A Minnesota lawmaker wants state employees to stay out of hotels with violent porn while traveling for work.

A bill sponsored by Democratic Senator Tarryl Clark of St. Cloud could prohibit spending public dollars at in-state hotels or meeting facilities that provide their customers with pornographic materials that link sex with violence. Non-violent adult movies would be OK.

The bill gets a hearing in a Senate committee on Wednesday.

The Department of Administration would keep a directory of approved facilities to help employees plan travel.

Update: Unanimous

11th March 2010. Based on article from politicsinminnesota.com

A bill that would prohibit state employees and elected officials from spending public dollars at hotels that offer customers access to violent pornographic movies has passed unanimously out of a Senate committee.

The measure, introduced by Sen. Tarryl Clark, DFL-St. Cloud, cleared the Senate's State and Local Government Operation and Oversight Committee and will proceed directly to the floor.

The legislation allows for state employees to ignore the prohibition if there's no porn-free facility available. But they're required to provide a written explanation as to why they opted to stay in a hotel providing access to pornographic materials. The legislation defines that term as a sexually explicit image or performance that objectifies or exploits its subjects by eroticizing domination, degradation, or violence.

Only one person testified against the bill. Francis Jenkins White told legislators that sexual role play involving blindfolds or handcuffs is perfectly natural and should not be regulated in any way by the state. The bill is a classic case of trying to regulate someone's thoughts and desires, he said.

The only senator who expressed some misgivings about the legislation was Claire Robling, GOP-Jordan. She noted that pornography is all over the Internet and that the legislation would do little to limit access to such materials. Someone coming in with a computer could still be viewing it, Robling said.

The ongoing feud between brick-and-mortar video store owners and the DVD kiosk industry is heating up in one Indiana county, where retailers with Redbox and MovieCube kiosks have been told to remove all DVDs rated above G or face prosecution under state law.

Paul Black an attorney representing the owner of several area video stores, convinced the Vanderburgh County prosecuting attorney to send letters to roughly a dozen retailers with DVD kiosks earlier this year, telling them to stop providing access to videos, movies, games, etc. that contain an R or PG rating or are unrated.

The letter goes on to warn that the county sheriff's office will follow up to see that your kiosks no longer contain these videos which are prohibited to be disseminated to minors. The letters site Indiana state law, which calls for class D felony charges against a person who knowingly or intentionally disseminates matter to minors that is harmful to minors.

We asked the local prosecuting attorney to look into whether these kiosks could possibly violate state law, Black said. We're not on a particular crusade...BUT...you can just walk up to any of these kiosks and rent adult material. There's a danger in availability. We card people in liquor stores, minors don't have access to cigarette machines. This is a level playing field issue.

First, overall, we have clear processes in place to restrict the rental of DVDs to the appropriate age of consumer, and we believe our kiosks are being operated in full compliance with the law, said NCR spokesman Jeff Dudash. The kiosks are operated consistent with the industrywide practices for DVD vending kiosks all over the United States.

Gary Cohen, SVP of marketing and customer experience for Redbox said: Confirmation of age is a requirement of Redbox, he said. When renting a movie from Redbox, customers must confirm they are 18 years of age or older with a valid debit or credit card.

In the event a customer selects an 'R'-rated title, the customer must confirm they are 18 years of age to proceed with their rental. Whether renting movies online, from a kiosk, from a store or purchasing content from the Web, parental supervision is the most important factor in entertainment access and selection.

Cohen also noted that the courts have uniformly ruled that attempts to restrict rentals based on Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) ratings violate the First Amendment.

Cops ordered a New Jersey family to cover up their snowlady after receiving a complaint that the frosty front yard figure was X-rated.

While neighboring snowmen were allowed to flaunt their nudity with coal-eyed jauntiness, Elisa Gonzalez and her kids heeded the warning from the police.

They dressed their controversial snowlady in a green bikini top and hip-hiding blue sarong.

I thought she looked more objectified and sexualized after you put the bikini on, Gonzalez, 44, of Rahway told the Newark Star-Ledger.

Gonzalez, a court reporter, said her family's twist on the favorite winter pastime was influenced by the armless ancient Greek statue Venus de Milo. She admits the snowbabe was curvaceous, bodacious and booty-licious - but hardly obscene.

Rahway police received an anonymous complaint of a naked snow woman and dispatched an officer to Gonzalez's Colonia Blvd. home to investigate. Gonzalez said the cop who came to her house said, It's very good, adding that the cop was apologetic about asking her to tone down the display.

The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) sent a letter to Temecula, California, City Management protesting the censorship of an artwork to be displayed at a city-owned gallery.

Jeff Hebron's painting, which had been selected for inclusion in Visual Expressions 2010, was removed from the exhibition because it depicted a nude figure.

