Last month the adult entertainment industry received a great victory and was able to take
a great sigh of relief.  The case of the United States v. John Stagliano John Stagliano, Inc. and
Evil Angel Productions, Inc. went to trial in the District of Columbia before U.S. District Court
Judge Richard J. Leon for charges that they had sent obscene material by common carrier across
state lines to the District of Columbia. 

     At the inception of this case, the case had all of the trapings of being a hallmark, if not a
landmark decision, in obscenity prosecutions.  The case was brought by the Justice Department's
Obscenity Prosecution Task Force Representing the defendants were represented by  some of our
personal friends, H. Louis Sirkin, Paul Camberia, Alan Gelbart and Robert Corn-Revere.

     The reason why this case could have been, if not a landmark decision, but a hallmark
decision, was depending on the verdict this case would have made a statement to either the pro-
censorship people within the government or to First Amendment advocates outside of the
government.  The defendants were represented by fine attorneys defending the material and
claiming that they were not obscene in Washington, D.C.  Supposedly a crack government legal
team was on the other side.  The case was being watched by the adult entertainment industry
along with prosecutors nationwide.  A victory for the prosecutors would have sent a chilling
effect throughout the adult entertainment industry.  A finding that the material was not obscene
would have emboldened those of us who champion the First Amendment and believe in the right
of adults to view contents that they desire.

     As any trial attorney will tell you, the future of a case can never be predicted and cases
take on lives on their own.  During this trial, there were missteps by the United States
Government such as a corrupted recording of a DVD that caused the Judge to throw out counts
that dealt with the "trailors" of the movies.  There also was a misspoken statement by one of the
federal agents while testifying, where the agent testified that the Judge had told him to review the
evidence before he testified.  This made the Federal District Court Judge irrate and required an
affidavit to be signed by the U.S. Attorneys for the jury's review stating in fact their own witness
was mistaken. 

     However, the biggest shock came when the defense argued their Rule 29 motions.  These
are motions in Federal Court after the government rests its case, to have the charges thrown out
because the government has not put on a prima facia case to the standard where a reasonable
juror could come back and find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  These motions are seldom
granted but to everyone's surprise Judge Leon in fact granted the Defendant's motions and threw
out all of the charges.  His ruling was not based upon the fact that the material was not obscene
but rather that the defendants could not be hooked up and linked to the interstate transportation of
the matter.  Regardless of why he ruled, this case was a great victory for the First Amendment
and First Amendment advocates and a crushing defeat for the U.S. government in its war on
people's freedoms.

     After the trial, John Stagliano apparently voiced some misgivings of the proceedings.  He
was certainly thrilled that he was no longer facing time in jail, but as a fighter for the First
Amendment it seemed that he very much wanted a victory wherein the jury would have found the
matters to not be obscene.  If that occurred, it would have sent shockwaves throughout the United
States government that adults want to be left alone, that adults want the rights to view and not
have the government interfere in what they watch.

     Again, a victory is a victory.  Those of use who champion First Amendment freedoms
could not be happier and could not be more proud of our compatriots who went through the fight.
Having been involved in cases with Paul Camberia and H. Louis Sirkin we know what quality
work was done on the defendants' behalf and we know what passion was given in that
representation.  We send our truest congratulations and appreciation to the defendants and to the
defense team.

     In order for material or even performances to be obscene they must fail the Miller test.
The essence of the test is that the:  average person applying contemporary community standards
finds the matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest; it depicts sexual activity in a
patently offensive manner; and lacks serious artistic, literary, scientific or political value.

     To many of us, this definition is no definition at all.  It gives no guidance and we believe
it is unconstitutionally vague.  Because of this belief, we were waiting for the Supreme Court to
weigh in on their belief of the constitutionality of the "honest services fraud" cases.  We had
hoped that if the Supreme Court struck down that crime on vagueness grounds, we would have
ammunition to do the same for the obscenity test.

     Unfortunately in the case of Skilling v. United States the Supreme Court did hold "honest
services fraud" to be vague, but its reasoning does not help our First Amendment fights against
the Miller test.  The Supreme Court seemed to indicate that a definition as vague as the Miller
test would have saved the "honest services fraud" statute.

     Many of you probably remember exactly where you were when you first learned about the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  What most of us have forgotten is what those attacks did
to the American psyche at the time.  The United States that we knew prior to September 11, 2001
was not the United States we knew after.  Our sense of invincibility was gone, our belief in the
security of this country was forever shaken, and our knee-jerk reaction was just that, a knee-jerk
reaction. 

     Attacking Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein who had nothing to do with the 911 attacks,
somehow got justified.  Interning people without due process of law became patriotic and voicing
dissent to those actions became unpatriotic.  We were under attack and our moral compass be
damned, we needed to fight those bastards.  In that frame of mind, the United States Congress
passed the  ("Patriot Act") which was quickly signed into law by George W. Bush.  Most of the
Congressmen and Senators that voted for the Bill, never read it in its entirety and those that had
problems with specific provisions were cowed into submission as being weak or terrorist
sympathizers.  Many knew that there were unconstitutional provisions within the "Patriot Act"
but because of political expediency voted in favor of it relying on the Courts in the future to
strike down those provisions.

