DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the SUPREME COURT of OHIO HDV CLEVELAND, LLC, Dba Larry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the SUPREME COURT of OHIO HDV CLEVELAND, LLC, Dba Larry Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed February 22, 2018 - Case No. 2018-0114 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO HDV CLEVELAND, LLC, dba Larry : Case No. 2018-0114 Flynt’s Hustler Club : : On Appeal from the Appellant, : Franklin County : Court of Appeals, vs. : Tenth Appellate District : OHIO LIQUOR CONTROL : Court of Appeals Case COMMISSION, : No. 17AP-362 : Appellee. ______________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPPOSING JURISDICTION ______________________________________________________________________________ J Michael Murray (0019626) Mike DeWine (0009181) *Counsel of Record Attorney General of Ohio Steven D. Shafron (0039042) Berkman, Gordon, Murray, & DeVan Charles Febus (0063213) 55 Public Square, Suite 2200 Anthony J. Garcia (0097135) Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Assistant Attorneys General Tel: 216-781-5245 Charitable Law Section Fax: 216-781-8207 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor [email protected] Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 [email protected] Tel: 614-466-4513 Fax: 614-728-4548 Counsel for Appellant [email protected] HDV Cleveland, LLC dba Larry Flynt’s [email protected] Hustler Club Counsel for Appellee Ohio Liquor Control Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGES TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... iii, iv INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND OF THE FACTS .................................................2 A. The Commission sanctioned Hustler for multiple violations in 2014. ....................2 B. The Commission revoked Hustler’s liquor permit for another Rule 52 violation in 2015, and offered Hustler the option to pay a $100,000 forfeiture instead.. ....................................................................................2 C. Both the common pleas and appeals courts affirmed the Commission’s sanction. ...................................................................................................................3 THIS IS NOT A CASE OF PUBLIC OR GREAT GENERAL INTERST AND DOES NOT INVOLVE A SUBSTANTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION ........3 A. Neither aspect of Hustler’s first proposition of law warrants review, as Henry’s Café does not warrant review and constitutional limits apply to all agency action. ................................................................................................4 1. Henry’s Café is well settled and does not warrant review. .................................4 2. Hustler’s constitutional issue does not warrant review because no one disputes that constitutional violations may be corrected, but no violations occurred here. .......................................................................................................5 B. Review is not warranted to assess any alleged greater protection for nude dancing and lewd conduct under Ohio’s Constitution or to re-assess Rule 52’s constitutionality after Reed v. Town of Gilbert. .......................................................7 1. Hustler offers no sound reason to suggest that Ohio’s Constitution protects nude dancing and lewd conduct more than its federal counterpart. ......7 2. Review is not needed to address any effect of Reed v. Town of Gilbert . ...........8 i ARGUMENT……………………….. ................................................................................9 Appellee’s Proposition of Law No. 1: A penalty imposed by the Liquor Control Commission must be upheld as long as it is within the Commission’s legally authorized discretion, and as long as the underlying determination is in accordance with law and supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. ........................................................................9 Appellee’s Proposition of Law No. 2: A court reviewing an administrative decision has the authority to reduce, modify, or vacate that decision when the penalty imposed violates the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the United States or Ohio Constitutions. ...........................................................11 Appellee’s Proposition of Law No. 3: Ohio’s Rule 52, governing nude or semi-nude dancing and lewd conduct in establishments with liquor licenses, is constitutional under both the Ohio and United States Constitution, as the Ohio Constitution is not more protective of nude dancing, and Reed does not change federal law. ................................................................................................13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................17 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGES 161 Dublin, Inc. v. Ohio State Liquor Control Comm. 2001-Ohio-8863 (10th Dist.) ......................................................................................14 34 N. Jefferson, LLC v. Liquor Control Comm. 2012-Ohio-3231 (10th Dist.) ...................................................................................7, 13 Am. Entertainers LLC v. City of Rocky Mount, NC No. 5:14-cv-438-D, 2016 WL 4728077 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 8, 2016) ...............................15 Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 501 U.S. 560, 565-66 (1991) ...................................................................................9, 14 BBL, Inc. v. City of Angola 809 F.3d 317, 326 (7th Cir. 2015) ...............................................................................15 City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M. 529 U.S. 277, 289 (2000) .........................................................................................9, 14 Clayton v. Bd. Of Nursing 147 Ohio St. 3d 114, 2016-Ohio-643.............................................................................5 Flanigan’s Ent. v. Sandy Springs 703 Fed. Appx. 929 (11th Cir. 2017) .............................................................................8 Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General United States 825 F.3d 149, 161 (3rd. