Adam Liptak at NY Times: Next month, the Supreme Court will consider what the men who took pleasure from viewing Amy’s abuse must pay her.
SCOTUS Blog information page and documents: Amy and Vicky, Child Pornography Victims v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington
Findlaw: The Supreme Court is primed to settle a Circuit split over the issue of child porn restitution, in a case where restitution was awarded to a victim who never even met the defendant. Paroline v. United States is one in a long line of “Amy and Vicky” cases . . .
Bushco v. Shurtleff, No. Nos. 12-4083 & 12-409 (10th Cir. Sept. 9, 2013)
On appeal before this court are three main issues: (1) whether issue preclusion
applies to the question of the Statute’s constitutionality because a district court previously held unconstitutional similar language of a predecessor statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-10-1301(1) (Supp. 1987) (“Predecessor Sexual Activity Statute”); (2) whether the Amendments to the Sexual Solicitation Statute are overbroad or place too great a burden on expression protected by the First Amendment; and (3) whether the Amendments to the Sexual Solicitation Statute are unconstitutionally vague.2
U.S. v. Lundquist, No. 11-5379-cr (2nd Cir. Sept. 9, 2013)
Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Suddaby, J.), requiring defendant-appellant Avery Lundquist to make restitution to a victim identified in an image of child pornography found in his possession.
Peterson v. City of Florence Minnesota, No. 12-3017 (8th Cir. Aug. 16, 2013)
While Peterson contests the validity of the zoning ordinance in Lyon County
and the exact acreage which is zoned for adult entertainment uses, he does not dispute that there exist areas within the county for such use. Peterson’s own expert, Bruce McLaughlin, states that 204.26 (or 32.22%) of the total acres zoned for commercial -6-use in Lyon County are available for adult entertainment uses. This availability would provide Peterson with a reasonable alternative for operating an adult
entertainment business in the county.
Daily Gazette: Attorneys representing Nite Moves filed a petition with the nation’s highest court in the hope the justices will take up the case decided by the New York State Court of Appeals last year. The petition submitted to the Supreme Court the day after the Fourth of July argues the taxation of exotic dancing is akin to “content-based discrimination” — an unconstitutional practice that provides government officials unlimited discretion to determine and tax on the basis of artistic merit. | Docket Entry: 677 New Loudon Corporation, dba Nite Moves, Petitioner v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal, No. 13-38
Entertainment Productions v. Shelby County, TN, No. 11-6396 (6th Cir. July 9, 2013)
The appellants, a group of business entities that collectively own a substantial fraction of the adult nightclubs in Memphis, seek to enjoin and invalidate the Tennessee Adult-Oriented Establishment Registration Act of 1998, as locally enforced by Ordinance 344. They assert that the Act violates the First Amendment under a variety of theories. We disagree. For the reasons set out below, we affirm the district court.
AP: The Supreme Court said Thursday it will take up a case about when victims of child pornography can recover money from people convicted of viewing their abuse.
SCOTUS Blog: . . . two victim restitution cases, Amy and Vicky, Child Pornography Victims v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, 12-651, and Wright v. United States, 12-8505 (involving the role of proximate cause in restitution for children depicted in child pornography)
Ars Technica: A federal judge who had previously declined to force a Wisconsin suspect to decrypt several hard drives believed to contain child pornography has now changed his mind. After considering new evidence, the judge wrote in an order last week (PDF) that the Milwaukee-area man now must either enter the passwords for the drives without being observed by law enforcement or government counsel or must provide an unencrypted copy of the data.