9th Circuit: Swinger blocked from operating Vegas sex club gets another day in court

Las Vegas Sun: David Cooper sued Clark County in U.S. District Court in 2010 after he was denied a license to run a “high-end” swingers club, dubbed Sextasy, at the Commercial Center shopping mall on Sahara Avenue near Maryland Parkway. | Cooper v. Clark County Nevada, No. 11-16900 (9th Cir. May 21, 2013)

First Circuit panel, that includes David Souter, rejects First Amend. challenge to Fall River, MA SOB ordinance

Lund v. City of Fall River, No. 12-1758 (1st Cir. April 22, 2013)

Appellant, Gary Lund, contends that the City of Fall River’s zoning ordinances violate the First Amendment by preventing him from opening an adult entertainment establishment on land zoned industrial without providing an adequate opportunity elsewhere. The district court rejected his claim, and we affirm.

April 23, 2013 | Comments Off  | Tags: , ,

FCC mulls relaxing rules on indecency, obscenity

Washington Times: The Federal Communications Commission is mulling a change to a policy that, in effect, would open the doors to more obscenity on television and radio.

5th Circuit: Peer-to-Peer Child Porn Storage Supports Distribution Conviction

Findlaw: The appellate court, however, agreed with the First and Tenth Circuits that downloading images and videos containing child pornography from a peer-to-peer computer network and storing them in a shared folder accessible to other users on the network amounts to distribution under federal law. | U.S. v. Richardson IV

10th Circuit: Child porn restitution award requires showing that losses were proximately caused by defendant

U.S. v. Benoit, No. 12-5013 (10th Cir. April 2, 2013)

Finally, Benoit argues that the district court’s restitution order was improper. In accord with the majority of circuits to have considered the issue, we hold that 18 U.S.C. § 2259 requires a showing that a victim’s losses are proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct. See United States v. Aumais, 656 F.3d 147, 153 (2nd Cir. 2011). Because the district court did not explain whether specific losses suffered by the victim were proximately caused by Benoit’s actions, we remand for a redetermination of the portion of damages allocable to Benoit.

Conn. federal court upholds Milford’s SOB ordinance, except license posting requirement that requires licensee’s name

Keepers, Inc. v. City of Milford, Conn., Civ. No. 3:07-CV-1231 (D. Conn. Mar. 30, 2013) . . .

Utah Appellate Clinic Secures Victory for Child Pornography Victims

ULaw Today: Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Amy and Vicky, two child pornography victims, in an appeal brought by the Utah Appellate Clinic. | In re: Amy & Vicky

Divided 8th Circuit panel adopts proximate cause requirement for child porn restitution awards

How Appealing reports on the ruling in U.S. v. Fast and observes . . .

Sixth Circuit weighs in with instructions on restitution sentencing in child porn cases

Sentencing Law and Policy Blog: A helpful reader alerted me to a notable ruling by a Sixth Circuit panel today in US v. Gamble, No. 11-5394 (6th Cir. Feb 27, 2013) (available here).  Here is how the majority opinion gets started . . .

The Price of a Stolen Childhood: Child Pornography

Emily Bazelon at the New York Times (1/24/13): In October, the Fifth Circuit ruled in Amy’s favor, in a 10 to 5 decision. The court also accepted the theory of joint and several liability, finding that this means of allocating shared responsibility can ensure “that Amy receives the full amount of her losses, to the extent possible, while also ensuring that no defendant bears more responsibility than is required for full restitution.” . . . The Fifth Circuit’s decision creates a clear split among the appeals courts over how to interpret Congress’ provision of restitution for sex-crime victims — a split that only the Supreme Court can resolve. Cassell and Marsh have asked the justices to do that, and the court could hear a restitution case as early as next fall. | In re Amy Unknown, No. 09-41238 (5th Cir. March 22, 2011)

Next Page →