeks information and/or documents revealing information privileged under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and of the constitutional and statutory right to privacy.

    3. Has been notified that the member is or ever has been a target or subject of any criminal investigation for violating any obscenity law on account of the transmission of obscene material over the Internet, and, for each such member, identify the material alleged to have been obscene;

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Response to Interrogatory 1.b.ii, supra.

    4. Has refrained from transmitting any material over the Internet because of any actual or perceived threat of prosecution for violating any obscenity law and, for each such member, identify the material that was not transmitted.

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Response to Interrogatory 1.b.i, supra.

  3. Any person known to plaintiffs, other than persons identified in response to Interrogatory 1.b, who has ever refrained from transmitting any material over the Internet because of any actual or perceived threat of prosecution under any obscenity law, and for each such person, identify the material that was not transmitted.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Response to Interrogatory 1.b.i, supra. In addition to the persons identified in response to interrogatory 1.b.i. supra, Plaintiffs at present anticipate calling as witnesses the following individuals responsive to this interrogatory:

    • Deborah Christian
    • Patrick Califia
    • Deborah Addington
    • Nina Hartley
    • Gloria Brame
    • Candida Royalle
  4. All witnesses or other persons who created or developed, assisted in the creation or development of, have knowledge or information regarding the creation or development of Internet sites on behalf of plaintiff Nitke; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Response to Interrogatory 1.b.i, supra. This interrogatory is further objected to on the ground that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably likely to lead to the production of admissible evidence
  5. All witnesses or other persons who created or developed, assisted in the creation or development of, have knowledge or information regarding the creation or development of Internet sites on behalf of each member of plaintiff NCSF identified in plaintiffs' response to Interrogatory No. 1.b and set forth individually for each member so identified; RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to Response to Interrogatory 1.d, supra.
  6. Any witness plaintiffs intend to call at trial regarding:
    1. The total amount of speech implicated by the Communications Decency Act ("CDA");

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to create such a list, and as beyond the scope of permissible interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.3. Subject to, and not waiving these objections, Plaintiffs at present intend to call the following witnesses, in addition to those identified in response to interrogatory number 1.b.1 and 1.c, supra:

      • Jeffrey J. Douglas, Esq.
      • Linda Williams, Phd.
      • Arthur C. Danto
      • Dov Hechtman
      • Glenda Ryder
      • Susan Wright
      • Leigha Fleming
      • Robert Thomas
      • Carleen Thomas
    2. The total amount of material not protected by the "serious societal value" prong of the test for obscenity enunciated in Milller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973);

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to create such a list, and as beyond the scope of permissible interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.3. Subject to, and not waiving these objections, Plaintiffs at present intend to call the following witnesses, in addition to those identified in response to interrogatory number 1.b.1 and 1.c, supra:

      • Jeffrey J. Douglas, Esq.
      • Linda Williams, Phd.
      • Arthur C. Danto
      • A.D. Coleman
      • Dov Hechtman
      • Robert Thomas
      • Carleen Thomas
      • Charles Moser, M.D.
      • David Steinberg
      • Katherine Ramsland, Phd.
    3. Community standards in various localities regarding whether material appeals to the prurient interest;

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to create such a list, and as beyond the scope of permissible interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.3. Subject to, and not waiving these objections, Plaintiffs at present intend to call the following witnesses, in addition to those identified in response to interrogatory number 1.b.1 and 1.c, supra:

      • Jeffrey J. Douglas, Esq.
      • Arthur C. Danto
      • Susan Wright
      • Barbara Nitke
      • Howard Rheingold
      • Leigha Fleming
      • Robert Thomas
      • Carleen Thomas
    4. Community standards in various localities regarding whether material depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way;

      RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No 1.f.iii

    5. The technological or practical possibility of limiting the geographic distribution of online materials;

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to create such a list, and as beyond the scope of permissible interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.3. Subject to, and not waiving these objections, Plaintiffs at present intend to call the following witnesses, responsive to this Interrogatory:

      • Barbara Nitke
      • Bennet Laurie
      • Seth Finkelstein
      • Howard Rheingold
      • Amity Harris
    6. The protection offered by the affirmative defenses enumerated by the CDA, i.e., good faith effective measures to restrict access by minors and credit-card verification;

      RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to create such a list, and as beyond the scope of permissible interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.3. Subject to, and not waiving these objections, Plaintiffs at present intend to call the following witnesses responsive to this Interrogatory:

      • Barbara Nitke
      • Bennet Laurie
      • Seth Finkelstein
      • Jeffrey J. Douglas
      • Amity Harris
    7. The technological or practical possibility of implementing the affirmative defenses enumerated by the CDA, i.e., good faith effective measures to restrict access by minors and credit-card verification;

      RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No 1.f.vi

    8. The potential deterrent effect on Internet users of the affirmative defenses enumerated by the CDA, i.e., good faith effective measures to restrict access by minors and credit-card verification;

      RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No 1.f.vi. In addition to the witnesses therein designated plaintiffs at present intend to call the following witnesses:

      • Charles Moser
      • Jack McGeorge
      • Susan Wright
      • Nina Hartley
      • Amity Harris
      • Theresa Reed
      • Leigha Fleming
      • Carol Queen
      • Eva Norvind
      • Betty Dodson
      • Gloria Brame
      • Michele Buchanan
  7. Any other individual likely to have discoverable information that plaintiffs may use to support their claims;

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and premature , especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to create such a list, and as beyond the scope of permissible interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.3. Subject to, and not waiving these objections, Plaintiffs at present intend to call the following witnesses with respect to the issue of social value of sexually explicit speech, especially as to speech concerning non-mainstream sexual practices:

    • Linda Williams
    • Arthur C. Danto
    • A.D. Coleman
    • Candida Royalle
    • Barbara Nitke
    • Amity Harris
    • Patrick Califia
    • Katherine Ramsland
    • Charles Moser, M.D.
    • Gloria Brame
    • Carol Queen
    • Nina Hartley
    • Betty Dodson
    • Deborah Addington
    • Eva Norvind
    • Tristan Taormino
    • Glenda Ryder
    • David Steinberg
    • Michael Rosen
    • Janet Hardy
    • Deborah Cristian
    • Michele Serchuk
    • Michele Buchanan
    • Theresa Reed

    Additionally, with respect to the issue of the importance of anonymity to those accessing or publishing materials online, and the potential social costs of becoming publicly known as member of a community interested in non-mainstream sexual practices/expression, Plaintiffs at present intend to call the following witnesses:

    • Charles Moser
    • Jack McGeorge
    • Amity Harris
    • Betty Dodson
    • Carol Queen
    • Katherine Ramsland
    • Eva Norvind
    • Gloria Brame
    • Nina Hartley
    • Susan Wright
    • Leigha Fleming
  8. Any other individual not listed above with knowledge or information concerning the subject matter of this action. RESPONSE: See Response to Interrogatory No. 1.g, supra.

2. Identify each and every expert witness that plaintiffs will call to testify at trial, and for each expert state:

  1. His or her field of speciality or expertise;
  2. Any sub-specialities of the witness within his or her field of expertise;
  3. The subject matter on which he or she is expected to testify;
  4. All opinions that he or she is expected to express and the basis and reasons for such opinions;
  5. The data or other information he or she considered in in forming his or her opinion(s);
  6. Any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support of his or her opinion(s);
  7. His or her qualifications, including a list of all publication he or she authored within 10 years preceding the date of this request;
  8. The compensation paid and to be paid to him or her for the study and the testimony; and
  9. All other cases in which he or she has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within four years preceding the date of this request.

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and premature , especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to create such a list, and as beyond the scope of permissible interrogatories pursuant to Local Civil Rule 33.3. Subject to, and not waiving these objections, Plaintiffs at present intend to call the following expert witnesses:

  • Arthur C. Danto
  • Linda Williams
  • A.D. Coleman
  • Katherine Ramsland
  • Bennet Laurie
  • Seth Finkelstein
  • Jeffrey J. Douglas
  • Gloria Brame
  • Charles Moser
  • Howard Rheingold
  • Candida Royalle
  • David Steinberg
  • Susan Wright
  • Michele Buchanan

By agreement between the parties, the affidavits of Arthur C. Danto, Howard Rheingold, and Candida Royalle submitted by Plaintiffs in opposition to the motion to dismiss have been accepted as expert reports. That of Susan Wright is supplemented herewith by a second report addressing the other issues as to which Plaintiffs will adduce her testimony.

