REVERSAL IN EXTREME ASSOCIATES CASE
       PHILADELPHIA, PA -- A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reversed the judgment of District Court Judge Gary Lancaster in the Extreme Associates obscenity case. Lancaster had dismissed all charges in the case based on the grounds that the federal obscenity laws violate the privacy rights of Extreme Associates’ customers. In Lancaster’s view, the obscenity laws could not stand in light of the Supreme Court decision regarding privacy rights in Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
       In essence, the Third Circuit panel said that Lancaster’s view may have merit or it may not. The panel declined to speculate. In any case -- to paraphrase -- it is not up to lower courts, including their own appeals court, to decide such matters. Lawrence, they said, did not represent a “definitive” overruling of a long line of decisions affirming the constitutionality of obscenity statutes, and until there is such a ruling by the Supreme Court, lower courts lack the authority to strike the laws down.
       This is, of course, not the result the Extreme defendants had hoped for. Nor is it the result the entire adult entertainment industry, long saddled with absurdly subjective obscenity laws, had hoped for. However, First Amendment attorneys are taking some comfort in the fact that the Third Circuit ruled procedurally and did not actually rule on the merits of the privacy argument. According to FSC General Counsel Jeffrey Douglas the decision was probably the best the adult industry could have hoped for -- given the conservative makeup of the panel selected to hear the case -- since the decision did not undermine the basic arguments against the indictment.
       The next stage, in what will almost surely be a long legal process, is uncertain. The case could be reheard en banc by the larger Third Circuit roster of judges, if they agree to do so on appeal; it could be chosen for review by the Supreme Court, or it could go back to Judge Lancaster’s court for further proceedings consistent with the Third Circuit reversal.
From the Third Circuit opinion,
http://www.ynot.com/images/extreme.pdf
And from Connor Young, YNOT.com, 12/8/05
http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=10012
And from Mark Kernes, AVN.com, 12/9/05
http://www.avnonline.com/articles/250614.html __________________________________________________________

ADULT ORDINANCE LAWSUIT CAN GO FORWARD
       ALBANY, NY -- The states highest court, the Court of Appeals, has reversed a decision by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division that had upheld changes to New York City’s adult business zoning ordinance. The Appellate Division decision, in turn, had reversed a decision by Justice Louis B. York of State Supreme Court that the changes to the ordinance were unconstitutional. At stake are the numerous so-called “60-40 adult businesses” that the city argued had taken advantage of a vagueness in the original ordinance. Courts had interpreted the ordinance as allowing a store or club to operate in residential neighborhoods as long as 60 percent of its merchandise was not sexually oriented. City attorneys claimed the 60-40 stores and clubs had “abused” the law by stocking their shelves with videos no one wanted to buy such as golf instruction titles. In 2001, Mayor Giuliani proposed an amendment to the law to curb the “loophole,” which resulted in lawsuits by the clubs. (See “Court Decision Places Adult Businesses at Risk,” X-Press, 4/15/05 http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/newsletter4-15-05.htm)
      The Court of Appeals decision said that stores dealing in adult entertainment should be given a chance to prove they have sufficiently cleaned up their act to allow them to remain in business. The decision sends the lawsuit back to Judge York for trial.
       Herald Price Fahringer, an attorney for several of the stores, said that two experts - professors from Columbia University and John Jay College of Criminal Justice - would testify that there is no negative social impact from the stores, and that the city is relying on old data that does not reflect changes in the stores' operations.
From Mike McIntire, The New York Times, 12/16/05
http://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?emc=tnt&tntget=
2005/12/16/nyregion/16porn.html&tntemail0=y
__________________________________________________________

CABLE COMPANIES TO OFFER “FAMILY TIER”
       WASHINGTON, DC -- During a Senate Commerce Committee indecency hearing here, National Cable & Telecommunications Association President Kyle McSlarrow outlined plans for many cable operators, including Comcast and Time Warner, to start offering “family tiers” of programming. The somewhat reluctant voluntary programming move is an effort to stave off government regulation.
       The sooner, the better, said Committee Chair Ted Stevens, (R-AK) because Congress is under pressure from family groups to move legislation that would mandate tiering.
       The plans are not enough to mollify those who want an la carte cable model.
       “The only model Congress should consider and the cable industry should provide is an a la carte cable choice model," said Parent's Television Council President Brent Bozell, "giving consumers the ability to choose and pay for the programs they want, and opt-out of what they don’t. Anything less is unacceptable.”
       Not all “family” groups agree with Bozell. Jerry Fallwell's Moral Majority, for example, favors the tier idea and opposes a la carte cable. No doubt that’s because Fallwell produces religious programming which could well be a part of a family tier package, but to which people might not subscribe under an a la carte system.
From John Eggerton, Broadcasting and Cable, 12/14/05
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6291657.html?display=
Breaking+News&referral=SUPP&nid=2228
And, also from Eggerton, 12/12/05
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6290528.html?
display=Breaking+News&referral=SUPP
__________________________________________________________

