Not a crime to show dirty pictures of onself to a teen old enough to consent to sex

The usual Creep Caveat applies to this post.

Here's another case dealing with exhibiting harmful matter to a minor. In Salter v. State, 2009 WL 1409484 , the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned such a conviction on the ground that the statute was vague as applied to pictures sent over the Internet to a young woman of 16. The court reasoned that since the state set the age of sexual consent at 16, the "harmful matter" statute failed to provide clear notice to the defendant that he could legally have sex with the woman but could not legally send her pictures of his erect penis.

We understand Salter's argument to be that he had no way of knowing that pictures of his genitals would be considered “harmful” to M.B., given that, under Indiana law, he could have been naked in front of M.B. and had sex with her without violating any law. Again, we must agree.

...By setting the legal age of consent at sixteen, the Indiana legislature has made an implied policy choice that in-person viewing of another person's genitals is “suitable matter” for a sixteen- or seventeen-year-old child. That being so, how could Salter have known that a picture of his genitals would be “harmful,” that is, not “suitable,” for M.B.? Asked another way, if such images are harmful to sixteen- and seventeen-year-old children, then why would our legislature allow those children to view the same matter in-person, in the course of sexual activity?

One judge dissented, noting that the defendant didn't have a sexual relationship with the young woman involved, and that the harmful matter statute did not depend on a minor's consent. But given that the young woman here sent the defendant semi-nude pictures of herself as well, it seems fair to say that there was some kind of consensual sexual relationship here, albeit an online one. It would be truly bizarre if it were legal for two people of whatever age to have sex, but illegal for them to have cybersex. I am aware, however, that in the eyes of many people over 35, anything involving the Internet is automatically twice as dangerous.

(N.B. - the court's opinion makes no mention of the defendant's age.)

Though originally nabbed because of this online relationship with a teenager, Mr. Salter was also charged with something even more unsavory: possession of child pornography. This included not just the pictures of the 16-year-old created and sent by her, but also pictures of unknown, younger children apparently obtained from the Internet. Mr. Salter was clearly liable for possession of the latter (but not the former, because Indiana sets the age for defining child pornography at the age of sexual consent, 16). But the prosecutor decided to go for a bigger sentence by charging him with creating child pornography, on the basis of his downloading the images and burning them to CD. The court (again 2-1) following the reasoning of the New Jersey Supreme Court (State v. Sisler) in concluding that simply copying preexisting digital images does not fall within the ambit of a statute targeted at the actual production of child pornography. The court reasoned that copying a digital images is analogous to simple possession, not to creating a new image.

The court therefore reversed these convictions as well. It noted that the state could not prosecute Salter for simple possession as to the images of the 16 year old regardless, and might have screwed itself out of charging him with possession of the other images because of the state's Successive Prosecution Statute. Which hopefully will teach that prosecutor a lesson.

Craigslist bows to states' pressure, axes "Erotic Services"

This week Craigslist announced that, pursuant to a deal with several state attorneys general, it will be eliminating its "Erotic Services" section. The news media have framed the pressure on Craigslist as a response to recent crimes against people who used the site. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who spearheaded the effort, has pitched his campaign alternately as aimed at preventing trafficking and child exploitation, and as a plain morals campaign against "pornography, nudity, and open offers of sex for money." Craigslist initially vowed to require posters on Erotic Services to enter credit card information, but the state officials wouldn't settle for that, so the site is no replacing the section with a new "Adult" section, in which each post will be pre-screened by Craigslist employees.

A coalition of organizations advocating for sex workers released this statement:

With Craigslist’s recent announcement that its Erotic Services category will be discontinued within the week, hundreds of thousands of erotic service providers will become more vulnerable to dangerous predators. Eliminating erotic listings as Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and others propose will only drive us further underground.

Policing the masseuses, phone workers, pro-dominants, and escorts using Craigslist fails to protect those of us who are coerced into the sex industry. Preventing the use of Craigslist advertisements also eliminates the advantage of screening clients online, which makes for a safer work experience by filtering out potentially dangerous individuals. Furthermore, keeping us offline hinders police investigations of violent crime. In the Boston murder of Julissa Brisman, it was online tracking that enabled the police to identify the suspect. One has to wonder: are the Attorneys General examining the evidence or simply enforcing their moral values?

