Maybe Mr. Piel would be interested in the following.....


>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 1997 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT)
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>Sender: [log in to unmask]
>From: John Gear <[log in to unmask]>
>To: ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom List <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Scary Stuff:  We All Live in Tennessee Now
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>X-To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask]
>
>>Posted to : [log in to unmask]
>>FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/
>>FC-URL: To join send "subscribe" to [log in to unmask]
>>
>>Background:  Robert and Carleen Thomas ran an adult-oriented
>>bulletin board system from their home in California.  Prosecutors in
>>Tennesee in 1994 downloaded allegedly obscene pictures of sexual
>>acts and charged them. Of course, they were applying *their*
>>"community standards" for obscenity to his California business.
>>They were found guilty and sentenced to 37 months.  While that case
>>was on trial, Federal officials in Utah heard about and looked into
>>it.  They downloaded pictures of "nude and semi-nude children" and
>>charged Thomas in Utah with distributing child pornography, although
>>there is no evidence any Utahan except the official had ever done
>>so.  Thomas pled guilty to 1 of 16 charges and appealed alleging
>>double jeopardy.
>>
>>The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the decision of the Utah
>>District Court.  No double jeopardy because the individual photos are
>>different from those which were tried in the other cases.  Thomas is
>>serving a 26-month sentence on this count, concurrently with the
>>other sentence.  The opinion does not appear to be on the Emory
>>University web site which tracks these things.
>
>>Moral: anyone who distributes content nationally continues to be
>>subject to prosecution in each and every locale under prevailing
>>community standards.  If your content is objectionable to the most
>>small-minded folk anywhere in the US, it would be wise to refrain
>>from publishing it on the internet or other comparable medium.
>>Prosecutions continue to apply local "contemporary community
>>standards" to obscenity prosecutions, but in meeting the Miller test,
>>they are permitted to demonstrate that the material has prurient
>>appeal to someone else.  In other words, offensive to you, sexually
>>appealing to anyone anywhere.
>>
>>For example, if space aliens landed tomorrow and their pornography
>>consisted of pictures that looked like cat vomit, prosecutors could
>>present evidence that the material is prurient with regard to space
>>aliens, patently offensive to you (cat vomit, you know), and lacking
>>in serious literary value to you (obviously) and you would therefore
>>conclude that the material was obscene.
>>
>>
>>     [v]enue for federal obscenity prosecutions lies "in any district
>>     from, through, or into which" the allegedly obscene material
>>     moves, according to 18 U.S.C. section 3237. This may result in
>>     prosecutions of persons in a community to which they have sent
>>     materials which is obscene under that community's standards
>>     though the community from which it is sent would tolerate the
>>     same material.
>>
>>     United States v. Peraino, 645 F.2d 548, 551 (6th Cir. 1981)
>>
>>
>>So even if you refrain from sending material to Tennesee residents,
>>an internet router can make that decision for you by sending data
>>packets through the state.  What a great piece of law.
>>
>>
>>Refs:
>>
>>Jonathan Wallace's consideration of the issue:
>>http://www.spectacle.org/795/amateur.html
>>http://www.spectacle.org/freespch/musm/obsne.html
>>http://www.spectacle.org/296/obscene.html
>>
>>ACLU materials on the Tennessee case:
>>http://www.aclu.org/court/thomas.html
>>http://www.aclu.org/court/obscene.html
>>
>>
>>-- Michael Sims
>