Events Calendar
In This Section
Short-handed Golden Flashes use depth to win
Browns' defensive captain takes blame for loss
Zips blank Bulls to begin quest for national title
Quinn's career day isn't quite enough for Browns to win
Browns find another way to lose
PATRICK McMANAMON: Browns lose game they never should have lost
Home Run for Homeless is Thursday
City, county may ban bias based on sexual orientation
Tallmadge reduces fees after levy passage
Library computer courses to go hands-on with laptops at branches
Most Read Stories
Police accuse bank robbery suspect of gobbling up note (with dashcam video)
Victim of beating in Kent last week is declared dead at Akron hospital
Can DNA tests free ex-Akron captain?
Dad accused of forcing son into field, killing him
Does it work? Test team returns to try out new products advertised on television
Man found dead in North Akron home is identified
Coventry man killed in crash at I-77 ramp
Zips men end tournament with 69-52 win over Howard
Michigan's legacy crumbles around humbling seasons
Blogs:
Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens
The Heldenfiles:
Sunday Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
Browns sick after sick loss in Detroit
Akron Zips:
Zips advance to Sweet Sixteen
Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster
Cleveland Browns:
Post-game defensive quotes
Kent State Sports:
Kent State defeats Rochester College, 63-44
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs vs. Philadelphia 76ers
Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad
Varsity Letters:
Four area football teams play tonight
All Da King's Men:
The Sunday Sanity Challenge
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Will Health Care Reform Pass?
Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (69) The Brookings Institute Study on "Bending the Curve" – Four General Strategies
See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic
Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Silverdome Potentially SOLD!
Ohio Travels with Betty:
George is looking for a Thanksgiving buffet in Akron.
Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall
HRLite House:
A Random Rant on Testing
Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go
By Terry Kinney
POSTED: 05:16 p.m. EDT, Oct 23, 2007
Associated Press Writer
CINCINNATI -- A federal appeals court today struck down as unconstitutional a law intended to fight child pornography, saying it restricts protected speech with by setting reporting requirements that are overbroad.
Producers of certain sexually explicit photographs are required to maintain extensive records regarding the individuals depicted, according to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, as amended by Congress.
The problem with the law is ''producers'' can refer to anyone who creates a visual representation of sexually explicit conduct through videotaping, photographing or computer manipulation, said a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The law makes no provision to exempt photographs not intended for a commercial purpose, or those never intended to be transferred.
The ruling is a ''very, very significant victory for freedom of expression,'' said J. Michael Murray, which made the constitutional challenge on behalf of Connection Distributing Co. of Cleveland.
He said it may bar government agents from entering publishing places and demanding to inspect photo records.
''We are disappointed in the court's ruling,'' said Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller. ''The statute was enacted to protect those who are underage from being used as performers in sexually explicit media. We are currently reviewing the ruling and in the process of determining what the government's next step will be in this matter.''
The court said it had to determine whether the statute regulated conduct or speech.
''While the government is indeed aiming at conduct, child abuse, it is regulating protected speech, sexually explicit images of adults, to get at that conduct,'' Judge Cornelia Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
Child abuse is already illegal, the court noted.
''Adult sexual conduct is not illegal and it is, in fact, constitutionally protected,'' the court said.
Connection publishes a number of magazines that depict sexual activity among adults, including ones aimed at ''swingers,'' who do not practice sexual monogamy. The magazines show explicit sexual activity in photos taken by couples who want to meet other swinging couples, the court noted.
Murray said the ruling would enable Connection to publish explicit pictures without photo identifications.
''We do not belittle the despicability of child pornography, and we appreciate the difficulties faced by the government,'' the majority opinion said. ''There are a myriad of limitations available, however, that would reduce the breadth of the record keeping requirements and would more narrowly focus on the government's interest and therefore remove some of the protected speech from the statute's coverage.''
The ruling reversed a judgment in favor of the government and sent the case back to U.S. District Court Judge John Manos in Cleveland with instructions to find the statute overly broad and enter a judgment for Connection.
Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote a separate concurring opinion. Judge David McKeague delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Associated Press Writer
CINCINNATI -- A federal appeals court today struck down as unconstitutional a law intended to fight child pornography, saying it restricts protected speech with by setting reporting requirements that are overbroad.
Producers of certain sexually explicit photographs are required to maintain extensive records regarding the individuals depicted, according to the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988, as amended by Congress.
The problem with the law is ''producers'' can refer to anyone who creates a visual representation of sexually explicit conduct through videotaping, photographing or computer manipulation, said a panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The law makes no provision to exempt photographs not intended for a commercial purpose, or those never intended to be transferred.
The ruling is a ''very, very significant victory for freedom of expression,'' said J. Michael Murray, which made the constitutional challenge on behalf of Connection Distributing Co. of Cleveland.
He said it may bar government agents from entering publishing places and demanding to inspect photo records.
''We are disappointed in the court's ruling,'' said Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller. ''The statute was enacted to protect those who are underage from being used as performers in sexually explicit media. We are currently reviewing the ruling and in the process of determining what the government's next step will be in this matter.''
The court said it had to determine whether the statute regulated conduct or speech.
''While the government is indeed aiming at conduct, child abuse, it is regulating protected speech, sexually explicit images of adults, to get at that conduct,'' Judge Cornelia Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
Child abuse is already illegal, the court noted.
''Adult sexual conduct is not illegal and it is, in fact, constitutionally protected,'' the court said.
Connection publishes a number of magazines that depict sexual activity among adults, including ones aimed at ''swingers,'' who do not practice sexual monogamy. The magazines show explicit sexual activity in photos taken by couples who want to meet other swinging couples, the court noted.
Murray said the ruling would enable Connection to publish explicit pictures without photo identifications.
''We do not belittle the despicability of child pornography, and we appreciate the difficulties faced by the government,'' the majority opinion said. ''There are a myriad of limitations available, however, that would reduce the breadth of the record keeping requirements and would more narrowly focus on the government's interest and therefore remove some of the protected speech from the statute's coverage.''
The ruling reversed a judgment in favor of the government and sent the case back to U.S. District Court Judge John Manos in Cleveland with instructions to find the statute overly broad and enter a judgment for Connection.
Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote a separate concurring opinion. Judge David McKeague delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