“Removing the erotic services category from Craigslist does not help prevent violence against escorts and other sex workers. It only pushes me and people like me out of the places where advertising is available,” said Jessica Bloom, a sex worker from Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK). In the face of increasing criminalization, we insist upon respect. As mothers, daughters, brothers, and members of your community, we claim that sex work is real work, work that we are entitled to conduct in safety. As such, we must be accorded the human right of full protection under the law.

Sex work activist Miss Calico has this to say about the move:

It’s true that Craigslist is a major advertising venue, for prostitutes but also sex workers of all kinds: the largest in the nation. Its loss will have a distinct effect on the people who use it. Here’s how it works: we advertise to attract the clients we want, and screen to eliminate the clients we don’t, but the number of clients we need stays the same. Anything that hurts our methods of attracting clients, like the shutdown of Erotic Services, will affect how stringent our screening can afford to be. It’s pretty clear to me that Craigslist has just made its sex workers more marginalized and more at risk.

Now, Craigslist has no responsibility to provide an advertising venue. But if Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is trying to make sex workers safer, he’s going about it all wrong. He doesn’t need to protect us from ourselves, or from our clients. He needs to protect us from criminals.

At the Sex 2.0 conference this past weekend, Melissa Gira analogized the panic over Craigslist to New York City's "cleanup" of Times Square. Both spaces came to represent the threat of sexual corruption encroaching on "normal," "decent" places. Targeting these spaces allowed politicians to simultaneously appear to be both protecting moral purity and addressing real social problems of crime, etc., without really addressing those problems at all. As Miss Calico points out, sex work isn't going away, and the short term effects of driving online sex work advertising "underground" -- at least until some other site replicates the efficiency, anonymity and ubiquity of Craigslist -- could be harmful both for sex workers and for law enforcement.

*******************

As a side note, none of the news reports or press releases indicate what kind of legal claims the state governments might have had against Craigslist. I've previously mentioned the question of federal immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act with regard to a still-pending public-nuisance suit targeting "Erotic Services." The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held, in an egegrious case of revenge porn, that Yahoo! might have lost its 230 immunity only because its staff specifically promised the plaintiff to take the offending material down.

UPDATE: Here's some further analysis of Craigslist's likely legal defense under CDA from the Electronic Frontier Foundation. (More, too, from the Citizens Media Law Project which notes the site's previous efforts to ensure Erotic Services isn't use to exploit children.) Of course, settlements like this are based not only on likelihood of success but on business decisions about public relations and litigation costs. They have previously won litigation over discriminatory preferences in their housing ads, but that doesn't mean they're eager to go through the process again. Ditching Erotic Services was clearly more desirable for Craigslist than fighting several state governments in court and in the media.

Sex 2.0 and "I Am a Sex Worker" PSA

I attended the Sex 2.0 conference in Silver Spring, MD this past weekend, and it was an absolute blast. It was great to meet bloggers and activists I admire (like Elizabeth Wood), catch up with my college classmate and former sex-educator colleague Maria Diaz, see a lot of other familiar faces, and share in discussions of the Internet, social media, sex blogging, erotica, sex work, and sexual freedom activism. One of the many cool things I was turned on to was CARAS, an organization of academics that supports and promotes community-based research on alternative sexualities. Another was this awesome PSA from Sex Work Awareness:

Pa. federal judge blocks child porn charges for teens

Last week I blogged about the federal suit brought by teens and parents in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, against a local prosecutor who threatened the teens with felony child porn and sexual abuse charges for taking "provocative" photos of themselves on their cell phones.

The federal judge hearing the case has now issued a temporary restraining order (PDF), prohibiting the D.A. from bringing charges against these young women. The judge found it likely that they would prevail in proving that (1) the photos at issue did not violate any law, (2) the teens had a First Amendment right to refuse to participate in a five-week education and counseling program the D.A. sought to force them to attend, (3) the parents had a fundamental privacy right to refuse such a program for their children, and (4) the D.A. retaliated against the plaintiffs for refusing to participate in the program by threatening felony charges.

