The dismissal of the case between Tammy and Herbert Robinson was one of the highlights of this author’s practice. However, that victory was not without its moments of despair and terror for the clients.CAUTION: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT INTENDED FOR READERS UNDER THE AGE OF 18

[Part One]

The dismissal of the case between Tammy and Herbert Robinson was one of the highlights of this author’s practice. However, that victory was not without its moments of despair and terror for the clients. Throughout the proceedings, the Robinsons understood that they could each go to prison for a period of up to five years, and lose contact with their children (and each other) during incarceration. Moreover, they could both be convicted felons for the rest of their lives. The mainstream media took a great interest in this matter, and the case was highlighted on Fox Files, 48 Hours and The Oprah Winfrey Show. The media spotlight shone brightly on Polk County, Florida, which became increasingly embarrassed about its Puritanical morality being stuffed down everyone’s throats. Ultimately, that spotlight was too bright for the censors, and they backed down.

Several important lessons can be learned from the successful resolution in that case. First, and as poignantly illustrated by the Extreme Associates case, the government would like to establish legal precedent that allows it to proceed separately against individual images or video clips, and charge them separately as obscene “works.” Webmasters have, over the years, learned that the Miller test requires that all obscene works must be evaluated “as a whole” and thus it may be wise to include literary, artistic, scientific or political speech as part of the sexually oriented expression on an adult Website, to assist in defending the materials. If the government succeeds in convicting a defendant based on a single image, web page or video clip, an important defense to obscenity charges will be eliminated, and the Miller Test turned on its head. It would be like alleging one page of a magazine to be obscene. To the extent that Webmasters can present images in the context of stories or interrelated communications that bind all Web pages together on a Website, such presentation may bolster the argument that individual images, or Web pages, cannot be independently evaluated for purposes of the Miller test.

The next lesson that can be taken from the Robinson case is more of an observation: When the government comes after you, they hit you with all they’ve got! Law enforcement in the United States will not bring a mellow test case, filed solely for the altruistic purpose of testing community standards, where conviction will result in no more than taking the material out of circulation – and all with your hard-earned tax dollars. The industry saw that approach in the charges filed against Sweet Entertainment in British Columbia in 2001. The United States’ brand of justice is a bit different: Webmasters can expect to be hit with felony criminal prosecution, “charge stacking,”1 forfeiture proceedings, administrative complaints, license revocations, family services investigations, and a media blitz. This onslaught is designed to overwhelm the defendant and cause him or her to loose all hope of defending against these multiple proceedings with the end goal of causing the defendant to simply give up.

While this form of governmental intimidation is usually very successful, it is often nothing more than a bluff. Many of the counts, proceedings, and allegations may ultimately be unsupported by the facts or the law, and are often dismissed after evaluation by a competent attorney. The key is to weather the storm past the initial onslaught, and start picking apart the government’s case – bit by bit. The prosecution is not used to this sort of perseverance and the microscopic analysis of its allegations, which is a benefit to the defendant.

Something else that the industry can take away from the Robinson case is inspiration. Tammy Robinson, a housewife and mother of three, who had never been in trouble with the law in her life, suddenly found herself facing a massive governmental felony prosecution. Her husband was also charged, stressing their marriage, and her children were in danger of being taken away. Yet as a result of all this, a freedom fighter was born, and Tammy Robinson decided to stand and fight, instead of rolling over and playing dead. There was some indication that the government would have initially been satisfied if the Robinsons were willing to shut down their Website and agree to never enter the adult entertainment industry again. Instead of accepting an agreement so offensive to First Amendment rights, Tammy turned up the heat by launching a legal defense fund Website – the first of its kind. On the site, BeckaLynn posted nude pictures of herself in exchange for donations to her attorneys; something that irked law enforcement to no end. BeckaLynn had a loyal following on the Web, and those who learned of her story after her arrest came to her aid through significant donations to the legal defense fund. These donations allowed Tammy and Herbert Robinson to file a pair of federal lawsuits against Polk County law enforcement officials, which ultimately turned the tide in their favor. This sort of industry and public support was the single most critical factor that drove the favorable result in her case.

Without sufficient funding, the Robinsons would have remained on the defensive instead of taking the offense in this case against those who were prosecuting her. As the adult Internet industry braces for the onslaught of federal criminal indictments promised by the Ashcroft Justice Department, it should remember what worked in the past and lend its financial and moral support to those who are singled out for this initial round of prosecutions, regardless of the personalities involved or the offensive nature of the content selected for prosecution. The government is expected to pick easy targets; those whom other industry participants can readily agree are on the fringe, or are somehow deserving of criminal prosecution. Thus far, the government has focused on sexual violence,2 and defecation material.3 If the industry turns its collective backs on those selected for prosecution in these early stages, it will be doing itself a substantial disservice in the long run.