     One of the provisions of the "Patriot Act" makes it a crime to provide "material support"
which includes advise and training to terrorist organizations.  Material support includes expert
advice or training.  To be a terrorist group one only has to be designated as such by the United
States State Department.

     In June, the United States Supreme Court ruled on this provision of the "Patriot Act".
Ralph Fertig brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the Act based upon First
Amendment grounds.  Mr. Fertig  an advocate of Kurdish rights, argued that the words "advice"
and "training" should not be read broadly to cover those who advised others to steer away from
violence and terrorism.

     In a six to three decision, the Supreme Court ruled that in fact giving advice to a terrorist
group to settle their disputes peacefully was in fact advice covered by the law and would make
someone guilty of violating the "Patriot Act".  The Supreme Court held that the First
Amendment did not protect such speech and agreed with the United States Government that
"providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization - even seemingly
benign - bolsters terrorists of that organization".

     The ramifications of this case will go on for years.  It will silence those who try to bring
the outlawed into the lawed.  In essence, once an organization is declared to be a terrorist
organization by the State Department, American citizens can have no communication with it.  A
lawyer that was sought out by a terrorist organization to contact the State Department or other
authorities in order to explain why it should not be considered a terrorist organization or why it
was willing to change its ways, would be guilty of violating the "Patriot Act".  A broker of peace
between Al Qaeda and the United States would also violate this law.

     What is most disturbing about the Court's decision is the lack of analysis done by the
Supreme Court.  There are different types of speech.  As we have written numerous times, nude
dancing is on the outer fringes of First Amendment protection.  We have written numerous times
that pure or core political speech is the most protected of First Amendment expression.  Under
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and other Amendments, the right to
counsel and the right of that counsel to advise has always been sanctified.  The Court did sidestep
these analyses, and rather ruled that the need to combat terrorism trumped the concerns over
restricting freedom of speech.

     Yet, under standard First Amendment analysis, it is the Government's burden to show a
compelling governmental interest as to why that is the case.  The Court's decision seems to rely
on the Government's assertion that there is in interest in preventing anyone from dealing with
terrorist organizations even if the motive is none violence or to bring that terrorist organization
into the fold.  The Court seemed to take the Government's position as not needing validation and
fact, but that the assertion alone was enough.

     In other news currently sitting on Governor Nixon of Missouri's desk is the Missouri law
that would restrict adult entertainment within the State.  The law would prohibit clubs from
staying open past 12 midnight, it would prohibit dancers from ever being totally nude, and would
restrict partial nudity to a stage where patrons would have to be six feet away.  The Governor has
until July 10, 2010 to sign the Bill and if he does not it becomes law.

     The Governor is faced with a dilemma.  Putting First Amendment freedoms aside, he is
the Chief Executive of a State which recently announced  three hundred and one million dollars
of budget cuts.  People in Missouri are looking for jobs and the State is looking for a way to
balance the budget and provide services to the people.

     Adult clubs in Missouri are estimated to supply income to three thousand people that
work within the clubs and untold thousands of people who work in ancillary businesses.  The
adult clubs  provided the State with 4.5 million dollars in State sales tax revenue just last year.
Governor Nixon will be balancing the loss of at least 4.5 million dollars in revenue, the
possibility of over three thousand people and their families needing State assistance, with a law
that is designed for the purpose of putting adult clubs out of business.

     It is always politically expedient to rule or to decide against adult entertainment.  Adult
entertainment never gets good press and the media likes to play up the shady side of the
entertainment.  But, this may be a situation where common sense trumps the political expediency
and Governor Nixon may just decide to veto this Bill as it is the right thing to do and it is best for
the State of Missouri.

     A few months ago we wrote on a Bill before the Kansas Legislature dealing with adult
entertainment.  At that time we related that the Bill had passed the Kansas House of
Representatives and was now in front of the Kansas State Senate.  We explained that Daniel
Aaronson, Jeff Levy and Dr. Judith Hanna were called to testify on behalf of the "Equal
Entertainment, Group, Inc." in opposition to the legislation.  

     Since that article, and the legislation getting out of the House Committee and being
approved by the House of Representatives as a whole, a lot of finger pointing and blame has been
passed around.  Jeff Levy has come under fire for his testimony.  Supposedly, it inflamed some
of the religious right on the committee and therefore his testimony caused the legislation to get
out of committee and ultimately be passed on the House floor.

     Jeff Levy a practicing Catholic pointed out, after testimony by representatives of the
Christian Coalition slandering adult entertainment establishments, that priests and clergy are at
the forefront of child abuse.  He stated his credentials as having worked as a high school teacher
for the Archdioceses of New York for a number of years, and that adult entertainment wasn't this
terrible venture as the ultraconservatives on the committee would have one to believe.

     No one will ever know the real total truth of what happened.  It seems highly unlikely that
one person's testimony in opposition to the Bill could have inflamed so many, when not one of
them even made a comment about it at the hearing.  Rather more likely, is that one or two were
offended and decided to get their pound of flesh by putting the blame on Mr. Levy.

