An old court case

[unitednudist]

While surfing across the web I found an article about an appeal that concerns 264 nudist magazines that were imported to the United States from France and Germany. The issue on appeal is whether those magazines are obscene and are therefore subject to seizure and forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. S 1305. The District Court found that the magazines were obscene and ordered their forfeiture. The full Case is posted online...click here (http://www.nudistlaw.com/Court%20Cases.htm). I wanted to hear other's views on this court case. For those that are interested in law the home page for an organization devoted to Nudist / Naturist law can be found by clicking HERE (http://www.nudistlaw.com/).

[Bob S.]

I actually visited the Alessandra's Smile site many years ago and can tell you that it did pander to the prurient interest. The layout of what was sold focused on children in nudism. Jung und Frei magazines that were seized were French magazines that featured children and teens in nudism. I can't say that I was upset to see it shut down.

But the magazines in question were not obscene in any way to the nudist eye that I can recall. Other things that were sold by AS could have been defined as obscene, but I can't recall exactly what else they sold.

Bob S.

[unitednudist]

Thanks for the info, I did not realize that it was any thing focused on children.

[DKirkpatrick]

While surfing across the web I found an article about an appeal that concerns 264 nudist magazines that were imported to the United States from France and Germany. The issue on appeal is whether those magazines are obscene and are therefore subject to seizure and forfeiture under 19 U.S.C. S 1305. The District Court found that the magazines were obscene and ordered their forfeiture. The full Case is posted online...click here (http://www.nudistlaw.com/Court%20Cases.htm). I wanted to hear other's views on this court case. For those that are interested in law the home page for an organization devoted to Nudist / Naturist law can be found by clicking HERE (http://www.nudistlaw.com/).


The Naturist Action Committee's state law links are a major source at this site. You can go directly there at http://www.naturistaction.org .

Before I reference "NudistLaw" I'd like to know who operates it, and under what authority the site is operated, and if the person is well-versed in issues facing naturism. Much can be assumed from some of the link adverts appearing there. Since the domain WHOIS registration data is masked, I reserve comment.

----

Ob - I am not an attorney.

The 3rd Circuit case being referenced here was not exactly a case that naturists would want to be associated with. However, we are in a manner of speaking.

The owner of Allesandra Smile web site was previously convicted of a CP offense, served time, and upon returning to society established that web site that operated at best on the edge of the law. There is no doubt in my mind that this was observed by law enforcement and they were simply waiting for the right time to pounce.

Since the arrest that web site has left the net and has not returned.

Additional titles beyond Jeung et Frei" (young and free) which featured mostly nudist children were not the sole titles being confiscated, however as the decision found, none of the publications qualified as child porn.

In fact they were compared to a number of well-established nudist magazines published in the US and abroad during the case.

The major decision of interest that came out of that case was the judge ruled that nudist publications may qualify as political speech because they present a specific choice of living that is non-mainstream, and as a result are often at odds with government. As political speech therefore, the publications have a right to be published.

This reinforces the decision in the 1950s sometimes referred to as the Isley Boone case when early nudist publications were refused delivery by the postal service as obscene, but the Supreme Court ruled they were not and worthy of delivery by the postal service.

"Jeung et Frei" has also seen controversy in England. On two occasions those titles and several others were seized by the customs agents there and Tower Productions, a major supplier in Europe of nudist materials, was charged. On both occasions the courts dropped the charges finding the nudist materials were not CP.

An earlier 1st Circuit case in the US found that simple nudity is not CP, but that the image must be contextual. In other words nudity with a sexual message is CP and that the intent of the photographer has to be considered. It is insufficient that the observer may see a sexual message in simple nudity. Paraphrasing one judge, a pedophile may see sexual content in the Sunday newspaper adverts that feature children, or the underwear adverts in a Sears Catalog or similar. As such you cannot censor all materials that a pedophile may find stimulating.

At the same time it was also reinforced that any sexual message involving children, even when fully clothed *may* qualify as CP. The courts left the decisions open-ended so as to allow any future cases to be subject to review since this is a subjective topic.

As an example, an image of a nude child making sand castles at a beach is not CP, however if you focus on the genitals, it is. Also, if a child were to be posed in Victoria's Secret wear and posed provocatively on a bed, even though otherwise fully clothed with necessary parts covered, may be CP as well.

In most instances of people being charged with CP these days, the offender has been involved in coercion of the subject to be photographed, or offered something in exchange for posing. These are specific offenses in most states, ie the "posing of a child in a state of nudity."

However, general activities at a nudist park would be exempt. The problem often at the forefront is that not all prosecutors or police departments understand these extremely fine points of law.

Similarly, mandated reporters (teachers, clergy, medical staff, and in some states printers and photo developers) are also not trained or versed in these points, often leading to confusion and unnecessary arrests.

Naturism, sometimes carries risk. In a more perfect society that would not be the case.

[DKirkpatrick]

But the magazines in question were not obscene in any way to the nudist eye that I can recall. Other things that were sold by AS could have been defined as obscene, but I can't recall exactly what else they sold.
Bob S.

A/S never sold anything specifically illegal from my memory of the case. They did however venture dangerously on the edge.

One publication offered was "Unnatural Desires" (best rememberance of the title here) which was somewhat of a newsletter of interest to the pedo trend, if I remember right. However text publications, while controversial or downright sicko, still get press protections.

I suspect that this much alone was enough to make the police react with J&F as part and parcel.

And once the arrest is in effect, you confiscate the computers and the mail list of people making purchases and subscriptions which in turn can then be subject of further investigation.

Best guess is that mail list was profitable to law enforcement in their quest for the bad guy.