.
XXX Porn Talk Navigation Home The Message Board Chat Room Chat Transcripts Contact Information Log In/Out
.
JM Toys and More!!
JM Toys and More!!
New Release This Week
New DVD Release at JerkOffZone.com
VOD / Download Links
JM Downloads/VOD
XPT VOD
Gamelink VOD
New Release This Week
New DVD Release at JerkOffZone.com
Internet Video Rentals
Sugar DVD
Bush DVD
Adult Gossip & News
TRPWL.com
LukeIsBack
TheFloatingWorld
GramPonante.com
Forum Stats
19072 Members
14 Forums
40341 Topics
614109 Posts

Max Online: 830 @ Today at 02:06 AM
Topic Options
#222864 - 02/13/07 10:15 AM Pittsburgh Rules!!
Vizzle Offline
Porn Fucking Master

Registered: 10/30/06
Posts: 3812
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
From AVN:

PITTSBURGH - In a case whose outcome might prove handy when the Extreme Associates case comes to trial in Steeltown, a man has sued a police officer and his employer (the city) for giving him a ticket for "giving the middle finger in objecting to [the officer's] verbal direction to refrain from giving the middle finger to another citizen."

David Hackbart alleges that he was trying to parallel park on a street in one of Pittsburgh's upscale districts when another car pulled up behind him, preventing Hackbart from being able to back into his parking space. Hackbart's response was to give the other driver the finger.

"As Plaintiff gave the other driver the middle finger," reads Count 10 of the complaint, "he heard a voice outside of the vehicle instruct him, 'Don't flip him off.' Upon hearing this, Plaintiff proceeded to give the middle finger to the person speaking to him."

Whoops; the "person speaking to him" was Sgt. Brian Elledge, who was seated in his patrol car at the time. Elledge promptly turned on his patrol car's lights and conducted a traffic stop of Hackbart, during which Elledge demanded Hackbart's driver's license and social security number, and shouted at Hackbart, "You don't flip me off!"

Elledge wrote Hackbart a ticket for disorderly conduct, but the statute makes it a crime to "use obscene language, or make an obscene gesture" with intent to cause "public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating the risk thereof."

According to Hackbart's complaint, "The courts have interpreted the language of the disorderly conduct statute narrowly to permit application only when the language or gesture satisfies the United States Supreme Court's test for obscene sexual conduct."

We're guessing that Hackbart's lifting of his middle finger neither appealed to the cop's prurient interest nor, since Pittsburgh is host to several colleges and universities, not to mention a couple of sports teams, did it offend local community standards.

In any case, Sgt. Elledge didn't bother to attend the preliminary hearing for the ticket, but that didn't stop the district judge from finding Hackbart guilty and fining him $119.75, including court costs.

Hackbart appealed that ruling, and the county eventually withdrew all charges – whereupon Hackbart sued under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, claiming that his finger-lift was constitutionally-protected speech, and that Elledge's stop of Hackbart's vehicle was an illegal search and seizure.

The case was filed on Thursday, and its outcome may be several months away ... but when it happens, we'll report on it.

SOURCE



Edited by thevodguy (02/13/07 10:16 AM)
_________________________
"You know this is XXXPornTalk.com right? You sound like an ADT person. I want to poop on you." -Malice

Top
#222865 - 02/13/07 11:23 AM Re: Pittsburgh Rules!!
Moxie Offline
Human Garbage

Registered: 06/23/06
Posts: 1557
Loc: New York
Quote:

According to Hackbart's complaint, "The courts have interpreted the language of the disorderly conduct statute narrowly to permit application only when the language or gesture satisfies the United States Supreme Court's test for obscene sexual conduct."

We're guessing that Hackbart's lifting of his middle finger neither appealed to the cop's prurient interest nor, since Pittsburgh is host to several colleges and universities, not to mention a couple of sports teams, did it offend local community standards.




I think its quite the opposite and this case bodes badly for Gonzo producers. Notice how the court was focusing on whether the gesture appealed to "prurient interest". In other words, did it appeal to sexual titillation and noting but sexual titillation.

When the last round of obscenity cases came down adult producers where still in the features business. Since there were story lines, it could not be said that adult movies appealed solely to a "prurient interest". Fast forward to today's Gonzo product. What's missing? Story lines. What's left, nothing but sexual titillation.

This will not be a popular opinion, but I believe that much of modern Gonzo fails the obscenity test enumerated by the Supreme Court as there is no reason to watch most Gonzo films other than to jerk off. If there is, please feel free to correct me. Don't get me wrong, I like modern Gonzo allot. I just think the producers are at significant legal risk.

The funny thing is that Extreme usually worked some political or societal message into their films. For example, "Forced Entry" can be viewed as a commentary on Richard Ramirez. So the government will still need to prove Extreme violated community standards.

There is allot of porn out there with no story and wall to wall sex. Quick, what's "Gag Factor" about? "Max Hardcore"? I could go on, but you get the point. The learning point is that the absence of a story line gives the government a strong obscenity case against Gonzo producers.
_________________________
"This thing is ready to do damage!"

Top



Moderator:  Jerkules 
Shout Box

JM Productions
JM Productions Official Home is the JerkOffZone.com
Gag Factor
Yeah, it's that fucked up!!
American Bukkake
Tap into your inner degenerate!!
JM has the Best Variety !!
JM Video Lines
Who's Online
0 registered (), 459 Guests and 44 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod