MMC 4200 EXAM 3 VERIFIED QUESTIONS
COMPLETE WITH 100% CORRECT
ANSWERS
\.Ira Isaacs Case Facts - ANSWERS✔--Federal Jury in LA convicted adult filmmaker
on multiple accounts of obscenity for distributing on his website fetish films that
featured Scatology and bestiality
-filmmaker testified that his movies were a form of "shock art" that merely
"explored the darker side of the human condition."
\.Ira Isaacs Case Ruling - ANSWERS✔--In 2013, the 61-year-old filmmaker was
sentenced to 4 years in Federal Prison
-By 2017, this case was the last major federal obscenity prosecution in the U.S.
\.What are the main reasons there hasn't been an obscenity prosecution since
2013? - ANSWERS✔-1) Mainstreaming popularity of adult content, which makes it
harder to win an obscenity conviction
2) Obama administration's decision to focus its resources on prosecuting child
pornography rather than obscenity cases
3) the fact that large-scale producers of adult content in the U.S. know what kind
of content not to show to avoid prosecutions
\.Obscenity cases are often driven by... - ANSWERS✔-political motives
,\.Lawrence Walters & "War on Porn" - ANSWERS✔-First Amendment defense
attorney (LW) observed in 2016 that the "War on Porn" simply has shifted and
rebranded as a "War on Sex Trafficking" with sites such as Backpage drawing
lawmakers' wrath for supposedly promoting minors in Prostitution through
"escort" ads
\.Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act - ANSWERS✔--War on sex trafficking
-Many underage girls being advertised for trafficking on the website (Backpage)
-CDA in 1996 (Communications Decency Act) section 230 provides broad
immunity for online service providers, like Backpage, from content generated
from third parties
-Backstage was just a host
-This was allowed because the internet was slowly developing and the
government did not want to hinder the development of the internet
-States couldn't go over Backpage because Backpage itself did not generate the
content
-Congress says this is wrong because it allows for sexual trafficking to occur
-Gets rid of CDA section 230 in some circumstances
-Makes it a criminal offense for owning, managing and operating an interactive
service if they do so with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of a
person
-If you act in reckless disregard to stop the sex traffic, you get in even more
trouble
-Congress decided to pass this law
,\.Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States - ANSWERS✔--Case on the fight
against online sex trafficking
-Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue
-Challenged FOSTA
-Argument that it harmed sex workers because it has a reverse effect for not
allowing sex workers to advertise on the internet, they have to go out on the
streets to pimps, etc.
-Was supposed to be well intended but had repercussions
-Case is up on appeal now because Woodhull Freedom Foundation has no
standing to sue, they were not directly harmed by it
-Vagueness issue- what does it mean to "promote" or "facilitate" prostitution
-Reckless disregard
-Claim they have standing to sue now
\.an "intractable problem" - ANSWERS✔-How U.S. Supreme Court Justice John
Harlan described the regulation of sexually explicit speech in 1996 (Relating to the
Law of Obscenity)
\."Two important facts" on regulation of sexually explicit speech - ANSWERS✔-1)
The nation's high court made it clear more than 60 years ago in Roth v. U.S. that a
narrow category of sexually explicit speech called "obscenity" is NOT protected by
the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press
2) The Supreme Court articulated in 1973 in Miller v. California a test still used by
all courts for determining when speech is obscene
, \.5 Problems that exist today in regulating obscenity and sexually explicit speech -
ANSWERS✔-1) The Miller Obscenity Test leaves much wiggle room for
interpretation in its actual application by Judge and Juries; the test also embraces
the use of contemporary community standards that very from state to state, so
something could be protected in one state but not another
2) Technologies as well as cable and satellite TV services have made adult content
readily accessible
3) Some people feel that speech considered obscene under Miller nonetheless
deserves First Amendment protection; Not only is sexually explicit content an
incredibly popular form of entertainment, but evidence is inconsistent and
conflicting about whether viewing it really causes harm
4) There is a question of the inefficient use of scarce govt monetary resources in
prosecuting obscenity cases today when the content involves adults who freely
consented to take part in the activities shown - many feel there are greater
problems to worry about
5) There is a problem of dealing with sexually explicit content that may not quite
rise to the level of obscenity under Miller but that nonetheless is sexual and
broadcast over the nation's TV and radio airwaves
\.Pornography vs. Obscenity - ANSWERS✔-- Pornography is protected under first
amendment as "free speech" and does NOT have legal significance (commonly
misused as a catch-all term by laypeople)
- Obscenity is not protected and is a legal definition
\.Pornography Resolutions - ANSWERS✔--Becoming a big thing, we just passed
one in Florida
-Florida resolution stating that pornography is a health risk
COMPLETE WITH 100% CORRECT
ANSWERS
\.Ira Isaacs Case Facts - ANSWERS✔--Federal Jury in LA convicted adult filmmaker
on multiple accounts of obscenity for distributing on his website fetish films that
featured Scatology and bestiality
-filmmaker testified that his movies were a form of "shock art" that merely
"explored the darker side of the human condition."