(A technical note: The judge also rejected the prosecutor's argument that he lacked the power to interfere with state prosecutions. The court explained that the federal "abstention" rule only prohibits federal courts from intervening in ongoing state prosecutions, not threats of prosecution. If the rule applied to threats of prosecution, after all, it could block a lot of pre-enforcement challenges to state laws that, e.g. abridge the freedom of speech.)

Exempting minors from child pornography laws?

Following up on yesterday's post:

Thomas MacAulay Millar, whose post on the Wyoming County, PA case over at Yes Means Yes! I linked yesterday, suggests adding the following exemption to the federal child pornography law (18 USC 2252):

(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, no person shall have committed a criminal act within the meaning of this section solely by reason of having possessed, transported, shipped, or received a visual depiction wherein the person himself or herself is the only minor depicted.

This makes sense to me. It means that a minor would never be prosecuted for "child pornography" based on depictions of him- or herself. Any adult involved in the production or distribution of that material could still be liable, and minors could still be liable for material featuring other minors. But it would eliminate situations like this, reported Wednesday in New Jersey (h/t DailyKos):

CLIFTON — A 14-year-old girl faces child pornography charges after she allegedly posted nearly 30 nude pictures of herself on a social networking site, authorities said.

Detectives with the Passaic County Sheriff’s Department’s Internet Crimes Unit arrested the teen Tuesday. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children contacted sheriff’s detectives about someone posting photos of an underage nude girl on a MySpace profile. The center, which monitors social networking sites for illegal images of children, contacted county detectives through the State Police’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, said Bill Maer, the sheriff’s department spokesman.

Following a month-long investigation, detectives discovered that the person posting the pictures was the same person featured in them — the 14-year-old girl. Anyone who was “friends” with the girl through MySpace or knew her full name could have accessed the photos.

The teen was charged with one count of possession of child pornography and one count of distribution of child pornography. She was released into her mother’s custody, Maer said.

The teen reportedly told police she posted the pictures into a photo album for her boyfriend’s enjoyment. More arrests may be forthcoming, Maer said.

It's worth noting that while the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children initially flagged these photos for police, an NCMEC attorney recently criticized the practice of prosecuting minors in cases like this. As these prosecutions and threatened prosecutions continue to multiply, I think the case is building for building exemptions into child porn laws for cases like this. Fixing the federal law would just be a start, however, since to date I believe all the reported cases of this phenomenon have been at the state level.

Thomas's proposed exception wouldn't entirely solve the problem, as I see it; in a case like the Pennsylvania one, where three girls took pictures together, the minors could still be charged based on one another's participation. Putting aside that the material in that case was clearly legal, such a scenario, where multiple minors are each charged with victimizing one another, seems equally unwarranted. This would call for a more complex exemption - one that still allows for prosecutions of minors who are truly exploiting other minors - and how to draft it isn't immediately obvious to me. Additionally, if an exception is warranted for the child porn laws in multiple-minors situation like this, you'd presumably need to write a similar one into "sexual exploitation of a minor" statutes, since there's significant overlap between the two sets of laws.

This could be a sticky wicket, but the issue does need serious consideration. Prosecutions like this are to my mind unconscionable. As Thomas wrote yesterday:

Let me say this loud and clear: charging young women with sex offenses for distributing photographs of themselves is social control by intimidation. It ruins young women's lives to make an example of them, to keep others in line.

(As a side note: where did the media come up with the term "sexting"? It's catchy in a garish soundbite sort of way, but it makes no sense: it's meant to refer to sending pictures, not text.)

Racy texts don't kill people, sexual shaming does

I've previously discussed the unsurprising trend of teens sharing racy pictures of themselves and each other via email and cell phones (and the rather more surprising trend of teens being prosecuted under the child porn laws for it). The topic is getting a lot of sensationalistic coverage - complete with the trendy moral-panic-tastic term "sexting" - right now because of the suicide of a young Ohio woman.

Elizabeth at Sex in the Public Square has this to say:

I'm furious about the way this young woman's story is being reported. Jesse Logan killed herself last July not because of the "dangers of sexting" but because of the dangers of sex stigma and "slut shaming." She had sent some naked photos of herself to her boyfriend by cell phone. When they broke up he showed those photos to other people at their high school. Some of those people then visciously shamed and bullied Jesse. But to read this MSNBC story you would think that it was her sending of the photos that was so dangerous.