I am writing on behalf of the National Coalition Against Censorship, an alliance of over 50 national non-profit organizations united in defense of free expression, regarding the removal of Jeff Hebron's work from Visual Expressions 2010. The removal of the artwork from an exhibition at the gallery of The Merc, a city-owned theater and gallery space, raises serious First Amendment concerns. We urge the City to apologize for removing Mr. Hebron's work and to draft exhibition policies that are consistent with First Amendment principles.

It is our understanding that Mr. Hebron's work, which had been selected for inclusion in Visual Expressions 2010 based on its artistic merit, was removed from the exhibition upon a request by the City Management. Apparently, according to the City Management, a painting of a nude figure does not belong in a gallery where families with children may come.

It is not the role of a public official to shield the eyes of the public from work because he subjectively decides it is not family-friendly. As a public gallery, the gallery at The Merc is governed by the free speech clause in the First Amendment, meaning that the selection of art in the gallery should be based on viewpoint-neutral criteria such as creative excellence, cultural significance and intellectual richness. The arbitrary, subjective, and vague determination of what might be appropriate for the venue has led in this case to the impermissible imposition of an individual's viewpoint on the whole community and is likely to be found in violation of First Amendment principles.

Simple nudity is not sufficient ground for excluding artwork from public exhibition. If it were, a vast amount of great art, including masterpieces like Michelangelo's David, would be off limits.

....

We urge you to reconsider your decision in this matter and make it clear to the public – through a carefully drafted policy – that work like the one you recently censored will be allowed in future exhibitions at the gallery at The Merc and other City venues.

Svetlana Mintcheva Director of Programs National Coalition Against Censorship

Update: Temecula does not believe in censorship...BUT...

28th February 2010.  Based on article from swrnn.com

After days of silence, the city of Temecula has accepted responsibility for the removal of a nude oil portrait from the Visual Expressions 2010 exhibit at The Merc in Old Town. Jeff Hebron's nude oil portrait was removed from the Visual Expressions 2010 exhibit at The Merc by Temecula city officials because of concern that children would view it.

Temecula Mayor Jeff Comerchero said that Temecula artist Jeff Hebron was sent a letter of apology in which the city expressed remorse for the withdrawal last month of Hebron's nude oil portrait from the exhibit.

The city's not in the censorship business, he said:...BUT...neither does the city want the reputation of exposing children to art that's not appropriate.

SWRNN obtained a copy of the letter that was signed by the mayor. In it Comerchero said, On behalf of the City of Temecula, I wish to apologize to you for the removal of your art work.

Hebron said that he was aware that a letter of apology was offered by the city and that he was overwhelmed and thrilled at the gesture: It was never my intention to make the city look bad, but the First Amendment is important. We're Americans. All I am asking for is the chance for people to see my art and let them make their own judgments, Hebron said.

Trailers for upcoming teen super hero movie, Kiss-Ass, have been published on the internet with a red-band notional over 17 age verification check.

Scott Mendelson, film critic of huffingtonpost.com, reports

My take is the whole manufactured controversy over Lionsgate's red-band Kick-Ass trailers is pretty simple. At the end of the day, trailers are supposed to give you an accurate look at what kind of movie you're going to be seeing. Granted, not every trailer accomplishes this, and many are quite deceptive, but that's the general idea. At the end of the day, red-band trailers for R-rated movies are more likely to be accurate in regards to tone and content than an all-ages green-band trailer. So, one could argue, that studios make red-band trailers to best advertise the kind of movie that they are selling. And, they do take certain steps to make sure that said previews are not easily viewed by those who otherwise wouldn't be allowed to see such films. Of course kids will invariably get around these barriers, but that's the nature of childhood.

But here's the issue: Let's say that Lionsgate didn't put out these R-rated trailers, specifically for a film that could easily be advertised as a family-friendly PG-13 superhero comedy about teenagers becoming costumed vigilantes. Frankly, profanity and violence aside, the film feels aimed at ten-year old boys anyway. Which is why, slight digression, even if it's as stupid as it looks, I'll probably be less offended by it than Wanted, which presumed itself to be intelligent, quasi-feminist, adult entertainment. Anyway, we all know that even with these trailers available online, there are still going to be any number of clueless parents who take their kids to see Kick-Ass over opening weekend fully expecting a feel-good teen comedy variation on Spider-Man. It happened with South Park: Bigger Longer Uncut and it'll happen here too.

Interesting to note the 11 year old using 'fuck' and 'cunt' in the trailer and also to ponder about adult versus child comic book violence.

The BBFC have gone with an uncut 15 for Kick-Ass with the comment: Contains strong language, once very strong, & strong bloody comic violence

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., refused to dismiss a case against pornography producers who were charged with trafficking hard-core porn films across state lines and displaying illicit movie trailers online.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon rejected their claim that federal obscenity laws are unconstitutional.

John Stagliano and Evil Angel Productions Inc. claimed that federal laws criminalizing the interstate trafficking of obscenity were unconstitutional. They argued that the law barring a Web site from displaying obscene materials was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, because made online material subject to the community standards of the most conservative jurisdictions in the country.

