UPDATE!! in Ray Guhn Case!!!!

[jimnally]

Ray Guhn?s Lawyers File Motion to Define Community Standards



PENSACOLA, Fla. ? Lawyers for adult webmaster Clinton McCowen, aka Ray Guhn, filed a motion April 5, petitioning the court to determine the nature and geographic scope of the community whose standards will be applied in McCowen?s obscenity case.
McCowen?s lawyer, Lawrence G. Walters, is challenging the application of local community standards to the Internet, on constitutional grounds. Walters argues that the relevant community must be the national community, rather than any state or local community.

The defense?s lengthy motion claims that the Internet can only be evaluated by national standards, given its global scope and inability to discriminate what locations can access adult content.

McCowen?s June 23 arrest on charges of racketeering, engaging in prostitution, and the manufacture and sale of obscene material culminated a months-long investigation into the operations of McCowen?s company, Global Technologies Inc., doing business as Ray Guhn Productions. McCowen?s website that he shot content for, CumOnHerFace.com, is part of the Cash Titans affiliate program, which he owned.

?Applying conservative community standards to adult content that is available globally via the Internet creates an unworkable burden on Internet operators,? Walters told XBIZ. ?Essentially, if you use a small community?s standards and apply them to the Internet, it would effectively allow a small segment of the country to decide for all citizens what material is OK. To mount a defense, we need to know what standards are being applied in this case.?

According to Walters, the U.S. Supreme Court has struggled with the concept of using community standards on the Internet and has still not issued a definitive ruling on the subject. Additionally, a majority of the sitting Supreme Court Justices has expressed concerns about the application of local community standards to online materials.

Only a small handful of state-level obscenity cases are being prosecuted across the nation in relation to websites, Walters said, which is why he believes the McCowen case is critical and has the potential to set new precedence.

In the famous Miller vs. California case, the court ruled that the most sensitive jurisdictions should not be allowed to suppress the nature of materials available in communities where they are accepted or tolerated.

?We strongly believe that there is no longer a small independent community standard; we all share common experiences as a nation,? Walters said. ?That wasn?t true 30 years ago, but with cellphones, instant messaging, email, etcetera, the vast majority of America experiences the same things and has become homogenized, in effect.?

The next step in McCowen?s case is for the judge to hold a hearing on the motion, which Walters expects to happen before the end of the month.

The case is Florida vs. Clinton R. McCowen No. 2006-CF-003151-C.


Please continue your support in this case! More updates soon!

[BVF]

so the attorneys filed a motion? Big Whoop.

[Webby]

Originally Posted by BVF

so the attorneys filed a motion? Big Whoop.

Lawrence is just working thru the system - and hopefully expecting to pick up some scraps to add to his defense

[Loki]

All I can say is..........

RARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

-Loki-

[cherrylula]

Very cool. Setting precedence of community standards applied to the internet nationally or globally sounds great.

go Lawrence Walters!

[fris]

is he in jail? or is he out on bond

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by cherrylula

Very cool. Setting precedence of community standards applied to the internet nationally or globally sounds great.

go Lawrence Walters!

Yep I feel the people reading this don't have any clue how important this is. This will definately end up before the Supreme Court. Even though they are Bush's lap dogs ther is NO WAY they will allow small little backwoods towns to dictate standards for the internet. And once precedent is set most of the obscenity cases will go away.

[uno]

Is this the guy who had nowthatsfuckedup.com?

[BVF]

Originally Posted by uno

Is this the guy who had nowthatsfuckedup.com?

sigh.........

[DaddyHalbucks]

Smart move.

Maybe Miller will go bye-bye.

Hopefully, we will get new precedent that allows virtually all consenting adult activity.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by uno

Is this the guy who had nowthatsfuckedup.com?

Cum On Her Face dipshit.

[stickyfingerz]

Originally Posted by uno

Is this the guy who had nowthatsfuckedup.com?

No thats a different guy. That guy deserved what he got imo.. Ray is COHF.com CumOnHerFace.com

[Jimatcohf]

Hey guys, yes Rays attys have filed an extremely important motion in this case, and your right most webmasters dont understand the importance of this motion or our case in general. Most webmasters have been supportive some have been very negative, but the fact remains if the state of Florida wins this case then anyone shooting porn in the state of Florida can be charged with the same charge of racketeering that I and ray were charged with. and please before some of you go off bashing us again, or pointing out the fact your in other states or countries and this doesnt apply to you it does. ALL our models were shot with signed contracts and 2257 statements, and for the last time it shouldnt matter what county we shot in the laws we are charged with are state laws not county ordances so if you think your safe in tampa or maimi you wont be just remember the newspaper and police have thrown alot of misinformation out there, but make no bones about it this will affect every content producer in EVERY state.

We are still not sure when the trial will begin, maybe by fall or winter of 07 just keep us in your thoughts

Hope all my old friends are doing well.

Take Care

Jim Manley

[Rochard]

This could be a very important case. If a single, small community can define "proper standards" for what is legal on the Internet, our industry as we know it will change.

I'm currently Ron Jeremy's book. Right now the part I'm reading talks about the pandering charges he faced in the late 1980's. If I recall corrctly, it was decided in 1989 by the Supreme Court of California (or something like that) that filming porn is not pandering or prostitution. Perhaps the legal staf should look into that a bit more and use it as a case study.

[Lance69]

Thanks for the update Jim. Hopefully this blows a hole in the obscenity bullshit.
I still can't believe how some people think this case doesn't affect them. Dumbshits. This is worse than 2257 IMO.

[RawAlex]

Sadly, this one is a double edged sword. The risk is that the judge says that the "location of operation / offices" of the paysite defines it's community, which would put many people in the shit all over the country.

It is unlikely that a judge will easily say that the internet is it's own community, and if he does, it will almost certainly go onto appeal after appeal (likely all the way to the surpreme court, if I figure this right).

Good luck to them. This is actually a fairly important move.

[Jim_Gunn]

Good luck Jim, hope you guys can win for all of us!

[notabook]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm currently Ron Jeremy's book.

You... you're a book...? You bastard.... you bastard!

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yep I feel the people reading this don't have any clue how important this is. This will definately end up before the Supreme Court. Even though they are Bush's lap dogs ther is NO WAY they will allow small little backwoods towns to dictate standards for the internet. And once precedent is set most of the obscenity cases will go away.

This means a lot to the content shooters.



And without content, there is no porn

[TheAmericanCannibal]

Originally Posted by Rochard

This could be a very important case. If a single, small community can define "proper standards" for what is legal on the Internet, our industry as we know it will change.

I'm currently Ron Jeremy's book. Right now the part I'm reading talks about the pandering charges he faced in the late 1980's. If I recall corrctly, it was decided in 1989 by the Supreme Court of California (or something like that) that filming porn is not pandering or prostitution. Perhaps the legal staf should look into that a bit more and use it as a case study.

I mentioned this case on Catherine Crier- The Freeman Act that is
https://youtube.com/watch?v=MmZ3XDW0x3k

Best of luck Jim...
Make this all go away already so you can bring Gabby back to Vegas will you?

:-))

[uno]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Cum On Her Face dipshit.

Ah, in that case, fuck off. My bad.

[SomeCreep]

Just let me know when Cashtitans is back on it's feet and paying webmasters again on a regular basis. Then I might put some links back up.