Court asks if porn law covers mainstream films
Legal News Center
Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed doubt on Tuesday that a law barring child pornography could be applied to popular award-winning movies like "Lolita," "Traffic," American Beauty" and "Titanic."
The justices appeared to support the pandering provision of a 2003 federal law that makes it a crime to promote, distribute or solicit material in a way intended to cause others to believe it contains child pornography.
They were hearing arguments in a case brought by the Bush administration urging them to uphold the law, after a U.S. appeals court struck down that provision on the grounds the government cannot suppress lawful free speech.
Bush administration lawyer Paul Clement argued that the law does not illegally infringe on free-speech or other rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
He said the law does not inhibit legitimate creative expression, and drew a distinction between mainstream movies and illegal child pornography.
"If you're taking a movie like 'Traffic' or 'American Beauty', which is not child pornography, and you're simply truthfully promoting it, you have nothing to worry about with this statute," Clement told the justices.
"Traffic" has a scene with the high-school daughter of the nation's drug czar appearing to have sex with a drug dealer; "Lolita" portrayed a middle-aged man's obsession with a young girl; "Titanic" depicted a love affair by a young couple on a doomed ship; and "American Beauty" involved a 42-year-old man's attraction to his daughter's best friend.
Chief Justice John Roberts asked the attorney who is challenging the law about the government's distinction between legitimate films and illegal child pornography.
Related listings
-
Black Lawyers Rare at Supreme Court
Legal News Center 10/29/2007[##_1L|1236265387.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]Coming soon to the Supreme Court: a rare appearance by a black lawyer. More than a year has passed since a black lawyer in private practice stood at the lectern in the elegant courtroom and spo...
-
State, IRS form alliance on insurance taxes
Legal News Center 10/23/2007Rhode Island plans to use information from the Internal Revenue Service to track down employers who are failing to properly pay state unemployment insurance taxes.The Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training has signed an agreement with the IRS ...
-
Court interpreters return to work - without pay raises
Legal News Center 10/18/2007Los Angeles County court interpreters returned to work Wednesday after a six-week strike that failed to yield a desired pay increase. More than 300 interpreters took part in the job action, union officials said. Members of the largely Latino, middle-...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.