Curves v. Spalding County, Ga, No. 10-13871 (11th Cir. July 6, 2012)
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.
AP: “A federal appeals court has ruled that two underage girls can keep their names under wraps in their lawsuit against “Girls Gone Wild” producer Joe Francis.” | Plaintiff B v. Francis, No. 10-10664 (11th Cir. Feb. 1, 2011)
Peek-a-Boo Lounge of Bradenton v. Manatee County, Fla, No. 09-16438., 2011 WL 182819 (11th Cir. Jan. 21, 2011)
U.S. v. Irey, No. 08-10997 (11th Cir. July 29, 2010)
11th Circuit: Residence used for recording sexual activity to broadcast on the Internet properly regulated as business
FlavaWorks, Inc., v. City of Miami, No. 09-11264, 609 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. June 25, 2010)
Residence used for recording sexual activity to broadcast on the Internet was not properly regulated as an “adult businesses” but was properly regulated as a business.
FindLaw: “Obscenity law has always had weak underpinnings. Now, due to the advent of the Internet, it may be toppled entirely, if courts truly begin to take seriously the due process and First Amendment problems it raises. If it is not toppled, then significant injustices – like the injustice perpetrated in the Paul Little case – will only continue.”
11th Circuit: County studies documenting negative secondary effects are sufficient for prohibition of alcohol at sexually oriented businesses
Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc. v. Fulton County, Ga., No. 08-17035 (11th Cir., Feb. 16, 2010)
11th Circuit: County studies documenting negative secondary effects are sufficient for prohibition of alcohol at sexually oriented businesses.
Eugene Volokh reports: “United States v. Little concludes that Internet obscenity distribution prosecutions may rely on the community standard of the place in which the material was distributed — which means the government can try to download the material in the most restrictive community, and prosecute the distributor there. This may well be correct, given the Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU (I); and the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision in United States v. Kilbride might well be mistaken . . . “
Satisfying Lawrence: The Fifth Circuit Strikes Ban on Sex Toy Sales
Jamie Iguchi, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 655 (2009)
“At its core, the disagreement between the circuits turns on the scope of the right announced in Lawrence and the standard of review it requires.”