Slut shaming works because girls are told to be sexy but not sexually active. I don't know whether Jesse had ever even had sex with the boyfriend to whom she sent the pictures. It doesn't matter. What matters is that words like "slut" and "whore" were hurled at her and that those words are understood to be condemnations. They should not be, yet they are, and the shame attached to them caused Logan such pain that she began skipping school, spiraled into a deep depression and, after a friend of hers committed suicide, she did the same, hanging herself in her closet. What a tragically symbolic end for someone whose privacy had been so violated.

There will no doubt be pressure on wireless providers to somehow crack down on racy content, which they either can't or shouldn't do. There will also be a temptation to ramp up the use of the child porn laws against teens, despite the life-wrecking effects thereof.

But trying to regulate or criminalize the circulation of words and images here misses the point. If the law offers any help here, it is tort law and not criminal law, directed at the shaming and bullying rather than teen sexual speech and experimentation. Schools, parents and even teens themselves should be held accountable for the vicious bullying that causes tragedies like this - and indeed (as noted in the MSNBC article), Jesse Logan's mother is apparently trying to hold her school accountable in court.

Update: Some other interesting takes on the subject.

Roundup

This week in Washington:
- Obama reverses Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
- A provision of the just-passed budget bill will help make contraception more affordable for many
- Today the White House launches a Women & Girls' Council, which hopefully will be more than symbolic

In Saudi Arabia, a 75-year-old widow has been sentenced to four months in prison, forty lashes, and deportation for having two unrelated men in her home. The two men -- one of whom is her deceased husband's nephew, and both of whom have also been sentenced -- were apparently bringing her some bread. Her lawyer plans to appeal. More at Religion Clause.

On a much less weighty note, a law professor at the University of Montana complains that the student newspaper's sex advice column "affects my reputation as a member of the faculty" -- no, really --and has suggested the state legislature should tighten restrictions on student publishing. According to the paper in question, the prof complained that legislators should set "criteria for giving someone a job as a columnist writing in an area of 'alleged expertise' or for reviewing objectionable material." Being a law prof, she's come up with proposed restrictions that just pass the First Amendment red-face test, but something tells me this isn't going anywhere. Are authors in student papers really expected to be experts? And what standards should the legislature set to qualify as a sex columnist?

Finally, Cook County, Ill. Sheriff Tom Dart is suing Craigslist, claiming its "erotic services" ads are a public nuisance. Sex worker rights advocates have, naturally, criticized the suit, which probably amounts to little more than a publicity stunt. Craigslist says it's "mystified" by the suit, pointing to its cooperation with law enforcement in Illinois and elsewhere to minimize use of the site to violate the law. One Internet law expert has opined that the lawsuit can't stand, because under federal law Craigslist can't be held liable for users who seek to violate the law unless it actively helps them do so. (Said lawyer also wonders whether there are actually many "erotic services" posts on Craigslist that are only advertising legal services, but a quick search of the many postings specifying "no sex" suggests that yes, there are; most of them are for pro-Dommes.)

Roundup

Via Bilerico, Argentina is ending its ban on gay and lesbian folks serving openly in the military. If they can do it, we can do it.

A new study shows "red" states lead in online porn subscriptions. This strikes me as raising interesting questions about "local community standards" in obscenity cases. (Indeed, I recall that at least one defendant has recently tried to use data on risque Google searches to establish the relevant standard.)

Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) has filed a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act on behalf of married Massachusetts couples seeking marriage-related federal benefits. This seems to mark a shift in strategy from the LGBT legal movement, which heretofore has tried to keep suits regarding marriage and DOMA out of the federal courts for fear of a) setting bad precedent without first building a firmer foundation in state courts and in non-marriage cases, and b) reviving the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. I'd guess that (b) is now seen as much less of a concern, and (a) is seen as a manageable concern if cases are brought and framed selectively. Here, no state would be forced to accept the plaintiffs' marriage; rather, they are seeking federal recognition of a state-recognized marriage for the purpose of specific tax, Social Security and other benefits. Balkinization has a preliminary assessment of the case.

Finally, Senate Republicans are apparently trying to use the current Omnibus Appropriations bill to eliminate federal Title X funds for Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. An amendment will be introduced today, so folks should call their Senators forthwith.