But Judge Leon said the law was confined to a very narrow legal definition of obscenity. He said he is certain that online material will be judged as a whole and not individually according to obscenity laws, quashing filmmakers concerns that the trailer would be taken out of context.

Federal obscenity statutes require items to be judged in context of surrounding work. The government will have to show that the trailer is obscene in the context of the Web page, Leon said.

He also rejected their claim of a right to sexual privacy, saying such a right does not cover the distribution of obscene materials. He said the producers' case pales in comparison and does not even remotely approach the sexual privacy cases concerning homosexual rights and rights to obtain birth control. However you look at it, obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment, Leon concluded.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel apologized recently for using the word retarded during a private meeting last summer, telling advocates for the disabled that he will join their campaign to help end the use of the word.

In a statement, Special Olympics Chief Executive Tim Shriver and five other disability rights advocates said Emanuel had sincerely apologized for the earlier comment during a strategy meeting, which was reported in the Wall Street Journal: We are happy that he will join more than 54,000 other Americans in pledging to end the use of the R-word at www.r-word.org, and that he committed that the administration would continue to look for ways to partner with us, including examining pending legislation in Congress to remove the R-word from federal law, they said in the statement.

Controversy about Emanuel's use of the word erupted more broadly after former Alaska governor Sarah Palin called on President Obama to fire his chief of staff. In a statement on her Facebook page, she asked: Are you capable of decency, Rahm Emanuel?

An Albuquerque judge has fined a group responsible for organizing an adult film festival.

The Guild Theatre near Central and Carlisle has hosted the Pornotopia film festival— an event that has attracted both porn lovers and controversy.

After three years, the judge decided the theatre that has hosted the Pornotopia film festival is not zoned for adult entertainment, but organizers say the show will go on. The festival will likely be held somewhere else though.

Matie Fricker, the co-owner of Self Serve, a sex store in Nob Hill, is trying to figure out where she can host Pornotopia later this year. She has organized the festival since it started in 2007.

A Metro Court judge fined the Guild Theatre $500 for a building code violation stemming from one of the previous festivals, saying the theatre is not zoned for adult entertainment.

City officials admit there have been no formal complaints from the public about the event, but now their legal department is checking to see if the Guild can be fined for the other two festivals.

A US comic book collector has been sentenced to six months in prison after pleading guilty to importing and possessing Japanese manga books supposedly depicting illustrations of child sex and bestiality [presumably referring to the usual many tentacled monsters].

Christopher Handley was sentenced in Iowa almost a year after pleading guilty to charges of possessing obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children. Without a plea deal with federal authorities, he faced a maximum 15-year sentence.

The man was charged under the 2003 Protect Act, which outlaws cartoons, drawings, sculptures or paintings depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and which lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Handley was the nation’s first to be convicted under that law for possessing cartoon art, without any evidence that he also collected or viewed genuine child pornography.

Comic fans were outraged, saying jailing someone over manga does not protect children from sexual abuse. I’d say the anime community’s reaction to this, since day one, has been almost exclusively one of support for Handley and disgust with the U.S. courts and legal system, Christopher MacDonald, editor of Anime News Network, said in an e-mail.

Congress passed the Protect Act after the Supreme Court struck down a broader law prohibiting any visual depictions of minors engaged in sexual activity, including computer-generated imagery and other fakes. The high court ruled that the ban was too broad, and could cover legitimate speech, including Hollywood productions.

In response, the Protect Act narrows the prohibition to cover only depictions that the defendant’s community would consider obscene.

One of the issues we've talked about repeatedly over the years is the question of what is the internet jurisdiction.

If you think that just because it appears on the internet, anyone's laws apply, then you reach an untenable situation where all online content is controlled by the strictest, most draconian rules out there. That makes little sense.

And yet some courts still think this is the appropriate interpretation of the law.

In the US it's already troubling enough that the issue of indecency is measured on an amorphous community standards basis, but when it comes to the internet, what community applies?

A recent ruling in the 11th Circuit Court of appeals on a pornography case, the court seems to have made a ruling that effectively says all online content should be held to the standards of the strictest communities. Thus, an erotica website targeting a NY subculture should be held to the standards of a southern bible belt rural community? That seems ridiculous, but it's what the court said.

In this case, a guy who produced porn content in California was tried in Tampa, Florida, because investigators downloaded his content there:

The Atlanta-based court rejected arguments by Paul Little (Max Hardcore)'s attorneys that applying a local community standard to the Internet violates the First Amendment because doing so means material can be judged according to the standards of the strictest communities.

Other courts, including one in California, have found differently on similar questions, so it seems likely that, at some point, this issue will finally go back to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will focus on what counts as community standards rather than whether or not laws against obscenity even make legal sense under the First Amendment.