The expert reports of the individuals above listed, submitted under separate cover, respond to the various subparts of the above interrogatory, to the extent said interrogatory is proper and/or seeks information discoverable at this time.

 

SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

  1. All documents, data compilations, and tangible things that plaintiffs may use to support their claims.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request to the extent that it calls for information outside of the possession, custody or control of the Plaintiffs, and publicly available, or in the possession, custody or control of the Defendants. Finally, Plaintiffs object to this request as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to craft an appropriate response.

    Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the Specific responses below.

  2. All photographs, images, and other depictions or documents that plaintiff Nitke desires to publish on the Internet, but has refrained from publishing on the internet due to any actual or perceived threat of prosecution for obscenity.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, calls for legal conclusions, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

    Notwithstanding these objections, responsive documents accompany in "Folder 1."

  3. All photographs, images and other depiction or documents that each member of plaintiff NCSF identified in plaintiffs response to Interrogatory No. 1.b, and set forth individually for each such member so identified, desires to publish on the Internet, but has refrained from publishing on the Internet due to any actual or perceived threat of prosecution for obscenity.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the objection and response to Interrogatory No. 1.b for their objections and response to the instant request. Plaintiffs additionally object to the instant request on the ground that the request appears to be in effect a contention interrogatory requesting Plaintiffs to provide not documents but information beyond the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3, and is in any event overbroad, unduly burdensome, not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

    Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs will provide under separate cover responsive documents to the extent that such exist and are not publicly available.

  4. All photographs, images, and other depictions authored or created by plaintiff Nitke that have been found by a court or jury to be obscene.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, calls for legal conclusions, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

    Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs are unaware of the existence of any responsive documents to this request.

  5. All photographs, images or other depictions or documents of which plaintiffs are aware lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value in all communities and are considered obscene in some communities but not in others.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, calls for legal conclusions, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs additionally object to the instant request on the ground that the request appears to be in effect a contention interrogatory requesting Plaintiffs to provide not documents but information beyond the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3, and further object to this request as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to craft an appropriate response.

    Notwithstanding these objections, Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the accompanying expert report of Jeffrey J. Douglas, to the affidavits previously submitted of Robert and Carleen Thomas, and the underlying court documents and evidence referred to therein, which is in the possession, custody or control of Defendants, and to the affidavit previously submitted of Candida Royalle, and the publicly available documents referred to therein, which were authored by and published by Defendant the United States of America, and are therefore within its possession, custody and control.

  6. All contracts, agreements, or other documents describing the relationship between plaintiff Nitke and any Internet Service Providers through which Nitke publishes her Internet sites.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, calls for legal conclusions, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

  7. All contracts, agreements, or other documents describing the relationship between each member of plaintiff NCSF identified in plaintiffs response to Interrogatories No. 1.b, and set forth individually for each such member so identified, and any Internet Service Providers through which each such member publishes his/her Internet sites.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the response to interrogatory No. 1.b. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs additionally object to the instant request on the ground that the request appears to be in effect a contention interrogatory requesting Plaintiffs to provide not documents but information beyond the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3.

  8. All documents describing or otherwise demonstrating income received or sales of goods and services or otherwise from Internet sites operated or published by plaintiff Nitke.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

  9. All documents describing or otherwise demonstrating income received or sales of goods and services or otherwise from Internet sites operated or published by each member of plaintiff NCSF identified in plaintiffs response to Interrogatories No. 1.b, and set forth individually for each such member so identified, and any Internet Service Providers through which each such member publishes his/her Internet sites.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the response to interrogatory No. 1.b. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs additionally object to the instant request on the ground that the request appears to be in effect a contention interrogatory requesting Plaintiffs to provide not documents but information beyond the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3.

  10. All documents describing or otherwise demonstrating expenses incurred in publishing or maintaining an Internet site by plaintiff Nitke.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

  11. All documents describing or otherwise demonstrating expenses incurred in publishing or maintaining an Internet site by plaintiff Nitke.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the response to interrogatory No. 1.b. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs additionally object to the instant request on the ground that the request appears to be in effect a contention interrogatory requesting Plaintiffs to provide not documents but information beyond the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3.

