Delivering Weekly Censorship Updates to the Adult Entertainment Industry
Vol. X, No. 27, July 13, 2007 - A Member Service of the Free Speech Coalition Stories without byline submitted by FSC contract writer, Scott Ross
Contributing writers: Matt Gray and Dave Grimaldi
X-Press Editor-in-Chief: Scott L. Lowther
Special thanks to Cubik Corp. for formatting and Val Vizmanos for distribution
Copyright 2007 Free Speech Coalition. Permission to reprint granted to FSC members; please give credit.
OPEN LETTER TO FSC MEMBERS RE: UPDATE ON DOJ’S RELEASE OF PROPOSED 2257 RULES & REGS
Dear FSC Member:
This is an update on the proposed 2257 Rules and Regulations released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on Thursday, July 12, 2007. As always, we will provide you with more information as it becomes available.
First, it is important to recognize that the regulations that the DOJ has set forth today are simply proposed regulations, issued for comment and possible change. They have not yet been adopted for implementation by the Government. They are proposed regs which allow for public comment by September 10, 2007.
FSC will comment extensively on the regulations, and we intend to launch an industry-wide campaign to solicit your comments as well. Please note -- We need your participation in this process. In the coming days we will provide details on how you may participate in providing your feedback and comment.
Some of the points set forth were expected, and they represent the modest gains that we have achieved through litigation thus far. Other points are troubling and represent the intransigence which we have come to expect from Attorney General Gonzales and his associates.
On the critical subject of “secondary producers,” the Justice Department is continuing to suggest that it has been correct all along, and that Congress ALWAYS intended “secondary producers” to be included in 2257. Therefore, they are contending that the original legislation and regulations issued in 1995 are valid for “secondary” as well as “primary” producers.
We understand that it is simply impossible for many of you to comply with the Justice Department’s demands, and that is one of the many reasons why we will continue the fight. Please rest assured that FSC will address this issue vigorously at every stage of the continuing battle on behalf of our members.
Unless the final regulations change radically from those proposed today in a way that more favorably reflects our industry’s concerns, FSC will continue our litigation at the appropriate place and time, including seeking another injunction for “secondary producers” as well as others.
At the end of the day, we will make sure that federal judges understand the absurdity of these regulations. We pledge to you, our valued members, that we will not let up on our commitment to you and to your rights. Thank you for your continued support of FSC and its very important mission in this case and others.
If you have additional questions or concerns, you may contact Diane Duke, FSC Executive Director, at 1-866-FSC-9373.
Sincerely,
FSC Staff, Board of Directors and legal team
Larry Flynt to Speak at FSC Meeting
CANOGA PARK, CA - The Free Speech Coalition announced this week that Hustler founder Larry Flynt will kick off the group's Membership Meeting next week during the AVN Novelty Expo in Universal City, California.
Flynt will open the meeting with an inspirational message for FSC members and industry participants. Then, FSC will launch into its own "Presidential Debate," as former Presidents Julie Stewart, Nicholas Boyias, Scott Tucker and current President Jim Everett answer questions vital to the adult industry.
"It doesn't get any more all-American than Larry Flynt," said Diane Duke, Free Speech. "[He's] a man who has devoted his life to protecting and preserving American freedom. It is an honor and a privilege to have him speak at our meeting."
Free Speech Coalition's All-American Membership Meeting will take place on July 17 at 5:30 p.m., at the Universal City Sheraton in the Terrace suite D.
For more information, go to www.freespeechcoalition.com.
Joy King Joins FSC Board
CANOGA PARK, CA - The Free Speech Coalition announced this week that Joy King, Vice President of Special Projects for Wicked Pictures, has joined the organization's Board of Directors.
King fills the position vacated by Bill Murphy of Fairvilla Megastores, Florida, who left the board for personal reasons.
"I'm honored to be appointed to the board of the Free Speech Coalition," said King. "I've supported their diligent efforts to protect the industry and welcome the opportunity to take a more active role in those efforts."
King will occupy the seat for the remaining six months of the board term and then have the opportunity to run for reappointment by a vote of the general membership.
"We are thrilled to have Joy join our FSC board," said Diane Duke, Free Speech Coalition Executive Director. "She is a proven leader and has been instrumental in our lobbying efforts. Her commitment to the industry and its success are unwavering."
CCV Targets Lodgenet, Calls for Investigation of Hotel Porn
COLUMBUS, OH - Citizens for Community Values (CCV) is calling for a federal investigation of movie supplier LodgeNet Entertainment Corp., claiming that the adult content the company supplies to hotel rooms across America is obscene.