\.Ira Isaacs Case Ruling - ANSWERS✔--In 2013, the 61-year-old filmmaker was
sentenced to 4 years in Federal Prison
-By 2017, this case was the last major federal obscenity prosecution in the U.S.
\.What are the main reasons there hasn't been an obscenity prosecution since
2013? - ANSWERS✔-1) Mainstreaming popularity of adult content, which makes it
harder to win an obscenity conviction
2) Obama administration's decision to focus its resources on prosecuting child
pornography rather than obscenity cases
3) the fact that large-scale producers of adult content in the U.S. know what kind
of content not to show to avoid prosecutions
\.Obscenity cases are often driven by... - ANSWERS✔-political motives
,\.Lawrence Walters & "War on Porn" - ANSWERS✔-First Amendment defense
attorney (LW) observed in 2016 that the "War on Porn" simply has shifted and
rebranded as a "War on Sex Trafficking" with sites such as Backpage drawing
lawmakers' wrath for supposedly promoting minors in Prostitution through
"escort" ads
\.Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act - ANSWERS✔--War on sex trafficking
-Many underage girls being advertised for trafficking on the website (Backpage)
-CDA in 1996 (Communications Decency Act) section 230 provides broad
immunity for online service providers, like Backpage, from content generated
from third parties
-Backstage was just a host
-This was allowed because the internet was slowly developing and the
government did not want to hinder the development of the internet
-States couldn't go over Backpage because Backpage itself did not generate the
content
-Congress says this is wrong because it allows for sexual trafficking to occur
-Gets rid of CDA section 230 in some circumstances
-Makes it a criminal offense for owning, managing and operating an interactive
service if they do so with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of a
person
-If you act in reckless disregard to stop the sex traffic, you get in even more
trouble
-Congress decided to pass this law
,\.Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States - ANSWERS✔--Case on the fight
against online sex trafficking
-Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue
-Challenged FOSTA
-Argument that it harmed sex workers because it has a reverse effect for not
allowing sex workers to advertise on the internet, they have to go out on the
streets to pimps, etc.
-Was supposed to be well intended but had repercussions
-Case is up on appeal now because Woodhull Freedom Foundation has no
standing to sue, they were not directly harmed by it
-Vagueness issue- what does it mean to "promote" or "facilitate" prostitution
-Reckless disregard
-Claim they have standing to sue now
\.an "intractable problem" - ANSWERS✔-How U.S. Supreme Court Justice John
Harlan described the regulation of sexually explicit speech in 1996 (Relating to the
Law of Obscenity)
\."Two important facts" on regulation of sexually explicit speech - ANSWERS✔-1)
The nation's high court made it clear more than 60 years ago in Roth v. U.S. that a
narrow category of sexually explicit speech called "obscenity" is NOT protected by
the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press
2) The Supreme Court articulated in 1973 in Miller v. California a test still used by
all courts for determining when speech is obscene
, \.5 Problems that exist today in regulating obscenity and sexually explicit speech -
ANSWERS✔-1) The Miller Obscenity Test leaves much wiggle room for
interpretation in its actual application by Judge and Juries; the test also embraces
the use of contemporary community standards that very from state to state, so
something could be protected in one state but not another
2) Technologies as well as cable and satellite TV services have made adult content
readily accessible
3) Some people feel that speech considered obscene under Miller nonetheless
deserves First Amendment protection; Not only is sexually explicit content an
incredibly popular form of entertainment, but evidence is inconsistent and
conflicting about whether viewing it really causes harm
4) There is a question of the inefficient use of scarce govt monetary resources in
prosecuting obscenity cases today when the content involves adults who freely
consented to take part in the activities shown - many feel there are greater
problems to worry about
5) There is a problem of dealing with sexually explicit content that may not quite
rise to the level of obscenity under Miller but that nonetheless is sexual and
broadcast over the nation's TV and radio airwaves
\.Pornography vs. Obscenity - ANSWERS✔-- Pornography is protected under first
amendment as "free speech" and does NOT have legal significance (commonly
misused as a catch-all term by laypeople)
- Obscenity is not protected and is a legal definition
\.Pornography Resolutions - ANSWERS✔--Becoming a big thing, we just passed
one in Florida
-Florida resolution stating that pornography is a health risk