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................15 Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479 (1965) .......................................................................................................6 Henry’s Café v. OLCC 170 Ohio St. 233, 163 N.E.2d 678 (1959) ............................................................ passim J.L. Spoons, Inc. v. Dragani 538 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................7, 13 J.L. Spoons, Inc., et al. v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety, et al. 31 F.Supp.3d. 933 (N.D. Ohio 2014) .......................................................................7, 13 Junction 615, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. 135 Ohio App. 3d 33, 40 (10th Dist. 1999) .................................................................14 Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003), ......................................................................................................6 iii CASES (CONT.) PAGES Matthews v. Eldridge 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) .............................................................................................11 Pickaway Cty. Skilled Gaming, LLC v. Cordray 127 Ohio St.3d 104, 951; 2010-Ohio-4908 .................................................................12 Planned Parenthood v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992) .......................................................................................................6 Reed v. Town of Gilbert 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015) .......................................................................................... passim Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ......................................................................................................6 Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1942 ........................................................................................................6 State v. Wolery 46 Ohio St. 2d 316 (1976)..............................................................................................6 Tolbert v. LCC (Dec. 3, 1998), Franklin App. No. 98AP-285 ..............................................................10 WCI, Inc. v. Liquor Control Comm. 2016-Ohio-4778 (10th Dist.) ...................................................................................7, 13 STATUTES R.C. 119.12 ......................................................................................................................1, 4 R.C. 2907.40 ........................................................................................................................3 R.C. 4301.03(B) .................................................................................................................12 R.C. 4301.25 ......................................................................................................................10 R.C. 4301.25(A) .................................................................................................................10 OTHER AUTHORITIES Ohio Administrative Code Sections 4301:1-1-52 and 4301:1-1-52(B) ..................... passim iv INTRODUCTION This case does not warrant this Court’s review, as it involves the application of settled law to particular facts. Appellant HDV (“Hustler”) runs a strip club that repeatedly violated liquor laws, including “Rule 52,” which bars nudity and lewd conduct. The Ohio Liquor Control Commission (“Commission”) revoked Hustler’s liquor permit, but gave Hustler an option to pay a $100,000 forfeiture as an alternative to permanently losing its permit. That
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Criminalizing "Virtual" Child Pornography Under the Child Pornography Prevention Act: Is It Really What It "Appears to Be?" Wade T
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 35 | Issue 2 Article 6 2001 Criminalizing "Virtual" Child Pornography Under the Child Pornography Prevention Act: Is it Really What it "Appears to Be?" Wade T. Anderson University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Other Law Commons Recommended Citation Wade T. Anderson, Criminalizing "Virtual" Child Pornography Under the Child Pornography Prevention Act: Is it Really What it "Appears to Be?", 35 U. Rich. L. Rev. 393 (2001). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol35/iss2/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized editor of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS CRIMINALIZING "VIRTUAL" CHILD PORNOGRAPHY UNDER THE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT: IS IT REALLY WHAT IT "APPEARS TO BE?" David is 11 years old. He weighs 60 pounds. He is 4 feet, 6 inches tall. He has brown hair. His love is real. But he is not. -Advertisement for Steven Spielberg's June 2001 film, Artificial Intelligence.' Years after his death, John Wayne sells beer in television commercials. 2 Eons after their extinction, lifelike dinosaurs con- tinue to terrorize actors and thrill moviegoers.3 The highest- grossing film of all time4 employs "virtual" passengers aboard the 1. AL. Artificial Intelligence, at http:/aimovie.warnerbros.com (last visited Apr. 3, 2001). 2. Robert Lemos, Virtual Actors: Cheaper, Better, Faster Than Humans?, ZDNET NEWS, June 15, available at 1998, 1998 WL 28812578 ("John Wayne and Fred Astaire, or at least the computer-enhanced images of the deceased stars, are starring in commer- cials.").
