IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Beginning this week, YNOT News will be running a series of interviews with prominent adult entertainment and First Amendment attorneys. With Internext featuring three legal seminars, webmasters realize that to take chances with an administration that promises to prosecute obscenity is not wise.IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Beginning this week, YNOT News will be running a series of interviews with prominent adult entertainment and First Amendment attorneys. With Internext featuring three legal seminars, webmasters realize that to take chances with an administration that promises to prosecute obscenity is not wise.

In the next coming weeks, YNOT News will discuss important legal topics with Larry Walters, J.D. Obenberger, Rick Chapo, Judith Silver and others (all of whom have served as panelists at various conventions including Internext).

YNOT News this week interviews John Wirenius, an attorney with the firm Leeds, Morelli and Brown (www.lmblaw.com). Wirenius is the lead counsel for the National Coalition of Sexual Freedom (NCSF; www.ncsfreedom.org) and Barbara Nitke (www.barbaranitke.com), an erotic-content photographer. As reported in the December 20, 2001 edition of YNOT News, Wirenius filed a lawsuit in early December on the NCSF and Nitke’s behalf, seeking to overturn Internet obscenity laws. In this report, Wirenius commented on the hopeful probability that the Supreme Court will knock the Communications Decency Act (CDA) out as unconstitutional on the grounds that a geographic-based local community standard approach is not the best measure for the Internet.

Wirenius recently was a panelist on the Internext seminar, Brave New World: “What’s In Store For 2002.” Use Wirenius’ and the other future featured lawyers’ free legal advice to your advantage, however, it will behoove you to pay one of these knowledgeable attorneys to conduct at least a comprehensive website review.

YNOT: What’s the latest status on the case you recently filed?
Wirenius: We’re going to be meeting with the U.S. Attorney and with the court at the end of January. We will lay out a map for the lower court proceedings. We will work out a timetable and we’ll have a good idea at that point as to the timeframe we’re talking about before we submit for the first round of decision making (before a three-judge panel). And from there, it’s up to the Supreme Court. We are well on our way.

YNOT: Why is Free Speech your passion?

YNOT: Was Internext successful for you in getting your name out there and what were your general impressions of the show?
Wirenius: There was a lot of business card exchange; in fact, I ran out and had to write my contact info on squares of paper… This was my first convention. I was impressed with the turnout and with the quality of questions people were asking me. You could tell people were serious about their business.

YNOT: What were some of the questions you were asked?
Wirenius: I was asked several about copyright issues. For example, what happens if you sue for copyright but you’re material might be [considered] obscene. How do you reduce the risk? This question proves that webmasters have a keen awareness to the possibility of government intervention. Another question I was asked was, “What can I do to conform to my community standards?”

YNOT: And what answer did you give them?
Wirenius: Most webmasters should have a tighter version of what’s already on their home page, along with age verification and legal content notification. A webmaster should think about adding the text on their home page, “Such material is not offensive in the viewer’s community.” This shows good intention, but that’s the problem with defending obscenity (this won’t necessarily prevent an obscenity charge however). Some people were startled when I discussed that point but they are cognizant of the dangers this poses. During the Q&A, there was a lively exchange about that issue. There was a certain level of anxiety as to how one can define local community standards and how a webmaster can take certain steps in preventing judgment by an unknown community.

YNOT: Would a national community standard work?
Wirenius: I wouldn’t like a national community standard because that would most likely result in meeting somewhere in the middle, which would give up our freedoms in more liberal communities. The Feds, like the states should recognize the Internet should not be subject to state morays; it should be recognized as a separate entity that’s self-contained. The federal government should give standards to communities of the Internet. Family related content should not be disrupted by adult content and at the same time, adult content should not be watered down to be made appropriate for children.

YNOT: What are the main ways in which a webmaster can avoid an obscenity charge?
Wirenius: Acquaint yourself with community standards in the area where you abide. If you can afford an initial consultation with an attorney, even if you don’t go with an ongoing legal plan or retainer, it’s always good to have a comprehensive website review. And know a lawyer. Just because you can’t afford to retain somebody doesn’t mean you’re not going to be able to make the acquaintance of a First Amendment lawyer. Attend conferences like Internext. Follow the online resources like YNOT as well as the law firm websites and newsletters. If you run into trouble, contact organizations like the NCSF. Always have available two forms of ID for each model proving they are of age, as required by law. That’s the most critical requirement that anybody can comply with because it’s the easiest way to fall prey to the Feds. Child exploitation is still the main target of the Justice Department.

YNOT: Why do you think some of the larger players in the industry still show hardcore content on their home pages and/or tours?
Wirenius: We’re coming out of a decade of total non-enforcement of the adult-oriented obscenity provision. Like Larry Walters said at Internext, the larger players have become complacent, as they’ve seen profits go up.

YNOT: Any closing comments on Internext?
Wirenius: I was delighted by how well informed the other attorneys on the panels were and by the level of engagement the audience displayed. It’s nice to see this is not an industry that’s merely trying to rake in the profit; it’s trying to do it in a manner that really respects the cutting-edge nature of what they’re doing and demonstrates a passion for the values of free speech.