“Lawrence G. Walters, leading first amendment attorney, provides a ‘real-world’ legal update for The ADULTWEBMASTER Magazine readers. News on COPA, the controversial Voyeur Dorm, and more are covered in this controversial article.” “Lawrence G. Walters, leading first amendment attorney, provides a ‘real-world’ legal update for The ADULTWEBMASTER Magazine readers. News on COPA, the controversial Voyeur Dorm, and more are covered in this controversial article.”
By this time, I would have predicted that the adult entertainment industry would either be rejoicing in a Gore victory, or cringing in fear in anticipation of a Bush administration. Instead, the industry, along with the rest of the country, is on pins and needles awaiting the outcome of several recounts and lawsuits challenging the electoral process. Time will tell whether the new millennium will be ushered in under a reign of censorship or freedom.
Voyeur Dorm Woes
The Voyeur Dorm house created no parking problems, traffic problems, prostitution, drugs, or other so-called “adverse secondary effects” typically associated with
“Local governments will now probably attempt to model their legislation after the City of Tampa’s which has now been upheld.”
By definition, most houses are located in a residential zone. Adult entertainment licenses are not issued for businesses within residential zones. Local governments will now probably attempt to model their legislation after the City of Tampa’s which has now been upheld. It is likely that this case will be appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, where the Voyeur Dorm will ask for a reversal of the judgment based on the constitutional issues raised. I will continue to keep you posted on this groundbreaking case.
Fighting Child Pornography
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeal recently upheld the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1\’\’6, which had been declared unconstitutional by the \’th Circuit Court of Appeal, but which had been upheld by other Circuits. This law punishes, as child pornography, computer images that do not involve the use of real children in their production or dissemination. It also punishes images of individuals who “appear to be” under the age of 18, even if the model is an adult. It is likely that these cases will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court to resolve a conflict in the various circuits.
On the obscenity front, we can strike up one win and one loss for the First Amendment. In Nebraska, John Halton, owner of Dr. John’s Novelty and Boutique was found guilty of selling obscene videos. He was sentenced to nine months in jail and required to pay a $1,000.00 fine. The prosecutor also petitioned to close down his adult video store on the basis that it constituted a nuisance. However, in St. Charles County, the owner of Family Video was prosecuted for selling obscene videotapes, but was acquitted. His defense counsel argued that removing the videotapes from the shelves would limit the choice and freedom of normal people wanting to “add spice” to their relationship. The defense expert said that the movies help people who may feel intimidated in the bedroom. The prosecutor argued that residents were entitled to decide what they want in their neighborhood, and that this material attracts the “wrong” kind of people. Apparently, the jury disagreed.