     After his testimony, a number of members of the House of Representatives Committee
approached him and thanked him for his candor and established relationships  with him.  They
have reported that his testimony had nothing to do with the passage of the Bill out of Committee
or  the vote on the House of Representative floor.   According to them it  was a forgone
conclusion that it would pass.

     Yet, as he was taking the blame and more appropriately said, having the blame put upon
him, Jeff Levy never stopped his dedication to the First Amendment, adult entertainment and to
defeat the legislation in Kansas.  He continued to foster his relationships with those members of
the House of Representatives who were impressed with what he had to say.  He spoke with them
and encouraged them to speak with their friends and colleagues in the Senate as to why this
legislation should not get out of the Senate and why it was not good for the State of Kansas.  He
never stopped fighting the fight.  If he is going to be given blame for the legislation getting out of
the House of Representatives in the State of Kansas, then he also must be given that exact same
amount of credit for the Bill and legislation dying at the State Senate.

     Yes, this legislative Bill that would have made Kansas equal to the State of Missouri in
adult entertainment repression ended up dying in session with a 20 to 20 vote in the Senate.  A tie
means that the legislation does not get passed and therefore for the year 2010 this terrible
legislation is still not law in the State of Kansas.

     Reports are that one of the major reasons why the legislation did not pass in the State of
Kansas has to do with the fact that the State is as much as seven hundred million dollars in debt.
Daniel Aaronson during his testimony pointed out that passing this legislation would cause the
State of Kansas in order to defend it in excess of seven figures.

     So, why this legislation didn't pass in the Senate, again, nobody will ever really know.
However, those of us who speak for a living, know that every time a word exits our lips that it
has the ability to be misinterpreted and thrown back in our face.  We know that every statement
can be a faux paux and every syllable can be fodder for someone to hang their hat on as to why
they disagree with what we have to say.

     We who fight for adult freedoms should always stay united.  We should not let our
adversaries single one of us out as a culprit and get us to buy into it and therefore divide
ourselves.   We need to remember that as adversaries they do not have our best interests in mind,
and we cannot trust what they say.  

     Mr. Levy understood this and even as some turned their backs on him, he never turned his
back on the cause.  And maybe, just maybe, and we will never know, he might have not been the
villain but the hero.   But at a minimum he has been a friend always to adult entertainment.

     Title 18 U.S.C. Section 48 criminalized for up to five years in prison anyone who
knowingly created, sold, or possessed a depiction of animal cruelty if it was done for commercial
gain.  The statute did not address the underlying acts that were harmful to animals, but only
portrayals of such conduct.  In that statute, animal cruelty was defined as "in which a living
animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed", if that conduct violates
Federal or State law where "the creation, sale or possession takes place".

     Robert J. Stevens was engaged in a business called "Dogs of Velvet and Steel" and had a
website where he sold videos of pit bulls engaging in dog fights and attacking other animals.
Three of his videos came under the scrutiny of the Federal authorities and Stevens was arrested
and indicted on three counts of violating Section 48.

     At the Federal trial level Stevens was convicted after Motions to Dismiss that he filed had
been denied.  The case then went to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals where the entire Circuit
declared that Section 48 was unconstitutional and that it violated the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution.  The case then was appealed by the government to the United States
Supreme Court.

     At the Supreme Court, the United States Government argued among other points, that
depictions of animal cruelty should be a new form of unprotected speech outside of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution; or that Section 48 would only be applied to those
instances in which the videos portrayed "extreme cruelty"; and lastly that the Court should
construe the Statute in a way that made it constitutional.  For his part, Stevens contended that the
Statute was overbroad, meaning that many forms of videos or depictions that were not intended
to be covered by the Statute would fall under possible prosecution; and that this method of
speech no matter how repungnent was constitutionally protected.

     Last month, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the United States v.
Stevens.  In an eight to one opinion, Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court
which was that 18 U.S.C. Section 48 was unconstitutional as it was overbroad and violated the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  As part of the rationale, the Court also noted
that given the wording of the Statute it would be almost impossible for someone to know when
they were violating the law.  As the law was based upon an act that would be criminal in either a
State or a Federal jurisdiction, the Court noted for example that hunting is illegal in the District
of Columbia while it is legal in many other places.  Therefore, depictions of animals dying in the
hunting process would be legal if taken in some jurisdictions but illegal if taken in the District of
Columbia.  This would set up a scenario where the legality of the video depended upon where the
acts took place as opposed to the content of the video.

     More importantly, the Court ruled that although these forms of videos may be distasteful,
that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does protect distasteful speech.  If
only speech that was approved of by the majority was allowed, then minority voices would be
silenced.  The Court further declined the Government's plea that the Court weigh the value of the
speech against the social cost of that speech to determine whether the First Amendment even
applies.  In essence, the Government wanted a new test where First Amendment protections
could be excluded if the Court was to decide if the value of the speech (a totally subjective
personal view) was less than the detriment to society (another totally subjective personal view).
Again, the Court refused to accept that proposed test.

     Although, few people are fans of dog fighting or animal cruelty, the issues in this case
were totally First Amendment based.  Is the government going to be given the power to decide
what adults should or should not view?  Was the government going to be given the power to
curtail the speech even if it was distasteful?  In a ringing endorsement for the First Amendment,
the Supreme Court in an eight to one decision held no.

     The test that the United States Government propounded,  could be applied to other First
Amendment situations and certainly the adult entertainment industry.  Rather, than having to rely
on obscenity as the basis for curtailment of adult films and adult freedoms, should the Court have
adopted the test, that the United States Government was propounding in this situation, a new test
as to what adults would be allowed to view could have been created.  In this test, community
standards would have been thrown out and been replaced with simply a purely subjective test that
harm to society was greater than the value of the speech.

     This case was a great victory for the First Amendment.  Remember, that the First
Amendment protects unpopular speech as much as popular speech.  Popular speech does not
need protections as it is popular and therefore welcome.  But it is the unpopular speech that must
be protected in order that we all will always have the right to speak when we deem it appropriate
regardless of whether the majority believes that it is right or wrong or it is popular.

     Lastly, the Court's ruling that the Statute was overbroad was another victory for the First
Amendment.  Overbreath is a theory of the law that allows one whose speech is clearly covered
by a statute to contest that statute's constitutionality based upon the fact that others may not
speak for fear that their constitutional speech could fall under the reach of the statute.  Under that
scenario, speech would be silenced because of fear, not because it was illegal.

     Over the past decades the Courts have been retreating from the overbreadth doctrine,
trying to find ways around it.  The Steven's decision breaths new life into overbreadth, one of the
greatest tools to secure your First Amendment freedoms.

     It looks like the new hot spot and battle ground for First Amendment freedoms and adult
entertainment rights is going to be the State of Kansas.  The Legislature for the State of Kansas
has flirted with a Bill for several years that would regulate adult entertainment in numerous
fashions.  For example, it would require adult entertainment establishments to have certain hours
of operation,  more restrictive than the present.  It would prohibit nudity in adult dance clubs and
require distance separations from dancers who are seminude and patrons.  It also would affect
adult bookstores, including viewing booths and manners of operation.

In addition to the hours of operation and restrictions inside the club, the Kansas
Legislation would also require distance separations from adult establishments and schools,
churches and other sensitive receptors.  In essence, the Kansas Legislation is designed to put a
stake in the heart of First Amendment freedoms and adult entertainment within the State of
Kansas. 

Last month, Daniel Aaronson, Dr. Judith Hanna and Jeff Levy were asked to travel to
Kansas by the Equal Entertainment Group, Inc. in order to present testimony before a committee
of the House of Representatives.  The nature of the testimony was to impart to this committee
why this Bill should not get out of committee and not go to the House of Representative's floor.

Dr. Judith Hanna spoke about the aspects of modern dance and nude dancing being a
communicative message.  She highlighted how nude dance and the need for nudity is part of
expression.

Jeff Levy testified as to other institutions causing more harm to children than does adult
entertainment establishments.  He further testified as to his experiences within the adult
entertainment industry and the thousands upon thousands of hours that he has spent in adult clubs
without observing the alleged horrors of adult entertainment.

Daniel Aaronson testified in response to some of the proponents who were for the Bill.
Specifically those proponents talked about the secondary effects caused by adult entertainment
and introduced into the record the reports from Dr. Richard McLeary and testimony of attorney
Scott Bergthold.

Mr. Aaronson pointed out that much of the testimony presented by the proponents of the
bill was inaccurate.  He pointed out that Kansas being in the  Tenth Circuit and the leading case
within that Circuit Court of Appeals would indicate that the State's endeavor may be
unconstitutional.  He further testified as to the fact that both Dr. McCleary and Mr. Bergthold
painted pictures of the ease that these type of bills are held to be constitutional is not in actuality
the case.  In fact, Mr. Aaronson was able to point out cases both in the Tenth Circuit and the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in which Dr. McCleary's methodology and testimony was
basically called junk science and Mr. Bergthold's advocacy of the same defeated.

Daniel Aaronson also discussed the cost of this legislation to the State.  He pointed out
the jobs that would be lost and the cost to the State to defend the Bill.

There were several adult dancers who testified also.  They were by and large articulate,
well-mannered and intelligent.  Yet their reception by some of the members of the committee
was less than cordial, with one Holier than Thou Representative questioning how a woman could
be naked in front of strange men.

At the close of the hearing, it appeared that the chance was there that this Bill would
again be killed in committee.  However, apparently some of the religious zealots on the
committee were not going to allow that to be the case.  One week after the committee held its
hearings, the Bill made it out of committee and was approved by the House of Representatives as
a whole..

The amazing aspect of this Bill is that the committee did not have evidence that the
twenty-five or so adult clubs in the State caused any adverse secondary effects.  Rather, the Bill
seemed to take on life as its sponsor has plans to be the next Attorney General of the State.