"Why is LodgeNet permitted to deal in hardcore, sexually explicit, clearly prosecutable material?" asked CCV president Phil Burress in a statement released to the media. "Much of the contents are prosecutable under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Miller vs. California."
CCV plans to meet with the Dept. of Justice next month to formally request the investigation into LodgeNet.
Attorney Paul Cambria responded to CCV last week in an Adult Freedom Foundation press release, calling the campaign against LodgeNet, "just another blatant attempt at censorship and a total waste of taxpayers' money."
"Mr. Burress fails to recognize that the Miller test protects adult expression," Cambria said. "It does not condemn it. He confuses sexually explicit with obscene."
Burress claims more than 60 percent of LodgeNet's profits can be traced to pornography.
"It will take a jury trial to determine whether the material in question actually violates community standards, but we believe the content is clear enough to warrant an investigation at the very least," said Daniel Weiss, "senior analyst" for a family values group affiliated with CCV. "Based on state and federal law, if the material distributed by LodgeNet was brought to trial, many communities across the country would clean up overnight."
Cambria responded, "Under the Miller test, entertainment can be sexually explicit and hardcore and nevertheless not be illegal. This is particularly true when it enjoys widespread acceptance by the average adult as a form of entertainment. What better acceptance can you have than widespread consumption by adults?
"The hotel room is an extension of a person's home while they are traveling. And, we need to keep the government, the police and the prosecutors out of our homes and away from our choices of entertainment," Cambria said.
http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=291545
Free Speech Coalition Thanks Bill Murphy
Bill Murphy, the entrepreneur who revolutionized adult retailing and created the adult "mega-store," has announced his retirement from the Board of Directors of the Free Speech Coalition because of the need to attend to urgent personal business.
Murphy has worked tirelessly for many free speech causes, and has been a member of the Free Speech Coalition board for the past four years. Murphy has attended Support Free Speech Lobbying Days in Sacramento, and has been active and vocal in the Florida political scene, in addition to sponsoring Fantasy Fest, Pride Fest, Women Fest and many other events in Key West, where he is considered one of the foremost retailers on the island.
In the early '90s, Murphy developed the concept, copied several times since, of the "adult megastore," an inviting environment, complete with coffee bar and even an indoor waterfall, for couples to shop for adult videos and products. Fairvilla now has three locations, in Orlando, Cape Canaveral and Key West.
The Free Speech Coalition extends its heartiest thanks to Bill for his valuable service and extraordinary generosity toward the adult business community.
AFF Investigation Reveals Satinover's 'Porn Addiction' Claims Bogus
LOS ANGELES, CA - An Adult Freedom Foundation (AFF) investigation into the background of Dr. Jeffery Satinover, who is regularly called upon by anti-free speech activists to testify before various government bodies about so-called "porn addiction," reveals that the psychiatrist appears to have no experience in the field in which he is purported to be an expert.
Dr. Satinover, one of the so-called "experts" invited in 2004 to speak before the Senate Science, Technology & Space Subcommittee on the "scourge" of Internet porn, is often called upon to provide testimony in support of the conservative agenda. In addition to porn addiction, Satinover is also known for supporting the view that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured.
AFF is an organization dedicated to protecting the First Amendment and countering attacks on adult entertainment in the media by providing the media with accurate information.
According to AFF, Dr. Satinover recently consulted for Citizens for Community Values (CCV), anti-porn activists who recently backs an anti-adult entertainment law in Ohio.
"An addiction to pornography is chemically nearly identical to heroin addiction," Dr. Satinover said in support of the CCV-backed law.
The AFF article reports that Satinover's curriculum vitae, which was until recently on his website, indicates not worked in the field of pornography addiction, nor conducted any research in the field. Satinover's website has been taken down since AFF's publication of the report on their own website earlier this month.
"There is no evidence, no literature [by Dr. Satinover] that indicates a link between pornography and addiction," noted Dr. Robert Prentky, a noted forensic psychologist for the past 20 years.
Yet anti-porn activists continue to utilize the psychiatrist as an expert in a field in which he has no experience. Perhaps it is because there are no such experts, because the field does not exist. In fact, addiction experts consulted by the AFF insist that the concept of "pornography addiction" does not exist within the medical community.
"Addiction is a medical term," said Dr. Stuart Gitlow, an expert on addiction and a respected member of the American Society of Addiction Medicine, a status not shared by Dr. Satinover.
