This newsletter is sent free of charge to FSC
members and supporters. For personal contact, call 1-800-476-7813.
Free Speech X-Press
Delivering Weekly Censorship Updates to the Adult Industry
Vol. VI, No. 19, March 26, 2004 -- A Member Service of the
Free Speech Coalition
__________________________________________________________
Free Speech X-press is researched and edited by Kat Sunlove
and Layne Winklebleck.
Copyright 2004 Free Speech Coalition. Permission to reprint
granted to FSC members; please give credit.
__________________________________________________________
VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR FSC MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com
__________________________________________________________
SAVE THE DATE! NIGHT OF THE STARS - JULY 24
___________________________________________________
TRIPLE X DOMAIN IDEA MOVES FORWARD
CYBERSPACE -- Stuart Lawley, 41, a British citizen living
in Jupiter, FL, has submitted his proposal for a new xxx
top-level domain to the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN). Lawley's company, ICM Registry,
would handle the technical aspects of running the master
database of .xxx sex sites. It would charge $60 a domain
name and let resellers add their own markup of perhaps $10
or $15 per domain. Child pornography would be forbidden,
but pretty much anything else would be permissible, Lawley
said.
A second, nonprofit organization, the International Foundation
For Online Responsibility, would be in charge of setting
the rules for .xxx. It would have a seven-person
board of directors, including a child advocacy advocate, a free-expression
representative and at least one person from the adult entertainment industry.
The foundation's charter is intentionally quite protective of free speech.
It aims to "protect the privacy and security of consenting adult consumers
of online adult entertainment goods and services," said Lawley.
The problem, says CNET commentator Declan McCullagh, is
that as soon as .xxx launches, conservatives in the U.S.
Congress will begin to clamor for laws
to make the domain mandatory for sex-related Web sites.
This is more than just a theoretical concern. In 2000,
before Lawley got involved as president, ICM Registry
applied to run the .xxx domain. But
ICANN turned
down the proposal.
Some in congress would have preferred that ICANN had approved
the idea. At a hearing in February 2001, Representative
Fred Upton (R-MI) demanded
to
know why ICANN didnt approve .xxx "as a means of protecting our kids
from the awful,
awful filth which is sometimes widespread on the Internet." Sen. Joseph
Lieberman (D-CT) said .xxx was necessary to force adult Webmasters
to "abide by the
same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated movie theater."
Barry Steinhardt, head of the ACLU's technology and liberty
program, points to problems with the proposal that lie
overseas.
"There are nations all over the world that will undoubtedly try
to force Web sites into the .xxx (top-level domain) or to block
Web sites in it
that they
somehow view as offensive," Steinhardt said. "I don't
think the operators have taken sufficient account of that problem.
It will
become a worldwide
red-light
district for the Internet, into which speakers who have free-expression
rights and should be able to reach a mass audience will be forced."
From Declan McCullagh, CNET News, 3/23/04
http://news.com.com/2010-1026_3-5176611.html?tag=nefd_pop
___________________________________________________
CABLE COMPANIES TO PROVIDE FREE BLOCKING
WASHINGTON, DC -- Robert Sachs, president of the National
Cable and Telecommunications Association, has announced that
the industry will provide free equipment to allow subscribers
to block unwanted channels. The offer applies to the approximately
half of the nation's 70.5 million cable subscribers who
don't already have cable boxes that can be programmed to
block
certain channels or programs. The companies agreeing to the
plan include the 10 largest in the country and reach 85 percent
of all cable subscribers.
Cable association spokesman Rob Stoddard said each cable
company will decide on the technology to block unwanted
channels. One way to block programs in
homes without cable boxes is to install a filter on the wire leading into
the home. Cable companies now charge for such equipment,
though the prices vary
from system to system.
The offer comes as lawmakers and regulators, attempting
to crack down on indecent programming, have discussed
requiring cable companies to let subscribers
buy
individual channels or a family-friendly tier, rather than having to purchase
packages that include both the Disney Channel and MTV. The cable industry
opposes the idea.
From Jonathan D. Salant, Associated Press, 3/23/04
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-cable-indecency,0,2454044.
story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
___________________________________________________
PROSECUTORS TRY BREACH OF PROMISE ANGLE
CINCINNATI, OH -- Hamilton County prosecutors are seeking
to reinstate 1999 criminal charges against Larry and Jimmy
Flynt, saying the Flynts have violated terms of the plea
bargain in the case. Prosecutors claim Flynts promised to
never again sell sexually explicit videos in the county but
a recent raid at the Hustler store in Cincinnati found numerous
explicit videos for sale. If prosecutors don't reinstate
the old charges, said Assistant Prosecutor Ron Springman,
the Flynts will get away with breaking a legally binding
deal.
However, three judges of the Ohio 1st District Court of
Appeals are asking tough questions about the plan.
"I'm having a hard time with this," Judge Mark Painter
said. "If you dismiss a case, it's over. If this were
proper, it seems to me you could have everybody
in the county on super secret probation indefinitely."
Judge Ralph Winkler said he was concerned about the 1999
deal because it involved a plea by the Hustler store
company, rather than the Flynts as
individuals. He questioned whether prosecutors could now charge the Flynts
with violating
a plea deal that they did not sign.
Springman said original charges were against the Flynts
-- not the company -- and that the company was permitted
to enter a no contest plea only
because the Flynts promised to stop selling explicit videos.