The Bill is now currently in front of the State Senate where it certainly is hoped that it
will die.  Unfortunately, with the momentum from the House of Representatives vote, we can
only cross our fingers, hold our breath and hope that the Senate does the right thing.  If it is
passed, more than likely the Equal Entertainment Group, Inc. will gather forces together and
challenge the law.  In addition to the fact that the Bill is not sustained by a showing of adverse
secondary effects and does not further a substantial governmental interest, the Bill also has
several internal flaws that are ripe for constitutional challenge.  It is much better that the Bill is
not passed than challenges made in Court.  However, this legislation is ripe for challenge and the
Equal Entertainment Group, Inc. seems to have the will to make that challenge.

     The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press along with
other freedoms.  Yet, there has always been a conflict between freedom of speech and freedom of
the press and our educational system.  For example, does freedom of speech allow a student to
say whatever he or she wants to say in class and disrupt that class?  Does freedom of the press
allow a student to pass out handbills in the classroom denigrating the teacher and the teacher's
message?  Does the school newspaper have the right to criticize the administration of that
school? 

On one hand freedom of speech would dictate the right of the student or the student
newspaper to challenge those in power and to point out the failings of the teacher or the
administration.  On the other hand orderly conduct and cohesiveness are essential to the public
education system.  As to what goes on, on campus, the courts have routinely sided the mandate of
the educational system to provide education over the rights of the dissenting students to dissent
on campus and in school related media.  There are always some exceptions.

However, a few years ago a high school student in the State of Florida set up her
facebook page with criticisms of one of her teachers.  Because of those criticisms, she was
suspended from school.  The offending language on her facebook page was simply "Ms. Sarah
Phelps is the worst teacher I ever met".  She further provided on that facebook page "those select
students who have had the displeasure of having Ms. Sarah Phelps, or simply knowing her and
her insane antics: here is the place to express your feelings of hatred.".

Apparently Ms. Phelps was not as unpopular as the student Katherine Evans thought.
Three people responded to her facebook page criticizing her and supporting the teacher.  After
that, Evans removed the page.

Because of this transgression, Ms. Evans was suspended for three days although she had
been an honor student.  Her behavior was classified as disruptive.  She was also removed from
her advance placement classes and put in regular classes.  Being put in regular classes instead of
advanced placement classes would have affected her GRADE POINT AVERAGE along with
making her credentials less attractive to colleges.  This could have had a profound effect on her
future.

Last month, U.S. Magistrate Barry Garber ruled that Ms. Evans' First Amendment
constitutional rights had been violated by the school and has allowed her lawsuit against the
school to move forward.  The ruling was based upon the fact that Ms. Evans' conduct was
outside of the classroom, did not disrupt the activities of the classroom and was not dangerous
conduct.  Ms. Evans is not seeking substantial damages but only to have her named clear, her
suspension removed from her file and to have her rights vindicated.

This case points out that just because one is a student that student does not lose their
constitutional rights.  It further points out that the arm of the school or the jurisdiction of the
school does not always follow that student home.  In this case, this was a student using a social
networking system to express her views.  It was not done on school time and only stated the
student's opinion.  Even students have the right to have an opinion about those that teach them.
If Ms. Evans' conduct was not constitutionally protected, would then a student talking to another
student about their beliefs in the inadequacies or the unfairness of the teacher subject that student
to school sanctions?  Wouldn't it create a society where all students had to say that their teachers
were the best or say nothing at all?  In our society we value opinions and the right to voice them
as much as any value that we have.  Schools that are in the business of opening minds should not
be in the business of taking away that same openness if they do not like what is said or heard.

On a larger scale, this opinion protects conversations by students off campus.   It
separates when a student is a student with limitations to when a student is entitled to all their
constitutional rights.

On another note, by the time you have read this, Daniel Aaronson will have given his
presentation in San Antonio, Texas at the First Amendment Lawyers' Association meeting.
Along with Allen Rubin from Michigan, Mr. Aaronson will discuss sex trafficking; harboring,
human trafficking and other forced labor issues as they relate to adult entertainment.

In addition, to the topic above, there will be presentations on zoning and licensing of
adult establishments, obscenity prosecutions; 2257 requirements; and a whole host of other First
Amendment and adult entertainment related topics.  In our next article, we will bring you up to
date on the current trends in these areas and inform you of the cutting edge law in these realms. 

     The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, expression, along with freedom of the
press.  Since the advent of the electronic media, radio, television and the like have been given by
and large the same protections and freedoms.  In a venue where one would expect that there
would be First Amendment protections for mass media television and other video
communications, that being in Federal Courthouses, and more specifically federal courtrooms,
there actually is not. 

Although almost all of the States have made allowance for television cameras to be in the
courtroom, the Federal Courts have not made the same provision.  Until recently no cameras
were allowed in United States District Courts, (the trial court level).  The appellate court level,
that being the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals had the vast majority opposed to allowing
cameras in their courtrooms and only two of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals allow
cameras.  The Supreme Court of the United States have blanketly rejected cameras in their
courtroom.