Censoring sexual orientation "equally"

Consumerist reports that Microsoft will ban anyone who mentions their sexual orientation on the XBox Live site. Microsoft's official policy is to prohibit anything suggesting "content of a potentially sexual nature," and to them that includes "expression of any type of orientation, be that hetero or other." Thus, Microsoft has it that its policy is non-discriminatory: straight and queer people alike are forbidden from mentioning their sexual orientation. (H/t feministing.)

As recently reported by the Washington Blade, the Washington Post continues to take a similar approach to discussion of sexual orientation in its reporting. The Post believes that all subjects of their journalism are "entitled" to make their sexual orientation "a private matter," whether they are straight or queer; accordingly, the paper will not discuss orientation unless it is "relevant."

The problem with both of these policies is that not talking about sexual orientation does not treat everyone equally. In a society where most people identify as heterosexual, and more importantly, where heterosexuality is ubiquitously assumed, heterosexuals have no need to identify their orientation: the default assumption has done it for them.

Moreover, given the strong default assumption of heterosexuality, a policy that nominally limits all discussion of sexual orientation is almost certainly to be applied selectively. The Blade story notes that the Post has come in for particular criticism regarding its failure to mention surviving same-sex partners in obituaries. Yet the Post's obits routinely mention different-sex spouses in passing - precisely because the fact of being in a different-sex relationship is not thought be a reference to sexual orientation, while being in a same-sex one is.

On the Media does teens and sex online

WNYC's On the Media -- one of my favorite radio programs -- has two very interesting stories this week about teens, sex, the Internet, and public policy.

The first story reports on the findings of a government-sponsored task force on the risks teens face online, which defies the expectations of some. Convened at the behest of 49 state attorneys general, the Internet Safety Technical Task Force released its final report this month. From the executive summary:

[Research based on cases brought to the attention of law enforcement] found that cases typically involved post-pubescent youth who were aware that they were meeting an adult male for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity. ... Youth report sexual solicitation of minors by minors more frequently, but these incidents, too, are understudied, underreported to law enforcement, and not part of most conversations about online safety.

And from the body of the report:

Sexual solicitation and predation are serious concerns, but the image presented by
the media of an older male deceiving and preying on a young child does not paint an
accurate picture of the nature of the majority of sexual solicitations and Internet-initiated offline encounters; this inaccuracy leads to major risks in this area being ignored. Of particular concern are the sexual solicitations between minors and the frequency with which online-initiated sexual contact resembles statutory rape rather than other models of abuse.

On the subject of online pornography:

The Internet increases the availability of harmful, problematic and illegal content, but does not always increase minors’ exposure. Unwanted exposure to pornography does occur online, but those most likely to be exposed are those seeking it out, such as older male minors.

The main conclusions from the report: "the risks minors face online are complex and multifaceted and are in most cases not significantly different than those they face offline, and that as they get older, minors themselves contribute to some of the problems." The report specifically notes that bullying and harassment, "most often by peers, are the most frequent threats that minors face, both online and offline." It also says that on all fronts, the kids most at risk online are the one most at risk offline: "The psychosocial makeup of and family dynamics surrounding particular minors are better predictors of risk than the use of specific media or technologies. "

In other words, stop the panic. Crime can happen anywhere, and parents should be aware of what their kids are up to, but the Internet is not going to eat your children.

The second OTM story visits a subject I've blogged about before: the creation of "child" pornography by teens, and the dubious use of child pornography laws to prosecute said teens.

The story begins by noting the recent National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy/Cosmo Girl Sex & Tech Survey, which found that 22% of teen girls and 18% of teen boys have posted or transmitted nude or "semi-nude" pictures of themselves online. Twice as many have sent "sexually suggestive" messages by txt, IM or email. Most are sending this stuff to a boyfriend, girlfriend or someone they want to get with, but 15% are sending DIY smut to people they only know online. Though a notable minority of teen girls say they "felt pressured" to make and share such content, most teens regardless of gender said they were just having fun. All interesting results, but like the reporter from OTM, I find none of this particularly surprising.

