• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Live Webcam Sex Shows NOT Protected By The First Amendment!

stevisecret

Registered User
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Messages
27
Points
0
I got this from an article written by First Amendement Attorney Lawrence G Walters for Steve Nelson's AI News Website. A Federal Judge ruled that live sex acts shown over the internet are NOT protected by the First Amendment. ZOWIE!!! This is probably a bad decision which can be overturned, but right now it can be used to go after webgirls for simple sex shows.There's also some ominous warnings from the religous right about an upcumming attack on internet obscenity in his article. I'm going to quote Mr Walters directly on the Webcam decision plus there's a link below to the rest of his article. Read it!!!!!!


" Streaming Adult Video Performances not Protected by the First Amendment in a disturbing blow to the First Amendment's protection of erotic speech, a federal judge recently ruled that the First Amendment does not protect "live acts of sexual intercourse, masturbation or oral sex between marital partners captured on 'streaming' or real time video tape for dissemination over the Web."

The judge issued the ruling in connection with a case brought by a former Sheriff's Deputy against his former employer, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, alleging a deprivation of First Amendment rights as a result of his termination for engaging in group sexual activities displayed on the Internet. The court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims, concluding: "Group physical sexual activity staged, and photographed in a hotel room for mass distribution over a pay Website, does not constitute expressive conduct within the meaning of the First Amendment." While the court paid lip service to the well-established precedent protecting the right to distribute or view non-obscene, sexually explicit materials, it denied such protection for those who "engage" in public sexual activity, "either in the middle of the street, or in a hotel room under the eye of a camera with intent to capture and distribute the images over the Web to a mass audience. This ruling strikes at the heart of the constitutional protections afforded those who perform in sexually oriented media. Given the financial status of the Plaintiffs, an appeal of this unfortunate decision is unlikely in the absence of significant industry support."

http://www.ainews.com/story/5034/

For Discusions Of This & Other Adult Issues
Join My Yahoo Group!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stevisecret

Stevi Secret
http://www.stevisecret.com
 
I give it a few months and it will be overturned. Then, the guy will try another suit. At that point, provided there's a morality clause in the sherriff's dept. regs, they can deny him on that basis. If not, he has a valid wrongful termination suit. But, this is DEFINITELY a violation.

I don't like all of what's out there on the net (sexual or otherwise). But, when you start excluding things from first ammendment protection, it's a dangerous precedent. If they want to go after that type of thing, they should be lobbying servers to include that in their TOS violations...as most already do.

Ann
 
What's New

2/27/2025
See some Spam? Report it! We appreciate the help! The report button is on the lower left of the post.
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top