    [Show full text]
  • Turns to Affect in Feminist Film Theory 97 Anu Koivunen Sound and Feminist Modernity in Black Women’S Film Narratives 111 Geetha Ramanathan
    European Film Studies Mutations and Appropriations in THE KEY DEBATES FEMINISMS Laura Mulvey and 5 Anna Backman Rogers (eds.) Amsterdam University Press Feminisms The Key Debates Mutations and Appropriations in European Film Studies Series Editors Ian Christie, Dominique Chateau, Annie van den Oever Feminisms Diversity, Difference, and Multiplicity in Contemporary Film Cultures Edited by Laura Mulvey and Anna Backman Rogers Amsterdam University Press The publication of this book is made possible by grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). Cover design: Neon, design and communications | Sabine Mannel Lay-out: japes, Amsterdam Amsterdam University Press English-language titles are distributed in the US and Canada by the University of Chicago Press. isbn 978 90 8964 676 7 e-isbn 978 90 4852 363 4 doi 10.5117/9789089646767 nur 670 © L. Mulvey, A. Backman Rogers / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2015 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Contents Editorial 9 Preface 10 Acknowledgments 15 Introduction: 1970s Feminist Film Theory and the Obsolescent Object 17 Laura Mulvey PART I New Perspectives: Images and the Female Body Disconnected Heroines, Icy Intelligence: Reframing Feminism(s)
    [Show full text]
  • Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine V
    VOLUME 103 JANUARY 1990 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE: OUTRAGEOUS OPINION, DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION, AND HUSTLER MAGAZINE V. FALWELL Robert C. Post TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. HUSTLER MAGAZINE V. FALWELL ........................................... 6o5 A. The Background of the Case ............................................. 6o6 B. The Supreme Court Opinion ............................................. 612 C. The Significance of the Falwell Opinion: Civility and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ..................................................... 616 11. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE ............................. 626 A. Public Discourse and Community ........................................ 627 B. The Structure of Public Discourse ............... ..................... 633 C. The Nature of Critical Interaction Within Public Discourse ................. 638 D. The First Amendment, Community, and Public Discourse ................... 644 Im. PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND THE FALIWELL OPINION .............................. 646 A. The "Outrageousness" Standard .......................................... 646 B. The Distinction Between Speech and Its Motivation ........................ 647 C. The Distinction Between Fact and Opinion ............................... 649 i. Some Contemporary Understandings of the Distinction Between Fact and Opinion ............................................................ 650 (a) Rhetorical Hyperbole ............................................. 650 (b)
    [Show full text]
  • California Hard Core
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title California Hard Core Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0g37b09q Author Duong, Joseph Lam Publication Date 2014 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California California Hard Core By Joseph Lam Duong A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Waldo E. Martin, Chair Professor Kerwin Lee Klein Professor Linda Williams Spring 2014 Copyright 2014 by Joseph Lam Duong Abstract California Hard Core by Joseph Lam Duong Doctor of Philosophy in History University of California, Berkeley Professor Waldo E. Martin, Chair California Hard Core is a narrative history of the pornographic film industry in California from 1967 to 1978, a moment when Americans openly made, displayed, and watched sexually explicit films. Two interrelated questions animate this project: Who moved the pornographic film from the margins of society to the mainstream of American film culture? What do their stories tell us about sex and sexuality in the U.S. in the last third of the twentieth century? The earlier academic literature concentrates on pornographic film and political debates surrounding it rather than industry participants and their contexts. The popular literature, meanwhile, is composed almost entirely of book-length oral histories and autobiographies of filmmakers and models. California Hard Core helps to close the divide between these two literatures by documenting not only an eye-level view of work from behind the camera, on the set, and in the movie theater, but also the ways in which consumers received pornographic films, placing the reader in the viewing position of audience members, police officers, lawyers, judges, and anti-pornography activists.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary on Larry Flynt's Role in the Free Speech Debate
    Washington and Lee University School of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons Scholarly Articles Faculty Scholarship 2010 First Amendment Martyr, First Amendment Opportunist: Commentary on Larry Flynt's Role in the Free Speech Debate Rodney A. Smolla Furman University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlufac Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Rodney A. Smolla, First Amendment Martyr, First Amendment Opportunist: Commentary on Larry Flynt's Role in the Free Speech Debate, 9 First Amend. L. Rev. 1 (2010-2011). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 9 First Amend. L. Rev. 1 2010-2011 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Fri Sep 13 12:46:54 2013 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. FIRST AMENDMENT MARTYR, FIRST AMENDMENT OPPORTUNIST: COMMENTARY ON LARRY FLYNT'S ROLE IN THE FREE SPEECH DEBATE* RODNEY A. SMOLLA Good afternoon and thanks for staying. I'll begin with a little story. If you watch the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt,' there's a fictional scene in the movie that I want to use as my theme.
    [Show full text]
  • Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition: How Can Virtual Child Pornography Be Banned Under the First Amendment?