"The (1999 deal) is unenforceable because you can't make
someone trade away their constitutional right to distribute
non-obscene material,"
said Flynt
attorney Paul Cambria.
From Dan Horn, The Cincinnati Enquirer, 3/25/04
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/03/25/loc_flynt25.html
___________________________________________________
ORAL ARGUMENTS IN ADULT LICENSE CASE
WASHINGTON, DC -- Recently we reported on a Supreme Court
case (see "Supremes to Hear 'Prompt Judicial Decision'
Case,"
X-Press, 2/6/04) in which Christal's, an adult bookstore
in Littleton, CO, sought to throw out a local zoning law
based on the First Amendment requirement that a city must
afford a "prompt" judicial decision on adult business
licensing applications. Littleton, argued Christal's, does
not do so.
The U.S. District Court in Denver ruled against the sex shop.
But the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Christal's,
saying that without prompt review the ordinance could be
"a subterfuge for censorship."
During Supreme Court oral arguments, several justices expressed
skepticism that the threat to the sex shop's First Amendment
rights are so severe that
a judge should be forced to leapfrog the case over other important cases.
Justice Breyer asked why a sex shop's license case should
be heard before an appeal from an inmate who has been
arbitrarily imprisoned. Justice Scalia
took
it further, questioning why adult businesses should be moved ahead of anyone
seeking a license from the city.
"Somehow adult bookstores are so significant to the life
of the community because of the First Amendment that
they have to get special treatment,"
Scalia said.
"I have to wait two years before I can put in my bedroom, but the adult
bookstores go to the front of the line. That seems strange and if that
is where we've
arrived, maybe we need to retrace our steps."
It would be simpler, said Justice Kennedy, to make clear
that if there are serious First Amendment issues, the
court should expedite the case,
rather
than write mandates into law.
"The federal courts are open to hear cases of unjustifiable
delay that chills free speech," Kennedy said.
Justice Souter questioned why there couldn't be a "circuit-breaker"
built into the law -- a period of time where the business license
would take
effect if
it has not been reviewed by a court.
From Robert Gehrke, Associated Press 3/24/04
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-scotus-sex-shop,
0,7734901.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
___________________________________________________
DOCTOR NEWDOW GOES TO WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON, DC -- In what New York Times Supreme Court chronicler
Linda Greenhouse called a "spellbinding performance," Sacramento
atheist Michael Newdow, who is a physician and an attorney,
had his day in court for oral arguments in the Pledge of
Allegiance case. With passion and precision, says Greenhouse,
Newdow argued his own case for why the daily recitation of
the Pledge of Allegiance in his daughters public school
classroom violates the Constitution as long as the pledge
contains the words "under God."
An example of his repartee, which Greenhouse said bore a
closer resemblance to dinner-table one-upmanship than to
formal courtroom discourse, came when
Newdow described "under God" as a divisive addition to the pledge. Chief Justice
Rehnquist then asked him what the vote in Congress had been 50 years ago when
the phrase was inserted.
The vote was unanimous, Newdow said.
"Well, that doesn't sound divisive," said the chief justice.
"That's only because no atheist can get elected to
public office," said Newdow.
Despite his performance, however, Newdow may not win his
case, says Greenhouse, because justices across the ideological
spectrum appeared to be searching for
reasons he should lose, either on jurisdictional grounds or on the merits.
From Linda Greenhouse, The New York Times, 3/25/04
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/25/politics/25SCOT.html?pagewanted=1&hp
___________________________________________________
STATE LEGISLATURE QUESTIONS PATRIOT ACT
AUGUSTA, ME -- The Maine Senate, joining the state House,
which acted last week, has voted to ask the U.S. Congress
to reconsider the controversial anti-terrorism law known
as the Patriot Act. In so doing, Maine became the fourth
state to take such a stand, along with Alaska, Hawaii and
Vermont. The Senate said Congress should monitor the implementation
of the law and consider repealing provisions that may infringe
upon fundamental rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.
ACLU officials said they saw the Maine vote as a reflection
of growing national discomfort over the Patriot Act's
impact on civil liberties through the broadened
powers it gives law enforcement agents for tracking and monitoring terrorism
suspects.
From Eric Lichtblau, The New York Times, 3/23/04
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/trail/index.html
___________________________________________________
UpComing Events
APR 1 - 3, 2004 -- The Phoenix Forum, Doubletree
La Posada Resort, Scottsdale, AZ http://www.thephoenixforum.com/
APR 4, 2004 X-Con: All X, No Con -- Los Angeles, CA http://www.XXX-Con.com/?ref=AINews
APR 26-27, 2004 Celebrate Free Speech Lobbying Days, Sacramento,
CA, 866-FSC-9373
JUN 9-12 Cybernet Expo, San Diego, CA www.cybernetexpo.com
JUN 18-20, 2004 Erotica L.A., Los Angeles, CA http://www.erotica-la.com/
JUL 7 11, 2004 -- Lifestyles West, Stardust Hotel, Las Vegas,
http://lifestyles-convention.com/
JUL 24, 2004 Night of the Stars, Sheraton Universal Hotel
Los Angeles, CA - 866-FSC-9373
AUG 13-15, 2004 Internext -- Westin Diplomat , Hollywood,
Florida www.Internext-expo.com
Subscriptions to Free Speech X-Press are FREE to FSC members.
Contact us at Sunlove@direcway.com or 800-476-7813
