Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> How Appealing

Litigation

: How Appealing

"Porn trial more than a simple smut case"

"Porn trial more than a simple smut case": Yesterday's edition of The St. Petersburg Times contained an article that begins, "Twelve local residents spent last week doing a dirty job for the rest of us. Jurors in the federal trial of Paul F. Little, a California man who known by the nom de porn Max Hardcore, watched hours of explicit, violent pornography to determine if, among other things, Little violated community standards. The case, which continues this week, has captured the attention of groups from New York City to California by raising larger questions about the legal standards for obscenity in an online world."

On Saturday, The St. Petersburg Times reported that "Defense wants new judge in porn trial." In addition, columnist Sue Carlton had an op-ed entitled "Tampa porn case is a trial for jurors, too."

And, in earlier coverage, The St. Petersburg Times previewed the trial last Wednesday in an article headlined "Jurors in Tampa to decide; What is obscene?" Additional trial coverage appeared in articles headlined "Juror asks to view less porn in court" and "Judge may spare jury from watching 8 hours of violent porn."

And The Tampa Tribune has covered the trial in articles headlined "Porn Producer's Lawyers Say He Didn't Mail DVDs To Tampa"; "Jurors View Sex Videos As Max Hardcore Obscenity Trial Begins"; and "Jury Selected For Obscenity Trial Over X-Rated Films."

Full post as published by How Appealing on June 02, 2008 (boomark / email).