A final lesson that can be learned from the first obscenity prosecution against an adult Website is that of courage. Any form of litigation will be a give and take process where one minute, you’re on top of the world, and the next, you feel like the case is over and you’ve lost. The Robinsons faced years of incarceration in prison and a conservative jury pool, but never lost hope or faith in their attorneys, even in the darkest times. Some hearings went well, and others were a disaster. There were unexpected difficulties and surprises around every corner, and no amount of preparation can account for everything that could happen in the course of complex state and federal court litigation. At any point, the Robinsons could have thrown in the towel and said “We’re finished, this is too expensive, we’ll simply give them what they want.” But that never happened – not for a minute.

Some adult Internet industry participants are quick to do what is in their own best interests without consideration for the greater good. Freedom Fighters like Larry Flynt (Hustler), Phil Harvey (PHE Entertainment, d/b/a Adam & Eve) and Joe Redner (Mons Venus) refuse to be intimidated by government threats and roadblocks along the path of their individual fights for freedom. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The right to free expression has cost some their lives and others a substantial amount of their personal liberty.

The time is soon upon the adult Internet industry where companies will be fighting for their lives, and their owners will be fighting for their freedom. Attorneys and other industry leaders will have little time to write articles and give speeches, to provide the industry with the benefit of our experiences. Instead, we’ll be fighting in courtrooms across the country and endlessly toiling away on legal briefs and motions, in the effort to ward off the new wave of government censorship. It is this author’s sincere hope that those selected for obscenity prosecution will stand and fight, and that other industry participants will support those defendants in their efforts. Tammy and Herbert Robinson stood and fought, and their “Notice of Dismissal” hangs on this author’s wall as an eternal reminder of their courage and vigilance. Their actions should truly be an inspiration to an industry under siege. If the defendants in the next round of cases show the same courage and tenacity, the government is likely to rethink the wisdom of its censorship campaign.

1 “Charge stacking” is the questionable procedure of filing as many criminal charges against a defendant as may conceivably apply in an effort to intimidate the defendant into pleading guilty to one or more of the counts, in exchange for dismissal of all the others.

2 See: United States v. Extreme Associates,(W.D. Penn. 2003).

3 See: United States v. Corbett, et. al. (S.D. W.V. 2003).

Lawrence G. Walters, Esq., is a partner with the law firm of Weston, Garrou & DeWitt, which maintains offices in Orlando, Los Angeles and San Diego. Mr. Walters represents clients involved in all aspects of adult media. The firm handles First Amendment cases nationwide, and has been involved in significant Free Speech litigation before the United States Supreme Court. All statements made in the above article are matters of opinion only, and should not be considered legal advice. Please consult your own attorney on specific legal matters. You can reach Lawrence Walters at Larry@LawrenceWalters.com, FirstAmendment.com or AOL Screen Name: “Webattorney”.

The dismissal of the case between Tammy and Herbert Robinson was one of the highlights of this author’s practice. However, that victory was not without its moments of despair and terror for the clients.CAUTION: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT INTENDED FOR READERS UNDER THE AGE OF 18

[Part One]

The dismissal of the case between Tammy and Herbert Robinson was one of the highlights of this author’s practice. However, that victory was not without its moments of despair and terror for the clients. Throughout the proceedings, the Robinsons understood that they could each go to prison for a period of up to five years, and lose contact with their children (and each other) during incarceration. Moreover, they could both be convicted felons for the rest of their lives. The mainstream media took a great interest in this matter, and the case was highlighted on Fox Files, 48 Hours and The Oprah Winfrey Show. The media spotlight shone brightly on Polk County, Florida, which became increasingly embarrassed about its Puritanical morality being stuffed down everyone’s throats. Ultimately, that spotlight was too bright for the censors, and they backed down.

Several important lessons can be learned from the successful resolution in that case. First, and as poignantly illustrated by the Extreme Associates case, the government would like to establish legal precedent that allows it to proceed separately against individual images or video clips, and charge them separately as obscene “works.” Webmasters have, over the years, learned that the Miller test requires that all obscene works must be evaluated “as a whole” and thus it may be wise to include literary, artistic, scientific or political speech as part of the sexually oriented expression on an adult Website, to assist in defending the materials. If the government succeeds in convicting a defendant based on a single image, web page or video clip, an important defense to obscenity charges will be eliminated, and the Miller Test turned on its head. It would be like alleging one page of a magazine to be obscene. To the extent that Webmasters can present images in the context of stories or interrelated communications that bind all Web pages together on a Website, such presentation may bolster the argument that individual images, or Web pages, cannot be independently evaluated for purposes of the Miller test.

(more…)