  12. All documents reflecting any effort undertaken or expense incurred by plaintiff Nitke or any NCSF member identified in response to interrogatory No. 1.b to restrict, by geography or otherwise, the community that would receive transmissions over the Internet from Nitke or such member.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the response to interrogatory No. 1.b. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

    Notwithstanding these objections, no responsive such documents exist within the possession, custody or control of plaintiff Nitke.

  13. All documents concerning the creation or development of any Internet site published, created, or maintained by each member of plaintiff NCSF identified in plaintiffs' response to Interrogatories No. 1.b, and set forth individually for each such member so identified plaintiff Nitke.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

  14. All documents concerning the creation or development of any Internet site published, created, or maintained by each member of plaintiff NCSF identified in plaintiffs' response to Interrogatories No. 1.b, and set forth individually for each such member so identified.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the response to interrogatory No. 1.b. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs additionally object to the instant request on the ground that the request appears to be in effect a contention interrogatory requesting Plaintiffs to provide not documents but information beyond the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3.

  15. All prior or current versions of the Internet site or sites maintained by plaintiff Nitke, and all photographs, images, depictions or other documents published on such Internet sites since their inception.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

  16. All prior or current versions of the Internet site or sites maintained by each member of plaintiff NCSF identified in plaintiffs response to Interrogatories No. 1.b, and all photographs, images, depictions or other documents published on such Internet sites since their inception.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the response to interrogatory No. 1.b. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

  17. All correspondence or other documents from any law enforcement or prosecutorial official regarding the investigation, prosecution, or potential prosecution of plaintiff Nitke for any offense related to obscenity.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further object to this request to the extent that it calls for information outside of the possession, custody or control of the Plaintiffs, and publicly available, or in the possession, custody or control of the Defendants.

    Notwithstanding these objections, no responsive documents are in the possession, custody or control of plaintiff Nitke.

  18. All correspondence or other documents from any law enforcement or prosecutorial official regarding the investigation, prosecution, or potential prosecution of each member of plaintiff NCSF identified in plaintiffs response to Interrogatories No. 1.b, and set forth individually for each such member so identified, for any offense related to obscenity.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the response to interrogatory No. 1.b. Additionally, Plaintiffs object to this request on the ground that it is overbroad, vague, unduly burdensome, and is not reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs additionally object to the instant request on the ground that the request appears to be in effect a contention interrogatory requesting Plaintiffs to provide not documents but information beyond the scope permitted by Local Civil Rule 33.3.

  19. All documents plaintiffs intend to introduce into evidence at trial regarding:

    1. The total amount of speech implicated by the Communications Decency Act;
    2. The total amount material not protected by the "serious societal value" prong of the test for obscenity enunciated in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
    3. Community standards in various localities regarding whether material appeals to the prurient interest;
    4. Community standards in various localities regarding whether material depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way;
    5. The technical or practical possibility of limiting the geographic distribution of online materials;
    6. The protection offered by the of the affirmative defenses enumerated by the CDA, i.e., good faith effective measures to restrict access by minors and credit-card verification;
    7. The technological or practical feasibility of implementing the affirmative defenses enumerated by the CDA, i.e., good faith effective measures to restrict access by minors and credit-card verification;
    8. The potential deterrent effect on Internet users of the affirmative defenses enumerated by the CDA, i.e., good faith effective measures to restrict access by minors and credit-card verification.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to craft an appropriate response. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not yet been able to determine what documents they intend to introduce at trial.

  20. All documents concerning the matters set forth in your response to Interrogatory No. 2, including but not limited to:

    1. All reports prepared or written by persons identified therein;
    2. All documents reflecting the opinions that the persons are expected to express and the basis and reasons for such opinions;
    3. The data or other information the persons were given, considered, or relied upon in forming his or her opinion(s);
    4. Any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for his or her opinion(s);
    5. A list of his or her qualifications, including a list of all publications that he or she has authored within the 10 years preceding the date of this request;
    6. A statement of the compensation paid and to be paid to him or her for the study and testimony;
    7. A list of all other cases in which he or she has testified as an expert at trial or by deposition within the four years preceding this request; and
    8. Each person's current curriculum vitae and resume.