There are many philosophies as to why cameras should not be allowed in the courtrooms
in the Federal system.  Some Supreme Court Justices, enunciated that it was their belief that
putting cameras in a courtroom makes the courtroom into a show and therefore distracts from
justice.  Others have argued that cameras in the courtroom affects the accused's right to get a fair
trial and his right to get a fair trial is paramount.  As has been said, most of the States have
allowed cameras in the courtrooms for a number of years without justice breaking down.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit which encompasses most of our western States including the
State of California has chosen to implement on a trial basis a procedure where non-jury trials
involving civil matters would be videoed.  The procedure requires the head of that particular
District within the Ninth Circuit along with the trial judge to decide on a case by case basis
whether or not this is a trial that should be videoed.

Last month, in San Francisco U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that video
cameras would be allowed in his courtroom during the trial of the Proposition 8 matter in his
courtroom.  The Proposition 8 matter is a trial involving an attempt by gays and lesbians and
their supporters to show that they and other minorities suffer from prejudice and bigotry that
requires a remedy from the Courts.  Proposition 8 a law voted on in California outlawed same
sex marriages along with  curtailment of other liberties for gays and lesbians.

Before the case could be started, Judge Walker's decision to allow cameras in his
courtroom and a live internet feed  was struck down by the United States Supreme Court.  The
Court ruled 5 to 4 that they worried that opponents of gay marriage and their paid witnesses
would be subjected to "harassment as a result of public disclosure of their support" for
Proposition 8.  They further went on in support of the injunction against cameras in the
courtroom to say that Proposition 8 defenders had shown "irreparable harm" will likely result "if
the trial had been broadcasted".

This ruling may be sending a signal that obviously the Supreme Court of the United
States most likely is not in favor of gay marriages or at a minimum believes that each State has
the right to decide this on their own.   Their decision remarkably points out fears of one side and
possible subject to ridicule because of their support on the ban of gay marriages and does not
point out the same fear for those who support gay marriages.  Yet gay bashing has been going on
for centuries.  Anti-gay bashing is a phenomenon that has yet to rear its head.

Whether one supports gay marriages or not, one must concede gays have been subject to
harassment, ridicule and unequal treatment in this country from its inception.  Openly gay and
lesbian soldiers are not permitted to serve in the military.

It seems somewhat hypocritical and almost laughable at the Supreme Court's lack of
sensitivity towards gays and lesbians and yet it is worried about possible harassment of those
who keep gays down and if attempts to keep gays from having equal rights are exposed.  In
essence, they feel that they must protect the oppressor in their desire to oppress rather than
shedding light on those who are oppressed. 

If the Supreme Court's logic holds true, nothing can be discussed in the open.  There
always will be two sides to an argument.  There will always be some who may believe that they
should harass or intimidate somebody for their views.  Somehow, the Supreme Court believes
those who have views against the equality of gays and lesbians need to be protected more than
those who have views on the other side.

The Supreme Court's opinion also fails to take in account of the fact that those who will
testify in this matter will have their names revealed, at least in the print media.  Those who will
testify in this Proposition 8 trial more than likely have already espoused their views in public.
The Supreme Court's opinion takes away First Amendment rights from all of us because it
believes a select few might be harmed.  Although the minority always needs to be protected, it
can not come at the expense of the First Amendment.  The only time that there is even an
argument that the First Amendment must take a back seat is when it effects an accused right to a
fair trial.  In this matter there was no accused and the issue of a fair trial was not the basis of the
Supreme Court's ruling.

Well it has almost been a year since President Barack Obama was sworn into office.  As the First President of the United States who is not a member of the White Male Only Men’s Club, many of us thought that the change in this Country would be sweeping and that we were entering into a new era, one unchartered, with monumental changes. 

Those on the political right were scared, “what has happened to this great Country, where will it go”?  Those on the political left waited with anticipation that a new vibrant America, one without social injustices and an era where the United States would once again rise up to be the envy of all the world would come forth.  Yet, after a year in office the fears of the right have not come to pass and the hopes of the left remain unfilled. 

Some on the left thought that with the election of Barack Obama that the political abuses, governmental abuses of the Bush Administration would be rectified immediately and there would be a reformation in justice in this Country.  Yet, that has not come about.  Numerous United States Attorneys throughout the Country, who were Bush appointees, still remain at their posts.  Countless Federal Judgeships remain vacant and the Justice Department keeps ticking the way it did under the Bush Administration.

One example that illustrates this best is the case of Governor Don Siegleman from the State of Alabama. Governor Siegleman was prosecuted by the Busch Justice Department on basically trumped up charges.  One of the most conservative Courts in the Country, that being the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction.  The overturning of his conviction was a sign that even the most of conservative judges thought that Busch Justice Department was being used as a political tool.  One used for political retribution to unseat a governor and indict and convict him on criminal charges.

Yet, just recently, the Obama Justice Department filed a brief with the United States Supreme Court in the Siegleman matter.  Instead of acknowledging the wrongs of the Siegleman prosecution which was pointed out by not only the 11^th Circuit but by 60 Minutes and other news organizations, the Obama Justice Department filed its brief in support of the Siegleman conviction.  Under the Obama Justice Department, injustice in this Country seems to be the same as under Bush.

