DoJ vows to Crush 5th Amendment Fighting Porn

The good news today is that the Department of Justice under new Attn Gen. Alberto Gonzales is going to stay the course in its ridiculous war against adult entertainment (a.k.a porn, smut, skin flicks, skinimax, etc). Gonzalez, who is the less-Christian-but- more-Spanish-Inquisition successor to John Ashcroft, said “Enforcement is absolutely necessary if we are going to protect citizens from unwanted exposure to obscene materials.” Especially when they accidentally invite it into their bedroom at 12:30 am on pay-per-view. Don’t get me started on the irony of writing a memo that protects advocating torture where detainees can be forced to simulate sex with one another but two people willfully filming and selling that is somehow illegal.

But what really got my attention was the closing of the article, where it appears the DoJ can appeal the court’s decision when they lose a case or don’t like the outcome:

But a recent court decision in Pittsburgh could upset the administration’s plans. U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster tossed out an obscenity indictment against Extreme Associates Inc. and its owners, Robert Zicari, and his wife, Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif.

Lancaster ruled that prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the company’s hard-core movies from children and from adults who did not want to see such material. He said the company can market and distribute its materials because people have a right to view them in the privacy of their own homes.

The government has appealed.

This seems to be in flagrant violation of the 5th amendment (“double jeopardy”) clause:

… nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; …

That line is there for a reason: to stop cases from being retried over and over until the proscecution is happy with the outcome.

Now, granted they may have come up with compelling new evidence that warrants an appeal, but I’m guessing that they’re just hoping to shop the case to a more friendly judge who is more socially conservative when it comes to viewing adult material in the privacy of one’s own home.

Feds Stepping Up Obscenity Prosecutions [SFGate]

3 Comments
  1. Dismissal of an indictment is not the same thing as a not guilty verdict. Procedurally, the judge is determining that there is not enough evidence to go to trial. Therefore, Extreme Associates has never been in jeopardy, so seeking another indictment is not double jeopardy.

    Yours truly,
    Mr. X

    …clarifying…

  2. These conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot. In ten years from now there control over free speach will hurt them when they turn on the radio and ministers are banned from talking about homosexuality, and when all biblical websites are taken off the internet because it offends someone. I don’t like pornography and so I don’t ask the government to protect me I just simply don’t watch it. What they are doing to liberals will one day hurt them

  3. Economics controls all and you are missing the point ergo the results.The “anti-porn” crew…post Ms.Jacksons breast..forced out Howard Stern thereby launching pay-for-radio as a paradigm shift. Conventional radio will SOON be a relic (a few years)…all those ad dollars LOST. Now watch the fur fly…dollars always overide “morals”.

%d bloggers like this: