A divided U.S. Court of Appeals panel has ruled that the federal government can keep softcore porn, such as Playboy and Penthouse, out of the hands of penitentiary identification, said Jeffrey J. Douglas, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, the lobbying arm of the adult entertainment industry. inmates. The 2-1 vote overturned a lower court decision that the federal law was unconstitutional. \n The ruling came in a case that was filed in 1997 by three prisoners who were not allowed to get Playboy or Penthouse because of a law that went into effect a year earlier. The law made it illegal to use government funds to distribute material that is "sexually explicit or features nudity." \n Suits against the law also were filed by the two magazines and, ultimately, consolidated into one case. Initially, a federal judge said the law was unconstitutional on its face and ordered that it not be enforced. \n Unlike some other statutes that banned anything and everything that could hurt security or discipline, the regulations from the Bureau of Prisons for carrying out this particular federal law were fairly specific. It was to cover pictures of actual or simulated sex or pictures of genitalia or female breasts. What's more, the publication banned must have nudity on a regular basis. Material in which nudity was used for medical, educational or anthropological purposes was exempt. \n The appeals court said the law was reasonably related to legitimate prison interests. Justices Stephen Williams and David Tatel said the law was based on the reasonable judgment that softcore porn interferes with prisoner rehabilitation. \n There is significant research that shows that continued exposure to pornography can make men more aggressive, more tolerant of violence against women and more likely to think that women like being raped, Williams said. \n The lone dissenter, Judge Patricia Wald, took strong exception with the majority. She said it should be clear that prisoners do not lose all rights and that the ruling sets "a most troubling precedent." Contrary to her colleagues, she said there is no supporting evidence that these publications will harm rehabilitation. \n The ruling decided the question of whether the law was too broad in the authority it granted but it did not consider whether the law defined illegal material in precise enough terms. For that, the case was sent back to the federal district court judge who made the initial ruling.
All models were at least 18 years old at the time of their performance. 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement.