OTM goes on to note that many of these online shenanigans constitute federal and state crimes, and that prosecutions of minors for child pornography involving themselves and their peers are "piling up." The latest case involves three high school girls from a small town near Pittsburgh who have been charged for sending nude pictures on their cell phones, and three boys charged with "possession of child pornography" for receiving them. OTM interviews an attorney from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who agrees with the reporter that while teens' amateur exploits can have harmful effects, prosecuting them can cause far more harm - particularly in light of the draconian sentences that can accompany child porn convictions. Instead, says the NCMEC attorney: "[Y]ou deter this type of conduct with education, and not with criminal prosecution."

"Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die"

That's the headline the Los Angeles Times ran today, just as I was writing this post.

I've previously posted about ACLU v. Mukasey, in which the Third Circuit held that the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) violates the First Amendment by prohibiting constitutionally protected "indecent" speech.

As the LAT notes, the Court had previously heard this case as Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004). Then, the Court upheld a preliminary injunction by a 5-4 vote, permitting the case to go forward and the lower courts to consider whether Internet filtering software provided an appropriate alternative to the strict provisions of COPA. Now that that Court has decided not to hear the case again on its ultimate merits, the Third Circuit's ruling of last year stands, and the law, which never took effect, appears to be dead.

Yes, COPA law was passed in 1998, and in ten years it never took effect because it was bouncing around the court system. One doesn't like to think of the money the Bush Administration spent defending it, even after the Supreme Court said it was likely to lose. Now the Court -- apparently satisfied by the extensive factfinding below that the law is a needless exercise in censorship -- has taken the unusual step of declining to review a lower court's decision that invalidates a federal law. What a great way to start the next four years: with a flat repudiation of yet another Bush Administration boondoggle.

UPDATE: Jack Balking has a post on "The End of the COPA Saga" at Balkinization. He notes that one issue suggested by, but not adjudicated in, the case is, "Who should bear the burden of filtering and blocking unwanted content in an digital environment and where should the filtering decisions be located?" Essentially because one size does not fit all, he concludes that "the Internet should place filtering decisions and responsibilities on the end user, not the publisher of the content."

Hook-up site not liable for connecting man with minor

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a suit by a man who blamed hook-up site SexSearch.com for connecting him with a minor (PDF), thereby leading to his arrest for unlawful sexual conduct with a minor.

The man who brough the suit had sex with a young woman after meeting her on the site, where she had a profile seeking a "1 on 1 sexual encounter" with "a man who can last for a long time." The young woman, who was 14, reported the encounter to the police, who arrested the man. He claimed that SexSearch's failure to prevent a minor from using its site constituted a breach of contract, a fraudulent misrepresentation, an intentional infliction of emotional distress, an unfair trade practice, and/or a tortious failure to warn under Ohio law.

The appeals court rejected each of these claims in turn. First, while the site's terms of service stated that users must be over 18, the site nowhere promised to prevent minors from registering and using the site. Indeed, another part of the terms of services stated that they don't verify ages. More importantly, the plaintiff had no business relying on any representations about the ages of users, since any who had registered for the site could tell that the site owners took no steps to verify age. Moreover, the court found that the danger that minors will pose as adults online is an "open and obvious" one that doesn't require a warning.

The court also held that the site had a right to contractually limit its liability to the value of the contract, saying:

A SexSearch gold membership costs $29.95 per month. Given the nature of the service, which encourages members to meet in person for sexual encounters, SexSearch’s potential liability is nearly limitless. For example, arrest, diseases of various sorts, and injuries caused by irate family members or others may be the result of such hedonistic sex. When selling such services, then, it is commercially reasonable for SexSearch to limit its liability to the price of the contract.

While I agree with the result, I am bothered by the court's tone regarding "the result of such hedonistic sex." Matchmaking and sex can have all sorts of consequences - fair enough. That reasoning should apply to any sort of dating or social-networking site that wants to limit its liability, and yet the court seems to go out of its way to imply not only that the buyer should beware but the buyer deserves whatever he gets.

The appeals court declined to consider the impact of a federal law, relied on by the trial court, that limits the liability of website owners from liability for content created by users. The scope of that site-owner immunity provision is as yet unsettled, and the court refused to go there.

Adult Video News, an industry outlet, features predictably positive coverage of the decision, notwithstanding its sex-negative tone. Once again, h/t How Appealing, which offers some background on the case.