SHOWDOWN IN SCOTTSDALE
       SCOTTSDALE, AZ -- The City Council here has approved amendments to their sexually oriented business ordinance, apparently in response to the high profile purchase of a local exotic dance club by adult entertainment star Jenna Jameson with her partners; and in response to the Council action, Jameson has announced plans to file a lawsuit and launch a referendum drive to overturn the ordinance.
        The amendments ban nudity and require a four-foot barrier between exotic dancers and patrons. Scottsdale only has two exotic dance clubs, Babe’s -- to be renamed Club Jenna after remodeling -- and Skin Cabaret. Both clubs say the new rules will put them out of business.
        The clubs have a lot of community support, as reflected in a well-attended and highly contentious City Council meeting on the issue. Most of the dozens of speakers, including the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce, spoke in defense of the clubs. John Miller, owner of Papago Brewing Company, said council members were blurring the separation of church and state and should not subject tax dollars to the risk of lengthy legal challenges.
        The Council, however, following the advice of Scott Bergthold, their highly paid outside consultant -- Jameson calls him "a hired gun for the Christian Right" -- passed the new amendments unanimously, apparently unimpressed with local support for the clubs or with the likelihood of litigation.
From Lesley Wright, The Arizona Republic, 12/13/05
http://www.azcentral.com/business/articles/1213sexbiz1213.html
And from Michael Ferraresi, The Arizona Republic, 12/14/05
http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/1214sr-sex14Z8.html
And from Ryan Gabrielson, The East Valley Tribune, 12/14/05
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=55141
__________________________________________________________

LAWSUIT AGAINST PICKETERS THROWN OUT
       SUNNY VALLEY, OR -- Josephine County Circuit Court Judge Allen Coon has dismissed a lawsuit against picketers brought by Larry Lacey, the owner of Club 71, an exotic dance club in this small community north of Grants Pass. The club opened in February of 2005 and was picketed for months after it opened. The protestors photographed the faces and license plate numbers of patrons and dancers, and then placed them on a website called seewhosthere.com. The website had as its frank purpose preventing adult entertainment from coming into the area.
       The lawsuit had alleged that the bar owner and a patron incurred “severe emotional distress” as a result of the picketing. Lacey will be required to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses, according to Michael DePrimo, attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, which took on the defense of the picketers in September,
       Win a few, lose a few: In May, Lacey won a court decision striking down a Josephine County adult zoning ordinance as unconstitutional. (See Extreme Zoning Law Struck Down, http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/newsletter5-13-05.htm)
From An American Family Association press release, 12/14/05
http://www.afa.net/clp/ReleaseDetail.asp?id=111
__________________________________________________________

EXOTIC DANCE KING COMES OUT
       TAMPA, FL -- Joe Redner, exotic dance club owner, free speech champion and long-time nemesis of local government, has announced that he is gay. His coming out takes the somewhat unusual form of a statement in an amended version of a lawsuit against the Hillsborough County Commission and individual commissioners over the fact that they banned the county from acknowledging gay pride events. That makes Redner a person directly affected by the ban, not just an interested party, which helps his standing in the case. Very suspicious. But how are the commissioner defendants in the lawsuit supposed to prove that he isn’t gay?
       Gotta love this guy. We’ve been covering his escapades in X-Press for years, in and out of jail -- definitely paying his dues -- and in and out of court, often winning. (See, for example, his recent successful eminent domain jury trial, “Adult Owner Wins Eminent Domain Case,” X-Press, 8/12/05 http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/newsletter8-12-05.htm)
       For a great Redner read, check out Sue Carlton’s article in the St. Petersburg Times. Carlton describes, for example, how Redner offered a fat check when the Hillsborough County Commission voted to yank funding from a Planned Parenthood teen program. The guy is a local hero, a regular Robin Hood. Is he gay? Who knows? Who cares?
From Sue Carlton, St. Petersburg Times, 12/14/05
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/14/Columns/Redner_still_playing_.shtml
__________________________________________________________

UTAH SPAM LAW CHALLENGE UPDATE
       CHICAGO, IL -- Not content to wait for the legal process to take its course, Unspam Technologies, Inc., headed by Unspam co-founder and CEO Matthew Prince, has issued a press release through an anonymous service, attacking the Free Speech Coalition as “irresponsible” and listing a variety of reasons why Utah’s anti-spam “child protection registry” (CPR) law is a good and necessary measure to protect children. Not mentioned in the press release is the fact that Unspam depends upon CPR, and a similar law in Michigan, for its livelihood and stands to make a bundle if the law passes constitutional muster, which is doubtful. Unspam is a software company that has developed the technology that Utah and Michigan intend to use in their “child protection registries.”
       Also not mentioned -- in what is obviously an Unspam press release, although not identified as such -- is the glaringly obvious problem of individual states setting standards for the national and international Internet. As outlined clearly in FSC’s complaint, the CPR Act conflicts directly with the CAN-SPAM Act, which was enacted by Congress in 2003 to regulate and standardize email marketing in the U.S., so that legislation to combat spam in different states does not create conflicting standards for legitimate emailers.
From an “anonymous” press release,  ArriveNet.com, 12/14/05
http://press.arrivenet.com/society/article.php/731415.html
And from FSC’s Challenge to the Utah law:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/donotemail.htm
__________________________________________________________

UpComing Events

JAN 5-7, – Internext, The Venetian, Las Vegas, NV http://www.internext-expo.com/index.shtml

JAN 5-8, – AVN Adult Entertainment Expo, Sands Expo Center, Las Vegas, NV, http://show.adultentertainmentexpo.com/adult-expo/v42/index.cvn

JAN 7, – 23rd Annual AVN Awards Celebration, Sands Expo Center, Las Vegas, NV, http://show.adultentertainmentexpo.com/adult-expo/v42/index.cvn

MAR 9, – GAYVN Awards 2006, Rage Nightclub, Santa Monica Blvd., West Hollywood CA , http://www.gayvnawards.com/geninfo.php

APR 24-25, – Celebrate Free Speech Lobbying Days, Sacramento, CA, layne@inreach.com