    RESPONSE: Plaintiffs object to this request as premature, especially in view of the lack of production from the Government to date, which would facilitate the determinations needed to craft an appropriate response. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not yet been able to authoritatively determine each experts they intend to call at trial, or to retain. Additionally, the request goes beyond the requisite disclosure for expert witnesses set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and is, to that extent, unduly burdensome, overbroad and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

    Notwithstanding these objections, the expert reports of Plaintiffs' expert witnesses as identified in response to Interrogatory No. 2 constitute such responsive documents, and are either being produced herewith or will be produced within a reasonable time after retention of such experts.

  21. All materials identified in response to the foregoing interrogatories. Plaintiffs refer Defendants to the response to Request No. 1.

Dated: New York, New York
November 17, 2003

By: _____________________________

JOHN F. WIRENIUS (JFW-1788)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom
52 Broadway-9th Floor
New York, New York 10004
(212)533-6300

SM Related Legal Research Resources

SM Related Legal Research Resources

  • Conducting SM Related Legal Research

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






    Tags: Legal Legal Education
Jovanovic Case (Consent)

Jovanovic Case (Consent)

  • Affidavit of Susan Wright in Response to Affirmation in opposition to motion to file

    Affidavit of Susan Wright in Response to Affirmation in Opposition to Motion to File a Memorandum of Law Amicus Curiae   N.Y. Co. Ind. No 10938/96 Cal. No. 98-10474   1. I, Susan Wright, am the Executive Director of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) .   2. I write this affidavit in response to the DA's Brief in Opposition to the NCSF request to file an Amicus Curia…






    Tags: Legal Case Curiae
  • Affirmation of Michael Thomas Fois in response to opposition to motion to file

    SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT -----------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Indictment No. Plaintiff-Respondent, 10938/96 -against-   OLIVER JOVANOVIC, Defendant-Appellant. -----------------------------------------------------------------------X   AFFIRMATION OF MICHAEL THOMAS FOIS IN RESPONSE TO OPPOSITION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO MOTION TO FILE A MEMORANDUM OF LAW AMICUS CURIA Michael Thomas Fois, an attorney admitted to practice in front of this Court, affirms and…






    Tags: Legal Case
  • Affirmation in opposition to motion to file

    AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO FILE A -against- MEMORANDUM OF LAW   AMICUS CURIAE   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT ------------------------------------------------------ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Respondent, AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO FILE A -against- MEMORANDUM OF LAW AMICUS CURIAE OLIVER JOVANOVIC, N.Y. Co. Ind. No. 10938/96 Defendant-Appellant. Cal. No. 98-10474 ------------------------------------------------------   MARK DWYER, an attorney duly…






    Tags: Legal Case
  • Memorandum of Law of Amicus Curiae, NCSF

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICUS CURIAE  NATIONAL COALITION FOR SEXUAL FREEDOM  SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------XTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Indictment No. Plaintiff-Respondent, 10938/96-against- OLIVER JOVANOVIC, Defendant-Appellant.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X  MEMORANDUM OF LAW OF AMICUS CURIAE  NATIONAL COALITION FOR SEXUAL FREEDOM  PRELIMINARY STATEMENT   This brief is filed by the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom ("NCSF") as amicus curiae. Defendant Oliver Jovanovic…






    Tags: Legal Case
  • Affirmation of Michael Thomas Fois

    AFFIRMATION OF MICHAEL THOMAS FOIS   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Indictment No. Plaintiff-Respondent, 10938/96   -against-   OLIVER JOVANOVIC, Defendant-Appellant. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- x       AFFIRMATION OF MICHAEL THOMAS FOIS     Michael Thomas Fois, an attorney admitted to practice in front of this Court, affirms and states under penalty of perjury,…






    Tags: Legal Case
  • Notice of motion requesting leave to file memorandum of Law as Amicus Curiae

    NOTICE OF MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS AMICUS CURIAE   SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT -----------------------------------------------------------------------X THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Indictment No. Plaintiff-Respondent, 10938/ -against-   OLIVER JOVANOVIC, Defendant-Appellant. -----------------------------------------------------------------------X   NOTICE OF MOTION REQUESTING LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF LAW AS AMICUS CURIAE   Please take notice that, Upon the annexed Affirmation of Michael…






    Tags: Legal Case
Barbara Nitke Case (CDA)

