LegalReader.com  ·  Legal News, Analysis, & Commentary

News & Politics

Federal Judge Dismisses Charges Against Calif. Porn Business


— January 21, 2005

PITTSBURGH – A federal judge dismissed obscenity charges Friday against a California pornography business, finding obscenity statutes unconstitutional in the case.

Because people have a right to view such material in the privacy of their own home, there’s a right to market it, U.S. District Court Judge Gary L. Lancaster said in dismissing the case against Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., and their company, Extreme Associates.

Lancaster said prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the material from children and from adults who didn’t want to see such material inadvertently.

The judge also found that the state cannot ban material simply because it finds it objectionable, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2003 ruling that struck down a state ban on gay sex. The Supreme Court’s ruled that the ban was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

Details here from the AP via the Times Leader. You can view the court’s Order here. I had written about the case earlier here.


PITTSBURGH – A federal judge dismissed obscenity charges Friday against a California pornography business, finding obscenity statutes unconstitutional in the case.

Because people have a right to view such material in the privacy of their own home, there’s a right to market it, U.S. District Court Judge Gary L. Lancaster said in dismissing the case against Robert Zicari and Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif., and their company, Extreme Associates.

Lancaster said prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the material from children and from adults who didn’t want to see such material inadvertently.

The judge also found that the state cannot ban material simply because it finds it objectionable, based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2003 ruling that struck down a state ban on gay sex. The Supreme Court’s ruled that the ban was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

Details here from the AP via the Times Leader. You can view the court’s Order here. I had written about the case earlier here.

Join the conversation!