The corruption and malfeasance of the banking sector along with the insurance companies and other economic engines of this Country, many expected when Obama became President would be righted.  The hundreds of billions of dollars that were given to the banks as bailouts and economic incentives under the Bush Administration that seemed to go nowhere, still seem to go nowhere.  Loans are just as hard to get and the banks seem to do just what they want to do like they always have done.  The economy still lags and jobs are still hard to find.  Hopes that Obama would bring new prosperity seem to dwindle with every day. 

 As to the war in Iraq, the only thing that really has changed is that the war in Afghanistan has gotten worse and therefore has usurped it on the media’s front pages.  Iraq is no more functional under Obama that it was under Bush.  The Iraqi Government is no more truly viable than it was a year ago.  Differences between Sunni’s, Shites, Kurds, still remain.  The only thing that has changed is that we don’t hear about it as much.  That is more an indictment on our attention spans than it is an acknowledgment of success under Obama.

In Afghanistan, the war seems to be getting worse.  It was getting worse under Bush, but we were so wrapped up in Iraq that Afghanistan had only become a foot note.  Rather than getting us out of Afghanistan, 40,000 more troops will be pouring into that Country.  Afghanistan has become Iraq and Iraq is becoming Afghanistan. One gets put in the front seat while the other one gets put in the back seat.  However, perilous situations in both countries remain the same.

Maybe it was too much to ask for one person to make so much change in such a short time.  Maybe it was too much to ask to expect that one man’s idealism be the impetus for total change throughout our society.  Maybe it was too much to ask that the fervor in which he was elected would translate to getting everybody on board to make his dream a reality. Or maybe Barack Obama is no different that every other politician.  They get your hopes up, they sell you a bill of goods, they make you believe that they are larger than life, and simply they don’t deliver.  

     Last month, Daniel Aaronson  flew up to New Jersey to speak in front of the New Jersey
Adult Cabaret Association (NJACA).  Along with Daniel Aaronson, Brad Shafer from Michigan
another First Amendment attorney  and attorney John Williams from New Jersey were the guest
speakers.  Although Jeff Levy, the Executive Director of the NJACA, sent out countless notices
of this event, the event still drew the usual players, the ones who are truly interested in the
NJACA and the ones who care about their and your First Amendment and adult freedoms. 

There were club owners from all the various parts of the State of New Jersey in
attendance.  But, to our dismay there were very few fresh faces in the audience.  Our industry
suffers from the belief that the Big Boys, the ones with the big clubs will fight our battles and
protect us from the government and others who are trying to put down and destroy our industry.
Although these big boys have stepped up to the plate countless times, they can't solely be relied
upon, and not just in New Jersey but in every State.   All of you small club owners must start
attending your State Chapter meetings and get involved in protecting your industry, your rights
and your First Amendment freedoms.

For those of you who were in attendance, we take our hats off to you.  For those of you
who were not in attendance, you missed some incredibly informative information.  For example:
Brad Shafer spoke for no less that forty-five minutes on the difference between dancers being
employees, independent contractors, licensees, or some other form of agreement to dance.  His
knowledge of the different tax ramifications and how the IRS views each classification is
unparalleled nationwide.  Mr. Shafer presented a power point lecture that was worth thousands of
dollars of advice for those who attended.

As part of his presentation, Mr. Shafer explained the different tests used by the IRS and
State governments in determining what to classify your dancer as.  He pointed out the little things
that could persuade a Judge, if necessary, that your dancers fall into one category as opposed to
the other.  He highlighted some common misconceptions and pitfalls that our industry falls into
when having dancers dance at a club.

John Williams, Esq. made the State of the Organization's Address.  He talked about some
recent decisions in New Jersey affecting the State and how those decisions affected adult
entertainment within New Jersey.  Mr. Williams is counsel is counsel for the NJACA.

Daniel Aaronson was the last to speak.  Mr. Aaronson's presentation dealt with United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  He also spoke about amendments to
legislation in New Jersey that the NJACA was instrumental in getting passed, along with updates
and some of the cases that he is handling within the State.

As to ICE, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Aaronson
pointed out that they have targeted the adult entertainment industry as a source of human
trafficking and sex trafficking.  He informed the members in attendance that ICE believes that
our industry is a source of "harboring" which under one provision of the U.S. Code carries up to
twenty years in prison and under another provision carries up to ten years in prison.

The essence of the crime of "harboring" is knowing that someone is illegal and using
them for commercial gain or if you are talking about human trafficking, knowing that they are
being forced or coerced to work in your club against their will.  As to what kind of knowledge is
necessary, Mr. Aaronson pointed out that ICE looks at a standard of "should have known".  That
if there was evidence that then you should have realized that the person was being forced or
coerced to work for you,  that maybe enough for the charge of "harboring".

As to the harboring charge, dealing with somebody who is illegally in this country and
using them for commercial gain, someone can be here for legal purposes for one reason and be
illegal for another.  For example, someone here on a tourist visa might not have the right to work
and therefore employing them is technically "harboring".