"And there is no research to indicate anyone suffers from porn addiction. There is nothing to suggest that this is a complex physiological disease state akin to alcoholism or other substance use disorders," he explained.
Dr. Marty Klein agrees. "The idea of "porn addiction" has never been accepted by the psychiatric, psychological, marital counseling or sexological professions.
"There is no DSMIV or ICD9 [professional diagnostic resources] diagnosis of 'porn addiction.' Just because people feel they are addicted doesn't mean they are," said Dr. Klein, a certified sex therapist and sociologist who has written six books and 100 articles.
"Dr. Satinover's 'research' is proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. His testimony to Sen. (Sam) Brownback's committee is a startling brew of assumptions, unverified assertions, commonplace observations about contemporary social problems and just enough scientific jargon to sound as if he ties these all together in a logical framework. He doesn't." Dr. Klein noted.
So why is Dr. Satinover promoting "porn addiction" to Congress and Christian groups?
Paul Cambria, AFF general counsel, has some ideas about that. "We are seeing more and more of this. Bald statements with no support which the anti-adult entertainment folks are feeding to politicians eager to get re-elected.
"These people have no concept of what constitutes proof and what simply masquerades as a cover for their desire to control other adult's choice of entertainment," Cambria explained.
"Any politician who relies on this drool should be voted out of office for being irresponsible," he concluded.
http://www.adultfreedomfoundation.org/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1183466541&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&
Supreme Court Shows Interest Sex Toy Case
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a surprise move, the U.S. Supreme Court has requested that the state of Alabama file an answer brief responding to the petition for writ of certiorari filed by adult retailer Sherri Williams, as well as the "friend of the court" brief in support of the Williams petition filed by the Free Speech Coalition and the First Amendment Lawyers Association.
The request is an indication that the Supreme Court may be willing to consider William's case, a decade-long battle for her right to sell devices to her customers in Alabama that can be used for sexual stimulation. Alabama is one of five states with an "obscene device" statute that prevents the sale of devices for sexual stimulation.
Williams has been in district court three times on this issue, won twice and been twice knocked down by the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Her petition to the Supreme Court, which will be argued by prominent First Amendment attorney Paul Cambria, will likely be the last legal stage of this fight.
"Originally, the state filed a waiver of right to respond, and they actually did that before our friend of the court brief," said First Amendment attorney and Free Speech board member Reed Lee. "The court has now officially requested the state to respond. That's a moderate sign that they're interested. If there were no interest in the petition at this point, they wouldn't bother making the state respond if it didn't want to. How strong the interest is and where the interest lies is going to be an impenetrable mystery until at least the first week of the term, but it's a sign that there's some interest there."
Lee said that the request for response, which the state is unlikely to refuse, may be for something as simple as making sure there's no procedural defect in Williams' case that would "make the case not what it seems; that is, make it not worth the Supreme Court's time to consider it," Lee speculated.
But the overriding question is, will the generally conservative make-up of the high court use the Williams case as an excuse to tinker with, if not attempt to overturn, the 2003 landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which recognized adults' rights to sexual privacy?
Lee feels that the last Eleventh Circuit opinion may be helpful to Williams' case.
"As hostile as some of those Eleventh Circuit panels that Williams was unfortunate enough to pull, as hostile as they were to Lawrence — oh, they never did say it was strict scrutiny, or they never did say it was a fundamental right, or whatever — ultimately this last panel makes an 'even if' argument," Lee assessed.
"That is, even if Lawrence embraces the right to use these devices, there's still the matter of their commercial sale, and whether the state can regulate the commercial sale for purely moral purposes," Lee continued. "That issue was settled back in 1965, but the last panel basically said, 'Okay, we'll grant you that Lawrence covers the right, supports the right, so yes, this is a case about Lawrence,' but this is really a case about what limits could be put on Lawrence and whether the limits that Alabama has articulated and the courts have articulated — in hostile Eleventh Circuit panels, for example — I don't know why they've been so hostile, but they have been from the word 'go' — the question is whether they can limit Lawrence in any kind of coherent way, and our argument is that the way they've come up with so far has been foreclosed since 1965.
"But I think everybody realizes it's a real tough row to hoe if you're going to say there's a right to engage in homosexual acts between consenting adults but there's not a right to use a sexual device either alone or with another adult. Drawing that line would be very, very difficult, and I don't see any coherent votes for that on the court. Maybe a couple of crazies would vote for it — and you know the two I mean when I say 'couple.' But I don't see that line being drawn. I think the real issue here would be the commercial issue."
Lee's reference to 1965 is an allusion to the seminal contraception case, Griswold v. Connecticut. The Eleventh Circuit's latest panel opinion in the William's case ignored the Griswold case, according to Lee.
"Griswold recognized the right of married couples to contraception, but Edith Griswold wasn't part of a married couple wanting contraception," Lee explained. "Edith Griswold ran a family planning clinic that wanted to counsel people on contraception and wanted to give and sell contraceptives to people, and the Supreme Court said that made not one whit of difference. The Supreme Court said that Edith Griswold and her co-party doctor that wanted to counsel people had the right not to maintain their own claims, but rather to stand in the shoes of the married couples that they were counseling and treating. And the fact that money changed hands in that relationship made no difference in 1965."
Therefore, Lee concludes, if the Supreme Court had no problem with Griswold's clinic selling contraception to people, even as Griswold herself was maintaining her First Amendment right to counsel them as to its use, Sherri Williams should prevail in her intent to sell sexually stimulating devices to Alabamans, since the Eleventh Circuit has now recognized the right of Alabamans to use the devices, and its quarrel over their sale would seem to be at odds with the settled law of Griswold. And Lee points out that the Griswold decision has been so popular and so accepted by society that judicial nominees who've spoken out against it have uniformly failed to be confirmed.
But for Lee, it all comes down to Lawrence.
"It is my view that as a logical matter, the Sherri Williams is a fortiori [directly following from] after Lawrence," Lee assessed. "If Lawrence is valid about the conduct involved, if the government can't regulate conduct between two consenting adults, how can it regulate the conduct of one person alone in his or her bedroom? That's why we've been saying in our briefs that that part is a fortiori. The next thing you look at is, what else is there? And what the Eleventh Circuit said is, 'Yes, but in this case there's commerce in the material.' What's going on in the back of everybody's mind is this: If there's no commercial/non-commercial distinction in Sherri Williams' case based on Lawrence, how's anybody going to uphold prostitution laws? We have a footnote in our brief saying we're ready to address that issue."
It's unclear how much time the state of Alabama will have to file its brief in response to Williams' petition, but First Amendment attorneys around the country are waiting anxiously for the Supreme Court's decision as to whether it will hear Sherri Williams' case — an announcement that could come at any time between now and June of 2008.
[AVN Ed's. Note: The full article with further details regarding the case can be found at AVN.com]
http://avn.com/index_cache.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=291697
Social Conservatives Charge Romney with not Doing Enough to Stop Pornography
BOSTON, MA - Right-wing presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who recently suggested a link between the Virginia Tech shooter and pornography, is being criticized by his fellow social conservatives for not having ceased the offering of adult entertainment in Marriott hotels during his nearly 10 years on the chain's board of directors.
The former governor of Massachusetts has drawn cries of hypocrisy from fellow conservatives for espousing a "family" ideology despite failing to block pay-per-view pornography from Marriott hotels during his nearly 10 years on the chain's board of directors.
According to an Associated Press story, Ohio's Citizens for Community Values (CCV), Washington's Family Research Council and other anti-porn groups have called Romney on the carpet for not using his influence as a Marriott board member to halt the offering of hardcore movies in the company's rooms, something they feel contradicts the "family man" image he's cottoned to in his campaign.
"Marriott is a major pornographer," said CCV president Phil Burgess. "And even though he may have fought it, everyone on that board is a hypocrite for presenting themselves as [having] family values when their hotels offer 70 different types of hardcore pornography."
Romney served on the Marriott board from 1992 to 2001, and has told the AP that he has no recollection of pornography being brought up for discussion during that time, nor any knowledge of how much revenue was being generated for the chain by porn, despite sitting at the head of the board's audit committee.
In a noncommittal statement on the matter, Romney remarked, "I am not pursuing an effort to try and stop adults from being able to acquire or see things that I find objectionable; that's their right. But I do vehemently oppose practices or business procedures that will allow kids to be exposed to obscenity."
Marriott's television and movie services during Romney's board tenure were provided by On Command Corp., bought out this year by LodgeNet Entertainment Corp., which has since assumed the contract.
Marriott has refused to disclose whether the On Command contract was ever discussed or voted upon by the board, but spokesman Roger Conner did reveal that the contract was signed in 1991, the year prior to Romney's start. The company argues that offering PPV porn is a fiscal necessity due to customer demand and contract stipulations.
"It certainly would have been wrong to impose his own personal beliefs if they were contrary to the financial interests of the company," said Conner.
In a "Focus on the Family" radio broadcast this week, media analyst Daniel Weiss said, "If [Romney] made money off pornography in the post, is he going to turn a blind eye to it if he's president? Because as chief executive of the nation, it's his responsibility to make sure our nation's obscenity laws are efficiently and vigorously enforced."
During a May 5 commencement address at evangelist Pat Robertson's Regent University, Romney drew a link between pornography and the Virginia Tech and Columbine High School shooting sprees, saying, "Pornography and violence poison our music and movies and TV and video games. The Virginia Tech shooter, like the Columbine shooters before him, had drunk from this cesspool."
http://news.bostonherald.com/politics/view.bg?articleid=1009801
Influencing Public Officials
By Matt Gray
Presumably, elected officials are supposed to reflect the demographic values of their district's residents and voters. In this representative role, when a sizable portion of those constituents reach out to that public official, the will of those people translates into some official position by that public official.
Lloyd Levine wants to be a California State Senator. He is now a State Assemblyman with five years under his belt, with only one year remaining before his mandatory six-year term ends. Representing most of the San Fernando Valley, his constituency is located in the heart of the adult entertainment industry in California.
But amidst one of the industry's fiercest battles against state legislation which seeks to tax the industry at a whopping rate of 8% on top of all other taxes, Levine has yet to seize the opportunity to be a hero for the industry. In the hopes that he would at least speak up to protect jobs in his district, industry leaders visited with his office staff and asked for his help.
This is also a great opportunity for his voters to reach out and ask for his leadership in killing this bad legislation. It is entirely appropriate that the elected officials for the San Fernando Valley (and other adult entertainment industry hotspots), speak up to protect jobs and businesses in their districts.
While we may not suggest or declare that votes or other influences are somehow tied to how he acts on this legislation, we may strongly urge his opposition and his immediate action. If you would like to contact Assemblyman Levine, you may do so by writing to State Capitol, Room 5136, Sacramento, CA 95814, or by faxing 916-319-2140.
Another prominent player on the AB 1551 scene is Los Angles County Sheriff Lee Baca, who just came out in support of AB 1551. His lobbyist was quoted in a Sacramento newspaper, saying "adult businesses often are in run-down neighborhoods plagued by prostitution, drug dealing, or other criminal activity," and so, he feels, "adding an extra cost of doing business in order to improve the quality of life in neighborhoods is justified."
The truth is -- those neighborhoods were like that (bad) before these adult businesses moved in, and the only reasons these adult businesses are in these neighborhoods to begin with is because they were restricted to these locations by overbearing zoning regulations.
Ask yourself where you would choose to open a business - in a great neighborhood where people feel safe shopping, or in a bad neighborhood which increased your risks as a business?
We all know that the only way zoning restrictions are permitted against adult entertainment businesses is because they are believed to be necessary to counter so-called adverse "secondary effects." While this theory remains unproven and, in fact, research overwhelmingly supports the opposite conclusion, it is still the prevailing theory in most jurisdictions.
But, if zoning restrictions are ineffective at countering adverse secondary effects, and a tax is therefore necessary to do what zoning restrictions cannot, then the only true purpose of zoning restrictions is as a form of censorship. And if the zoning restrictions' only true purpose is to censor, then such restrictions are unconstitutional on their face.
Citing support for a tax which in turn weakens the constitutionality of zoning restrictions, Sheriff Baca is, in essence, supporting the erosion of zoning restrictions for adult businesses as perhaps an unintended consequence of his own position.
While we certainly appreciate Sheriff Baca's attention to the issue of criminal behavior, as the adult entertainment industry has for years worked closely with law enforcement to improve public safety in a number of key areas, his support for AB 1551 is at best disappointing, undeserved, and I believe uninformed.
Sheriff Baca is an elected official, in a non-partisan office which represents all residents in Los Angeles County. He would benefit from hearing constructive input from residents who are familiar with the adult entertainment industry, and be urged to remove his support of AB 1551. Of course, letters may include the previous explanation of how AB 1551 would undermine the current zoning restrictions.
Sheriff Baca may be contacted at:
Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff,
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
4700 Ramona Blvd.
Monterey Park, CA 91754
==============================================================
Matt Gray is a senior lobbyist for Capital Alliance, a Sacramento based lobbying and government strategies firm. He can be reached at 916-444-5551, or by e-mail: matt@thecapitalalliance.com
