[quote:ee868d7679="Maxxx"]Incostituzionali le accuse di oscenità contro Extreme Associates
Gary L. Lancaster, giudice federale di Pittsburgh, ha prosciolto il produttore Rob Black e la moglie Lizzy Borden di Extreme Associates dalle accuse di oscenità , questa è una decisione che avrà un enorme impatto sull'industria dell'intrattenimento per gli adulti americana. Il giudice ha rilasciato un documento dove spiega che le leggi federali sull'oscenità limitano l'esercizio dei fondamentali diritti di libertà di parola e violano la privacy. Rob Black ha dichiarato: 'Ho determinato una fottuta decisione che farà la storia!' In realtà era già venuto fuori durante i seminari tenuti durante gli AVN di Las Vegas che, nonostante la vittoria di Bush e della destra conservatrice, l'industria dell'hard non sarebbe stata attaccata più di tanto. Certamente neanche i più ottimisti tra gli avvocati che si occupano della situazione legale del porno made in USA avrebbero potuto sperare in un risultato così favorevole. Prima Seymore Butts poi Max Hardcore e adesso Rob Black hanno vinto le loro battaglie in tribunale. Ora addirittura le leggi contro l'oscenità vengono ritenute incostituzionali, inizia bene il nuovo anno per l'industria dell'intrattenimento per adulti degli Stati Uniti. Ricordo che recentemente Silvio Bandinelli, proprio durante la fiera di Delta di Venere, mi ha parlato di creare anche in Italia un team legale, pagato delle maggiori case di produzione e distribuzione italiane che si occupi dei vari problemi del settore. Rinnoviamo a tutti l'invito ad un incontro, in quanto è di grandissima importanza che il porno italico esca il più velocemente possibile dal ghetto e sia unito almeno nelle battaglie comuni.
Maxxx[/quote:ee868d7679]
Senti Maxxx, sai bene che l'industria americana hard non ha un "team" legale che si occupa di accuse di oscenita' contro i produttori/distributori e negozi che vendono materiale pornografico. Se non ce l'hanno fatta fino ad ora nel USA, dubito che la Francia, Italia, Germania, Ungheria potranno mettere in su un organismo che viene alla difesa di casi legali di oscenita. Bill Margold ha o era in carico di un'associazione (che ora mi sfugge il nome esatto) che almeno su carta doveva fare certe cose, ma e' stata sempre criticata per la loro inefficienza e mancanza di coraggio di difendere certe cause.
Se ricordi bene Rob Black si era lamentato molto apertamente che l'industria gli si era voltatato le spalle, quando era sotto le accuse di oscenita' per i 3-4 film che la Extreme aveva prodotto.
Sono contento per Black, non per lui personalmente, ma come vedi le autorita' americane prima sparano, perdono le cause, e fanno spendere un sacco di soldi a quelli che si devono difendere, e il risultato e' che questo ha un fattore dissuadivo per quelli che lavorano nell'industria hard. Piu' di 30 anni fa, le autorita' facevano causa ai Mitchell Bros e Alex de Renzy tutte le settimane a San Francisco. Ma loro non si arrendevano mai, e le vincevano tutte. E' sempre stata una lunga e dura lotta, e il risultato di questa decisione, non mettera' a fine l'intenzione di ogni nuova amministrazione governativa americana di fare "piazza pulita" sulla pornografia.
Ecco l'articolo pubblicato al sito AVN.com
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Na ... _ID=214089
[b:ee868d7679]Extreme Associates Case Dismissed; Obscenity Laws Ruled Unconstitutional
By: Jared Rutter
Posted: 10:57 am PST 1-21-2005
CHATSWORTH, Calif. - In a decision that is bound to have enormous impact on the Adult entertainment industry, obscenity charges against producer Rob Black and his wife Lizzy Borden of Extreme Associates were thrown out of court today by a federal judge in Pittsburgh.
"I'm still speechless," Black told AVN.com. "All ten counts against us were dismissed." He said that U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster made the dismissal on the grounds that obscenity laws are unconstitutional.
"We find that the federal obscenity statutes place a burden on the exercise of the fundamental rights of liberty, privacy and speech," wrote Judge Lancaster in his opinion (printed in full below).