Along with the criminal penalties, Mr. Aaronson also informed that there are forfeiture
penalties and civil penalties ranging from $110.00 to $1,100.00  per violation.  Depending on the
nature of the violation, the government could choose to go either criminal or civil.

Lastly, Mr. Aaronson spoke about the requirements of I-9 form for those that are working
at your club who are not American citizens and whether they are needed for those who dance at
your club, who are independent contractors or licensees.  Also mentioned was our industry's
efforts to reach out to ICE and where those efforts are going.

Again, there was a tremendous amount of information imparted.  Those who were not in
attendance missed out on a great opportunity to be educated, informed and support the industry.
Whether it is New Jersey, Florida, or any other State in this country when you hear of meeting
involving your adult entertainment association, it is time for you to start to attend.  Not only will
you end up being educated, but you will make our industry stronger and as they say "united we
stand, divided we fall".

In mid October the US House of Representatives passed a bill that included sexual orientation in the expanded Federal Hate Crimes Laws.  The Senate is expected soon to go along with the House of Representatives in including sexual orientation as a basis for those crimes.  Religious conservatives appear to be opposed to the new bill based upon their comments.

 The bill is named after Matthew Sheppard, who was beaten to death in Wyoming over a decade ago because he was gay.  If you remember he was attached to a fence and passersbys for a number of days thought he was a scarecrow.  The bill is also being named after James Byrd who also over a decade ago was killed by a gang of white men who tied him to a pickup truck and dragged him behind the vehicle. 

Laws such as these cause First Amendment advocates great quandary. On one hand most of us sympathize with the victims of these crimes and certainly ideologically find nothing in common with the oppressors.  Morally we find it reprehensible that somebody could be targeted because they are either black or gay and believe that all people should be treated equally regardless of their race, color, creed, religion or sexual orientation.

On the other hand, the most common way to prove a hate crime is by the words spoken by the assailant.  For example: if one person is walking down the street and another attacks that person the crime maybe a battery or an aggravated battery.  The motivation for that attack could be money, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or any amount of myriad possibilities.  However, if an assailant throws out terms such as “dirty Jew”, “faggot”, “nigger” or any other same type of bias remarks then that assault could be classified as a hate crime and the sentence could be much more severe.  In both instances, the victim has received the same amount of damage.  In both cases the motivation may be the same, the only difference is that in the latter situation the use of words have also been spoken.  Therefore, from a First Amendment standpoint free expression is being penalized and in fact expression is being criminalized.

Again on the other side, is the thought that the assailant is not being punished for those words that he has spoken but rather is being punished because his motivation is based upon a hatred for a group that has every right to exist peacefully in this Country without being singled out.  The fact that he has uttered those words only makes it easier to prosecute that hate crime, but it is the motivation to deprive somebody of peaceful dignity because of who they are that is adding to the severity of the prosecution.  Those same advocates would argue that there could be other factors other than speech or written or spoken words that could lend itself to the added hate crimes prosecution.  They would argue that speech is not an essential element. 

This argument belies the fact that almost any type of indicator of a hate crime relies on the assailants no matter what form it may come, expression of his feelings and beliefs.  And in this Country we all have the right to like, dislike or even hate someone or anything that we choose.  Is this in fact the essence of a free society?  However, not only do hate crimes base their prosecution on someone for expressing or speaking their mind, but they also in essence make it a crime to exercise one’s choice of who they like and who they dislike.  Remember regardless if one likes or dislikes someone the assault is still the assault, the battery is still the battery and the punishment is still there for the violation of the law regardless of the hate crime. 

It can be argued that hate crime prosecutions by the very nature diminish crimes that are committed for other reasons.  Someone who is beaten up and robbed of their life savings becomes less of a victim than someone who is beaten up and robbed of a piddling amount of money because they fit in one of the classifications that renders it a hate crime.  In both situations there has been a robbery.  In both situations there has been a beating.  In one situation the person’s dreams and goals may have been taken from them.  In the other situation the motivation would fit into a hate crimes category.  Shouldn’t equal justice demand that like crimes and like victims are treated the same and not lessen the severity of the crime because it is not based upon hate?

In essence, a thrill seeker who commits a crime for the adrenaline of it without regard to whom his victim is, is elevated in our society although he may be the true psychopath while the calculating aggressor who has chosen to hate for whatever reason is looked upon more egregiously.  In this scenario the person who is a danger to all is punished more lightly than one who is a danger to some.  Therefore have we not singled out a class for more protection, which hardly seems just.  Equal crimes deserve equal punishment regardless of the motivation.

Sometimes we disagree with each other.  Daniel Aaronson authored the words above.  Jamie Benjamin does not totally agree.  He believes that if the person who is the victim became that victim because of the victims status, then the person committing the crime should be punished more severely than if the motivation was not related to the status.  If a gay person is beat up just because he is gay, that is more serious than of a person who is beat up because of anger, retaliation, money or those common place reasons. 

It is a good thing to criminalize crimes that occur simply because of the “hate” of the status of a victim.  It punishes people who victimize others just because of who they are and not what they did.  It is a good thing for our society as a whole.