11th Circuit asked to reinstate $19.6 million award against Hustler
First Amendment Center: The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June 2009 that a notorious death doesn’t give publishers a blank check to publish any images they wish. The case went to trial, and a jury in June 2011 voted to slap Hustler Magazine with $19.6 million in punitive damages for running the photos.
N.J. Supreme Court: Towns can reject sexually oriented businesses, citing locations in other states
HELD: In evaluating the adequacy of alternative channels of communication when deciding an as-applied constitutional challenge to the State’s statute limiting the places where sexually-oriented businesses may operate, trial courts are not precluded from considering the existence of sites that are located outside of New Jersey but that are found within the relevant market area as defined by the parties’ experts.
U.S. Supreme Court considers FCC indecency enforcement authority
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguements in the FCC v. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293. The question considered: Whether the Federal Communications Commission’s current indecency-enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Sotomayor, J., recused). Court filings in the litigation can be found at SCOTUS Blog. Links to Related media reports discussing the litigation can be found here.
Supreme Court refuses to resolve confusion over restitution for child porn victims
Federal courts have disagreed about how to enforce a law that requires people convicted of possessing child pornography to pay restitution to the victim, even if they didn’t know the victim. But the Supreme Court refused to take up the case Monday . . . The case was Amy v. Monzel (11-85).
Supreme Court refuses to hear Alameda Books sexually oriented businesses case
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Los Angeles v. Alameda Books Nos. 11-245, 11-379. Document related to that litigation, the 9th Circuit opinion, and a summary of the issues involved can be found at SCOTUS Blog here.
Supreme Court asked to revisit City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. concerning regulation of sexually oriented businesses
SCOTUSblog reports that City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court again.
Missouri Supreme Court upholds law regulating sexually oriented businesses
Ocello v. Koster, No. SC91563 (Mo. Nov. 15, 2011)
The law prohibits totally nude dancing and any contact between dancers and patrons. It prohibits the sale of alcohol at such businesses and requires that they close at midnight. It restricts enclosed booths to discourage promiscuous sexual activity. It requires that any such businesses be located at least 1000 feet from any school, church, day care center, public park, any residence, or any other sexually oriented business.
E.D. Penn. refuses to stop Catholic Group from protesting sex superstore
CourtHouse News: A sex superstore in southeastern Pennsylvania can’t enjoin a Catholic group from protesting outside its business, a federal judge ruled. | Routes 202 and 306 and Novelties and Gifts v. The Kings Men, No. 2:11-cv-05822-PBT (E.D. Pa.)
NJ appeals court upholds topless woman’s arrest to uphold important public moral sensibilities
WSJ.com: The court dismissed her argument that the town’s public nudity ordinance discriminated against women because men are permitted to appear topless. The court says “restrictions on the exposure of the female breast are supported by the important governmental interest in safeguarding the public’s moral sensibilities.” | New Jersey v. Feeley, A-0115-10T3 (N.J. App. Sept. 14, 2011)
Second Circuit panel reverses child porn restitution award to “Amy”
Sentencing Law and Policy:: The Second Circuit has today issued an important new opinion in the on-going saga concerning whether and how the kids victimized by being featured in illegal child pornography can secure restitution awards from defendants who downloaded these pictures via the internet. The panel opinion in US v. Aumais, No. 10-3160 (2d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (available here), gets started this way . . .