    Pepperdine Law Review Volume 31 Issue 3 Article 5 4-20-2004 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: How Can Virtual Child Pornography Be Banned Under the First Amendment? Virginia F. Milstead Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Virginia F. Milstead Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: How Can Virtual Child Pornography Be Banned Under the First Amendment?, 31 Pepp. L. Rev. Iss. 3 (2004) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol31/iss3/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Caruso School of Law at Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pepperdine Law Review by an authorized editor of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: How Can Virtual Child Pornography Be Banned Under the First Amendment? TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND: OBSCENITY AND CHILD PORNOGRAPHY A. Roth v. United States B. Miller v. California C. New York v. Ferber D. Osborne v. Ohio E. Background to the CPPA II. ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION: THE COURT CONSIDERS A FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO THE CPPA. A. Majority Opinion B. Justice Thomas's Concurrence C. Justice O'Connor'sConcurrence and Dissent in Part D. Chief Justice Rehnquist's Dissent E. The Reasoning of the Justices: Considerationsand Critique I. The Seduction of Children 2. Whets the Appetites of Pedophiles 3. Need to Eliminate the Market for Real Pornography 4. Hinders Prosecution 5.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Supreme Court of Missouri ______
    Electronically Filed OF Filed - SUPREME COURT MISSOURI - March 19, 2018 - 09 Electronically IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI __________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF THE ) CARE AND TREATMENT OF ) No. SC96830 N.G., ) Respondent/Appellant. ) __________________________________________________________________ APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT THE HONORABLE KATHLEEN A. FORSYTH, JUDGE __________________________________________________________________ APPELLANT’S SUBSTITUTE BRIEF :28 AM __________________________________________________________________ Chelseá R. Mitchell, MOBar #63104 Attorney for Appellant Woodrail Centre, 1000 West Nifong Building 7, Suite 100 Columbia, Missouri 65203 Telephone (573) 777-9977 FAX (573) 777-9974 E-mail: [email protected] Electronically Filed OF Filed - SUPREME COURT MISSOURI - March 19, 2018 - 09 Electronically INDEX Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... 3 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .................................................................................... 8 STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 9 POINTS RELIED ON ....................................................................................................... 12 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Gay Era (Lancaster, PA)
    LGBT History Project of the LGBT Center of Central PA Located at Dickinson College Archives & Special Collections http://archives.dickinson.edu/ Documents Online Title: Gay Era (Lancaster, PA) Date: May 1977 Location: LGBT-001 Joseph W. Burns Collection Periodicals Collection Contact: LGBT History Project Archives & Special Collections Waidner-Spahr Library Dickinson College P.O. Box 1773 Carlisle, PA 17013 717-245-1399 [email protected] vol.3 no.3 5Oc MAY 1977 inside: FLORIDA FOLLIES DISH DEMONS Barry Kohn & William Kaff Staff Deserts Office to Fly Kites BLANK PAGES and more items in questionable taste 3 WHAT IS OBSCENITY? This question will haunt the lives of every citi­ THE POLITICS OF GOVERNMENT. ITS SUPPRESSION IS EN­ zen IN THIS COUNTRY UNTIL IT IS FINALLY RESOLVED OR TWINED WITH ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE HUMAN BEHAVIOR THE WORD IS COMPLETELY DISCARDED. THROUGH CONTROL OF IMAGERY, ARE WE GOING TO GIVE After recently reading countless articles regard­ THE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO BECOME MORAL POLICEMEN? ing THE CASES OF LARRY FlYNT, PUBLISHER OF HUSTLER The DEBATE IN THE LITERARY FIELD CONTINUES:CONTINUES HOW magazine, Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, FAR SHOULD THE FIRST AMENDMENT BE APPLIED? Ml1EAN- and Harry Reems who starred in Deep Ihroat, I can while, Larry Flynt will be in jail. only reflect on the incident that took place when n Harry Reems; , ."Deep Throat s” pretty. Harry the Gay Era took the January issue to our printer. Reems was paid $1UO to._ star. .............. in "___Deep Ihroat" WITHi I WILL TRY TO OUTLINE THE FOUR CASES AS BRIEFLY Linda Lovelace.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerry Falwell V. Larry Flynt: the Irsf T Amendment on Trial
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1990 Book Review: Jerry Falwell V. Larry Flynt: The irsF t Amendment on Trial. by Rodney A. Smolla. L.A. Jr. Powe Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Powe, L.A. Jr., "Book Review: Jerry Falwell V. Larry Flynt: The irF st Amendment on Trial. by Rodney A. Smolla." (1990). Constitutional Commentary. 593. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/593 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1990] BOOK REVIEW 127 another fundamental way. The paradigm suggests that politicians want to do what most citizens want, and that they as much as the citizenry feel injured when the Court strikes down controversial statutes, or at least that they are likely to retaliate against the Court for offending their constituents. An alternative hypothesis is that Congress wants a powerful Supreme Court, even if-perhaps some­ times especially if-the Court makes politically unpopular deci­ sions. The Supreme Court is Congress's lightning rod. The real reason Congress is reluctant to whip the Supreme Court in the wake of controversial decisions is not that the Court has more power or prestige than Congress can control. Quite the contrary. The Court shields the members of both Congress and the state legislatures from the need to make politically unpopular decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Golden Age of Porn: Nostalgia and History in Cinema Susanna Paasonen and Laura Saarenmaa