Barbara Nitke Case (CDA)

  • CDA Expert Testimony in the Barbara Nitke Case

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------X BARBARA NITKE, THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR SEXUAL FREEDOM, and THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR SEXUAL FREEDOM FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, -against- JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; Defendants. 01 Civ. 11476 (RMB) PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------X   Plaintiffs Barbara Nitke ("Nitke") and…






    Tags: CDA Nitke
  • Govt Motion to Affirm Nitke and NCSF Reply (PDF)

    Govt Motion to Affirm Nitke 05-526 (pdf) (posted 3/2/06) NCSF Reply to Govt Motion to Affirm (doc) (posted 3/2/06)






    Tags: Civil_Rights CDA
  • Justices Reject Photographer's Appeal

    The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal yesterday from a New York photographer who said that a federal decency law violated her First Amendment rights to post explicit pictures of sadomasochism and bondage on the Web, The Associated Press reported. The justices affirmed a decision by a special three-judge federal panel upholding the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which made it a crime to post obscene materials on the…






    Tags: Supreme Court Sadomasochism Decency Act
  • Supreme Court Affirms Lower Court's Ruling in Nitke Appeal Without Hearing Oral Arguments

    WASHINGTON, DC - The Supreme Court today denied an appeal by photographer Barbara Nitke and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF) in the case of Nitke v. Gonzalez. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act on the grounds that the obscenity provision of the CDA is overbroad. Last year, a three-judge panel in New York's Southern District had dismissed Nitke's lawsuit, ruling that there was "insufficient…






    Tags: Nightclub Supreme Court
  • Supreme Court Decision in the Communications Decency Act (CDA)

      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.…






    Tags: CDA Legal Supreme Court Nitke
  • Justices Pass on Internet Obscenity 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…






    Tags: Legal Supreme Court
  • NCSF and Nitke vs. Gonzales Supreme Court Update

    March 3, 2006 - In documents filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Justice Department did not contest NCSF's assertion that NCSF's Communications Decency Act challenge is properly before the Supreme Court on direct appeal. That is a big step forward because that means both sides agree that the Supreme Court should rule on the merits of NCSF and Barbara Nitke's case, and not on any procedural grounds. The…






    Tags: CDA Nitke
  • Communications Decency Act (CDA) Lawsuit

    July 26, 2005 - New York, NY - A three judge panel has made a decision in the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom and acclaimed photographer Barbara Nitke's challenge against the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which criminalizes free speech on the Internet. According to the court, the plaintiffs presented "insufficient evidence" to support findings that the variation in community standards is substantial enough that protected speech is inhibited by the…






    Tags: CDA Nitke
  • Expert Witness Reports Submitted in Nitke v. Ashcroft

    New York, December 18, 2003 - The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom has submitted expert witness reports for their landmark Communications Decency Act lawsuit, Nitke v. Ashcroft (Case No. 01 Civ. 11476). John Wirenius, attorney for plaintiffs NCSF and photographer Barbara Nitke, provided 31 expert witness reports and witnesses who will testify before the three-judge panel for the Southern District of New York.   The expert witness reports support the…






    Tags: Nitke
Nea vs. Findlay Case

Nea vs. Findlay Case

  • Govt Motion to Affirm Nitke and NCSF Reply (PDF)

    Govt Motion to Affirm Nitke 05-526 (pdf) (posted 3/2/06) NCSF Reply to Govt Motion to Affirm (doc) (posted 3/2/06)






    Tags: Civil_Rights CDA
  • Case summary of Nea vs. Findlay

      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. Facts: In 1990, Congress amended…






    Tags: Legal
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 http://www.NEWSBYTES.com 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 [http://www.USCourts.gov ] last week, the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom [https://ncsfreedom.org…






    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 ABCnews.com, 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
  • Govt Motion to Affirm Nitke and NCSF Reply (PDF)

    Govt Motion to Affirm Nitke 05-526 (pdf) (posted 3/2/06) NCSF Reply to Govt Motion to Affirm (doc) (posted 3/2/06)






    Tags: Civil_Rights CDA

To bring a SM-related legal case to our attention,
Contact Us by emailing ncsfreedom@ncsfreedom.org
or calling
(410) 539-4824.