'Little guy' wins porn conviction - why can't the feds? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

SILVERNAME -> 'Little guy' wins porn conviction - why can't the feds? (8/22/2008 9:46:09 AM)

The owner of a Virginia pornography store has been convicted of violating the state's obscenity laws and could face a felony prosecution unless he closes his business.





Rick Krial, owner of the After Hours Video store in Staunton, Virginia, was convicted of one misdemeanor count of pandering obscenity after a jury reviewed videos he sold. Pat Trueman, special counsel to the Alliance Defense Fund and former chief obscenity prosecutor for the Justice Department, explains why he feels the conviction "reverberates across the nation."

"You had a porn shop move into Staunton, Virginia -- and the prosecutor said, 'Wait a minute! You're not going to sell obscenity in my town.' He brought a prosecution against the business," Trueman points out. "The business brought in two of the most prominent defense attorneys in the country, and the business owner was convicted."

Trueman praised local Prosecuting Attorney Raymond Robertson for going after a conviction on simple, hard-core pornography -- which, according to Trueman, the Justice Department will not pursue.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=220176

.



Marcus. -> RE: 'Little guy' wins porn conviction - why can't the feds? (8/22/2008 10:37:30 AM)

He won because of a sympathetic judge and jury. Too many look favorably on porn otherwise more obscenity charges would stick.



huskarine -> RE: 'Little guy' wins porn conviction - why can't the feds? (8/22/2008 11:25:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

He won because of a sympathetic judge and jury. Too many look favorably on porn otherwise more obscenity charges would stick.


i have had (in debate team) to argue for the legalization for porno against the banning of it, and i tell ya what, it's easier to argue for the legalization because simply, you can't define obscene and porno objectively. and the line will always be pushed back and forth as it has in the past (look at risque films in the past vs. the ones of today[:'(])...there is just no definition of it anyway...it's best for the people to personally ban themselves from it, not the government.

now, if we were to argue this from a morality standpoint, (we should but our government is in a catch-22 with this if they do) we should ban smut shops anyway because they promote lust. (and that is my personal definition of porno, something that promotes an unholy sexual lust)...

i feel sorry for the jury though, who had to view the "evidence"



mapachito13 -> RE: 'Little guy' wins porn conviction - why can't the feds? (8/22/2008 6:26:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: huskarine

and that is my personal definition of porno, something that promotes an unholy sexual lust)...



This could include a lot more material than "porno". Just photograph the women in Burkhas from now on. [;)]



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI