Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Extreme Associates Case
 

A federal judge who had previously dismissed the case against Extreme Associates, only to have the dismissal overturned on appeal, has denied a second motion to dismiss the case.

Following the reversal of U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster?s earlier dismissal of the case, Extreme Associates? attorneys H. Louis Sirkin and Jennifer M. Kinsley filed another motion to dismiss, on the grounds that federal obscenity statutes are unconstitutional and do not apply to the Internet.

As an alternative to dismissal of the case, Sirkin and Kinsley moved for a pretrial ruling regarding how the Miller obscenity test would be applied to the case. The defense argued in their motion that the Miller test?s reliance on ?community standards? is not viable in when the material in question is distributed via the Internet.

In his latest ruling issued July 30, Lancaster denied the motion to dismiss but granted the pretrial hearing requested as an alternative to dismissal.

?The criminal obscenity statutes at issue, as well as the View the full story

ofcourse he did

he doesnt want to get smacked by the appeals court again

it will be very interesting to see what happens.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this entire case regarding someone in their own home ordering movies delivered to their own home?

What the HELL does that have to do with the community? blah

It's important to remember that "community standards" came into play before VCR's were invented. When Adult book stores moved into locations that pissed off the residents, they wanted a legal tool to pry them out of the area. To even ATTEMPT to apply it to modern times is so ridiculous, and I sure hope the jury/judge can see that. I can go online and order almost anything delivered by plain brown package to my doorstep. A FAR CRY from the letter and intent of that standard. It should not apply in a common sense world.

Damn, when will this one end. It's on, it's off, it's on, etc... its being going on for what seems like several years now.

Sounds like the appeal court is saying - "Hey! Deal with this!" and kinda predictable there is a refusal to dismiss.

Another one to keep our eyes on...