"I now have made fucking history," said the jubilant Black.
The Extreme Associates case was the first federal obscenity prosecution against a video manufacturer in over a decade.
"It makes everything perfect," he added. "The business has been going great and all of a sudden my lawyer calls up and said I won."
"This is the greatest news I've ever had," Black said.
Black's laywer, H. Louis Sirkin, told AVN.com, "It's very gratifying to have been a part of what I think is a historic landmark decision. Even though it's on the first level, hopefully this will have a catalyst effect across the country on any federal obscenity cases that are currently pending."
Sirkin said it shows the importance of the Bill of Rights, not just the right to free speech but the right to substantive due process. "We have a liberty interest to find sexual entertainment and to find media material that might be stimulating, and we have a right to view that, for whatever purposes we want to use it for," he said.
Noting that the judge based his decision on the Supreme Court's Lawrence vs. Texas ruling last year, which struck down a Texas sodomy statute, Sirkin said, "This court has adopted the language of what Justice Scalia had said in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence." Scalia wrote in part that the decision "called into question" laws against obscenity and various other offenses.
In a statement from the Justice Department, U. S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said, "We are very disappointed by the court's decision to dismiss the indictment in U.S. v. Extreme Associates, et al. As we set forth in the pleadings we filed in the case, we continue to believe that the federal obscenity statutes are valid and constitutional, including as applied in this case.
"We are reviewing the ruling and examining our options, which could include an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit."
Internet attorney Lawrence G. Walters, a partner in the firm of Weston, Garrou & DeWitt, called the decision "a tremendous victory for Rob Black, for the Adult industry, and for the First Amendment."
He told AVN.com that before the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas ruling, government had been able to show it had a "compelling interest" in restricting sexual activities. But Lawrence v. Texas said in effect that the government can no longer use "compelling interest" as a rationale for suppressing what adults many do in private.
The Black ruling extends this concept to Adult entertainment. In effect, Walters said, "you should be able to see what you're able to do."
Quoting once again from Judge Lancaster's opinion: "After Lawrence, the government can no longer rely on the advancement of a moral code, i.e., preventing consenting adults from entertaining lewd or lascivious thoughts, as a legitimate, let alone a compelling state interest."
Walters cautioned that since the case ended in a dismissal, not an acquittal, the government will likely appeal. "You can't count your chickens too soon," he said. "But we must have faith that the appellate courts will do the right thing."
Well-known First Amendment attorney Paul Cambria told AVN.com, "I applaud this judge for the decision and, furthermore, his standing up and being counted."
Cambria compared the case to his own successful fight on behalf of Al Goldstein in the 1970s. Then, he said, the government chose not to appeal, stating that by appealing it elevates the case to a higher level, which means that it will have a broader scope.
This means, he said, that if it is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, the only aspect of X-rated films that will be illegal will be child porn. "If this case is elevated through a higher court and is dismissed, on up to the Supreme Court and gets dismissed, that will change everything. Everybody will get into the business of making Adult entertainment," he said.
Greg Piccionelli, an Internet and patent attorney with the Los Angeles-based law firm Piccionelli & Sarno, told AVN.com, "This is a banner day for the First Amendment, and the equivalent of Pearl Harbor for the Religious Right.
"If the ruling is appealed and ultimately upheld - and I can say with absolute certitude that [this ruling] will be on the front burner for every conservative and religious right-winger in the country - it means that privacy law has evolved. It will alter what is permissible for the government to do, and it will obliterate the notion that community standards trump personal privacy."
Regarding an appeal, Sirkin said, "I'm certain the government will explore it. They don't take losses well. If they appeal it we're prepared to defend our position. We'll just take it a step at a time, but it's a beginning, and it's a very important beginning."
Asked about the decision's effect on new federal obscenity indictments, Sirkin said, "I should think it would make [the Justice Department] start to think again about the prosecutions. I think this is a momentum-shifting event. It will hopefully slow them down and cause them to rethink the positions that they're taking."
Perhaps most importantly, he said, the adult industry "can really feel protected that they are making available to the public that which the public is entitled to receive." [/b:ee868d7679]
La decisione resa
http://www.avn.com/imagearchive/21/40/8 ... 16a863.pdf