    Pornification 19/7/07 10:56 am Page 23 –2– The Golden Age of Porn: Nostalgia and History in Cinema Susanna Paasonen and Laura Saarenmaa The mainstreaming of pornography is indebted to the success of feature-length hardcore films of the 1970s. Shot on 35 mm film, productions such as Deep Throat (1972), Behind the Green Door (1972), The Devil in Miss Jones (1973), The Opening of Misty Beethoven (1976) and Debbie Does Dallas (1978) were widely screened both in the USA and internationally. These films have since been estab- lished as classics (Buscombe 2004: 30) and milestones in both scholarly and popular porn historiographies. While some identify the so-called ‘golden age of porn’ through North American legislation and as ranging from 1957 from 1973 (Lane 2000: 22–3), it was in the 1970s and early 1980s that porn shifted towards the mainstream. In a trend titled by the New York Times as porno chic, pornography became fashionable, gained mainstream publicity and popularity (McNair 2002: 62–3; Schaefer 2004: 371; Wyatt 1999). During the past decade, this golden age has been reminisced in films such as People Vs. Larry Flynt (1996), Boogie Nights (1997) and Rated X (2000), numerous documentaries – including the critically acclaimed Inside Deep Throat (2005) – and books.1 This body of popular porn historiography depicts the decade as one of quality films with real stories, personal performers and talented directors, in contrast to the 1980s of video distribution, inflation of the porn industry, rise of AIDS and conservative backlash. With notable exceptions such as the French Le pornographe (2001) and the Spanish–Danish co-production Torremolinos 73 (2003), European histories have not been reminisced to the same degree.
    [Show full text]
  • A:\No. 06-694 Williams Petition.Wpd
    No. 06-694 In the Supreme Court of the United States UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER v. MICHAEL WILLIAMS ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI PAUL D. CLEMENT Solicitor General Counsel of Record ALICE S. FISHER Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL R. DREEBEN Deputy Solicitor General DEANNE E. MAYNARD Assistant to the Solicitor General DEBORAH WATSON Attorney Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) of Title 18 (Supp. IV 2004) prohibits “knowingly * * * advertis[ing], promot[ing], present[ing], distribut[ing], or solicit[ing] * * * any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material” is illegal child pornography. The question presented is whether Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) is overly broad and impermissibly vague, and thus facially unconstitutional. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below........................................ 1 Jurisdiction........................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved........... 2 Statement............................................ 3 Reasons for granting the petition....................... 12 A. The court of appeals’ invalidation of an Act of Congress warrants this Court’s review ............ 13 B. The court of appeals erred in striking down Section 2252A(a)(3)(b) as unconstitutionally overbroad and impermissibly vague............... 14 1. The court of appeals misinterpreted the scope of Section 2252A(a)(3)(b) ...................... 14 2. Section 2252A(a)(3)(b) is not overbroad ......... 16 3. Section 2252A(a)(3)(b) is not impermissibly vague ...................................... 19 C.
    [Show full text]
  • ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Et Al. V. FREE SPEECH COALITION Et Al
    535US1 Unit: $U38 [09-18-03 16:25:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN 234 OCTOBER TERM, 2001 Syllabus ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. FREE SPEECH COALITION et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 00–795. Argued October 30, 2001—Decided April 16, 2002 The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the fed- eral prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U. S. C. § 2256(8)(A), but also “any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture,” that “is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” § 2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is “advertised, promoted, pre- sented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression” it depicts “a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,” § 2256(8)(D). Thus, § 2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit im- ages, sometimes called “virtual child pornography,” that appear to de- pict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography. Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade association and others, filed this suit alleging that the “appears to be” and “conveys the impression” provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First Amendment.
    [Show full text]